I’ve been offering a lot of blackpills on this Substack lately, from group fertility rates favoring Islam and Africans to how liberal the Supreme Court is to the appeal of philosophical pessimism. It’s hard to live with a fully blackpilled perspective, though. Everyone needs hope wherever one can find it because hope is what make life worth living, even if the hope is irrational. So here’s a bit of a whitepill on the topic of space travel via SpaceX.

SpaceX is a rocket company founded by Elon Musk in 2002. It’s been in the news a lot so you’ve probably heard of it. It’s publicly stated goal is to make humanity a multi-planetