This is a post about how technological advancement has made it almost impossible to avoid detection and punishment if our elite’s willpower to catch a perpetrator exists, the climate which is going to make higher-level assassinations more common regardless, and how upper elites will respond to that threat.
This is actually a topic I’ve thought about covering for awhile, but it was a lower priority compared to others. I’ve increased it to high priority due to current events.
In the days after the assassination of the UnitedHealthcare CEO I saw a large number of poor takes around the internet, arguing that the UHC CEO assassin would get away with murder. I wrote a Note arguing that he would definitely be caught and caught quickly, which I was sure of even before the image of him de-masked at the hostel he was staying at was released. The poor take argument went more-or-less as follows: the perpetrator covered his face with a mask almost the whole time he was in New York City, he rode a bike (not a public e-bike), he disappeared into central park which lacked cameras, he used a silencer, he wasn’t caught in or around the scene of the crime, most crimes are solved because they had a personal relationship to the victim and here there likely was none, etc. Furthermore, the U.S. has a historically low below 50% homicide clearance rate (i.e.conviction rate), which is pretty crazy all things considered. See here:
Therefore, because of the U.S.’s low clearance rate, the many precautions the attacker had taken and his lack of personal connection with the victim, it was only reasonable, these people argued, to assume he would get away with murder.
Let’s highlight the problems with this argument. Yes, the homicide conviction rate is very low, but that is because most murders are of people that the system doesn’t care about. A large percent of those murders are low income black-on-black violence, and relatively few of those murders result in a conviction:
Here, the victim was a globohomo cog in the machine who made $10 mil+ a year — he was important. Because of that, our elites were certain to spend resources as a high priority to find and track down the killer, especially to disincentivize something like this from happening again. Criminal violence in our system can be applied against the powerless, but never the powerful (unless it’s an intra-elite spat, which this did not seem to be). Additionally, the murder happened in NYC which is one of the most surveilled cities in the world, and all it would take is one wrong move in order to be discovered. Our elites could find him if he had his cell phone on him, they could find him if he left a fingerprint somewhere, they could find him if his silencer was registered (as there would only be a small pool of buyers), they could find him if he de-masked at some point (which he did) or if he used his credit card somewhere. Facial recognition software is quite advanced at this point and they could narrow the list of suspects even if he was wearing a mask by looking at facial characteristics such as facial shape, eyebrow shape, and the distance between the suspect’s eyes. Facial recognition technology isn’t quite there yet to identify people just by the eyes, but it’s not far off either: see this journal submission which states “Multimodality (voice, iris, fingerprint…), soft facial biometrics, infrared imaging, sketches, and deep learning without neglecting conventional machine learning methods are tracks to be considered in the near future” (with that said, Mayor Eric Adams is asking NYC businesses moving forward to ask people to remove face masks (what happened to fraudvirus, libs?) so the masks may still be proving to be a bit difficult for identification, although that technology is also progressing). There are so many ways with modern technology they could track this guy down if the political will is there, which in this case there was. One wrong move and the perp was done for.
This isn’t the past; we live in the era of the omnipresent security state. Perhaps if he had done this ten or twenty years ago he would have gotten away with it. Still, the perpetrator’s tiny odds of escaping these days would have been higher if the crime happened in a remote area and not the most surveilled place on the planet, but still low odds if the political will was there to track him down. Soon with the implementation of Real ID and everyone needing to submit your biometrics to access public events, combined with the digital panopticon previously discussed where Sundance argues that Peter Thiel, his Palantir partner Alex Karp and Musk are galloping the country toward as quickly as they can, such identification will happen almost instantaneously. The noose is tightening and the public is asleep.
With the attacker caught (although it’s strange he apparently didn’t ditch the murder weapon), one is going to see the book thrown at him and he is going to be made to suffer – solitary confinement, or genpop with contracted sexual assaults against him – to try to prevent copycats from happening in the future. The official story of how Mangione was caught – that of a McDonalds worker recognizing him and reporting him to the police – is possible, as there are always plenty of people in the public ready to report on a fugitive (reminiscent of the great book The Running Man, not to be confused with the terrible movie, which I will cover in the future) but it’s also possible – if not probable – that he was caught via abuse of the technological security state and then parallel construction was used as an excuse for how he was actually tracked down.
Release of this non-mugshot photo by authorities is highly unusual and just the start of the humiliation ritual. This photo is on the Daily Mail and is not a fakeThe media is also running with the very worst photo of him they could take.
The public is broadly supportive of the attacker
The public response to this assassination is interesting to watch on social media: it is broadly supportive of it, believing that UnitedHealthcare is highly predatory and that the CEO’s actions resulted in the deaths of many people. See this Rolling Stone article about it. Mangione’s possible manifesto can be seen here, or a different one here. This assassination transcended traditional left/right dynamics and represents more of a populist vs. elitist dynamics given that the attacker is hard to pigeonhole: he was a good looking guy (Twitter profile here), apparently an Ivy League graduate1, the valedictorian of his high school class, who was worried about global warming and praised Kaczynski’s Industrial Society and it’s Future even as he seemed proficient with guns:
UHC took down the biographies of it’s executives from its website and is fearfully putting up a fence around it’s headquarters. Comments to it’s posts on social media are turned off and they sent out an internal memo for employees not to comment publicly. It’s stock went up the day after the attack, but then fell a lot the day after that, almost 10% between 12/5 and 12/6. The other top executive called the public’s response deplorable.
Widening wealth disparities increase social instability
There is no middle class in America anymore; people have talked for a long time about how the middle class is dying, but it isn’t dying anymore – it is dead. Dead, dead, dead. There is simply the ultra rich and everyone else. A shitbox in a major metropolitan area costs well over $1 million if not double that with interest rates on mortgages at 7% – no one can afford to buy a home anymore. The traditional middle class lifestyle – home ownership, two cars, put kids through college, retirement, perhaps only one parent working – is now reserved for the top 1% if not higher.
This is why the public is generally approving of the attacker’s actions – the general population is angry and upset as it’s quality of life continues to erode, which is only going to get worse (much worse) given the extreme amount of federal debt, which at 125% debt to GDP ratio is higher than it was at the peak of World War 2. We see 20%+ inflation on foodstuff, health care, housing costs, even as the Fed claims that real inflation is 2%. It’s a joke. You can see all the charts here how the wealth disparity really skyrocketed after getting off the gold standard in 1971, and it accelerated further after the decline of the Soviet Union – without fear of communism holding financial predators in check they were free to dramatically jack up executive compensation while ruthlessly decreasing worker pay.
If people feel like they don’t have a stake in society, if they can’t afford to have a family and if they think the future is going to be worse than it is now, then you are going to see a much greater rise in attacks like this moving forward. I’m kind of surprised that it hasn’t happened more, to be honest; this is the first big one I can think of in recent memory where a higher up executive was targeted instead of terror attacks instigated by our elites against the public.
As these attacks grow over time, there will be a response from the elites: both in terms of limiting free speech online, to increasing propaganda by labeling such attacks as terrorism, and also result in a vast proliferation of private security forces and walled ultra-rich enclaves, much like one sees in South Africa and Brazil. It will become dangerous for the ultra rich to go out in public without armed security. This is coming and it is neo-feudalism in action. But it will also be interesting to see if UHC quietly lowers their claim rejection rates moving forward – will a CEO want to bear the risk of assassination even if he has a giant private security force (or is the CEO just an expendable cog and shareholders will force him to bear that risk regardless)? What about top bankers or the central bank owners if they become subject to the public’s wrath such as the 1920 Wall Street bombing? The upper elites have never been targeted historically: not a single Rothschild was killed in World War 2 despite many of them living in Europe before and during the war because they controlled Germany’s finances (via the Bank for International Settlements, the Dawes loans, financing and supply of IG Farben, and via Germany’s central bank). Yet the structure of the modern world is slowly, ever-so-slowly leaking out to people (also see here and here). Will the rising risk of assassination in turn serve as a limiting factor for upper elites who may have to ultimately take personal risk into their calculations?
Bill Gates was photographed by his PR team in 2019 getting a burger to try to appeal to the common man; there are probably two dozen security officers just out of camera sight.
Mangione’s attack was qualitatively different than other shootings, such as the Las Vegas shooting (buried by the FBI and media), the Trump assassination attempts (buried by the FBI and media; we already know much more about Mangione than about Matthew Crooks), or terrorist attacks (most of them sponsored by the FBI), because this is a populist response to the elites and not the regular elite crushing of the masses with associated mind-games. Psychopolitics touched on this concept a bit in this post. There are very few assassinations in the modern era and most of them are against dissidents or populists both on the right and left, or of strongmen who globohomo used to support but they became tired of (Qaddafi, Saddam). Historically one may think of Huey Long and the Kennedys as victims of this too. Future attacks under this shifting paradigm may be done by lone wolfs without official government sanction or support, and how would elites protect oneself from such nebulous threats? What kind of general anxiety would that endanger? It is interesting that the media is hyping up this attack; perhaps they don’t quite understand what to make of the paradigm shift he represents, or alternatively the media’s owners may want to highlight him in order to further their goals of pushing ubiquitous internet censorship in the future (“We need to clamp down on free speech for public safety!”).
I hope you found this exploration helpful. Perhaps it’s not a bad thing if our upper elites, utterly materialistic and atheistic2, would have to factor public blowback to them personally as a check on their unlimited rapaciousness and greed.
Thanks for reading.
Subscribe: Email delivery remains on Substack for now.
1 This raises an interesting point about the personality and background profile of this shooter: a likely upper middle class resentment brought about by access to the upper class but an inability to convert that access to money or power; entitlement without payoff. Indeed, the upper middle class has always been biggest threat to the elites, not the middle or lower lumpenproletariat who would not likely feel the toxic resentment/entitlement combination to target higher elites.
2 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.”
This is a lighter, simpler post about the maxims of La Rochefoucauld.
I really like the aphoristic style (i.e. a concise, terse, or laconic expression of a general truth or principle) as a palette cleanser between heavier reads/posts; it allows for a mental recharge. I previously covered these expressions with respect to Diogenes of Sinope, the philosopher who told Alexander the Great to stop blocking his sunlight as he lay relaxing on the ground. Other early practitioners were Theognis, Hippocrates, and Seneca. I will be covering Emil Cioran’s, the pessimistic Romanian philosopher of aphorisms whose perspective was often compared to Nietzsche. I attempted some of my own political ones here, which could be improved upon (perhaps I’ll try again).
What do I like about the style? I like it’s directness. I like the disconnectedness between ideas. I like how good ones make you stop and think. It’s nice to be able to pick up a book on aphorisms, read as many or as few as I like and then do something else. Nietzsche is also known for his aphorisms, and it was his praise of the aristocratic French moralist writer La Rochefoucauld (1613-1680) both generally and in his Human, All Too Human (1878) that piqued my interest. They had similar approaches in the sense that La Rochefoucald believed everyone acted from what he referred to as “self-love” while Nietzsche believed that everyone acted from a similar “will to power”. Schopenhauer, who I covered previously in my post on philosophical pessimism, also praised La Rochefoucauld. Voltaire, Marcel Proust, Charles de Gaulle, Balzac, Conan Doyle and Blake were also inspired by him.
Portrait of La Rochefoucauld
La Rochefoucauld called his short, pithy comments maxims instead of aphorisms, and they were shorter than Cioran’s or Diogenes’. They’re basically the same thing, though, except for length.
A brief history
La Rochefoucauld was a member of a prominent French aristocratic family, participating in military life where he supported the hereditary French aristocracy against both foreign armies and also against the king, who eventually won out against the nobles. La Rochefoucault then retired from public life and eventually published his Reflexions ou Sentences et Maximes morales (Moral Reflections or Sententiae and Maxims), which was revised several times and had a significant impact among the French upper class.
I picked up the Oxford World’s Classics edition La Rochefoucauld: Collected Maxims and Other Reflections (2008) which seemed like a decent translation, although it also includes the French original which was not necessary for my purposes. It also included unpublished longer essays that were stuffy and boring. I’m going to quote some of the maxims that stood out to me below, ignoring the many average and lower quality ones, and hopefully they are interesting and worthy of further consideration. Like from the Collected Maxims, they are not arranged in any particular order.
The maxims
We have no more control over the duration of our passions than over the duration of our lives. (V:5)
Passions are the only orators who always succeed in persuading. They are, so to speak, a natural art, with infallible rules; and the most artless man who is passionate is more persuasive than the most eloquent man who is not. (V:8)
Passions are unjust and self-interested, which makes it dangerous to follow them; so we should mistrust them even when they seem most reasonable. (V:9)
It takes greater virtues to bear good fortune than bad. (V:25)
Neither the sun nor death can be looked at steadily. (V:26)
The philosophers’ disdain for wealth was a hidden desire to compensate their own merit for the injustices of fortune, by showing contempt for the very possessions that she was keeping from them. It was a secret method of protecting themselves against the degradations of poverty; it was an indirect way of attaining the respect that they could not gain by wealth. (V:54)
It seems that our deeds have lucky or unlucky stars, to which they owe a large part of the praise or blame that is bestowed on them. (V:58)
No disguise can long hide love where it exists, or simulate it where it does not exist. (V:70)
If love is judged by most of its results, it is more like hatred than friendship. (V:72)
Silence is the safest policy for someone who does not trust himself. (V:79)
What makes us so inconstant in our friendships is the fact that it is hard to know the qualities of the soul, and easy to know those of the mind. (V:80)
Men would not live long in social contact unless they were deceived by one another. (V:87)
Old people like to give good advice, as a consolation for the fact that they can no longer set bad examples. (V:93)
To know things well, we must know the details; and as they are almost infinite, our knowledge is always superficial and imperfect. (V:106)
The sure way to be deceived is to think yourself more astute than other people. (V:127)
It is easier to be wise for other people than for yourself. (V:132)
We are sometimes as different from ourselves as we are from other people. (V:135)
The ability to make good use of average talents is an art that extorts respect, and often wins more repute than real merit does. (V:162)
There are relapses in the soul’s illnesses, just as there are in the body’s. What we take to be a cure is most often merely a respite or a change of illness. (V:193)
Someone who thinks he can find enough in himself to do without everyone else is greatly deceived; but someone who thinks that other people cannot do without him is still more deceived. (V:201)
It is a great folly to want to be wise on your own. (V:231)
It is more often pride than lack of enlightenment that makes us oppose so stubbornly the generally accepted view of something. We find the front seats already taken on the correct side, and we do not want any of the back ones. (V:234)
Supreme cleverness lies in knowing the exact value of things. (V:244)
True eloquence consists of saying all that is needed and only what is needed. (V:250)
Humility is often merely a pretense of submissiveness, which we use to make other people submit to us. It is an artifice by which pride debases itself in order to exalt itself; and though it can transform itself in thousands of ways, pride is never better disguised and more receptive than when it is hidden behind the mask of humility. (V:254)
Solemnity is an outward mystification devised to hide inner faults. (V:257)
We are deceiving ourselves if we think that only the violent passions, such as ambition and love, can conquer the others. Laziness, sluggish though it is, often manages to dominate them; it wrests from us all of life’s plans and deeds, where it imperceptibly destroys and devours the passions and virtues alike. (V:266)
The body’s humours follow a normal, regular course, which imperceptibly impels and bends our will. They progress together and successively exercise secret dominion over us, so that they play an important part in all our deeds, though we do not know it. (V:297)
Whatever good is said about us never teaches us anything new. (V:303)
What usually prevents us from showing the depths of our hearts to our friends is not so much mistrust of them as mistrust of ourselves. (V:315)
Circumstances reveal our nature to other people, and still more to ourselves. (V:345)
Injuries done to us by others often cause us less pain than those that we do to ourselves. (V:363)
Most virtuous women are hidden treasures: they are safe only because they are not sought after. (V:368)
Nothing should astonish us except the fact that we are still capable of being astonished. (V:384)
Nobody is more often wrong than someone who cannot bear being wrong. (V:386)
In the depths of our minds, it seems, nature has hidden away talents and forms of cleverness unknown to us; only the passions have the power of bringing them to light, sometimes giving us surer and more complete insights than art could possibly do. (V:404)
We may look great in a position that is less than we deserve, but we often look small in a position that is too great or us. (V:419) [or see the Peter Principle]
Most friends make us lose our taste for friendship, and most pious people make us lose our taste for piety. (V:427)
We should not judge a man’s merits by his great qualities, but by the use he makes of them. (V:437)
When fortune catches us by surprise and gives us a position of greatness without having led us to it step by step, and without our having hoped for it, it is almost impossible to fill it well and seem worthy of holding it. (V:449)
In great matters we should strive less to create favourable circumstances than to profit from those that arise. (V:453)
We would gain more by showing ourselves as we are than by trying to appear to be what we are not. (V:457)
Our enemies’ judgments of us are nearer the truth than our own. (V:458)
All our qualities, good as well as bad, are doubtful and indeterminate, and almost all of them are at the mercy of circumstances. (V:470)
Imagination could never invent the number of different contradictions that exist innately in each person’s heart. (V:478)
Nothing is rarer than true kindness: usually, the very people who think they possess it are merely weak or polite. (V:481)
Young people just entering society should look shamefaced or half-witted; a confident, assured manner usually turns into insolence. (V:495)
Quarrels would not last long if the fault was only on one side. (V:496)
And some maxims from earlier editions which were deleted in the later ones:
Everyone objects to something in other people that they object to in him. (I:33)
Justice is merely an intense fear that our belongings will be taken away from us. That is what leads us to be considerate and respectful for all our neighbour’s interests, and scrupulously diligent never to harm him. This fear keeps man within the limits of the possessions that birth or fortune has given him; and without such fear, he would be constantly making raids on other people. (I:88)
When we no longer hope to find sense in other people, we have lost it ourselves. (I:103)
The most refined folly is begotten by the most refined wisdom. (I:134)
Every kind of human talent, like every kind of tree, has its own unique characteristics and bears its own unique fruits. (I:138)
You cannot answer for your courage when you have never been in danger. (I:236)
When you cannot find peace within yourself, it is useless to look for it elsewhere (II:49)
How can we expect another person to keep our secret, if we cannot keep it ourselves? (IV:87)
Keeping your health by means of too strict a diet is itself a tiresome illness. (IV:274)
Maxims never published:
Just as the happiest person in the world is the one who is satisfied with few things, the great and the ambitious are the most wretched in that respect – because they need to accumulate innumerable possessions in order to be happy. (L. 38)
Physical labour frees people from mental pain; and that is what makes the poor happy. (VIS: 2)
I hope you found these select maxims interesting and worthy of reflection. The pithy and concise statements are different than the longer aphorisms, but in some ways they inspire more thought by the reader. This should be the hope of a good writer, i.e. not to feed you arguments but to help you develop your own.
This post envisions a scenario of the End Times and the Antichrist based on historical trends and psychological incentives toward ever-increasing centralization and control.
Welcome back.
I previously wrote a post about how upcoming central bank digital currencies (CBDC) will be combined with a ubiquitous woke AI spying on everyone’s electronic data to form the rough equivalent of the biblical Mark of the Beast, which I called the digital panopticon. I think that post was successful because the pieces are already in place, the evidence sharable and it’s already being implemented on a smaller scale. All it needs is a triggering event such as World War 3, an enormous stock market crash, or a terrorist attack (Cyber Polygon?) to roll out comprehensively, providing the pre-determined “solution” to the artificial crisis. Such a shift will also mark an end to growth-centered capitalism and slow-moving first world erasure, applied not just throughout the white West but also in Korea, Japan, Singapore, and Hong Kong, and the inception of a formalized boots-on-face tyranny, which is now required for elite survival because of how the internet pierces false establishment narratives.
This post aims to take the biblical Mark of the Beast theme further: into the realm of the End Times and the Antichrist. I am neither a biblical scholar nor can this topic be covered to the extent it deserves to be within a single Substack post, but nonetheless I’m interested in offering the theory in it’s broad strokes. It will arrive at religious conclusions based on certain historical and psychological understandings and the argument is not reliant on religious belief itself. As Robert Browning said, “Ah, but a man’s reach should exceed his grasp, or else what’s a heaven for?” I want to state that the following is an idea I’ve been playing around with; I do not necessarily subscribe to it. It is simply a possibility I am considering among others. The hope is that it may serve as food for thought and offer a perspective, especially to those outside of an exoteric Abrahamic religion framework, that has either not been previously considered or has otherwise been sneeringly dismissed out-of-hand as belonging to low status, closed-minded, backwater religious bigots.
Let’s start with a recent Note referencing a different but related topic: some of the far-right’s mono-causalism where they attribute everything wrong in the world to Jews. I wrote:
The monocausalists blaming Jews for everything wrong in the world is an over-simplification that I don’t agree with.
I am at least a quad-causalist: (1) the malevolent Jewish central bank owners parasiting off humanity, (2) the egalitarianism rooted in Christianity that allowed this parasitical system to develop, (3) humanity’s trends toward ever-increasing centralization and decrease of autonomy and privacy, and (4) underneath it all the Demiurge who loves torturing God souls for nefarious purposes. But there’s lots of other reasons for things generally; over-simplification is a useful heuristic, but this is a complicated world.
Rurik Skywalker and aux playing@radio phanærozoic offered pretty similar pushback here and here, basically arguing that either the first three or all four of these tie directly into the monocausal argument. I responded to them, but on reflection I thought it was worth elaborating on further, which will then lead into this post’s topic.
Let’s begin with a broad story about human history.
Human history as ever-increasing centralization
For almost all of humanity’s history our species was comprised of small hunter gatherer tribes. We roamed the land and the men hunted and made war while the women raised children, cooked and foraged for fruits and nuts. These tribes were small and egalitarian and the tribe listened without reservation to it’s leader, who in turn was responsible for his actions and accountable to the tribe. This is why we have the Dunbar number where we can only maintain ~150 relationships and why so many people believe authority figures without pushback, leading to the NPC meme. Prior to technological society there was an intimate relationship between the ruler and the ruled, a symbiotic relationship of power and accountability that doesn’t exist today.
About ten thousand years ago, for reasons unknown, humanity underwent the neolithic agricultural revolution where humanity discovered agriculture and became sedentary, along with domesticating animals. This resulted in major population expansions and a rapidly changing genetic makeup, covered previously here. There were all sorts of new diseases that humanity endured and adapted to arising from living in crowded, unsanitary environments (which provided a huge advantage when conquering North America; 90% of Native Americans died of smallpox which they had no genetic resistance against), and a development of alcohol and lactose tolerances, for example. The neolithic agricultural revolution also resulted in major economic inequality that had not existed previously: in a hunter gatherer society everyone was fairly equal, but in sedentary agricultural communities a king could demand the excess production of farmers under penalty of death. Those who resisted the king were killed and removed from the gene pool, as were violent or disruptive individuals who interfered with tax collections, leading to more docile populations over time.
This development of agricultural communities eventually gave way to cities, from there to the written word, and from there to the creation and dissemination of exoteric, left-brain, liturgical religions, which over time out-competed the right-brain, esoteric, experiential, shamanistic religions of the hunter gatherers (which I have significant sympathy for and interest in). They were successful in outcompeting shamanistic religion because esoteric experiential religions do not scale to size the way exoteric liturgical religions do, where you can have a priest telling the masses what to believe. Getting a large group to believe the same thing allowed a much larger group of people with similar ideas to outcompete smaller groups with much more individualistic beliefs.
What we see from this story is one of ever-increasing centralization over hundreds and thousands of years. Humanity went from small hunter gatherer tribes to being centralized in agricultural communities, which then gave birth to more centralized cities with much greater populations and religion centralized in written liturgical forms in order to scale for size and to centralize power in priests. These groups grew larger and larger because it’s easier and safer to cooperate with others instead of fight to the death over resources, and also because larger entities are both stronger and create economies of scale in a way that smaller communities don’t. This centralization was therefore natural and inevitable.
We can look at the development of Christianity as an extension of this process: the switch from polytheism to monotheism centralized the realm of the Gods. It’s push for spiritual egalitarianism aimed to treat everyone within society more or less equally and therefore in a more standardized, efficient way. Christianity had certain developments that aided strongly in this process: it’s belief in Heaven and Hell, it’s division of the world into regional administrative areas headed by priests, and it’s focus on almsgiving as examples.
With respect to Heaven and Hell, belief in it allowed authorities to harass believers and spy on them in a way previously unheard of in tolerant, polytheistic Hellenism, where everyone ended up in Hades regardless of one’s actions. Under Christianity 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. 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.
Indeed, when the last Hellenic emperor Julian the Apostate (who I covered previously here) tried to roll back Christianity and save Hellenism, he adopted the Christian centralization strategies of establishing regional Hellenic priests to be in charge of large administrative areas (as recounted by Gore Vidal, “I suggest we fight them on their own ground. I plan a world priesthood, governed by the Roman Pontifex Maximus. We shall divide the world into administrative units, the way the Galileans have done, and each diocese will have its own hierarchy of priests under a single high priest, responsible to me”) and offered alms to the poor (“I set about reorganizing…no, organizing Hellenism. The Galileans have received much credit for giving charity to anyone who asks for it. We are now doing the same. Their priests impress the ignorant with their so-called holy lives. I now insist that our priests be truly holy. I have given them full instructions on how to comport themselves in public and private”). Historian Tom Holland believes Christianity impacted Julian’s value system more than he acknowledged publicly or even probably to himself. So we can see here that these centralization and control technologies found in religion were highly adaptive; even Hellenism would have needed to adapt them if Julian had been successful!
Even though Christianity’s ascension ultimately helped result in the destruction of Roman art, science, architecture, etc. and plunged the world into a much more decentralized Dark Ages which lasted hundreds of years, humanity eventually came out of this process ready for more centralization and control given the egalitarianism that had taken hold in the prior centuries, which would allow governments to treat giant populations equally in standardized processes. One step back, two steps forward on a long enough timeline. While humanity’s centralization processes have undergone long reverses that lasted depending on the region for hundreds of years, judging from this story, they should be seen as eras of consolidation and change necessary for even more control in the future. This can also be seen in how technology developed over time.
Technological innovation as hyper-increases in centralization
First, let’s define technology. “Technology” as used herein means the technical processes that create efficiencies for standardized, expected outcomes. Picking up a rock and bashing in your enemy’s skull is a use of technology. Lighting a fire is technology. The benefits of technology are that it allows one to dominate others who are less technologically advanced. A man with an iron sword will defeat a man with a bronze sword. A man with a steel sword will defeat a man with an iron sword. A man with a gun will defeat a man with any sword, etc. Because people do not enjoy being dominated, there is a constant and ever-present competitive arms race for stronger and better technologies. When China resisted England shoving opium down it’s throat, England went to war and forced China to accept the opium and then to pay for the cost of the wars (the family behind it, the Sassoon’s, remains ultra-wealthy to this day). China didn’t like that very much and they were in the right, but no matter; England’s technology was better, they won and China had to suffer the consequences. So what we can say is that technological advancement is always going to happen; the luddite Kaczynski’s analysis was wrong. Technology may have terrible things associated with it – it does! – but technological advancement is inevitable regardless (one can argue that technology advances can be steered and directed, of course).
Now, technology is limited by the traditions, beliefs, culture, and religions of a people. This is because technology causes unforeseen changes in society, which can be disruptive and unpleasant and may therefore be resisted. As an example Rome had invented water mill technology but did not make widespread use of it; they were based on a slave economy and either could not envision or received too much pushback from slave-owners for widespread implementation of such a radical technology. But because a higher-tech society will dominate a lower-tech one, the long-term trends are to discard tradition, belief, culture, and religions in order to effectively pursue technological advancement, which is what we see today. Interestingly, increases in technology are occurring at a faster and faster pace as humanity develops. As those prior roadblocks to technical advancement withered and died, people’s willingness to adopt new technologies occurs at an increasingly faster and faster pace. Rene Guenon in his The Reign of Quantity and the Signs of the Times, previously covered here and here, notes how time speeds up and technology advances more rapidly in this age, which he calls the Kali Yuga. Ernst Junger also recognized this process, reviewed by Michele di Adelaide here.
Let’s continue with our story after the rise of Christianity and the decline of Rome. After Rome fell and Catholicism arose the West entered the Dark Ages, which lasted many hundreds of years. Increases in technology began in earnest after Muslims reintroduced Aristotle to the West, whose works had almost been entirely purged during Christianity’s ascension. Aquinas’s integration of Aristotlean logic into Catholicism paved the way for the Renaissance and massive increases in technological innovation. Inventions during the Renaissance included the compound microscope, the telescope, the thermometer, the barometer, the air pump, greatly and improved clocks, 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.
Technological innovation sped up global centralization efforts and standardized people’s thoughts. Gutenberg’s printing press made the communication of ideas cheaply available to the public and led to Protestantism taking power out of the hands of the Catholic Church. The wide dissemination of the written word made people more similar via written propaganda. Tocqueville described the NPC meme in 1895: “What is still more strange is that all these men, who kept themselves so apart from each other, had become so much alike that it would have been impossible to distinguish them if their places had been changed.” He was talking about the effects of reading books mass-produced by the printing press. The effects of the printing press then gave rise to the modern nation state by tying larger groups of people together via ideologies and propaganda in ways that were previously not possible. The world transitioned from a world controlled by kings to a world controlled by the owners of mass media and banking, but one which worked carefully, indirectly, and in the shadows away from the potential outrage of the masses. This system of indirect control gave rise to ever-expanding managerialism, which N.S. Lyons commented on in a recent post where he wrote:
Now, the evolutionary genius, so to speak, of managerialism is that it functions constantly to justify its own perpetual expansion. The larger and more complex any organization or system grows, the exponentially more managers seem needed to manage that complexity and the inefficiencies it generates; managers therefore have a strong incentive to ensure that their organization continues to grow larger and more complex, resulting in greater relative power and resources for the managers as a group within the system; more growth means more managers must be hired, who then push for more expansion by rationalizing a need for their cancerous bureaucratic apparatus to take over an ever-larger range of functions; as more and more territory is surrendered to bureaucratic management, more managers must be trained and educated, which requires more managers… and on and on. I call this expansionary dialectic the managerial doom loop.
But this process works just the same at the level of a country, or even an entire civilization, as it does for a company, non-profit, or government agency. The result, in the case of our societies, has been the exponential growth of a “professional managerial class,” with a permanent interest in seeing the continual expansion of managerial control into every area of state, economy, culture, and even international affairs. In this it has wildly succeeded, producing a new kind of regime — the managerial regime — staffed by a constituent managerial class and dominated by a distinct managerial elite. These elites all behave with flock-like similarity, no matter what institution or part of the world they are located in, because they all have the same basic managerial interests and personality….
Whereas once these managers’ drive for technocratic control, social engineering, and cultural bulldozing had been largely restricted to the national level, these impulses could now be advanced to their maximum extent — i.e. to the whole world. And so we see the managerial elite almost immediately declare the nation-state obsolete once grander supranational opportunities beckon. The objects of managerial ambition become “global problems” necessitating “global solutions” and indeed “global governance.” Suddenly issues like the flow of “human capital” (aka mass migration) become complexities to be managed at the level of a global system, removing them from the legitimate concern of mere nations. This is the true meaning of the “globalism” which happened to appear at this moment in history: not free trade or anything so utilitarian, per se, but the conceptual expansion of the managerial elite’s eager, grasping reach to the entire planet.
The extremely bloody wars of the 20th century, along with further increases in communications and propaganda technologies (telegraph, phone, internet, television) gave rise to this managerial state, as well as the United Nations, global economic and military groupings like the United States’s worldwide military and cultural domination and the Soviet Union, along with smaller economic units like the European Union and NAFTA. In the current era we are seeing further integration into almost Orwellian continental worldwide blocks through forced immigration and increased trade akin to this:
So one of the things that the reactionary nationalist right gets wrong is that they want to return to a bygone era of nation states; they do not see the story of humanity as one of ever-increasing centralization and control. The nation state was a product of technological innovation and it was rendered obsolete by further increases in technological innovation and control.
If these four Orwellian-type zones are formalized and fully integrated, would that be the last form of centralization and control by our elites? Not likely. Perhaps there would be further attempts to integrate into a simple One World government. Perhaps there would be further attempts to control worldwide populations on an individual level. Perhaps the control gets so extreme they simply wipe out most of the world’s population (they take up too many natural resources, as Yuval Harari argues) and blend the remaining population into a permanent 500 million or one billion slave class to be used for medical and sexual exploitation. Perhaps humanity itself is simply the biological bootstrap for A.I. to take over the world or galaxy.
But there is another possibility: the world centralizing in Greater Israel according to biblical prophecy.
Biblical end times
One of the possibilities of the final stage of centralization and control is the Greater Israel project, the rebuilding of the Third Temple and the return of the “Messiah”. As the central bank owners are mostly or entirely Jewish, since it’s inception Israel – directed by Lionel Rothschild via the Balfour Declaration – has been treated unlike any other country on the planet, i.e. it is allowed ethnic and religious exceptionalism in a world that otherwise forbids it. What we are seeing today is astonishing in it’s rapidity:
Hamas is wiped out and Gaza’s population forced into the southern part of the strip (with steps being made to ship them out permanently),
Iran, Israel’s last enemy, is sitting quietly and toothlessly in response even as its proxies are destroyed, its generals are assassinated, it’s president dies in a mysterious plane crash, and foreign dignitaries on its soil are murdered (as Iran is, like other so-called enemy countries like Russia and China, controlled by the central bank owners). Even Israel’s propaganda outlet the Jerusalem Post gloats about how weak Iran is.1
Saudi Arabia wants to sign a peace treaty with Israel as soon as it can, just like Jordan and Egypt have done.
Two years ago it would have been impossible to believe that Israel would have completely destroyed its neighboring enemies and that Iran would be so toothless, but here we are, as Rurik Skywalker also points out here and here.
It was the 10/7 Hamas attack that set Israel’s extremely aggressive response in motion. Of course, Israel at minimum knew about the attack ahead of time and let it happen; there are plenty of reports about front-line soldiers reporting military build-up and being ignored. Are we supposed to believe that Israel had detailed knowledge of every aspect of Hezbollah’s chain of command to the point of placing explosive beepers and assassinating all twenty of its top leaders but it didn’t know that Hamas had a military build-up right on the border? The concept is ludicrous. It was allowed and possibly even planned by Israel as a casus belli for wiping out Gaza to pave the way for oil and gas pipelines and the Ben Gurion canal and to remake the face of the Middle East.
The Greater Israel project won’t happen today or tomorrow – Israel doesn’t have the population for it yet – but in a couple more generations based on Orthodox/ultra-Orthodox birthrates?2 What would stop it, perhaps an Iranian nuke? Jewish, Christian and Islamic messianism have prepared the Abrahamic world for the rebuilding of the Third Temple to usher in the End Times; whether or not biblical prophecy is real or not is irrelevant – what matters is the nature of belief itself, because belief can summon an egregore and become a self-fulfilling prophecy. In other words, even if there is no true biblical prophecy, if enough people believe in it then their beliefs can lead to such an outcome. According to Chabad, “One of the principles of Jewish faith enumerated by Maimonides is that one day there will arise a dynamic Jewish leader, a direct descendant of the Davidic dynasty, who will rebuild the Temple in Jerusalem, and gather Jews from all over the world and bring them back to the Land of Israel. All the nations of the world will recognize Moshiach to be a world leader, and will accept his dominion.”
This seems to play into developing trends. With Greater Israel effectuated, the Third Temple rebuilt, with the CBDC/woke AI social credit score Mark of the Beast applied everywhere, and with extreme control technologies cutting out anyone from society who disobey, would that not be the right time to proclaim the Messiah and the End Times? This Messiah would be the apotheosis, the cumulation, of all the world’s power centralized in the hands of one man and his backers, formalized and open for all to see; the fulfillment of divine prophecy.
Antichrist in the Catalan Atlas (1375). The label reads: “Antichrist. He will be raised in Goraym of Galilea, and at the age of thirty he will start to preach in Jerusalem; contrary to the truth, he will proclaim that he is Christ, the living son of God. It is said that he will rebuild the Temple.”
At the same time, anti-semitism is rising quickly in the West as it’s quality of life dramatically decreases into neoliberal feudalism – would that stop this project, or perhaps advance it in accordance with “gather[ing] Jews from all over the world and bring them back to the Land of Israel”? Is there a time limit involved, is there enough competence to pull this off? Is that why it seems like our elites are sprinting ahead to enact their schemes?
This leads into the next question: what happens if or after this Messiah occurs? Where can power centralize further after it is entirely centralized? The Tower of Babel rebuilt – then what? One can envision the cumulation of thousands of years of human history which labored so hard toward centralization: crystallized into it’s maximum form, there would be only one direction left for humanity to go, where it would have to go as change is inevitable in life: de-centralization and a loss of centralized power, permanent, in the long term. The Kali Yuga would be over; it would be an entirely different world.3 Under this conception the Messiah would be revealed as the Antichrist; psychologically and spiritually, Carl Jung stated in his Answer to Job that the God figure of Christ must eventually result in it’s polar opposite, as God would need that experience in order to grow spiritually as well.
The Preaching of the Antichrist (1500-1504) by Luca Signorelli. A Jesus-like figure is preaching on the pedestal; note Satan is whispering in his ear.
Nikolai Berdyaev, too, believed this period of global technological subjugation would give way to a spiritual revolution which would accompany widespread dissolution of state power. The true Messiah would be the one who ends the centralized system and collapses the Tower of Babel. It wouldn’t be the Rapture with bodies disappearing into Heaven, but it would result in an entirely and radically new paradigm for living.
The energy released by such an event would be incalculable; the memory of pure maximized centralization and the horrors it would unleash onto the world’s population (which will/would be beyond our nightmares) would serve as an enduring reminder about the dangers of believing authority figures and trusting in ideology; it could usher in formally the Age of Aquarius, much as Jesus ushered in the Age of Pisces.4 As Jung wrote, “The astrological sign of Pisces consists of two fishes which were frequently regarded as moving in opposite directions. Traditionally, the reign of Christ corresponds to the first fish and ended with the first millennium, whereas the second fish coincides with the reign of Antichrist, now nearing its end with the entry of the vernal equinox into the sign of Aquarius.”
Analysis
Would such a scenario outlined (and as stated at the start, it is not one I necessarily subscribe to) somehow justify all the horrors, the pain and suffering that came before and is yet to come? Would it redeem that suffering in the eyes, ears and hearts of those who lived through it and experienced it by giving meaning to it? How would it explain the Jewish role in world history – always at the forefront of disruptive revolution, of terrifying control and deceptiveness and insane will-to-power couched as “tikkun olam” in an inverted horror-simulacra? Would it show that the Jews, indeed, had an important if dreadful role to play in the ensuing drama?
Waiting for this or any other scenario to play out is, of course, a fool’s errand. Every generation since the time of Christ has thought that this would be the End Times; all were disappointed. The early Christians thought that the Antichrist would arise out of Rome and that the End Times were imminent; the stories told inspire and provide hope to each generation carrying their own cross today. There is so much we can do individually within our own power to further our individuation process (not to be confused with individualism) and try to build life balance without waiting for a magical new era to begin.
Still, it’s strange that we are living in a moment of such rapid technological change where it feels like it is heading to some sort of final cumulation, the crux of thousands of years of history which will likely be horrible. Does our placement as humans in this particular time and place give weight to the simulation hypothesis? Could this process have happened before, with the final trauma searing into our collective unconscious ala Jung and remembered as the Tower of Babel, Atlantis, Noah’s flood?
I hope you found this to be an interesting story. I’m not sure I necessarily buy it, but it’s an explanation worth exploring and wrestling with, and it does another thing: it offers long-term hope and perspective that if things get much worse, that there may yet be a dawn and a new day after the nightmares to come. On the flip side, just as everything on this plane contains both positive and negative elements within it, taking the theory too seriously could be de-motivating for action against globohomo in the present.
Thanks for reading.
Subscribe: Email delivery remains on Substack for now.
1 From here: “It is evident that the succession and escalation of Israeli assassination operations against prominent Iranian leaders or Iran loyalists has not resulted in any significant cost to Israel; the reaction of the Islamic Republic did not exceed verbal threats and the firing of antiquated missiles – which were intercepted by Israel and its allies – to satisfy the psychological needs of the pro-Iranian public.
These minimal consequences will encourage Israel to target Iran’s top leaders, including Khamenei himself.
It turns out Israel’s successive and escalating assassinations of prominent Iranian or pro-Iranian leaders have not, as of now, resulted in a cost that would compel the Israeli security establishment to discontinue of these bold operations, even if they hit the head of the Iranian regime.”
2 The ultra-Orthodox have the highest birthrates in the developed world, their population increased by 50% between 2009 and 2019, and per this report are projected to increase from 1.1 million to 6.2 million by 2064, a mind-boggling increase:
3 Rene Guenon came to the same conclusions, although he approached it from a different angle, discussed here. To him humanity is experiencing the “solidification” of the world as part of a cosmic cycle where energies increasingly descend from the higher levels of spirituality and connection to God down into the most secular materialism imaginable. Eventually the point is reached where it was not possible to become any more secular or materialistic, that spirituality had been entirely excised from people’s lives, and there would be nowhere left to go once that process completed except into a new paradigm, a new age where connection to God would be everywhere and the cycle of descent would begin anew.
4 Stephan Hoeller argues in an interview that Carl Jung, the greatest gnostic of our era, believes that we are entering, with great difficulty and pain, the Age of Aquarius where mankind’s spiritual abilities will be changed and uplifted in accordance with gnosis. He states (and is discussed further here and here):
[Hoeller]: Speaking of Jung, it is no doubt known to many that his mysterious and long-awaited book Liber Novus (The Red Book) has been published at last. One of the principal disclosures to be found in this work is Jung’s belief that the Age of Aquarius is upon us, that significant changes in the consciousness of humanity are taking place, and that more of the same may be expected in the future. The “Aeon of Aquarius,” as Jung calls it, will eventually bring great psychological changes in its wake, amounting to a new religious consciousness which will differ greatly from the religious consciousness of the Piscean Age. It will manifest primarily in a new God-image that was very important to the ancient Gnostics and that in various ways has made its appearance throughout history in the esoteric tradition.
Two thousand and some years ago a new religion constellated itself in the Mediterranean region. With that religion came a new myth of redemption, centred in the image of Jesus, the Saviour God. Now Jung is telling us in The Red Book that the Aeon of Aquarius is upon us, and with it comes the new God-image of the God within. This image is of course none other than the God to whom St. Paul referred as “the Christ in you, our hope of glory.” It is also the indwelling Christ affirmed and venerated in the Gnostic tradition.
There is no doubt that Jung saw in the new Gnostic Renaissance, which began with the discovery in 1945 of the Nag Hammadi library, a manifestation of his own prophecy in the then still secret Red Book. The connection of Jung’s prophecy with the tradition of Gnosis is unmistakable.
In his Red Book, Jung stated clearly that the task of the present and near future was “to give birth to the ancient in a new time,” and he clearly meant the Gnostic tradition is in fact that ancient thing to which he and others were giving birth.
I have spent a very large portion of my adult life studying and commenting upon the work of Jung and the Gnostic sacred writings. I should say, then, that humanity today is experiencing the rebirth of Gnosticism, and its principal God-image is being born in a new time. The esoteric as well as the exoteric implications of this process are momentous.
This post argues that, on top of expecting Trump’s presidency to be a failure on correcting core governmental issues, it will lock in the liberal social gains made over the last decade. Hic sunt dracones.
Welcome back.
In INRI_07’s dour post where he recommends viewing the 2024 election through the prism of power politics and which I linked to within my last post, he wrote: “Crucially, this is not to blackpill—I’m not a ‘doomer’. This is simply an attempt to honestly and critically assess the situation, which is necessary for effective political action. Action requires strategy, and strategy requires predictive power. Accordingly, if we want to operate effectively and help bring about real change, there is an absolute imperative to evaluate the political situation, at any given time, in power-political terms, rather than ideological ones.”
He is correct about this. One cannot fight what one doesn’t understand, and one can’t understand something without a grounding mechanism to interpret and incorporate new information. A grounding mechanism is a tool that one uses to assess whether new data is true or false and in what respects it is true or false. The main grounding mechanism I use is one of recursive prediction. It works as follows: based on your understanding of the world you make predictions about what will happen in the future. If they turn out to be wrong, you ask why they were wrong, then update your worldview in light of that new information. Do it over and over again, get lots of predictions wrong and make an ass out of yourself enough, and if you honestly look into why you were wrong each time and learn and grow from those errors then your worldview’s accuracy will eventually increase – never to 100% because we are all limited, finite beings and there is always more to learn and understand – “man plans, God laughs” – but we can get closer. Or as Robert Browning wrote, “Ah, but a man’s reach should exceed his grasp, Or what’s a heaven for?” Eventually I ended up with beliefs like the world order order as centralized above the level of the nation state, the egalitarian ratchet effect explaining society’s ever-lurch leftwards and the Rothschilds owning the world central banks.
When looking at the 2024 Trump re-election three things stand out:
He was facing multiple criminal trials just a year ago where he could have spent the rest of his life in prison, all of which have magically disappeared – poof! – even as many of his most committed underlings have been criminally and civilly convicted for allegations just as flimsy, while his most ardent supporters who showed up to protest election fraud on 1/6 rot in prison. Why were these charges dropped and pushed out for him and him alone?
Second, the ridiculously high value of Truth Social on the stock market – almost $7 billion, compared to Twitter’s current estimated $9.4 billion valuation – which very few people use. For example, Trump has 8 million followers on Truth Social compared to Twitter where he has 95 million, and no one else on Truth Social is anywhere close to as big a draw. Truth Social was allowed to be listed on the stock market back in 2022 while Trump faced multiple serious criminal trials. One may rationally perceive this as a backdoor $2.3 billion payoff.
Third, the institutional election fraud established in 2020 is still fully operational with nationwide mail-in-voting, Dominion electronic fraud, ballot harvesting, etc. None of that has gone away, it is all still right there to see. Anglin had a nice piece over at Unz where he correctly identified this core issue.1
Many otherwise intelligent people are hopelessly confused over the difference between Trump “winning” a rigged election and Trump winning an actual election (even though I ultimately voted for him). None of the blindly optimistic Trump cheerleaders can answer this question because the truth is self evident: Trump was turned behind closed doors and was allowed to win. Whatever he secretly agreed to in order to avoid prison and destruction is really bad stuff, at least in part related to total capitulation to the Israel agenda, and the extent of the humiliation will be revealed over time. This is why I believe his victory speech was so subdued. I understand the psychology of the cheerleading – it feels really good in the moment, it results in a lot of new subscribers because people love optimism, and what was the alternative to Trump? No one – but it’s cheap and does a disservice to one’s intellect and soul.
As I wrote on Notes and as a footnote in my last post, “There are certain times which serve as clarifying when one seeks to introspect into one’s own and other’s souls. The response to fraudvirus (“COVID”) was one of those times; I saw things from people I never would have expected otherwise. But an act of election winning serves a similar function from the other side; who is able to keep their wits about them, their reason in check, and not get carried way in the moment? Who can remain level-headed? I may not be doing any call-outs (what’s the point of drama?) but I’m always watching, always observing – mostly in disappointment.”
neocon Elise Stefanik is being placed at the U.N.,
neocon Israel First and psychopath low-IQ meathead Pete Hegseth was chosen as Defense Secretary (see this and this video posted by The Good Citizen, and this),
an unsophisticated, unintelligent, anti-free speech Kristi Noem is nominated at Homeland Security. The Dissident makes similar points here,
Matt Gaetz withdrew his nomination to lead the Department of Justice because he lacked the votes to be confirmed by the Senate, replacing his nomination with corrupt and self-serving Pam Bondi (also see here),
These picks should signal that Trump will not be serious about combating the “deep state” and that he will pursue a neocon foreign policy.2 This isn’t entirely his fault, as cabinet nominees must be confirmed by a Senate which is hopelessly and permanently RINO due to the nature of democracy itself. Trump is apparently not even going to blanket pardon the 1/6 political prisoners, instead issuing pardons on a “case-by-case basis” which feeds into the false establishment narrative that some of the political prosecutions were justified. We’ll also likely see a play for West Bank settlement annexation and a continuation of the Greater Israel project. If you want a good cabinet, place Rand Paul and other MAGA Senators with strong proven voting records and who are confirmable in important positions. But that’s too much to ask, I guess. As Joseph Hex wrote,
Step 1. Use publicly popular pro-America/Anti-Deepstate figures on campaign.
Step 2. Upon assuming power, dump these people or give them meaningless roles, all the while loudly trumpeting their words but not their (lack of) action.
Step 3. Appoint the same old war-mongers and bankers.
Trump did the same the first time – Bannon out within a year, Jared Kushner running his administration – so this really shouldn’t be a surprise. But I guess it is to most of Substack’s “dissident right” community. This isn’t anything new, either; 2008 “hope and change” Obama famously let Citigroup appoint his entire cabinet.
The consolidation phase of the egalitarian ratchet effect
I’d like to delve into an aspect I touched on only briefly in my last post. To succeed by dissident standards would require radical action: mass deportations on a scale never seen before in U.S. history (20 million left-leaning illegals were let into the country in the past four years alone) because America in on the verge of transformation into a permanent one party Democrat state, vote-by-mail election laws and Dominion electronic voting machines would need to be abolished nationally, and the Federal Reserve would either need to be nationalized or abolished based on the unfixable state of our national finances. These things won’t happen, and Trump looks poised to walk into a trap on immigration. But what will happen is what I call the consolidation phase of the egalitarian ratchet effect. I’ll explain what I mean by this, but first, a couple of comments by others.
Joshua Derrick argued in a comment to my last post that Trump represents the ascendancy and total victory of social liberalism:
At the end of the day, the gushing over trump represents a failure of conservatism in this country just as absolute as election of Biden represented for real leftists in this country in 2020. The man is personally a liberal: has had many marriages and divorces, is promiscuous, doesn’t engage with western culture on more than a superficial level, has and ordered many abortions. He’s allied with arch liberals tech bros Peter Thiel, Zuckerberg and Elon Musk for gods sake. In some ways he’s anti-woke, but he supports gay and transgender rights that would have been unthinkable 20 years ago. The based trad Christian substack warriors who voted for trump are just as cucked if not more than the libs they think they’re owning.
Joshua is right about this. Social conservatives ultimately threw their lot behind the secular populist rebellion against Hillary in 2016 – voting for the lesser of two evils is such a tempting thing to do – but the price they paid for it was the evisceration of their beliefs. As INRI_07 similarly argued,
Republican Pivot Away from Heteronormativity, Toward Abortion: To be somewhat crass, I believe the GOP will continue to get gayer and try to put away the abortion issue. The reality is that abortion restrictions, even at the state level, may represent an electoral liability for Republicans going forward. Accordingly, under Trump’s watch, I suspect that the party will continue its move away from its traditional stance on the issue and potentially leave pro-life efforts on the state level to flounder. I believe the United States will basically reconstruct the conditions imposed by Roe v. Wade by enshrining it into state constitutions across the country.
Although I had problems with this post by Deep Left Analysis where he argues that “the deep left” won with Trump’s election – he conflates three types of leftism which are often at odds, i.e. social leftism of race/gender/LGBTQ egalitarianism, economic leftism (socialism), and religious leftism (secularism and atheism), which he mixes interchangeably which is way too sloppy for my tastes – he is correct that Trump is further normalizing homosexuality, transsexualism, giving up on abortion (leaving it to the states after Roe), and pursuing a level of race blindness that were simply unacceptable pre-Trump. As DLA states,
“The Trump 2024 coalition was Elon Musk (a Reddit atheist), Tulsi Gabbard (a Hindu), RFK (a liberal hippie environmentalist), Vivek (another Hindu), Kushner (Jewish), JD Vance (married to a Hindu), Peter Thiel (gay), Steven Cheung (Chinese immigrant), Susan Wiles (divorced), Jason Miller (public extramarital affair), and Stephen Miller (Jewish).” And: “The Christian right were the cucks in this election. They sat in the corner of the Republican National Convention and watched as atheists, porn stars, Sikhs, and Hindus took over their party….During the first Trump term, white evangelical Protestants went from 15.3% of the population to 14.6% of the population. Trump can’t save these people, even if he wanted to.”
The craziest part of the 2024 RNC was Shabbos Kestenbaum’s speech gloating that he was suing Harvard for not being pro-Jewish enough. What a mind-boggling level of narcissistic arrogance or chutzpuh, what a total inability to read an audience – or simply not caring. Thinking that Jews just totally dominate the Republican party and no one can say anything different now.
On the opposite side, the self-admitted neo-Nazi Cesar Tort, who bitterly turned on Catholicism due to sexual abuse he suffered as a child, whose website is here and who grew up in Latin America, bitterly complains how de-racianated politics in Latin America are. There are right wing and left wing parties, of course, but these are entirely economic and religious parties; there is no concept of racial politics at all in the region. That is where the trends are headed within America as it continues to becomes a less white country. Because one requires a broad coalition to win national elections, as the country continues to become less white to win requires a permanent shift toward appealing to other groups. 2016 was historic white America’s last gasp for running on identity politics unless long-running trends dramatically change somehow.
This was from 2013. Imagine how much more advanced the changes are now.
Let’s put this together. The Biden/Kamala administration brought in 20 million left-leaning illegals within the past four years alone. Globohomo has normalized homosexuality, gay marriage, and increasingly transsexualism. Evangelicals, by supporting Trump as the lesser of two evils have given up on social conservatism, and the right has accepted a twice divorced, rampant cheater as their standard bearer. The right is now increasingly de-racianated, accepting homosexuals and transsexuals within it’s ranks (see “Caitlyn” Jenner), and after the repeal of Roe it will or has already given up on abortion as a national issue (correctly from a political perspective, as anti-abortion measures are wildly unpopular, although I think it should be banned after the first trimester except for the health of the mother). This is what we call the consolidation phase of the egalitarian ratchet effect.
This was actually from 2016Tho based, tho conservative.
The egalitarian ratchet effect was previously described here. Basically, the core values of a society ratchet or double down on itself over time unless or until that society collapses, is militarily conquered from without, or transvalues it’s core values into something else. The core values of Western society are egalitarianism rooted in Christianity, even though society is quite secular at this time. The “left” lead society leftward, then the “right” serve as the consolidation phase which integrates the gains made by the left before the left ratchet even further leftwards. Robert Lewis Dabney, the chief of staff of Stonewall Jackson, commented on how this process works in a bitter screed in 1897:
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.
This is why elections ping-pong from Democrat to Republican and back again, cycle to cycle – burning the good will and unmet expectations until there’s a media blitz, a party shift and the process repeats itself as society lurches ever-leftwards:
So there you have it. Not only will Trump’s presidency be a failure in terms of fixing the national debt, cutting down on inflation (impossible without addressing the debt issue), kicking out the tens of millions hordes of left-leaning illegal immigrants (he may evict some of the worst criminal offenders and build some miles of wall as a very shallow “win”, but even that he may go about the wrong way), restoring proper election law, punishing the worst of the deep state offenders, dismantling the administrative state or pursuing America First instead of Israel First, as well as likely being the fall guy for war with Iran, World War 3, civil war or a stock market implosion, but his presidency will further solidify the cultural gains made by the left within the past ten years – after which society will rapidly lurch leftwards yet again.
I hope that I am wrong and that more positive things are ahead than what I’ve laid out. I would rather be surprised to the upside than to the downside, though, and based on my recursive prediction model as a grounding mechanism I’ll be happy to adjust my worldview accordingly to the extent I am wrong.
Let’s end this post with a mock predictive One Day in the Life of Donald Trump’s Greater Israel, inspired by Ivan Denisovich:
7:00 AM: You wake up groaning under 40% annual inflation. Fox News is extolling what a great honor it is to send Israel $50 billion dollars (the latest monthly extension) and what a great honor it is that the draft is being reinstated to fight in war against Iran which, unfortunately, requires boots on the ground. News claims that giant corporations have scaled back DEI, though, and they recommend doing your patriotic duty and signing up as soon as possible to help our greatest ally!
8:00 AM: You head to work (early, you need to work 2-3 jobs to not even make ends meet). The number of non-whites despite Trump’s “mass deportations of illegals” is greater than ever – it almost seems like he’s “illegally deporting” in reverse and bringing more in. Well, he did expand the H1b visa program for Indians by 2 million per year, but at least that’s legal immigration, right?
9:00 AM: You receive an email announcing your draft number. Luckily selective service is digital and they have all of your information, so you don’t have to go into a physical location! It’s very convenient. Your draft number puts you at least a couple months out from service – the war will have to be over by then, right? …right?
12:00 PM: You use your Trump-sponsored CBDC to buy lunch. Luckily it’s not programmed yet to prohibit you from purchasing meat, but the news says those regulations are coming to help combat global warming.
2:00 PM: You try to go on the internet to Substack but, after the “Iranian hack”, internet use is strictly monitored – for your own good, of course. Reddit and Fox News are still easily accessible, though, so you can take comfort in that.
3:00 PM: It’s always a strange thing watching liberals on the street wear pro-Trump t-shirts, but that’s what it’s come to. You observe liberals, obese boomers, and even a smattering of Mexicans and blacks wearing Trump t-shirts — he’s brought them all together. It almost brings a tear to the eye.
6:00 PM: Your obese liberal girlfriend is wearing her Trump t-shirt again as she waddles around your small, dimly lit apartment. “Look how reasonable and moderate I am, I can update my opinion to take in new information. Look, even Reddit has come around on him!” she exclaims proudly. You want to die.
8:00 PM: You look at your account balances – they’re negative, you will need to take out another payday loan. You can’t let yourself get fired either as Trump cut back on unemployment benefits (but not for non-whites).
10:00 PM: You can’t take it any longer; you cry, and cry some more. There is no hope. You turn on Fox News and, like O’Brien, try to appreciate that it’s all worth it because Israel just annexed parts of Lebanon, Syria, and Egypt. You’re doing your part.
Thanks for reading.
Subscribe: Email delivery remains on Substack for now.
1 He wrote in part: “I think people are getting way too excited, and many or even most of the material I see is bordering on delusional, QAnon tier lunacy. Bobby Kennedy is not going to be installed as the head of the CIA and uncover the mystery of the murders of his father and uncle, nor is Ron Paul going to abolish the fed. The FBI is not going to be sent into the tunnels under Comet Pizza. No one from the Biden Administration is going to be prosecuted, the coronavirus vaccine will not be investigated, there will not be mass deportations. You can screenshot this. None of that stuff is happening.”
2 I never analyzed the Biden cabinet in this manner because it wasn’t needed – dissidents knew he would hungrily serve his globohomo masters like the flimsy puppet that he was. There is a lot of confusion on the right over who and what Trump represents, though.
The following is an anonymous guest post from someone whose political instincts are highly evolved and whose opinion I respect. I have discussed previously how the U.S. intelligence community tried to kill Trump and blame it on Iran, but the below post makes the full argument and argues that the threat is ongoing. There are various things I can comment on it, but I will let it stand on it’s own here.
Like many of you, I am optimistic about the results of the 2024 election. I am hopeful that Trump’s 2024 term goes better than his 2016 term, and that meaningful repair work can be done to this country. However, I have a nagging fear that something terrible could be about to happen. To be clear, I am not predicting that what I will describe will occur, only that I would not be surprised if it did because it advances many goals for globohomo.
My nagging fear began after Trump survived the first assassination attempt — which I maintain was an inside job. The assassination attempt was committed by Thomas Crooks. To this day, no information has been released about Thomas’s motive. His entire internet presence was erased. The official reports as to how the Secret Service allowed the assassination attempt to occur provide no answers and only raise further questions. In fact, the official narrative is simply that the assassination attempt has left behind “a pile of mysteries.” Apparently, just as the mass shootings in Las Vegas where over 500 were shot only for the event to be subsequently memory-holed, these “mysteries” are to go unsolved forever.
The aftermath of Crooks’ assassination attempt
Thus, I believe Thomas Crooks was recruited by the intelligence community, who informed him of how to carry out his plan, and afterwards, all traces of this activity was erased. I believe that Trump was not intended to have survived this attempt, which occurred shortly before the RNC took place. The plan was for Nikki Haley to replace Trump as the 2024 Republican Presidential Nominee at the RNC. We can refer to this as Plan A. Since Plan A failed, the responsible actors needed to come up with Plan B.
Although virtually no information was released about Thomas Crooks, around a week later, I noticed that a news story was simultaneously broadcast on Fox News, CNN, and even in Australia and Canada. The claim was that Thomas Crooks was somehow linked to Iran, as the intelligence community had received reports that Iran was seeking to assassinate Trump as retaliation for his killing of General Qassem Soleimani more than 4 years prior, and as a result, Trump had increased security the day of his assassination attempt. Of course, such a claim is ridiculous on its face. Why would Iran wait so long to take action? And are we expected to believe that the stunning security failures at Trump’s Butler rally were supposed to represent increased security? The idea was clearly a deflection from the notion that the assassination attempt was an inside job. But when you see the same story simultaneously broadcast on Fox News, CNN, and Australia, you know this is a narrative that globohomo finds important, and will cultivate in the future.
It was upon reading this news story and seeing its global reach that I believed I discovered Plan B for what should be done about Trump: elect Trump in a red wave, assassinate Trump, blame it on Iran, and use the resulting outrage and GOP control of government as justification for the US to go to war with Iran. Subsequent events have furthered my belief in this Plan B:
In the immediate aftermath of this “intelligence,” more mainstream media articles started publishing warnings from the intelligence community about Iran’s credible threats to assassinate Trump.
On this same day, the “act of war” verbiage was repeated on Fox News and elsewhere in the mainstream media, seemingly beginning to hypnotize the American public that war with Iran is a potential option. Of course, no one expects Biden to start a war with Iran.
Despite the official story being that Iran has been trying to assassinate Trump asretaliation for his killing of General Qassem Soleimani, the very first day of the“intelligence report” on the Iran assassination threat was July 16, 2024 (and it was spammed around the globe, see above links). This is more than 4 years after Trump assassinated Soleimani. The obvious reason for the delay is that Plan A did not involve Iran, and July 16, 2024 is when globohomo settled on Plan B.
The Many Benefits To Globohomo Of Carrying Out Plan B
One might think it would make no sense to assassinate Trump to start a war with Iran. After all, couldn’t Trump himself just start a war with Iran? I think this is very unlikely, as Trump knows that Americans do not want any new wars in the Middle East, and made a point in his 2016 campaign of emphasizing he was against the war in Iraq. Also, Trump is the only modern president that did not start any new wars. This shows that his instincts are against starting new wars. Starting a war with Iran would also go against his America First platform, as America would not benefit from such a war, only Israel would. So, the only way for globohomo to get their war with Iran is to assassinate Trump.
Such a scenario would advance many goals that globohomo is working towards, especially if it is orchestrated correctly. For example, the CIA can recruit an Iranian and the FBI can have their assets discuss the plot with the Iranian in encrypted communications such as Telegram. After the deed is done they can access the group chat and the media can broadcast the plans everywhere, convincingly tying the plot to Iran. Here are some of the benefits that globohomo can receive by assassinating Trump and blaming it on Iran:
They never wanted Trump to win in 2016, opposed him at every turn, spent the past four years attempting to bankrupt and imprison him, and then tried assassinating him in 2024. Clearly, they would like him out of the way.
They could have rigged the 2024 election similar to 2020, but allowed Trump to win.
Trump vowed to end the Ukraine war within 24 hours of taking office. Globohomo loves at least one forever war, and America has been continuously engaged in at least one forever war for the past 23 years (Afghanistan started in 2001, Iraq started in 2003, when Afghanistan ended in 2021 the Ukraine War replaced it less than 6 months later). A war with Iran can replace the Ukraine war and drag out for years, similar to Iraq.
Trump himself has made statements about “blowing Iran to smithereens” for its threats against him. Since the voters provided Trump with a mandate for his policies in the 2024 election result, clearly this mandate can be spun to include going to war with Iran for assassinating him.
Spiritually, all of the optimism that Trump supporters now have can be crushed in one fell swoop, and strategically Trump supporters who suspect the assassination was a false flag will be less likely to do anything about it under a JD Vance administration than under a Kamala Harris administration. This is especially true given Trump and JD Vance’s own comments against Iran on this exact issue.
The right would be split between those believing the assassination was a false flag, and those believing Iran committed it. This split could overshadow and derail JD Vance’s term similar to how the Mueller investigation overshadowed much of Trump’s 2016 term.
Currently Americans have no appetite for another Middle East war, but the split of Trump supporters who believe it was not a false flag might sign up to fight in Iran.
JD Vance is very much against Iran so he would have no issues advocating for a war with Iran to retaliate against Iran’s actions.
Due to the recent red wave and GOP control of Congress, Democrats can oppose going to war with Iran and simply be overruled. It can be the Iraq War 2.0, where Republicans take all of the blame, especially as it drags on forever.
If the plot was conceived using encrypted communications such as Telegram, with the screenshots broadcast after-the-fact, this can be used as an excuse for Congress to pass a law mandating that Big Tech and communications apps have AI monitor all discussions and automatically report threats of violence to law enforcement, to prevent this from happening again. Such a bill would be most likely to receive popular support if Plan B occurs.
Some might interpret the above that JD Vance is somehow shady, since globohomo would rather have him as president than Trump. I don’t believe this is the case at all. For the reasons described above, globohomo needs to assassinate Trump to gain the momentum required to start a war with Iran; the replacement is not relevant. I think anyone in JD Vance’s situation would feel no choice but to succumb to the pressure to retaliate against Iran. The outrage from right wing media to avenge Trump will be deafening.
Again, I really hope none of the above ever comes to pass, and Trump prevails in his term safe and secure. It’s just that globohomo seems to be creating a long paper trail for what I believe to be their Plan B, and given the many benefits they would receive, I would not be surprised if they carry it out.
Subscribe: Email delivery remains on Substack for now.
In my last post I predicted that Trump’s second term would be a failure if he won. Here I will explain what his administration would have to address if he were to succeed and why he is unlikely to do so.
Welcome back.
First, let me offer congratulations the Trump supporters out there – you fought hard, screamed at the top of your lungs here on Substack and elsewhere to vote for him, and it’s nice to have a feel-good moment of a Trump win after the past four years of open-borders Hell (20 million illegals let in at minimum), massive inflation, a couple Trump assassination attempts, war with Ukraine and of course the 2020 stolen election.1 Enjoy watching the liberals teeth gnash, hyperventilate, withhold sex and threaten to move to Canada which many of you seem to love (although this election was much more muted energetically than 2020 or 2016). And congratulations to crypto-mos, who seems to be benefiting from his win with Coinbase soaring 30% the day after the election and crypto up strongly across the board.2
While I was deeply undecided about voting for president, I ultimately did so in the last moment out of spite (L.P. Koch, one of the more spiritually evolved posters on Substack, also voted for Trump with his arguments here, here and here). I was unsure of what the result would be from the election, positive that Trump would win on actual votes but equally convinced that our elites decide the outcome using permanent institutionalized nationalized mail-in voting overseen by a Democrat voting “tsar”, electronic voting fraud, ballot harvesting, and outright ballot stuffing. As such, the reasonable conclusion is that our quasi-nationalist counter-elites were allowed to win by higher powers. Rurik Skywalker, bless his little blackpilled heart, agrees, as does INRI_07 in this strong post.3 One may curiously note that Peter Thiel’s diabolical public-private partnership Palantir, which exists to spy on U.S. citizens on behalf of the government and route around constitutional safeguards, soared 23% on the day of the election before any of the polls closed. Vice President-elect Vance owes his success to Thiel.
The above 4% increase is the day after the election; it soared 23.47% on election day.
Regardless, savor the moment, enjoy it, bask in the fantasy of Trump “owning the libs”, take a deep breath, and then — let’s gently, ever so gently, return to reality.
Here’s a Reagan “It’s Morning Again in America” 1984 ad for your pleasure:
And here’s Yusaf Islam/Cat Steven with “Morning has Broken”:
I’m being gently facetious. As mentioned in my last post, I expect Trump’s presidency to continue neoliberal feudal practices (giant deficit and national debt), high inflation to continue unabated and most Americans to continue to get poorer, with Trump set up as the fall guy (or Vance if Trump is assassinated) for either war with Iran, World War 3, civil war, or a popping of the largest stock market bubble in history (with elites using mass public panic to usher in central bank digital currencies resulting in the greatest loss of freedom in human history). The right will go along with this program under Trump more than they would under a Democrat, as we saw with COVID.4In other words, my prediction is that Trump’s second term will be a failure. In order to effectuate these objectives, our elites want the demoralized masses to buy back into the system they were increasingly doubting.5 Academic Agent delves into this point here, as did this now-famous 4chan comment.
This post asks the question: what would a successful second Trump term look like from a dissident perspective? What core issues would have to be addressed? The purpose will be to offer a standard to judge this upcoming administration’s actions, as one should support a person or party only to the extent they abide by the principles one believes in, not blindly root for something like a Republican-vs.-Democrat sports-match or a cult of personality.
The core structural issues
There are three core structural issues where, if they aren’t adequately addressed in the next administration, the country is finished: (1) immigration, (2) institutionalized vote-by-mail and other voting fraud, and (3) the national debt. This is because unchecked immigration is leading directly to a permanent one party state, voting fraud removes the remaining limited public influence on the electoral process, and the national debt is leading to permanent high inflation and lower quality of living. Other issues do matter such as eviscerating the federal bureaucracy, reverting from a service economy to a manufacturing one, reforming the media and education systems, and becoming more isolationist militarily and economically, but they are not problems that disrupt the feedback mechanism allowing the masses to influence governance nor financial problems that permanently impoverish current and future generations.
1. Immigration
Immigration presents one with a very simple math problem: non-whites consistently vote Democrat by substantial margins. Hispanics vote at minimum 56-58% Democrat for president (the ceiling on the Hispanic vote was set for George W. Bush who got 42%-44% of their vote in 2004 by pretending to be a Texas rancher and offering them free housing, precipitating the 2007 crash, although according to exit polls Trump may have surpassed the record with 45% in 2024) and blacks vote consistently ~90% Democrat. If you fill up the country with tens of millions of non-whites, either from them or from their liberal-leaning children one eventually end ups with what happened in California but on a national level, i.e. a permanent one party state.
Let’s look at this further. The fertility rate in the U.S. is below replacement level, which is 2.1 births per woman:
Yet this is the population of the United States:
Looking at the U.S. population from 1970 to 2020, it’s fertility rate was at or below replacement, yet the population grew from 200 million to 333 million.This is entirely due to immigration, both legal and increasingly illegal. This is a rapid and ongoing population replacement happening where whites have gone from 90% of the United States’ population to under 60% in under fifty years.
Biden/Harris, through traitor DHS head Alejandro Mayorkas, brought in at least twenty million illegals in the past four years alone.6To fix this would require mass deportations on a level never seen before in American history. When I explain this simple second grade math to sophisticated parties, very smart people, their eyes glaze over or roll into the back of their head and they have no response. Their ability to do basic math is overruled in-the-moment by their desire to conform. It’s unbelievable.
she is very dumb (~90 IQ), as she could barely put sentences together and was unable to do live interviews;
she picked an extreme weirdo who had pedophile vibes as her VP;
Why did she campaign with Liz Cheney of all people?; and
her and Biden’s record on immigration and inflation was simply indefensible.
What this highlights is how close the election was between a historically unpopular Democrat candidate and Trump. If Democrats had gone with Mark Kelly, Gavin Newsom, Michelle Obama, etc. as their candidate it’s likely that due to demographic changes that it would have been a blowout election in favor of Democrats.
Attempting to reverse immigration trends, even if Trump cared about the issue and was effective (which he failed at during his first term) would create major problems for him. There would be endless lawfare from within the court system, exemplified by the Hawaiian district court judge who issued a nationwide injunction against the “Muslim immigration ban”. It would rile up liberals and elites and generate a massive public backlash. And even if he was successful, the entire capitalist model is built around forever profit growth, which is therefore built around forever population growth (more people to sell things to = higher profits). This is why when first world countries experience decreased fertility rates the system needs to import foreign workers to keep the economic ponzi scheme functioning. This pattern is repeated in every first world country. If there is a major decrease in population, there will be a large decrease in economic profits and an economic contraction, which could spiral from there. It is a catch-22 that is only resolvable if certain alternative values are placed long-term above economic prosperity, which the American population has close to zero stomach for.
2. Voting changes
If one hopes to win elections in the future what is required is not just demographic reversals but also reversing the election changes that occurred in 2020. The 2020 election resulted in seventeen million fraudulent votes through a combination of institutionalized and now permanent vote-by-mail fraud (the Democrat operative Marc Elias installed a Democrat “tsar” at the post office to oversee the votes), ballot harvesting, ballot stuffing and Dominion electronic voting fraud (where they sued those who complained about it into silence). The 2020 fraud was blatant:
Trump was allowed to win this time based on whatever backroom deal was worked out among the elites, perhaps as a response to the disastrous 10/7 false flag7 and to support whatever higher-level plans they have for him and his administration. Allowed is the key word because none of these voting issues have been fixed, therefore the only way he could have won is if our elites wanted him to. If one is to have any faith in elections moving forward then this needs to be reversed:
Without such changes our international elites will continue to be able to determine the outcome of every election moving forward, in line with my prior post about how we are now in an era of elite’s deciding – no longer just influencing – “elections”.
3. The national debt
The third core structural issue is the national debt. We currently have a $35 trillion national debt and a $2 trillion dollar a year deficit, which is catastrophic. In fiscal year 2023 the US federal government collected nearly $4.5 trillion in revenue. However, it spent almost $6.2 trillion.
Interest payments on federal government debt are projected to reach $892 billion in 2024. This is more than the government is projected to spend on defense and almost a third higher than what the United States spent on debt interest payments in 2023. Within ten years interest paid on debt will be greater than total non-discretionary spending according to the CBO. Here one can see interest payments on the federal debt as a percentage of government spending.
Here is the breakdown of what is owed to who as of 2022:
Note that the privately owned Federal Reserve owns a whopping 34% of domestically held debt. The Rothschilds are pigging out:
Here and below are the countries with the greatest debt-to-GDP ratio on the planet. Note that the U.S. is behind only Japan, Lebanon, Singapore, Sudan and Greece, and just ahead of Italy, all countries with disastrous finances:
Also see here which puts the U.S. Debt-to-GDP ratio at 129%. Debt-to-GDP ratios above 77% can hinder economic growth and (in some cases) place a country at risk of defaulting on its debts, which could wreak havoc on its economy and financial markets. For every percentage point of debt that exceeds the 77% tipping point, the annual real GDP growth rate of a developed economy will be reduced by .017 percentage points for each 1% the debt-to-GDP ratio exceeds the tipping point.
Here is the U.S. Debt-to-GDP ratio between 1971-2022:
And here it is historically through 2010; note the peak was 120% in World War 2:
The Debt-to-GDP ratio in the U.S., then, is higher than it was during World War 2. Here’s where the Treasury projects it going into the future (lol):
Let’s put the picture together. The amount of U.S. governmental debt and the deficit is astronomically high. Unlike in 1980 when Paul Volcker crushed inflation by spiking interest rates massively (US inflation peaked at 14.8% in March 1980 and fell to below 3% by 1983 by raising interest rates to 20%), the U.S.’s debt is far too high to curb inflation in a similar way. If the Federal Reserve raises rates to combat inflation — which is currently around 20% when looking at the cost of normal living such as food, housing, health care, insurance, etc.; the official stats are fake — then the U.S. economy will be crushed. Yet if the Federal Reserve lowers rates to help the economy, then inflation will spike even higher. It is stuck and they have no way out.They will have to keep printing indefinitely in order to prop up the stock market and fund the deficit, and as they print the Debt-to-GDP ratio will continue to rise and inflation will continue to get worse.This is why from the debt perspective it doesn’t/didn’t matter if Kamala or Trump won – the Federal Reserve is stuck and high inflation is here to stay (unless rates are increased which would cause a market crash).
Recently Jamie Dimon, the head of JP Morgan Chase, agreed:
Speaking on a panel alongside former Speaker of the House Paul Ryan at the Bipartisan Policy Center last week, Dimon said the American government is facing a “hockey stick” effect when it comes to government debt.
He drew on the comparison of the 1980s for context, explaining that in 1982 unemployment was at around 10% while the stock market had sat stagnant for 15 to 20 years. Even with the Vietnam War, America’s debt-to-GDP ratio was around 35%, Dimon said, whereas today it sits at 100%.
“Back then the deficit during a recession—you do spend money in a recession—was 4% or 5%; today it’s 6.5% in a boom time,” Dimon continued.
He added: “If you look at that 100% debt to GDP by [2035] I think it’s going to be 130%, and it’s a hockey stick. That hockey stick doesn’t start yet but when it starts, markets around the world…there will be a rebellion.”
Dimon’s hockey stick scenario could occur as the American government faces higher charges to service increasing levels of debt, potentially in an economy that many are predicting will enter a slow or no-growth era.
This isn’t just bad news for the home of the brave. America’s ability to pay its debts is a concern for the nations around the world that own a $7.6 trillion chunk of the funds. The nations most exposed are Japan, which owned $1.1 trillion as of November 2023, China ($782 billion), the U.K. ($716 billion), Luxembourg ($371 billion), and Canada ($321 billion).
Charging headfirst into a global fistfight with domestic and international markets is the “worst possible way to do it,” Dimon added, saying: “It is a cliff. We see the cliff. It’s about 10 years out.”
Ryan chimed in that the debt spiral is the “most predictable crisis we’ve ever had,” with Dimon agreeing.
So what can Trump do to stave off this crisis? He could either attempt to raise taxes, which he and other Republicans are against; he actually wants to lower taxes. But even raising taxes substantially would only put a moderate dent in the deficit, which would still continue to get worse. Apparently Trump wants to increase tariffs massively from China and elsewhere; I’ll believe it when I see it (in his first term neither China trade reforms nor NAFTA reforms moved the needle at all despite the hype). Alternatively, he could cut spending. Here is how U.S. Federal spending looks:
Any politician that attempts to substantially cut entitlements to the public will not be re-elected and is in danger of public unrest or worse; raising entitlement ages even a year or couple years, a drop in the bucket, would be extremely unpopular. He could try to cut national defense ($821 billion) but would likely be assassinated if he tried, and if it was massively cut the U.S. would lose reserve currency status (it is America’s military might that keeps the reserve currency). Reforming Obamacare didn’t work and it was a weak reform attempt during Trump’s first term anyway. What would he cut then? Very little of the spending is discretionary. He could and should massively cut unelected civil service jobs, who are the enemy of regular Americans and a major negative value-add, but that still doesn’t move the needle much and that would also spark unrest.
So there you have it: the three structural issues facing Trump are massive amounts of Democrat-leaning non-white illegal immigrants and their children, institutionalized vote fraud, along with an extraordinary amount of national debt that can’t be fixed without radical entitlement reform that would get Trump kicked out of office, impeached or murdered. Liberals are already being primed by their hive-mind, pre-inauguration, only a couple days after the election, to hysterically resist without any action having been taken at all.
With that said, this is ultimately bigger than Democrat or Republican; it is the nature of democracy itself – it eats itself:
People want to enjoy comfort and consumption in the moment even if that means their children and grandchildren have to pay the bill, and they will always vote on this basis. That’s human psychology, we see it throughout civilizations and history, and unfortunately for us we are the ones on the receiving end of the mass inflation and devastation caused by earlier eras of consumption. Trump is stuck and he’s not fixing this unless he leads a revolution, not a reform – to nationalize the Rothschild-owned Federal Reserve and issue a debt jubilee, perhaps. But Trump has the mind of a wheeling-dealing merchant, not a Caesar crossing the Rubicon, and he will not do this (and if he tried he would, like so many that tried before to exit the central bank parasitical system, be destroyed). Rather, he will keep spending as inflation continues apace until the next financial crisis.
Summing it up
Being in pain – emotional, spiritual, physical pain – is the driver for change. The longer and deeper it hurts, the more change one is willing to accept. The right watched a weak 2016-2020 Trump administration followed by four years of Biden Hell which caused a degree of introspection and soul searching, but, in my opinion, not enough. The structural issues of immigration and the national debt cannot be solved without revolutionary action, which as Curtis Yarvin correctly states Trump does not have a mandate for from his voters. Therefore his second term will be a failure. I listed above things that would have to happen policy wise for a long-term reassessment of this prediction.
Now, my blackpilled doomerism was listened to politely by some during the past four years. It will be less popular under a Trump presidency as I hold his feet to the proverbial fire; I care about a politician and his administration only to the extent they properly effectuate the policies I care about. Instead of just dealing with blackpilled despondency and lame, false hopium from the right as seen under the Biden years, we will now have to deal with Q-tard delusional optimism and Trump personality cultists again in the consolidation phase of the egalitarian ratchet effect. In some ways this will be worse than hearing the endless shrieking shitlibs. Rurik Skylwaker agrees in a Notes comment here. And as Graham R. Knotsea states, “The most difficult thing about another Trump presidency is going to be, once again, his fanatical supporters attacking everyone who tries to hold him to his campaign promises. They get just as hysterical as the liberals they make fun of. It’s gonna be rough.” Having one’s “side” be in power reduces one’s ability to introspect and analyze properly; a scanner darkly. Thankfully in some respects the past eight years have clarified for me how things actually work.
Some predictions can take years to play out, not days or weeks or months. The right is myopic and loves short term predictions and claiming they are wrong if they don’t happen immediately. Ernst Junger doubted his prediction that Germany would lose in an adventure in the East for a couple of years after making his prediction in 1939; it took years for him to be proven correct. This prediction of Trump presidency failure is a four year prediction and I believe it will result in (1) continued sustained high inflation from ever-increasing national debt (and an inability/unwillingness to abolish the Federal Reserve and issue a debt jubliee), (2) inability/unwillingness to expel tens of millions of newly arrived illegals, (3) inability/unwillingness to reform compromised election laws, and (4) either war with Iran, Civil War, a massive stock market crash and/or World War 3. I hope I’m wrong and that more positive things are ahead. Let’s see what happens.
Thanks for reading.
Subscribe: Email delivery remains on Substack for now.
1 Right before the 2024 election there was a Freedom of Information Act release of a secret Obama call to sympathetic liberal media three days before Trump’s 2017 inauguration; the release was stonewalled until now. In it Obama said: “On balance, that leads to me to say I think that four years is okay. Take on some water, but we can kind of bail fast enough to be okay. Eight years would be a problem. I would be concerned about a sustained period in which some of these norms have broken down and started to corrode.” It was this attitude that permeated the unelected civil service and resulted in massive, unprecedented efforts to steal the 2020 election. After the steal, these globohomo cretins bragged about it in a Time magazine article where they smugly stated: “They were not rigging the election; they were fortifying it.”
2 As discussed previously, I think crypto is a scam controlled by the CIA/NSA via Tether for multiple purposes.
3 There are certain times which serve as clarifying when one seeks to introspect into one’s own and other’s souls. The response to fraudvirus (“COVID”) was one of those times; I saw things from people I never would have expected otherwise. But an act of election winning serves a similar function from the other side; who is able to keep their wits about them, their reason in check, and not get carried way in the moment? Who can remain level-headed? I may not be doing any call-outs (what’s the point of drama?) but I’m always watching, always observing – mostly in disappointment.
4 Things often become the opposite of what they purport to be: see right wingers like Begin and Sharon who withdrew land for peace, see Charles de Gaulle who betrayed the French Algerians after promising to protect them, see Deng Xaioping who was a committed communist who turned capitalist.
5 There is something occult about the power of harnessing people’s attention. If the system was not able to harness that attention in ways they wanted, they would lose control. They must keep you entertained and engaged in the process so that they can stay in power. To the question of whether the system is top-down or bottom-up, the answer is that it is both; the top-down rulers try out narratives and they run with ones that effectuate buy-in from the public. This is not properly understood by most. See here for more.
6 And according to Craig Nelsen, the Hispanics being imported were the most vulnerable and easily manipulable ones that could be found: “The NGO programs being funded here are programs set up in Colombia to transfer Venezuelan “refugees” from Colombia to the United States with special emphasis on “children, particularly unaccompanied and separated children and adolescents; lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, or intersex (LGBTQI+) individuals; older persons; the sick; persons with disabilities; indigenous persons; and survivors, or those at risk, of gender-based violence” as well as “members of minority communities.”
7 There was a noticeable shift in favor of Trump after the world reacted so negatively to Israel in the aftermath of 10/7 (although one may note that U.S. Jews still voted 79% for Kamala). The youth were decidedly pro-Palestinian throughout the West including in top-level universities. Our elites likely wanted to use 10/7 as a Holocaust 2.0 which would provide lots of sympathy and carte blanche to do whatever they wanted, even though it is extremely doubtful that Israel did not at a very minimum have knowledge of the attack ahead of time and let it happen to provide the justification for leveling Gaza. It is simply not believable that many frontline soldiers reported Hamas activity and Israel’s extremely detailed knowledge of its neighbors – to the point of planting explosive devices among hundreds of Hezbollah operatives and having pinpoint information to target the top twenty Hezbollah leaders one after the other. Our elites were likely shocked to learn that their non-white golems throughout the West that were being used to undermine and destroy whites were turning on them, necessitating a major change in strategy, as James J. O’Meara explains here and as explained here.
This post argues that America transitioned in a fundamental and negative way in 2020 into a new legal regime and there is no going back from it regardless of who wins this election.
This will be an election post, but not in the way one might expect.
Good Citizen had a nice post recently about how controlled Trump will be if he wins this upcoming election. I was displeased to see in that post, although not unexpected, that the wretched cretin Jared Kushner is back choosing Trump’s personnel.1 I had concluded my three-part exploration of the Trump presidency with a similar argument, stating
There are also a number of signs that the establishment may allow Trump to win in 2024 and govern as a sick facsimile of himself, a kind of skin-suited Jeb Bush type, or to crash the economy around him and blame him and populism for the failure of the existing system…
In this manner the establishment is back to its usual pattern of playing both sides so they win regardless of whatever the population chooses. They seem to no longer see Trump as much of a threat, if any; he has been absorbed. Can you see Trump evicting even a significant portion of the twenty million illegals that Biden’s administration has let in over the past four years? I think the answer is a clear no.
The Trump phenomenon showed that the support for civic nationalism and populism is broad-based but also shallow: the American population is fat, lazy, entitled, and completely addicted to its creature comforts. The four years of the establishment illegally stymying Trump, the false COVID narrative and the stolen 2020 election showed that the vast majority of people will put up with whatever the establishment decides.
To understand how Trump or Kamala will govern, regardless of who wins (and I am unwilling to make a firm prediction, explained here), it is necessary to step back and ask a broader question: is America the same country that it was in 1776? We have the same Constitution after all, we contain the same initial geography within the final borders of what became modern America, we have the same separation of powers between the judicial, executive and legislative branches. We still honor the founders to an extent and teach early American history and remain inspired by stories fighting against Britain, ending slavery, and expanding rights and freedoms to under-represented groups. I posed this question to Grant Smith previously, a great guy who has a lovely and perhaps quaint respect and awe for our Constitution.2
This post will argue that no, America is not the same country it was in 1776. There were certain inflection points where it became an entirely different country, with different foundation myths, different values and different objectives; the form of the older government remained, but it was reinterpreted in entirely different ways. The argument will be touched upon that 2020 was another such inflection point switching legal regimes, although it will take historical distance to see it.
First, why cover this, just to emphasize gloom and doom in a new way? The intent is so you can better prepare for a much harder life under neo-feudalism as it continues to develop, to assume a long-term defensive posture as covered previously here and here, and to prepare on a spiritual level to oppose it.
Curtis Yarvin touched on the general concept of nations radically transforming but keeping their old forms in one of his posts from 2007, where he stated:
By my count, Anglophone North America ex Canada is on its fifth legal regime. The First Republic was the Congressional regime, which illegally abolished the British colonial governments. The Second Republic was the Constitutional regime, which illegally abolished the Articles of Confederation. The Third Republic was the Unionist regime, which illegally abolished the principle of federalism. The Fourth Republic is the New Deal regime, which illegally abolished the principle of limited government. [NLF: He doesn’t state what or where his fifth legal regime started.]
Of course, all these coups are confirmed by the principle of adverse possession. Otherwise we would find ourselves looking for the rightful heirs of Metacom, or Edward the Confessor, or whoever. Nor is there any automatic reason to treat any of these five regimes as better or worse than any of the others. If, like me, you’re tired of the Fourth Republic and would like to see it abolished, all we know about its successor is that it will be the Fifth Republic. It has no need to resemble the Third, the Second or the First.
The real legal nature of the Fourth Republic is that, like the UK, it has no constitution. Its legitimacy is defined by a set of precedents written by New Deal judges in the 1930s. These have obscure names like Footnote Four, West Coast Hotel, and Wickard v. Filburn.
I agree with Yarvin’s general thrust, although I will quibble with some of the time periods in my argument below. Just like when Rome transitioned from republic to empire under Julius Caesar and Augustus but kept the basic republican forms, titles and symbols, just like it kept it’s hollowed-out institutions such as a powerless Senate to increase societal stability and fool the masses, America, too, keeps its old forms even though the nature of power fundamentally shifts. These inflections points signal not just changes in power but they formalize certain social, economic, cultural and historical trends that were already gaining in strength as it approached the epoch. The shifts between eras may not be properly understood in the moment and may only become clear on a historical basis.
The inflection points I see are as follows:
The First Era of States Rights (1776-1865): Weak federal government, strong states rights on the basis of settling a brand new, mostly uninhabited and resource rich continent. One may note that this era would likely have ended earlier if the Second Bank of the United States had not been abolished by Andrew Jackson in 1836. It’s original foundation myth3 was healthy and positive: settlers founding a new and just land. Ultimate good was centered around freedom and the ability to pursue happiness and the sacred was encapsulated by family, community, country, God.
The Second Era of Federal Government (1865-1913): The victory by the North enshrined that the federal government superseded states rights, which was not a settled matter beforehand. America’s foundation myth shifts to justify the North’s aggression in the Civil War: ultimate evil in the form of slavery becomes central to this narrative.
The Third Era of the Unelected Civil Service (1913-1965): The establishment of the Rothschild-owned Federal Reserve in 1913 (along with the 16th Amendment authorizing personal income taxes, the IRS and the Anti-Defamation League in the same year) followed by FDR’s New Deal (1933-1938) which created an unfireable unelected civil service and massive social welfare programs, while cutting back the power of the Supreme Court with the switch in time that saved nine. The United States becoming a worldwide hegemony in 1945 was a result of this setup. This era gave rise to what Ernst Junger referred to as the Worker, who subsumed himself on behalf of the collective as part of total mobilization: “Each individual life becomes, ever more unambiguously, the life of a worker” so that “following the wars of knights, kings, and citizens, we now have wars of workers.”
The Fourth Era of White Erasure (1965-2020): The 1965 Civil Rights Act and the Immigration and Nationality Act set in motion what became unlimited non-white immigration and increasing anti-white discrimination where the white percentage of the U.S. population dropped from 90% to 60% within fifty years. Christopher Caldwell wrote about this in his The Age of Entitlement: America Since the Sixties, where he stated: “Just half a decade into the civil rights revolution, America had something it had never had at the federal level, something the overwhelming majority of its citizens would never have approved: an explicit system of racial preference. Plainly the civil rights acts had wrought a change in the country’s constitutional culture.” Caldwell writes that the Civil Rights Act 1964 was “not just a major new element in the Constitution,” but “a rival constitution, with which the original one was frequently incompatible.” The figure of the Worker was defeated by the bourgeois, whose technological managerialism enmeshed capital and placed security among the highest of values, conducting his life accordingly. This era included radical individualism, free-market fundamentalism, unfettered globalization, and the resulting decay of social norms and civil society institutions. This era corresponded with the rise of what Cesar Tort called a new national foundation myth centered around white blood guilt for the Holocaust, Hitler as the Devil and all whites worldwide as intrinsically and irreparably evil. As he explains:
For the modern West, from Australia to the US and back to the Old Continent, at least the countries that were not subsumed by the Soviet Union, the narrative of the Second World War has become our new foundation myth….
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 civilisation drives its core values of anti-nationalism; unity being a weakness and diversity being a strength. All measure of civilisational confidence is bigotry. Any questioning with regards to the differences in people, cultures and their compatibility is taboo….
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 [see footnote 1] 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….
The entire West is not only losing their local but also its civilisational 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, as did previously, utterly destroy it.
The Fifth Era of Tyrannical Hard Power likely began in 2020, a narrative I explored in my 3-part series on the Trump campaign and history, although it will take historical distance to confirm it. If true, this era will last at minimum for multiple decades, and possibly last far beyond that. The Fifth Era is defined by the end of so-called “democracy” — in other words, elections will continue but be simply rigged (as opposed to heavily managed and influenced in prior eras), which the regime will deny using its propaganda organs and “experts” — and a transition from a soft power propaganda model to a hard power boots-on-the-face model as people’s quality of life dramatically decreases. This shift became necessary as the internet was increasingly bypassing globohomo’s narrative control. It was formalized via the legalization during COVID of permanent vote-by-mail4 and ballot harvesting and a casual legal disregard for societal norms, completing the process of what globohomo accomplished in California, i.e. turning it into a one-party state. This was a top-down imposed revolution which their controlled media is intentionally being quiet about. This era will be neo-feudal, with ever-widening and extreme disparities between the ultra-rich and poor, enormous inflation (started with the $11 trillion printed under Trump during COVID), the end of the middle class, little social mobility, completely open borders, a woke AI scanning everyone’s computer, phone and internet activity (i.e. no privacy) and assigning everyone social credit scores ala the digital panopticon, and the managerial class going buckwild as the parasite kills the majority host. Unlike earlier eras where the masses were looked upon first as industrial workers and then used within a service economy, serving as tax cattle for the elites, this era will look upon the masses as simply zero-value burdens who should simply be used for mass genetic testing (like via the ultra-dangerous mRNA “vaccines”) or be phased out of existence entirely one way or another through war and poverty. Due to technology changes they are seen as what homosexual Jewish atheist Yuval Harari called “useless people”, who if they are “lucky” they will get to live on subsistence government-offered UBI. This era is going to be an ever-decreasing quality of life, but the silver lining is it may ultimately lead – after extreme pain and suffering – to a newfound religious and spiritual sensibility that doesn’t exist when economic times are strong.
Expectations for a second Trump term
As a result of being in the fifth legal regime, and putting aside how horrible the 90 IQ hooker’s reign would be if she wins, if Trump does win I also expect his presidency to be underwhelming: there will be little pushback on the 20 million illegals let in within the past four years alone, there will be no substantial positive changes to the $2 trillion dollar deficit or $35 trillion dollar national debt, and persistently high inflation is here to stay permanently as neoliberal feudalism continues to set in. Additionally, Trump’s presidency will be used to de-fang right-wing support much as he did during his disastrous COVID response.5 It may not manifest in a day, a month, or a year; COVID happened in his fourth year as president, so setting proper timing expectations is important not to get sucked up in momentary excitement. He will either lead the country to war in Iran (where globohomo is slowly trying to back off DEI in order to get white men to go die for it), preside over civil war, and/or he will preside over the collapse of our sovereign debt bubble, previously discussed here in the context of Japan, where our upper-tier overlords both initiated the bubble as well as it’s future “popping” in order to create enough panic to drive this country and the world into upcoming CBDC techno-tyranny. His toothless response will allow globohomo to blame Trump and nationalism for the situation they themselves caused, following a long successful line of blaming-the-victim including as seen in World War 2. Dr Mathew Maavak concurs that a Trump victory would be used to ultimately smear him as globohomo’s fall guy. James J. O’Meara believes that our overlords intend this setup to eventually lead to the coronation of Greater Israel as the seat of world power, something I pondered in a separate capacity. At the very least Trump’s presidency will be used to consolidate the rapid and radical changes that have taken place over the past four years, reflecting the historical trend of Democrat radicalism followed by Republican consolidation of those liberal gains.
Whatever happens, the fifth era of tyrannical hard power is going to crystalize and more fully manifest.
Okay, well, what about voting then? It’s a binary choice and if Trump doesn’t win then Kamala will (due to extreme voting fraud; Trump will definitely win real votes in a landslide) where she will let in yet another 20 million illegals in the next four years and continue the radical transformation of the country. If one doesn’t vote for him is that just a tacit vote for her, a 90 IQ anti-white hooker? I suppose one may retain hope that Trump would be better than Kamala in this intra-elite competition, although I have my doubts. I think he would try not to let in another 20 million illegals who were let in under Biden, maybe (maybe Trump will just allow in 5-10 million but legally!), he might be important for Supreme Court picks (although two of his three prior picks turned out to be left-leaning duds), Grant Smith thinks he would be positive for the military, and globohomo did try to assassinate him twice – but the structural problems are so deep and metastasized (i.e. white erasure, $2+ trillion deficits, $35 trillion national debt) that radically negative change is coming and it can’t be stopped at this point. The fifth legal regime is upon us and will only manifest further. Hence globohomo’s hysteria at Trump’s win in 2016; that was the Flight 93 election, the last chance to right the ship, but we crashed. Our upper elites are poised to benefit regardless of whoever is allowed to win this fake election, and everyone else will lose…if the election is even allowed to happen. Coinciding with the election is a large scale cybersecurity exercise on November 5:
The ancient Chinese curse of “May you live in interesting times” is here. Regardless of the route it now takes, though, from a material and freedom perspective we are past the point of no return (even if the Federal Reserve continues to hypnotize you by printing infinite loldollars and shoving it into the stock market). Things are going to get much worse in this fifth legal regime, so prepare yourself as best you can.
Thanks for reading.
Subscribe: Email delivery remains on Substack for now.
2 I say this partially in jest: despite the Constitution’s major shortcomings as will be discussed below, the First and Second Amendments have created major stumbling block’s in how globohomo treats Americans compared to the rest of the world. It generally has to tread lighter here, and it’s extremely malicious actions are done more indirectly and circuitously.
3 From Cesar Tort, who is quite unhinged but has a good explanation of this principle here: “What is a foundation myth and what functions does it provides a society? Well, first it comports and provides 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.”
4 The country allowed vote-by-mail prior to 2020 but limited mostly to absentee ballots from overseas military members. See here for more context.
5 The way it works is that a substantial percent of a group’s supporters will go along with an action which, if the other side had been the one pushing that action they would have resisted it. During COVID more than half of Trump’s supporters initially went along with the lockdowns where many would have resisted under a Democrat president. Another example that come to mind is Charles de Gaulle’s betrayal of the pied-noirs in Algeria despite running on a platform of the opposite.
This post looks at the elusive ideal of life balance, which is a worthy goal even if hard to achieve in practice.
I wanted this week’s post to be about how the economic and immigration issues within America have become metastatic, past the point of no return ($2 trillion deficit, $35 trillion national debt, 20 million illegals let in the past four years alone) and therefore little good will happen regardless of who wins the upcoming U.S. elections, or alternatively a post on Jacques Ellul’s conception of technique. However, something held me back from these and my intuition is taking me in a different direction this week. Instead, this is a possibly cliche post about life balance.
Growing up, a close relative equated the different aspects of life (family, work, children, spirituality, friends, exercise, etc.) to slices of a pie making up a whole. The idea was to try to achieve balance between these aspects. This wasn’t a unique insight to him, of course, and the idea exists in a lot of places on the internet. A balanced life looks something like this:
Or this:
The idea is that each of us needs to integrate these aspects into our lives in order to feel whole. It is not “happiness” that we ultimately want – happiness is an ephemeral feeling, it comes and goes, we aren’t in charge of it – but rather a sense of fulfillment. Fulfillment comes from balancing work, play, friends, family, exercise, spirituality, etc. and if we fail in doing so then it decreases the amount of fulfillment we feel, because we acutely feel the lack of those aspects that are not in alignment. This balancing is a never-ending process; there is no final goal of attainment to achieve. For example, in my close relative’s case he achieved everything he wanted in life – he got married, was in fantastic shape, moved to a remote area of the country, bought a humble but nice house with a bunch of acres, but then his life fell out of whack when he became addicted to painkillers (thanks Sacklers), ultimately leading to a shattering of the life he had created. There’s no guarantee in life of balance; it is a goal to always work toward. For me, my friendship category has taken a big hit in the past number of years – multiple friends died and I lost many more due to ideological differences which became apparent during fraudvirus. I feel the lack of friendships as a missing hole; it affects my fulfillment and was the reason for writing this post on friendship. (The lack of friendship is reflected astrologically on my progressed chart this past year and continues into next year.)
Having balance in life is pretty similar to the famous opening line of Anna Karenina: “All happy families are alike; each unhappy family is unhappy in its own way.” It is also closely related to Aristotle’s idea of the golden mean and other Greek thought. In much the same way, fulfilled lives are similar in that they attain some degree of integration of each aspect of life; each unfulfilled person is unfulfilled in his own way. If you’re struggling with work and can’t pay bills your life is out of alignment; if your relationship with your children is bad your life is out of balance; lack of friends, or poor health, or poor exercise, or lack of spirituality, or no romantic partner, or not having hobbies, etc. Each person’s needs within each category is different; someone people need less friendship than others, they’re more introverted or whatever. But some aspect of each category must be involved in a person’s life to feel fulfilled. One of the sad aspects of this neoliberal feudal society we currently live in with an extinct middle class and only polarities of the ultra-rich and ultra-poor is that it makes it much harder to for people to achieve balance: how can one support a family, or build for retirement, or buy a home if one is unable to have a job that can support such things? I delved into this problem here and here. And how can one find a mate due to the terrible nature of modern dating and marriage in the West?
Let’s give some famous examples. John Paul Getty, one of the richest men in the world, had a terrible life balance: he was focused only on making money (and not spending it), his marriages failed and his relationship with his children was terrible, and his eldest son killed himself due to parental neglect. According to Wikipedia, “In 2013, at age 99, Getty’s fifth wife, Louise, known as Teddy Getty Gaston, published a memoir recounting how Getty had scolded her for spending money too freely in the 1950s on the treatment of their six-year-old son, Timmy, who had become blind from a brain tumor. Timmy died at age 12, and Getty, living in England apart from his family, who were in the U.S., did not attend the funeral.” He only very reluctantly paid the ransom to save the life of his grandson, and he made sure it would be a tax write-off. This story was recently made into the movie All the Money in the World(2017)1:
He was quoted as saying, “I hate to be a failure. I hate and regret the failure of my marriages. I would gladly give all my millions for just one lasting marital success.” Indeed, how fulfilled can one really be if one has horrible family relations?
Another example is that of Carl Jung, who did achieve balance. He is an unusual case given he married the daughter of a wealthy industrialist where, in those days, the husband was in charge of the wife’s finances and this gave him the breathing room he needed to focus on his life’s work, even though he also had a robust and lucrative clinical practice. They had five children together. Jung stated in his autobiography Memories, Dreams, Reflections(1961) that focusing on real life was critical for him to remain grounded, comparing himself to what happened to Nietzsche:
Particularly at this time [during his confrontation with his unconscious], when I was working on the fantasies, I needed a point of support in “this world,” and I may say that my family and my professional work were that to me. It was most essential for me to have a normal life in the real world as a counterpoise to that strange inner world.My family and my profession remained the base to which I could always return, assuring me that I was an actually existing, ordinary person. The unconscious contents could have driven me out of my wits. But my family, and the knowledge: I have a medical diploma from a Swiss university, I must help my patients, I have a wife and five children, I live at 228 Seestrasse in Kusnacht – these were actualities which made demands upon me and proved to me again and again that I really existed, that I was not a blank page whirling about in the winds of the spirit, like Nietzsche. Nietzsche had lost the ground under his feet because he possessed nothing more than the inner world of his thoughts – which incidentally possessed him more than he it. He was uprooted and hovered above the earth, and therefore he succumbed to exaggeration and irreality. For me, such irreality was the quintessence of horror, for I aimed, after all, at this world and this life.No matter how deeply absorbed or how blown about I was, I always knew that everything I was experiencing was ultimately directed at this real life of mine.I meant to meet its obligations and fulfill its meanings. My watchword was: Hic Rhodus, hic salta!
Jung’s family and work responsibilities served as his grounding mechanism as he explored his unconscious and the world of dreams. He mentioned elsewhere in his autobiography the dangers of blindly listening to one’s unconscious, to one’s anima or to one’s impulses; it can lead to total ruination if it is not balanced against one’s thoughts, feelings, and senses. This almost happened to me more than a decade ago when I almost blindly followed my intuition; if I had it would have led to ruin. Luckily I was able to pull back in time.
Famous examples of others with imbalances in certain areas of their lives include Donald Trump (little or no spirituality), Kamala Harris (no children, little or no spirituality), Chris Christie (no exercise, bad diet), Barack Obama (obsessed with himself ala Narcissus), the Clintons’ twisted marriage, Biden’s weirdness with his daughter Ashley and his drug-addicted son Hunter, etc.
Other aspects of the pie of life worth touching on are as follows:
The pie shifts over time depending on one’s stage of life. Work may not be as much of the pie in younger life or in retirement; hobbies may take greater weight in retirement. Family and romance come at certain moment’s of one’s life. Work responsibilities grow with time and the amount of money one needs to live, to support a family, also changes over time. Being able to nimbly pivot to account for the changing requirements of one’s life pie, maintaining flexibility and willingness to grow, is an integral part of life. I’ve seen so many people, inflexible and holding on to their prior beliefs, unable to navigate properly the curveballs that life throws or the changing requirements associated with different phases of life. And maybe that’ll happen to me one day, who knows.
Balance in our life is an ideal, it is hard to achieve in actuality; there is usually one part or another that is out of whack. Personal or life circumstances may prevent one from reaching or keeping this ideal. And maybe one reaches it but then things fall apart, as it did to my close relative. It’s not a moral judgment; sometimes things are out of our hands.
The exact makeup of the life pie will be different for everyone, depending on our personalities, upbringing, and our life purpose. Some will lean more into work, others will lean more into family, others will lean more into friendships.
One cannot feel fulfilled really unless one is giving their maximum effort in whatever they do. Giving one’s full attempt helps anchor one in the moment instead of in the future or the past, it (at least for me) lowers my anxiety – I can only do what I can do, anything beyond that is outside of my control, and it helps me not to have regrets down the road. It also seems to slow down time in a way. Time speeds up as one ages and as technology advances, and it’s important to do what we can to slow down it’s passage.
Generally the busier one is, the easier it becomes to deal with more things in one’s life. This is paradoxical but it is true; if you are used to carrying a heavy burden of responsibility then adding on even more responsibility is not such a big deal. Alternatively, someone used to almost no responsibility to get them to do the slightest thing feels extremely difficult. I’ve noticed this in my own life (the busier I am, the more I can do, and the opposite is true) and in the lives of those around me. This quote by Librarian of Celaeno from here hits on this point:“It is also important to bear in mind as well that Boccaccio, a writer of the highest caliber, had a day job. Like the Gen-Xers to come, he sold out and went into working world, taking up the family mantle of civic responsibility. He went on important missions for Florence and performed a number of government jobs, including welcoming Petrarch to the city, beginning a great and influential friendship. But he was never fully free to pursue his art, a fact true of nearly every artist then and up to the present. Consider that greats like Brunelleschi and Michelangelo were businessmen working on commissions; their time spent managing staff and studios must have far outweighed their time with brush and chisel. Even profoundly prolific writers like C.S. Lewis and J.R.R. Tolkien were employed full-time as professors and had all the demands of family life (weirdly in Lewis’s case) as well. Let this be a lesson to those of us who would be artists if we had more time; we always have time to do the things that are important to us. The habits of industry and discipline mean as much as imagination and creativity.” Ryan Hunneshagen hits on a similar point on his post about the importance of embracing responsibility: “Like any other muscle, the more responsibilities you handle, the more you can pile on. This is where it’s important to ‘rise to the occasion’. The reps where you grow the most strain you the most….I can’t remember the source of the quote, but I heard an anecdote of a young 20-something man walking into a job interview and making such an astute observation that he earned the job on the spot. He told the interviewer,“I’m a young man. And to become the man I need to be to succeed in life, I need to take on more responsibility to expand my capacity for it.” The key to this quote is the young man’s recognition that his capacity is not finite. Each successive responsibility prepares you to fulfill the next one. This is where responsibilities yield compound returns, this is where they build that inertia I mentioned above.”
What I would really hate for myself is ending up an old man, living in poverty, in poor health, no family or children with the older generations having long since passed away and haunting my dreams as ghosts, friends dead or gone, with a world that has moved on and forgotten me, feeling unfulfilled, not having fulfilled my potential and wondering about what could have been. What a nightmare that would be.
Focusing on each aspect of the pie of life to try to achieve a balanced whole is the way to avoid this fate.
I hope this post is helpful toward reflecting as you try to balance your own life interests.
Thanks for reading.
Subscribe: Email delivery remains on Substack for now.
1 Interestingly Kevin Spacey played John Paul Getty, but his role was recast and all of his scenes re-shot at great expense after Spacey’s sex scandal allegations broke into the media.
This post looks at the appeal of Islam through French author Michel Houellebecq’s “Submission.” Houellebecq is a master storyteller and operates on multiple levels: even as he lays out a scenario for an Islamic conquest of France – both how it might happen politically as well as the appeal of Islam to higher-status Western men – he intends it as a warning for the West to wake up and reject it before it’s too late.
“[Houellebecq] is not merely a satirist but – more unusually – a sincere satirist, genuinely saddened by the absurdities of history and the madnesses of mankind. He doesn’t “delight in depicting our follies,” as reviewers like to say; he’s made miserable by them.” – Adam Gopnik in his review of Submission
Sometimes when you read someone new you are able to draw an almost instantaneous impression of the writer: you love him or you hate him.
For example, I wanted to read a biography on Andrew Jackson. He was an interesting and complicated man, known as a populist who managed to smash the Second Bank of the United States after a very difficult Bank War, while at the same time he ethnically cleansed the Native Americans from their traditional lands via the Indian Removal Act. There were a number of detailed biographies on Jackson on Amazon, all with the same 4.5 stars and sounding roughly the same. Stumped, I eventually bought Robert Remini’s The Life of Andrew Jacksonbecause his positions seemed moderate and he was a well-reputed scholar. When I started it I couldn’t get through more than five pages, though – the prose was exaggerated, flowery, way too descriptive, and written in a smug literary style. I quickly gave up. I’ll find another Andrew Jackson book down the road to read. Costin Alamariu’s Bronze Age Mindsetwas another book I couldn’t get through; Costin, just tell me what you believe using clear prose and avoid the Straussian esotericism/Nietzschian stylistic framework secretly justifying your desire to rule the world with your Männerbund of aesthetic homosexual bodybuilders, please.
On the flip side, I finally got around to reading Michel Houellebecq’s Submission (2015). I knew from the first paragraph: this guy gets it. He has a personality and a clear writing style and he knows what he’s doing, and he’s going to be entertaining as hell. And he was. The book was a breeze to read, it had interesting opinions and perspectives and was smart and funny and just cool. I’m going to have to read the rest of his oeuvre.1
The general impression I get from a photo of Houellebecq is one of depressive complexity
Now, I didn’t really want to read Submission. I dragged my feet on buying it and took awhile to read it. I had known Houellebecq was an author with a large following and that this novel had received a lot of controversy, because it detailed the main character’s conversion to Islam in France due to social and financial pressure. The book was meant as a warning about where the country was heading if trends didn’t change. But really, do I really need to hear this message again? I’ve already discussed in depth how Islamic birth and immigration rates in the West are swamping natives, how Africa’s alarmingly high birthdate (still over 6.0) will result in future swarming of Africans even more into Europe, and because demographics is destiny, in only a few generations all of Europe will be Islamic unless something dramatic changes. I saw this up close and personal during my trip to Italy. The topic is depressing because our globohomo overlords ordered the Kalergi plan implemented and there’s nothing anyone is doing about it other than some limp whining online, where even that is increasingly being criminalized in Europe.
So this isn’t a message I need reinforced; I’m already on board. Why did I read it anyway? Inertia, boredom. Show me enchantment, show me what this world has to offer. Show me the literary work of the most famous living French novelist. Show me a novel compared to The Camp of the Saints (1973). Show me the mind of a man who somehow avoids cancellation despite publicly stating that the Great Replacement theory is real, per Politico: “Yet through all the uproar, over his anti-Islam comments or his praise of sex tourism, the author has never faced a major outcry from France’s literary establishment, or anything resembling a ‘cancellation.’” Perhaps depressing realism isn’t a threat to the system the way idealistic active resistance is.
According to Le Monde in 2022 (quoting at length),
Houellebecq is adamant throughout the discussion: France is lost, its decline is inescapable, and the fault lies with a modernity “which generates its own destruction.” The “Great Replacement”, he says, “is not a theory, it is a fact.” There is no conspiracy orchestrated by the elite [NLF: this is wrong], he says, but there is a “transfer” of people from Africa, where the birth rate is high. This supposed overflow spills into Europe because “no one controls anything on immigration”. “What we can already see is that people are arming themselves,” continues the author….According to Houellebecq, there has been no national reaction because France continues to “tow behind the United States” and is content with importing the “woke” movement [NLF: France lost it’s sovereignty after the Second World War if not long before. It does not set it’s own policies]….
“Michel Houellebecq converses throughout the interview without us knowing if he is serious or if he is once again being provocative,” said Jean-Yves Pranchère, a professor of political theory at the Université Libre de Bruxelles and expert in reactionary philosophy. “He presents himself as a thinker who is aware of the decadence of his time and of his own decadence, but who believes in the purgative power of violence, without actually adopting it. He leaves it to others, like the French who are arming themselves, and the Americans….
“Michel Houellebecq advocates a form of right-wing national-populism: The ‘people’ would only comprise nationals, excluding immigrants and foreigners, who would not benefit from social rights or health care, and would be deported,” said Gisèle Sapiro, a sociologist and author of Peut-On Dissocier l’œuvre de l’Auteur? (“Can we dissociate the work of the author?”, 2020). “There is a culturalist view of the world, close to Samuel Huntington’s ‘clash of civilizations,’ which locks populations into a fixed religious identity in order to euphemize the racist presupposition. This echoes the ‘defense of civilization’ that united the conservative right and the far right in the interwar period.”
These alarming remarks are mixed in the Front Populaire interview with statements made in a sneering tone. Houellebecq expresses his “reservations” about the abolition of the death penalty. President Charles de Gaulle should have been “shot” for abandoning the harkis, the Muslim Algerians who fought for the French army in the war of independence. He treats Russia with clemency, unlike Europe and the United States: In Ukraine, Vladimir Putin “had eyes bigger than his stomach,” says the writer. If surrogacy is authorized, Houellebecq threatens to “drag those male or female bitches who use it through the mud.”
Finally, he engages in philosophical and literary concerns, filled with nostalgia for the Catholicism from before the Second Vatican Council. He revels in spreading reactionary sentiments. There is no doubt that this interview will satisfy the parts of society most tempted by the far right. It also fuels the eternal debate on whether or not to make a distinction between art and the artist.
And according to a recent interview with the Financial Times,
I meet Michel Houellebecq at Maison Péret, a busy brasserie serving regional French cuisine in Paris’s 14th arrondissement. He’s bang on time for lunch — which is to say he arrives at 6pm. “I can’t have a meal without drinking wine,” he had explained in a brief email exchange before our encounter. “After that, it’s all over, I can’t stop drinking, so I try to delay the fateful hour.” Impressed by his attempt at moderation, I am happy to agree…
I mention a 2019 essay in which he called Donald Trump a good president and wonder if he will be cheering him on in this US election too. “Yes,” he says. “Trump won’t start wars,” he adds, topping up our glasses.
What if he stops supporting Ukraine? “That’s good,” Houellebecq says. But Ukrainians want to liberate their territory, I say. “What do I care? At the start of the war, I was surprised because I thought Ukraine was Russian,” he says. “It’s better for nature to take its course,” he adds in the spirit of might is right. “People who have humanitarian ideas are a catastrophe. It doesn’t work and motivations are doubtful.”…
Ernaux has said she can’t stand his depiction of women. As a woman, I must admit, it’s tricky to meet Houellebecq. He’s famous for describing us as sex objects with a sell-by date of pretty much 25. I tell him that I find this problematic — and depressing. He nearly jumps up from his chair, looking genuinely upset. “I think it’s dishonest,” he says. “All women, and really all, try to be as desirable as possible. And then when they start losing at the game, they contest the system that they were the first to uphold.”
“Look, I didn’t create the world,” says the 68-year-old, now married to Qianyum Lysis Li, whom he met when she was writing a thesis about his work at the Sorbonne. His wife cooks, he says, an admired female characteristic in his novels, but only dishes that he doesn’t eat. “Some vegetarian things,” he sighs. He sticks to ready-made microwave meals, like many of his characters.
This is great stuff. It’s a little strange that all it took was reading one paragraph of Houellebecq’s book to know he’s a personality with a well considered view of how this world works. And the paragraph was not political; it was rather the simplicity and clarity of the ideas expressed that was the giveaway; shitlibs obfuscate, they revel in needless complexity and unnecessary verbiage. Here’s the first paragraph of the novel:
Through all the years of my sad youth Huysmans remained a companion, a faithful friend; never once did I doubt him, never once was I tempted to drop him or take up anther subject; then, one afternoon in June 2007, after waiting and putting it off as long as I could, even slightly longer than was allowed, I defended my dissertation, “Joris-Karl Huysmans: Out of the Tunnel,” before the jury of the University of Paris IV-Sorbonne. The next morning (or maybe that evening, I don’t remember: I spent the night of my defense alone and very drunk) I realized that part of my life, probably the best part, was behind me.
First I’ll discuss a little of Houellebecq’s background, then go over some of the parts of the novel that stood out to me, segueing into a brief discussion of Islam. As a warning, spoilers will be discussed.
Houellebecq’s background
Houellebecq was born in either 1956 or 1958. He’s not sure exactly which because his birth mother gave him up to his communist grandmother to be raised, but she may have adjusted his birth year earlier so he could attend school first. He grew up in an irreligious household, yet henow attends Mass on a weekly basis. The rituals, the incense, the chants, the music, the atmosphere and the crowd make Houellebecq feel religious as long as he’s in service, but once he walks out of the Church he feels like an atheist again.
He was a good student (although he did not attend university), not bullied despite being an outsider, and focused on women and rock and roll as he grew up. He read poetry in cafes which attracted significant female attention. One of the songs he recommended in an interview was the rock-and-roll song Child in Time by Deep Purple, which I listened to and thought was excellent (it picks up around 4 minutes in):
He read widely and intently starting young, believing the world of literature was more interesting than the world of real life (Ernst Junger felt the same way). He worked as a computer repairman until his novels became successful enough that he could live off their income. His first novel was Whatever (1995) and his follow-up The Elementary Particles (1998) sold hundreds of thousands of copies and propelled him to fame. His novels contain references to real figures (especially literary figures; he loves Baudelaire who I thought was mediocre) and fake ones, blending realistic and less realistic events – when reading Submission I had to look up numerous times whether a person or publication cited was real or not. I enjoyed this sense of imbalance; it kept me on my toes. In a surprise and delight I saw he was interested in Schopenhauer and wrote a book about the effect the man had on him (who I have covered elsewhere). Houellebecq’s books have been quite controversial, dealing with religion, pornography, prostitution, and other aspects of the modern world, even though he retains his high position in literary society. His novel Annihilation, which was just released in English this month, will be his last novel.
Critics claim that his protagonist is the same character in every novel, a man focused on the pleasures of the flesh and who is atomized and socially alienated regardless of the level of success he achieves. Houellebecq denies that primary characters in his novels are autobiographical. Like his protagonists, though, Houellebecq chased after women and was married three times, having one child, and his current Asian wife happened to be a fan of his work and she is 34 years younger than he is. This reflects a trend for many white men on the right choosing Asian wives.
What a photo.
Politically Houellebecq’s is against the European project as a whole. He believes democracy is impossible when a political entity covers too many disparate groups of people. He’s made statements about these publicly, even though he also admits to self-censoring (rarely) in his novels. As he told the New York Times:
I hope [the European Union] will fail. It’s a nightmare. It’s the disappearance of any possibility of democracy. It’s something that I don’t want, that many French people never wanted. It’s bringing together countries that don’t have common interests. European culture existed until the 18th century and the 19th. Now it doesn’t exist anymore. European countries have a national culture and there’s Anglo-Saxon culture. National culture is holding up well, more or less, in France, not at all in Italy and in Spain. [NLF: How is it holding up when the French Muslim birth-rates are so much higher than the natives? Strange comment.]…I’m against representative democracy. It’s a bad system…Europe is worse than anything because there isn’t even the parody of representative democracy. It’s a pure oligarchy…I don’t think that [the European Union is] a nice idea. From the start, I was against it. It’s very important for me. It’s my only political engagement. We didn’t realize it. It was slow, progressive. The French weren’t at all interested in it.
Strangely, Submission was published on January 7, 2015, the date of the Charlie Hebdo magazine shooting. A cartoon of Houellebecq appeared on the cover page of the magazine with the caption “The Predictions of Wizard Houellebecq.” A close friend of his was killed in the attack.
His subsequent novel Sérotonine (2019) was sympathetic both to the Yellow Vest movement as well as to French farmers, who have and continue to be destroyed by globohomo; they barely make ends meet, if that. Having grown up low class, Houellebecq empathizes with the French masses, even though he acknowledges that, as a member of the wealthy class, his interests are to an extent different than theirs.
If we take his birthdate as the 1956 date as the astrology website Astrotheme does, his chart is here. His Sun sign and degree (which forms a person’s core personality), Pisces 6 degree, is as follows (Janduz version). It seems accurate:
Hedonistic, pleasant, and hospitable character. One is a bon viveur endowed with an insatiable appetite for spiritual and intellectual food, as well as for the pleasures of the table. Success and fame can be achieved in all occupations related to seafood catering or cannery, or fishing. Painting and literature, especially when related to the water element, are also favoured, as for instance a painting featuring sea or lake landscapes, the publishing of a cook book or a culinary column, etc. Indeed, this degree is under the influence of two constellations, Eridan and Horlogium. The former underlines the importance of the sea, and the latter indicates great intellectual abilities.
Below are two interviews in French with English subtitles if you want to get a sense of the man. These were the only two available on Youtube; the rest were all in French with no subtitles.
I was impressed, even though he uses a lot of “ums” and delays as he thinks through his answers. You can see the gears in his brain turn as he considers each question. Furthermore, he appears to be a highly individuated person, unlike the masses of standardized people in the West. There used to be more creative types like him even in America in prior decades, but they have all disappeared in an era of capeshit, autotune, and self-brand maximization. Watching such a person is a breath of fresh air.
I was having a bit of a hard time figuring out Houellebecq’s clique.2 I would describe him as a high or ascended nerd/loser hybrid. Listening to him speak and watching him move, he holds your attention, and his gaze is inward; his focus is on his internal process, which is a requirement – especially for losers – to ascend within one’s clique.
Submission
The brief overview of the story is as follows: Francois is a middle-aged lecturer at the Sorbonne and an expert on the decadent author J.K. Huysmans. He has sex with his students, trading them in every year (which reads strangely now after the 2017 Me Too hysteria, although France has always been more open sexually than the hypocritically prudish Americans). He has feelings for a Jewish woman named Myriam who he’s had an on-off relationship with for a long time. But mostly, he is bored and depressed, listless. He tries to reconnect with his religious roots but fails. He also tries to reconnect with ex-girlfriends, but they’re even more blown out than he is:
As for the present, it was clear that Aurelie had never managed to form a long-term relationship, that casual sex filled her with growing disgust, that her personal life was headed for complete and utter disaster. There were various signs that she’d tried to settle down, at least once, and had never recovered from her failure. The sourness and bitterness with which she talked about her male colleagues (in the end we’d been reduced to discussing her professional life…made it painfully clear that she had been through the wringer. Even so, I was surprised when, just as she was about to get out of the taxi, she invited me up “for a nightcap.” She’s really hit rock bottom, I thought. From the moment the elevator doors shut, I knew nothing was going to happen….she could no longer – she could never again – be considered an object of desire….
My meal with Sandra followed a similar pattern….She was sad, very sad, and I knew her sorrow would overwhelm her in the end; like Aurelie, she was nothing but a bird in an oil slick….In one or two years she would give up any last matrimonial ambitions, her imperfectly extinguished sensuality would lead her to seek out the company of young men, she would become what we used to call a cougar, and no doubt she’d go on this way for several years, ten at the most, before the sagging of her flesh became prohibitive and condemned her to a lasting solitude.
Even though he is describing single, childless Western women as blown out mentally and spiritually, the married women are barely any better:
I thought about Annelise’s [the wife of his friend] life – and the life of every Western woman. In the morning she probably blow-dried her hair, then she thought about what to wear, as befitted her professional status, whether “stylish” or “sexy,” most likely “stylish” in her face. Either way, it was a complex calculation, and it must have taken her awhile to get ready before dropping the kids off at day care, then she spent the day e-mailing, on the phone, in various meetings, and once she got home, around nine, exhausted ([her husband] was the one who picked the kids up, who made them dinner – he had the hours of a civil servant), she’d collapse, get into a sweatshirt and yoga pants, and that’s how she’d greet her lord and master, and some part of him must have known – had to have known – that he was fucked, and some part of her must have known that she was fucked, and that things wouldn’t get better over the years. The children would get bigger, the demands at work would increase, as if automatically, not to mention the sagging of the flesh.
Compare this to the novel’s Muslims, where women go outside in burqa or niqab, not showing open flesh to strangers, not wearing makeup to look pretty for them or flirting with strange men, and therefore they express their sexuality at home where it is otherwise bottled up. They don’t work, they get married young – a rich man could have up to four wives – and they were devoted and submissive, aiming to please.
A night and day difference.
Anyway, Francois has sex with some whores and still feels nothing. He wonders if he should kill himself, drowning in the nihilistic, empty West. Meanwhile, there are national elections ongoing and the leftists, the right-wing Nationalist Front, and the Islamist Muslim Brotherhood split the vote. The Muslim Brotherhood (correctly) does not care about the normal issues that the other political parties cared about:
“The Muslim Brotherhood is an unusual party, you know. Many of the usual political issues simply don’t matter to them. To start with, the economy is not their main concern. What they care about is birthrate and education.To them it’s simple – whichever segment of the population has the highest birthrate, and does the best job of transmitting it’s values, wins. If you control the children, you control the future. So the one area in which they absolutely insist on having their way is the education of children.”
In the ensuing run-off, the leftists decide to ally with the Muslims – with the Muslims in the lead role – in order to defeat the right. This feels exactly how it would happen, and in subsequent years the National Front has indeed lost in run-off elections to leftist/Islamist alliances (but not to the point the Islamists come to power). The ascendant Islamists then fire the university professors unless they convert to Islam; Saudi Arabia pours huge amounts of money to incentivize professors to convert in return for tripled or better salaries. Francois is fired, but the administration (now Islamic) tries to convince him to convert and come back:
In an article for Oumma, Rediger [the head administrator] raised the question whether Islam had been chosen for world domination. In the end he answered yes. He hardly bothered with Western societies, since to him they seemed so obviously doomed (liberal individualism triumphed as long as it undermined intermediate structure such as nations, corporations, castes, but when it attacked that ultimate social structure, the family, and thus the birthrate, it signed its own death warrant; Muslim dominance was a foregone conclusion [NLF: Yet Islamic birthrates are falling, too, and Muslims are becoming more secular overall; just not nearly at the rate of collapse of Christians]….
In another article, Rediger made a case for highly unequal wealth distribution. Although an authentic Muslim society would have to abolish actual destitution (alms-giving was one of the Five Pillars of Wisdom), it should also maintain a wide gap between the masses, who would live in self-respecting poverty, and a tiny minority of individuals so fantastically rich that they could throw away vast, insane sums, thus assuring the survival of luxury and the arts. This aristocratic position came directly from Nietzsche; deep down, Rediger had remained remarkably faithful to the thinkers of his youth….
[Rediger] called it tragic that [the traditional right-wing nativists]’s irrational hostility to Islam should blind them to the obvious: on every question that really mattered, the nativists and the Muslims were in perfect agreement. When it came to rejecting atheism and humanism, or the necessary submission of women, or the return of patriarchy, they were fighting exactly the same fight. And today this fight, to establish a new organic phase of civilization, could no longer be waged in the name of Christianity….Thanks to the simpering seductions and the lewd enticements of the progressives, the Church had lost its ability to oppose moral decadence, to renounce homosexual marriage, abortion rights, and women in the workplace. The facts were plain: Europe had reached a point of such putrid decomposition that it could no longer save itself, any more than fifth-century Rome could have done….
He, Rediger, was the first to admit the greatness of medieval Christendom, whose artistic achievements would live forever in human memory; but little by little it had given way, it had been forced to compromise with rationalism, it had renounced its temporal powers, and so had sealed its own doom – and why? In the end it was a mystery; God had ordained it so.
Despondent and depressed, barely alive in the secular, materialist, blown-out West, after Myriam flees to Israel Francois ultimately converts to Islam and looks forward to wealth, prestige, and possibly multiple Muslim wives. The end.
Conclusions
Those who achieve higher level of spiritual growth blend opposing ideas in what is called the coincidentia oppositorum. God, being infinite, is the infinite synthesis of opposing ideas; by understanding and combining them, one becomes able to see from a higher plane. This is a lifelong process with no end goal. The nice thing about Houllebecq is that he understands this, either implicitly or explicitly; in Submission he lays out a pretty decent case for Islam, even though in actuality he opposes it’s takeover and wants the novel to be seen as a warning for the French to wake up before it’s too late. He wants to believe in a Catholic God and he attends Church, even though he doesn’t believe. Recognizing and comprising these opposite energies and working to synthesize them is what gives a person depth.
Basically, Islam solves a lot of the problems of the West: it offers patriarchy, it offers a larger family life, it offers stability with women staying at home and tending to children and cooking (as long as one is rich), it is somewhat resistant to shitliberalism. I think of Cat Stevens who converted to Islam from his prior liberal background and ended up with a larger family, shrugging off the decadence of the West after a near-death experience. Here he is with his family, what a respectable result:
However, Islam is not a panacea; everything in this world is a series of trade-offs. The problems with Islam include the following:
It eviscerates the traditional Western middle class, leaving the society with the ultra rich and masses of poor; another form of neo-feudalism. Perhaps this part of the reason why globohomo seems to like it a lot more than Christianity – given they control Islam’s rulers, perhaps they think can use Islam to formally justify their own rule down the road. An Islamic society is a society with very little social mobility.
Lower status men are totally screwed, even worse than in modern Western society. It’s a simple math problem: if a man can have up to four wives in Islam and males and females are each roughly 50% of the population, that means that under this system there are a lot of men who simply cannot get married or have children, period. (Yes, we already experience this with hypergamy in the West causing the incel phenomenon as previously discussed via ’s debut novel here, but at least the relatively greater social mobility gives incels a chance to ascend from their situation.)
Women who like to work in business or corporate jobs are screwed. While I think most women would likely find traditional gender roles refreshing, there are some women who would feel frustrated and unfulfilled being at home running the household and raising children.
Due to it’s nature Islam also strangles technological advancements over time, which is both a bad thing (no more exploration of the stars) and a good thing (technological advancements are inherently destabilizing to society).
Furthermore, and this is both a good and a bad thing, Islam is fundamentally much more pessimistic about human nature than Christianity is: Jesus gave men a choice to choose him or not to, optimistic that at least some would; on the contrary, a religion of submission requires one to abide by it’s dictates or else be stoned, imprisoned or murdered – humanity as sheep, behave or be slaughtered. Even though Islam is correct about most of humanity – they need an exoteric Daddy God telling them what to do so they don’t have the weight of responsibility on their shoulders, a topic covered so well in Dostoevsky’s Grand Inquisitor– the small minority of those who choose a higher calling may be worth the rest – who knows? Well, as least they would still have Sufism ala Rene Guenon.
Due to Islam’s ambitions as a world-spanning religion which de-emphasizes non-religious differences, much like Catholicism, those who hope to emphasize enclaves based on ethnicity, race, intelligence, similar cultures etc. will be disappointed.
Regarding this last point, as the arrogant pro-Chinese Spandrell argues, Islam is a imperfect solution to the problems plaguing the West but it is still a potential solution (well, maybe, given our central bank overlords control it as well). Spandrell writes:
You have probably guessed where I’m going. I won’t repeat myself. Europe now is in decline and all Europeans of good faith are trying to find a solution. We are being invaded by Islam, and nobody likes it. But the problem we have is not Islam. Is not Islamism. As bad as it is; which is horrible indeed. But ideas come and go. What doesn’t come and go is the people. The gene pool. The problem we have is not Islam, it’s foreigners. Arabs, South Asians, Africans, etc.. Most happen to be Muslim, many are not. The problem is not their ideas, as bad as they are. The problem is HBD. They’re dumb. They’re impulsive. They have different genes, going back tens of thousands of years.
Even if we could fix their culture, their family structure, the clannishness; which we can’t. It still wouldn’t matter. You could convert them all to Lefebvrism tomorrow and they would still destroy European civilization, and physically replace European people, who are busy watching football, binge drinking and wasting their youth studying socialist history.
But you can’t say that. One can’t object to the immigration of foreigners into Europe and North America on genetic grounds. I can’t object to Arabs being dumb; because there’s plenty of Europeans who are just as dumb, and they don’t appreciate that we discuss population policy in terms of intelligence or other personality traits. Any rational, utilitarian discussion of population policy is a complete dead end because there is no workable Schelling point for proposing eugenics in a democratic society. It benefits no one. For one, we don’t know that much about the genetics of behavior. Second, meritocracy is an excellent Schelling point. It’s completely fallacious, but it works. The elite can justify their privilege because they have earned it, they have “merit”, not just genetic luck. And the dumb can consolate themselves that there’s nothing physically wrong with them; it’s just tough luck, which could change any day. All human societies, every single one, believe that human behavior and performance depends on proper education. Of course they do.
And so we are left without sellable arguments against the invasion of Europe by fertile foreigners with a set of innate traits which make modern civilization impossible. We are left without arguments against Europe developing the demographic profile of Sudan, which implies the living standards of Sudan. So if we can’t use this argument, what can we do? We can adopt a new religion. It doesn’t matter which. As long as it ensures the physical reproduction of European peoples. As of now, Islam is a fix, if a bad fix. I hope we find a different one.
I have a reputation as a gloomy pessimist, but there’s a different way of looking at this. Think of this post as a way of prodding you into action. We better come up with something damn fast, because there are only two alternatives. White Islam, or the physical disappearance of the European peoples.
So to sum up, Islam is good at solving certain extremely nasty issue plaguing the West (nihilism, attacks on family formation) but if victorious it would still result in neo-feudalism, low status men would be screwed, say goodbye to technological progress and you’ll still be surrounded by low IQ foreigners with extremely different thoughts and attitudes.
Regardless, due to demographic and immigration trends, unless the West wakes up with something new within the next generation or two, Europe will likely belong to Islam even if we don’t like it – even though, ultimately, Islam itself may be undergoing the same secularization and decreased fertility processes plaguing the West.3
Thanks for reading.
Subscribe: Email delivery remains on Substack for now.
1 After reading Submission I read Whatever (1994), Houellebecq’s debut novel, discussed here and The Elementary Particles (2000), discussed here.
2 As I’ve discussed previously in the second half of this post (under the section “Clique Theory”), modern America has a rigid but unstated and informal caste system, as rigid as the Indian caste system if not more so, based on one’s phenotype. The idea is juvenile – it was created by a group of law students at the height of the 2008 financial crash where they could not secure jobs through OCI (“On Campus Interviews”) and they came up with system to explain why they were unable to secure jobs even though others were able to do so. The actual theory, which is quite long but entertaining, can be found here. The cliques are: Jock, Prep, Nerd, Scumbag, and Loser (Loser is a catch-all term for everyone who is not clearly in one of the other cliques). Women are their own clique as are Jews, Indians, and perhaps other ethnic groups; the clique system is meant to apply to whites, although other groups have sub-cliques within their ethnic cliques. Clique is immutable except one may ascend or descend within one’s own clique between a low, average, high and ascended form. Trying to change one’s lane (i.e. a jock trying to learn to code or a nerd who does sports) will bring ruination. Some people are comprised of two cliques (i.e. a Scumbag/Nerd hybrid) but no one has more than two. Anyone who spends a lot of time internet posting is at minimum half loser clique.
Because this is an American system, clique is less salient in other countries and is less salient the further back in history one goes; this is because clique really solidified and stratified in the post-World War 2 era. Because the U.S. exports its culture, the clique system has to a much lesser extent impacted the countries over which it rules (including Europe).
3 If the below 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:
I’ve had the pleasure of interacting with author and professor Guido Preparata in a series of back-and-forth correspondences on the structure of the modern world, how information can be ascertained in this age, 9/11, Malthus, Ernst Jünger, transgenderism, and many other topics. I previously covered his worldview-changing Conjuring Hitlerhere (Amazon link to the book is here, or here for the newest edition) and his excellent Empire and Churchhere (Amazon link here). When it comes to geopolitical realities Preparata is top level. The following is an edited version of parts of our correspondences for clarity and (relative) brevity.
Guido Preparata
The power of the cabal
NLF: Another Substack author, L.P. Koch, covered Conjuring Hitler, which you might enjoy here.
GP: Interesting commentary.
The power of the so-called cabals, this writer says, is limited so these grand conspiracies cannot take place; rather, he seeks deeper explanation in (Satanic) “possession” and the forces seething in the “Urgrund”: truly, it is all one and the same. The (techno-fascist) power of the incumbent cabals is in fact total, and in their game of (praternatural) conjuration, they do indeed evoke forces “against time” (to use Savitri Devi’s expression), which they see fit to crush, still with the ease that befits exclusive circles with virtually unlimited power.
NLF: I can see it all being “all one and the same” with respect to actions within the material realm, but it seems like it would have spiritual and religious relevance if there are over-arching entities such as a malevolent Demiurge in charge of material reality. Because every energy has an opposite, that would suggest that a Godly influence — perhaps just in the spiritual realm — does indeed exist. What are your thoughts on this? And given that everyone needs to find hope somewhere — being perpetually blackpilled is a route to madness — where do you find hope?
GP: As for the existence of God, vis-a`-vis the incumbency of a bad Demiurge, it seems that God is on holiday and that Mephisto is indeed in charge (and why that is is, clearly, a mystery: it’s also the gist of my short gloss and latest reflection Self-righteous Actors on Satan’s Stage). Where that leaves us, I am not sure… But it is certainly disquieting and demands of us an effort of imagination as to the eventual organization of dissidence, if we’ve ever had a chance at all.
You say “hope”; yes, I know, it’s easy to fall prey to the most profound state of despair and sensation of total powerlessness. That is when you have realized that you are living in a cage, in an ant-heap and that the grip (psychological and economic) of the parasitical caste is so complete that you do not see any way out. A great deal of us have reached that state (of reasoned despair); and we are seeking a way out. The ways of evading (or attempting to) require a separate discussion.
NLF: Deeper than the level of the total control of the parasitical class, the very nature of life within material reality requires predation on other consciousness/life in order to survive. Even a plant seeks to grow/utilize its will to live/power, not to mention animals (and the human body is well attuned to meat, easily surviving on an all meat diet…). This concept is nightmarish for those with internalized values of the Golden Rule and it is hard to see how a God of light and justice would have put it into place. Schopenhauer wrote,
“As a reliable compass for orienting yourself in life nothing is more useful than to accustom yourself to regarding this world as a place of atonement, a sort of penal colony. When you have done this you will order your expectations of life according to the nature of things and no longer regard the calamities, sufferings, torments, and miseries of life as something irregular and not to be expected but will find them entirely in order, well knowing that each of us is here being punished for his existence and each in his own particular way.”
You mentioned that you expected Conjuring Hitler to have a much bigger effect than it had when it came out, and that the number of actual dissidents is tiny. Why do you think this is? I notice the same thing, tiny numbers of dissidents.
GP: When I was young(er) I held this infantile imbecile view that the world is divided, 50/50 into good and bad folk, and that good folk vote on the Left.
Then you age and you realize that it’s more like a bell curve: a tail of faceless & powerless good souls that count for and can do nothing at one end, a tail of demoniacal and established controllers that nobody can see at the other, and the middle class of the bienpensants, a mass of cowering, craven sheep in the middling bulge. With such a set-up, what you could you possibly expect?
I did not know this when I wrote the book.
NLF: I like your analogy of humanity to a slave-making ant colony (and made a post about it here), but humanity only became this way 10,000 years ago during the neolithic agricultural revolution when it started having excess production, right? So there was some interaction between humanity as subsistence-level egalitarian hunter-gatherers that combined with technology to produce this result.
GP: I don’t know; possibly by uniting the slave-making hypothesis with the hunter’s archetype one could get a good model of the human type we’re dealing with. What is certain is that “science” [esp. “social science”] and so-called “literature” is doing its very best to confuse, muddle, and blur the issue, the social issue for obvious reasons: you must be made to think along tracks that lead away from the truth of parasitism as fast and effectively as possible. Which makes one realize that 90% of what he’s read and “learned” is false and worse than useless trash. A dismaying yet exciting realization at the same time. It is a sign we have license to torch everything, so as to rebuild, hopefully, one day; but what will happen in between? Will we just sit and die out like worms, or react somehow? And if we do, what form will it take? And how far are we willing to go? By now, you easily see why those numbers are so tiny…The rebellious prospect becomes scary. The middle class bienpensant, we know it, has too much to lose. And yet the best of that stratum also recalcitrate, and that is why not few of them end up insane.
NLF: It seems to win in the material world one needs to put the pursuit of power above all else, but the pursuit of power comes with it the corruption of the soul via lies, evil, and destruction. But if you don’t try to win in the material world you get trampled on, a victim or pawn to these forces. As Julian Assange said, “I think first it’s necessary to have an understanding that one is either a participant in history or a victim of it, and that there is no other option. It is actually not possible to remove oneself from history, because of the nature of economic…and intellectual interaction. Hence, it is not possible to break oneself off…” This is a good sentiment, yet Assange rotted in prison, tortured and forgotten, for a very long time. Hence, the Demiurge as the creator of this imperfect reality…
GP: I don’t know; I think 99.99% of us are already removed from history, or rather, debarred from it since birth; that’s the whole idea; we leave no trace anyway; only the parasites and their vulgar chronicles do, with some exceptions that shine through (Bach’s music?). And Assange remains a mystery to me.
NLF: History is written by the “winners” and the winners seem to be those with poor morals and high aggression levels. I investigated the Assange question previously…
Another question I had was: you mentioned elsewhere that the globalist founding fathers of the Trilateral Commission possibly forced out Nixon, but also focus on America’s desire for hegemony – to what extent do you see America’s actions as being directed by higher powers? I saw a great org chart for our current system as follows:
GP: Cool chart. Some argue these supranational cabals that call the shots; I do not believe that in the least. All the more so as the system itself does everything possible to encourage such conspiratorial views. It’s along the same lines of “the Banks control the world,” which claim I think is utter nonsense. They are merely auxiliaries; and the various Bill Gateses, Soroses, etc are just Bond villains, cutouts, happy to lend their face to the role.
NLF: I agree with you that the level of Think Tanks and Global Representative Groups, as well as the Policy Distributors (as referenced on the above graph), as well as the major banks, have been made into cartoon villains for the public. Soros, Gates, the WEF, etc. are not the source of the problem. I do see the world’s central banks though as being owned, shielded and hidden, by a very small number of families (Rothschilds, Warburgs, Milners, Rockefellers etc) that coordinate with each other, and they basically act as a mafia to crush any and all dissent. Do you see it differently?
GP: Yes a little differently to the extent that this cabal, which is real, in my view and despite its wealth, tenacity, and phenomenal resourcefulness, does not have the vision and the functional capability to govern the hive as a whole (and today that means the world): that is the role of rulers, governors and dynasts, who indeed recognize the importance of these auxiliaries and thereby delegate, subcontract to the bankers a crucial department (the economic/financial one) of the overall management program. Highly complex operation and highly complex organization but the seat of command remains where it always has been with the scepter of legitimacy held by the King, however the latter may appear on the stage.
On Trump
NLF: Do you view globohomo’s machinations against Trump such as the recent assassination attempts as one of our elites attempting to conjure a so-called “redneck rebellion” “against time” in order to then crush it and bring forth the next phase of their agenda? I don’t see Trump as posing a threat to the system, but he represents as a symbol the very people our elites want to destroy.
GP: As for Trump, you know, everybody knows that he is just a pawn placed where he is to gauge how deep, wide, and problematic could potentially be the (rage and disillusion of the) domestic cohort of “lesser whites” sacrificed (over the last 30 years) by the hiring and propagandistic exigencies of the new, burgeoning world State, which is presently assuming the traits of Orwell’s “Oceania” in 1984. That is evident. The Trump operation has flushed out this potential “opposition” (as a factor of eventual disturbance on the home front) and shown that this cohort is, yes, fairly diffuse but not dangerous in the least; and this condition has been evident since the aftermath of 9/11: it was a shocker to me to witness at the time, in the face of this manifest, brazen coup d’état not so much that so-called “all-American heroes” (the ocean of right-wing, gun-toting machos) turned out to be a miserable pack of wusses, but that there never were “all-American heroes” to begin with. The true American resistance has to begin now: the human material, the lucidity, the courage, and the minds for that are certainly there, but (lurking) in very different places form those one would conventionally imagine.
The Clinton’s at Trump’s wedding to Melania
On Peter Thiel
NLF: [I sent GP my post about humanity as a slave making ant colony and asked for his comment.]
GP: Regarding your post, among other things, I did not know about the Thiel “mansion.”
Weird thing this Thiel phenomenon: I’ve read one of his books. Everything about him is profoundly inane, downright irrelevant; like his remarks on Diversity (Only heard part of the podcast); I cannot find a single spark in him about anything. He and Musk, I mean, they’re Paypal: certainly a business achievement –but one that from the point of view of architecture & design, or even organization is bland at best (Ebay is far more genial, in comparison). And he is huge, some kind of prophet.
NLF: I read Thiel’s From Zero to One and his 2007 article on Leo Strauss. If you read his leaked emails to Mark Zuckerberg they’re ridiculously sycophantic – but I actually had an important takeaway from From Zero to One. In it Thiel argues that companies always seek to achieve monopoly status because then they can maximize their profits; in a system of pure competition with undifferentiated products profits decline to zero. So the goal of any company is to achieve monopoly. If one takes this as true (and I think it is), then only a strong ruler can serve as a check on corporate domination, like we currently see in China to an extent with their crushing of Alibaba’s CEO Jack Ma when he got uppity…(This is part of why I think anarchism just doesn’t work as a system).
GP: He writes there that Zuckerberg is “the single person who gives voice to the hopes and fears and the unique experiences of this generation, at least in the USA.”
“Hopes & Fears”…And what would those be? I wonder, who are the millennials anyway and why do they matter? They seem wholly unsubstantial and insignificant shitheads, little encrustations in the bigger layers formed by their Elders, who remain solidly in command, I think. I don’t know, one goes through all this stuff, this verbiage, and there is absolutely nothing there. I mean, Facebook is in itself a completely nothing thing. It acquired relevance because it happened to afford the System a new marketing platform for targeting customers with more precision, right?
And also as a way of spying on them and corral them somehow — right? Not sure. But I never got this security/privacy thing (which is re-emerging with this Telegram scandal): I am with those who say “no, problem, spy away: I have nothing to hide: you want to see what I watch and what I buy, go ahead, I don’t care–Who would want to spend time prying at the little insignificant crap I do” –right?
As for spying on politicians, I don’t buy it either. As if they needed Facebook or email for that…Right?
The goal to monopolize one’s market is pretty straightforward: that is the essence of business; we didn’t need this airhead of Thiel to tell us that.
NLF: My understanding is that Facebook came online the very day that DARPA shut down their LifeLog program, which was basically the same program and which suggests the commonly understood story of how Facebook came about isn’t accurate. This post goes into some of the details. The purpose was to map everyone’s social networks and yes, to spy on people. The concern I have with the spying (which is quite intrusive as proven by Snowden’s Total Information Awareness leaks) is that I think our elites plan to use a woke AI to scan everyone’s electronic activity (including phones, internet, email etc) and assign social credit scores. The WEF admits this is their plan by 2030. People with bad social credit scores will be locked out of life including access to bank accounts etc. In this sophisticated, high tech manner, people will be increasingly programmed in certain negative ways which they must accept if they want to continue to participate in society. I see our overlords having multi-decade or much longer plans, and Facebook was just one of the earlier steps in this direction (crypto and AI were/are the other necessary components).
On Malthus
NLF: You expressed contempt for Malthus’s overpopulation arguments in one of the Youtube videos. Do you delve into why you don’t like those arguments anywhere? (I previously took the pro-neomalthusian position).
GP: It is the standard oligarchic intimation whereby poverty and exploitation are blamed on “Nature.” In our human version of the slave-making queens’ “chemical communication” (the gasses they emit when attacking a nest to sow chaos among the defensive lines), the suggestions are indeed very few: they’re all about labor and procreation. And Malthus, who plagiarized the main idea from a Venetian economist, Ortes, focused precisely on these variables. Not by chance that he was also a paid consultant of the East India company, the great corporate techno-structural mother.
NLF: It does make sense that Malthusian arguments are used by the elites in order to affect consumption by the masses for their own ends. My question though is more basic: do you think there are limits to worldwide consumption based on the availability of natural resources? When I look at the rates (or rather, the reported rates) of natural resource consumption, rates of species die-offs and loss of biodiversity, etc, it doesn’t look very long-term sustainable. It makes intuitive sense to me that on a planet of limited natural resources and parabolically expanding human population based essentially on oil that there are some inbuilt natural limits and we will hit them sooner or later, unless one believes in the infinite adaptability of human ingenuity. For example, it is estimated that no more than 3.7 billion people could be fed without just one synthetic nitrogen fertilizer input (derived from natural gas) boosting agricultural output. I particularly enjoyed this post.
GP: Yes, I understand those concerns and yes, I agree that in the name of green conservation, the fascists will want to turn the screws entirely on us.
In that sense, these guys at the top and their screenwriters are extremely uninhibited with changing narratives and “ism” when it suits them, machos one day anti-macho the next, Malthusians at heart and fair weather anti-Malthusians rolled into into one: I suppose the message the Earth is sending us is that she is indeed bountiful but there is an ideal stable limit we should strive for planet-wise in terms of family units and standard of consumption. Now it is all helter-skelter, and the parasites, who are fully responsible for the immense waste, pollution, and screaming disparities juggle the argument form both ends as they see fit.
NLF: This is a good point, it seems like the parasites can push against rational boundaries at any angle and twist them entirely out of proportion, much like we are seeing with egalitarianism within the West today, pushed far past sane and rational limits, twisted into a pretzel…It reminds me what Eustace Mullins wrote where he argued our financial overlords
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.
On Ernst Jünger
GP: Juenger wrote something very obscure and intriguing on capital punishment in Maxima Minima, his 1964 commentary on Der Arbeiter (the Worker).
See if you can crack this one. Here’s the English translation [from the original German]:
“Being able to see blood” characterizes the butchers. That is their magical advantage, which, when they get their chance, paralyses even a thousandfold majority as if they were presenting the head of the Gorgon.
Here lies one of the secrets of capital punishment: the righteous man shows that he will not flinch. This is a message that penetrates into the darkest recesses of penetrates. It is not a question of “measure for measure”, but of homeopathic laws apply: the blood of one murderer can prophylactically outweigh the blood of a hundred thousand innocent people prophylactically. When the ancients said: “The blood must not stain the soil” – it was out of fear that murder could spread like an epidemic.
The relationship is also evident in the fact that pronounced Cainite regimes abolish the death penalty. It is opposed to murder less in terms of cause and effect effect than in its innermost principle. The murderer, where he comes to power, wants to kill at will; the law should not cut him off. The distinction of guilt and innocence is unimportant to him.
The attentat (attempt on s.o.’s life], on the other hand, remains unlawful; it has the opposite effect. It intensifies the suffering like a vaccine applied during the crisis.
NLF: The passage seems to contain two arguments if I am reading it correctly (please correct me if I am not): (1) if you let a (mass) murderer into power he will ignore the law to fulfill his murderous impulses (“The law should not cut him off. The distinction of guilt and innocence is unimportant to him.”), and (2) the government is the teacher of values and if the government commits murder, then the population will as well. For point #2 it reminds me of Brandeis’s dissent in Olmstead v. United States where he wrote, “Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example….If the government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. To declare that in the administration of the criminal law the end justifies the means – to declare that the government may commit crimes in order to secure the conviction of a private criminal – would bring terrible retribution.” Perhaps there is an argument here to counteract the argument the deterrence argument for capital punishment (I am inclined toward the deterrence argument myself).
For #1, though, does that mean that all capital punishment is wrong if a would-be mass murderer would want to abuse it? That doesn’t seem a very strong argument; that argument seems to be more for keeping mass murderers out of positions of power. Can one be for capital punishment if one does care about guilt and innocence, i.e. applied in a measured capacity?
What comes to mind is the character of Pyotr Stolypin, who I covered here. Stolypin is known for his “Stolypin farms” which Lenin later wrote was the only true threat to communism in Russia because it offered the chance of material prosperity for the middle class. Stolypin was later assassinated just as it was becoming successful. However, before that happened he was also tasked with hunting down and killing anarchists who were planting bombs, undermining the Tsarist regime and murdering lots of innocent people in the process. As Solzhenitsyn explained:
That was the beginning of the notorious Stolypin terror – a phrase so persistently foisted on the Russian language and the Russian mind (abroad it was worse still!) that even now the image of a black era of cruel excesses is seared onto our eyeballs. Yet all the terror amounted to was the introduction of field courts-martial (which operated for eight months) to deal with especially serious (not all) cases of looting, murder, and attacks on the police, on the civil authorities, and on peaceful citizens, so as to bring trial and sentence closer to the time and place of the time. (Urged to hold terrorists already under arrest hostage for the actions of others not yet captured, Stolypin of course rejected the idea.) Dissemination of subversive ideas in the army (previously practically unimpeded) was made a criminal offense. So was praise of terrorism (in which Duma deputies, the press, and indeed the general public had hitherto indulged unhindered). Bomb throwers were now subject to the death penalty, but those caught making bombs were not treated as actual murderers. Meetings organized by political parties and societies, provided they were not in public places and there were no outsiders present, or only outsiders belonging to the educated classes, did not require administrative supervision. These draconian measures aroused the unanimous wrath of educated Russian society. There was a spate of newspaper articles, speeches, and letters (one from Lev Tolstoy) arguing that no one should ever dare to execute anyone, not even the most brutal of murderers, that field courts-martial could do nothing toward the moral rejuvenation of society (as though that was what terror was doing) but could only further brutalize it (something which terror did still more effectively)….Anyone who did not loudly approve of revolutionary terror was regarded by Russian society as a hangman himself. Yet, whether Stolypin was brutalizing Russia or not, terrorism decline from the moment the field courts-martial was introduced.”
In other words, Stolypin applied capital punishment but he refused to do it on a collective basis, even though there were calls for him to do so. The results were a marked decrease in terrorism. Was he wrong to do so? To what extent do we need to engage with results in the real world? Is total withdraw and pacifism the way, or there is a middle ground balancing the spiritual and the temporal? Setting the “right example” doesn’t usually work as we can see with what happened to the Cathars…
GP: The piece by Juenger has put me in a spin:
First of all, most (foreign) books translate Schlachter as “butcher,” but he means Executioner (the word’s second acceptation)– and I have been brooding for some time on the significance and existential functionalism of this character, which is essential in my view. And Juenger is right again to focus on him as he dwells on the transition from the sovereign, pre-modern ways of the blood (in war, torture, and justice) to the aseptic mass-murdering ethos of modernity — passo obbligato. But there is something missing, something is missed in this crucial observation. Cannot quite put my finger on it yet~
For a moment, I even wondered if by der Gerechte he provocatively meant the criminal himself.
But if Der Gerechte is the sovereign, then it means that if this sovereign by means of his castigating extension, the executioner, will not shrink back from striking the culprit [i.e., to prevent holocausts from spreading by way of imitative frenzy –and this point, too, would require an essay in itself, because that would nullify the premises by making monsters of all humans, which is a good starting hypothesis: no such thing as a culprit]; if the king will not hesitate to scourge the criminal, this means that pre-modern Systems, despite the carnage on which they throve, were more righteous than our “Cainite” epoch, in whose regimes the death penalty has been virtually abolished because psychopaths have come to enthrone themselves kings and as a result (one of many), the justice apparatus has been transformed into a blind machine that mows victims by decimation and indiscriminately (criminals and average Joes alike, both being, as moderns, equally culpable, equally useless, equally monstrous), without, however, no longer allowing society to shed blood ritually (as in the old days)–blood, which nonetheless is still “offered” yet in a more haphazard fashion via the channels of crime (jn times of peace) or terrorism (in times of civil strife), and “the attentat” (his final segment) issues from this second avenue.
I don’t know– still turning it in my head…
On Phantasmagoria
NLF: I finished your book Phantasmagoria [which argued that the real purpose of the invasion of Afghanistan was to secure the worldwide heroin trade] and enjoyed it. As with your other works, you have a poetic eloquence which is a pleasure to read, and the length made it a shorter, easy read. It wasn’t as earth shattering as Conjuring Hitler because, as you’ve argued, everything since 1945 seems like it’s been more or less a mop-up operation.
GP: Sean Stone, Oliver’s son, said virtually the same when I asked him for feedback.
Personally, I am very proud of this booklet, which is not yet getting the love I had hoped; for me 9/11 was the shattering event that triggered my “awakening” and has been an obsession for these past 2 decades because I could not formulate till the very end a compact working hypothesis with which to (begin to) explain it all. And now I believe I finally have such a thing. But for some reason it does hit the reader with the bang I was expecting.
NLF: I’m especially intrigued with your argument that little to nothing exist in the realm of political facts unless our global overlords want those “facts” disseminated and that we’re left merely debating these “facts”. How, then, is one to make sense of reality if these “facts” are just force-fed to us?
GP: There no longer is a political reality of any kind anymore (Geopolitics is dead): as Orwell explained, such a “reality” needs to be “produced” daily so as to entrance people who, apparently, cannot be controlled and manipulated in any other way. It is terrifying but highly revelatory.
NLF: That is terrifying. If we cannot rely on the so-called “facts” that are offered to us via the spectrum of propaganda outlets, on what basis are we to learn about on-going developments in the world outside of our direct observation? Or is it simply not possible? My own approach has been to try to develop a predictive model for the world and to the extent things develop in a surprising way, I try to update my models recursively…that has led me over time to this point..
GP: There is no reality; or rather the reality is merely the tale of a caste of parasites intent on commissioning screenplays for the next Orwellian shenanigan with a view to staying in power, a caste ever prone to annihilate us in droves should this be required by its nutritional requirements, give the technological constraints. One has to piece it together like in a mystery novel through a sheer effort (sometimes exploit) of imagination.
Developing a predictive model for the world is one way of doing it; my approach is roughly the same thing.
NLF: I found Eric Wilson’s forward to be initially confusing because of his use of the term “gnosticism”, which he uses as a smear against our elites. He seems to mean it as a kind of secularized, blind devotional religious energy whose elite adherents believe that, with the correct understanding or outlook, they can bring Heaven to Earth materially. But “gnosticism” seems to be an umbrella term with multiple meanings; at least one of its other meanings (which you seem to be sympathetic to and I am as well) is that gnosis is the understanding that this material realm is controlled by the Demiurge and that by adopting an attitude of asceticism and philosophical pessimism one may hope to spiritually ascend from this realm either on earth or at least in the afterlife.
GP: Yes, that’s exactly it.
NLF: I understand that Wilson stated that Carol Quigley was one of your primary sources for your worldview. Have you read G. Edward Griffin’s The Creature from Jekyll Island? You may enjoy it if not…
GP: Yes I read it; not uninteresting, but too dilettantish.
NLF: It wasn’t clear how large the Afghan heroin trade was or how control of that trade and the dollars within could have bailed out major banks during the 2008 financial crisis.
GP: True. And the point is essential. But there are no data of course, and yes, I did not attempt a deep statistical dive and extremely ambitious move to estimate what this outflow of greenbacks would have in been in light of Wall Street’s fueling needs — that would have been a triumphal result. It is something I have done instead, a few years ago, in a very important essay (directly related to this insight & topic) undertaken to explain how America manages Empire financially, which is indeed cited in Phantasmagoria.
So, I made the choice of putting the thesis out there, basically unsupported by numbers, just connecting the dots hoping it’d be sufficient, and for me it is; it all (sufficiently) adds up.
NLF: It seems that, more than just control over the Afghan heroin trade, the “forever war” of Afghanistan was used to justify washing hundreds of billions or trillions of U.S. taxpayer dollars into the hands of the transnational security elite indefinitely, as eloquently explained by Assange in this brief clip:
GP: Intriguing, but I do not at all understand what “washing” means here.
NLF: Much of the equipment supplied by the military-industrial complex would be diverted off and sold elsewhere if it was ever produced at all. For example, the Pentagon has never passed an audit and in 2013 it was estimated that $8.5 trillion dollars of Pentagon funds had been “lost”. In Ukraine only 30% of the equipment being sent ever reached the final destination according to a CBS documentary that was immediately censored and withdrawn (not for inaccuracy). And that’s after the hundreds or thousands of percent price upcharges by contractors on each of those items… In addition there is the massive so-called “foreign aid” that purportedly goes to these countries but very little seems to reach the final destination. It’s likely that the local politicians take a small fee and then return most of it to the powers they report to…It looks like these “forever-wars” are mere excuses for the Pentagon to demand funds from the U.S. taxpayers after which it mostly just disappears forever, “washed” back into their own pockets…
Also interestingly, NFL player-turned Army Ranger Pat Tillman may have been murdered to prevent him either from becoming an anti-war icon or from exposing details of the heroin trade; he was killed from close range and his diaries were burned/lost.
GP: Interesting; that supports the thesis.
NLF: The timing of the Afghanistan withdrawal after 20 years, a mere 6 months before the start of the Ukraine/Russia “war”, seems like a continuation of the military/industrial complex washing of foreign aid and U.S. taxpayer dollars back into the hands of the U.S. security elite. I’m glad you mentioned the “coincidental” timing of it in the conclusion. I see the Ukraine war as being fake and controlled from both sides, although the dead bodies are real…
GP: Precisely, Orwellian scenarios are sutured with snuff movies.
NLF: I would love to see more on the exact mechanisms for how our elites control China and Iran.
GP: Me too — but there is no doubt they do; who else has the theatrical infrastructure to keep it all going exactly as it is meant to unfold in a Hollywood TV show?
NLF: Russia is controlled to a significant degree by its western-controlled central bank, but the mechanisms for control of Iran and China seem more opaque and less clear to me…
GP: Opaque ok, but straightforward nonetheless: 1) China as we now know it was Nixon’s idea (the greatest of all American emperors) and in 2001 the project came to pass with the country’s induction in the WTO with US patronage; Iran…Obvious, no? First they topple Mossadegh (1953), then they handle Iran to Khomeini (1979), much like the Brits handed Russia to the Bolsheviks; it’s a game. You may come across Persians steeped in conspiratorial literature that’ll tell you modern Iran is entirely ruled by the US within these Orwellian configurations. And that is clearly the case.
On immigration
NLF: I liked that you mentioned how Islamic immigration into Europe is being used as a divide-and-conquer strategy both to suppress domestic nationalism and to serve as justification for increases in the security state and corresponding decreases of freedom.
GP: Immigration: yes, that is a big item on the “globalist” agenda: it’s a top US priority for Italy (sub-colonial status); it is dismaying: for decades, we have been losing hundreds of thousands of graduates and professionals every year to foreign labor markets (US-UK, Germany etc.) but take in just as many useless desperadoes from the Third World in the name of diversity and declining fertility (the New York Times agenda, in short): most Italian commercial ads now feature Non-Whites as a matter of course. It is a highly insidious operation: they allow in western societies –i.e., in highly racist and classist hives in which integration is ipso facto impossible and work (of the semi–decent sort) is to boot non-existent– trickles of immigrants from the Third World, cramming them in poor neighborhoods where they come in potential conflict with the disenfranchised hordes of the host population. All one needs then, when the situation demands it, is to light a match. The Left and the Church are working assiduously in this direction — you dare to say a word against this, and you are immediately tagged as a Nazi.
On The Political Scripting of Jesus
NLF: It was interesting reading in your book The Political Scripting of Jesus about the Catholic perspectives that were deemed off-limits by the CDF between 2000-2005, either for blending Christianity with insurrectionist Marxism (Sobrino) or for trying to skinsuit Catholicism into postmodern, pluralistic globohomo (Haight, Phan). Given the recent actions of Pope Francis that tilt toward the latter’s direction, do you think that the Church’s stance against Haight and Phan is or will change?
GP: Glad you liked it. Good question. I do not know what happened to them under Francis. They’re both old now and it’s not clear what the magisterium of the Church is on this subject. The masses are not ready for this. But it might be the case that in a future conciliar maneuver of sweeping range their work will be respectfully and duly referenced. Who knows. By then folks, like Anatole France’s Pilate, will have forgotten altogether about this Jesus guy. It makes no difference anyway, as it doesn’t now –and I wonder if it ever did. All religious cults are fabrications, like the News: fiction blended with fact; but it is very hard to discriminate one from the other.
NLF: There were certain other passages that stood out to me: I have not read Robert Graves yet (p. 49), but the arguments you summarized were interesting to me. I know that Gore Vidal had used Graves’s novels on Claudius and Belisarius as inspiration for his wonderful novel Julian (reviewed here).
GP: Vidal’s Julian, of course — I have my father’s copy and still have not read it…Will have to asap…
NLF: I should read Graves… Your comments on him brought to mind certain arguments made by Nietzsche and historian Tom Holland about the geopolitical situation at the time of Jesus as well as how the inversion of Roman values was used to rile up, in early Bolshevik fashion, the masses of disaffected women, slaves, the and the poor, which I delved into here. You made a similar point on p. 180 (“From the standpoint of the local elite, the service of these compassionate interlopers can be insidious because it weakens the bond of obeisance that permits the absentee owners to exploit the productive backbone of the country….”) Have you covered Nietzsche in your writings?
GP: No I never covered Nietzsche– somehow he does not interest me in the least; he is too inflationed and overhyped in my view; I’ll side with Tolstoy on him: I find him trite and distasteful. Irrelevant, yes, more than anything. But I know I am wrong because Nietzsche has significantly occupied the thoughts of many a good thinker, including Bataille…An yet, he, like Marx (and many others of these so-called “greats,” great Masters of Flatulence, really, like Hegel, too, without whom according to our founding fathers the West could not have articulated thought, and if so, poor West, poor “thought”), in my world simply does not exist.
I enjoyed your erudite essay – It would require a long and very engaging discussion. In a nutshell, I see things from and IngSoc (English Socialism’s social engineering) perspective and concern myself solely with what the power apparatus seeks to achieve through this sort of surreal politics considering –and this is the important point– that it is the selfsame rulers who were ridiculing the transsexual yesteryear: so they changed stance; change everything so that nothing changes. Yesterday it was macho is cool & reproduce; no longer: today macho is super-uncool (read: useless) and for the love of God, do NOT reproduce, hence all this delirious politics of gender and weird sexual management. A Malthusian tantrum, yet again. So I go back to my beloved slave-making ants and termites, which allegedly have a system of determining the new breeds’ sex in keeping with the nutritional requirements of the nest. That’s what is happening, but it is filtered by surreal discourse. Our rulers and their divine protectors are phenomenal not just in their parasitical idiosyncrasy but also for their gusto for twisted and not wholly intentional absurd theatrics.
NLF: Your comment on page 187 about “loving the neighbor” brought to mind Carl Schmitt’s thoughts on the subject. Per 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.”
But I suppose Schmitt’s argument feeds back into the Law of Violence…
GP: Yes, it is an apodictic almost too embarrassingly obvious, infantile statement thereof. Schmitt, Schmitt’s fame is funny like that. Bodies of “scholarly work” to “explore” and plumb the statement that 2+2=4, but maybe that is because we all pretend to live on a Euclidean plane, when in fact everything is curved in a weird way and none of those axioms apply. The Elements after all were conceived as graphic designer’s manual. 2D illusion. It figures. So when, after staring for centuries, you “detect” a inkling of curvature, you jubilantly exclaim: it is not level! Right, it never was. Funny how America’s priestly caste does not have the courage to say so, to acknowledge the horror of the obvious: they do it, coyly and in hushed, sanitized tones via a German midget that had, like Benito Cereno, to compromise with Nazism…The surreal again…
NLF: You wrote on p. 188 about most people being utterly unable of being truly religious. I’m not sure I would want to sacrifice myself, my family, fatherland, and all of humanity in order not to act against the Law of Love. I do try to treat others with respect, including others of different backgrounds, but there is a balance that occurs in each interaction. But you also wrote “the best one can do now, individually, is to attempt to revert/correct/redirect the process and, while at it, grow spiritually, if at all possible.” This struck a chord and it’s why Jünger and his concept of the anarch is pulling me toward reading more of his work…
GP: Yes, but the anarch is an aesthetic figment –the protagonist Manuel Venator in his fabulous Eumeswil: he’s not real, and moreover to be able to survive as the tyrant’s cup-bearer ensconced in the brushwood of internal dissent (Waldegang — I deal with all this in The Ideology of Tyranny) is something very, very few independently wealthy people can attempt — so basically a minority of a very small minority to begin with. Hardly a path, hardly a solution.
On The Ideology of Tyranny
NLF: In your book The Ideology of Tyranny: Bataille, Foucault, and the Postmodern Corruption of Political Dissentyou delve into the idea of gender erasure being pushed onto the masses. Do you think it’s simply about depopulation, or what other angles do you see? It brings to mind the Calhoun mouse experiments — put mice in a utopian environment and their population eventually grows to fill every social niche, then they developed increasing deviances until their population imploded entirely.
GP: That experiment was indeed fascinating.
The attack on heterosexuality, which is modulated, is partly a fertility ploy, but it is more complicated than that, I think. They are pursuing a sophisticated, articulated agenda: one the one hand they reversed the Roe v. Wade 2 years ago, and on the other they had the head of the Olympic Games proclaim with regard to the controversy surrounding the Algerian pugilist that “it is very difficult to distinguish a man from a woman,” which is a weighty statement, to put it mildly. The Question is, “what are they seeking to implement through this?”
The phenomenon of men transgenedered into women that now go on to populate female swimming teams across the US is already established: so there is a lot going on: what is it? Western technocracy is using this to erase females altogether, or, rather working out a social order where fertility is relegated to the poorer (lesser) races (in India & Africa, as surrogates), and mid-stratum whites –undifferentiated men & women– are turned into asexual, sterile workers, or what? This, on the other hand, would jive with the idea of a social dividend (Silicon Valley’s Universal Basic Income), coupled with digital currency: $2,000 for life to everybody for life (and, as the other side of the coin, 2 zillions guaranteed no questions asked for the members of the elite), offspring being managed in communist fashion, Spartan style?
I don’t know yet –it is puzzling and deeply disquieting.
NLF: You raise good points — I see it as our upper elites intend to wipe out western civilization because they view it as a threat – or as revenge, or they hate it – after which they plan to reduce worldwide population to 500 million with an average 80 IQ to be permanent slaves to the central bank owning elites and their top allies, and use the population for medical experiments like they just did with the COVID mRNA fraud (what else do they do with the “useless masses”, per Yuval Harari?) so that the elites can genetically engineer themselves into a different race. They are importing young, male illegals to terrorize the existing western populations and to vote for liberal parties to more than counter-act any rise in public consciousness as their plans become more and more visible…
You can find Preparata’s books on Amazon here and his website here. I highly recommend his work – he’s one of the very few authors who understands the nature of the modern world, how evil it is, and who writes in really beautiful and almost poetic prose. His oeuvre is one of the very few authors whose books are worth engaging with in their entirety.
You can also find many video interviews with Preparata on Youtube by others here.
Thanks for reading.
Subscribe: Email delivery remains on Substack for now.
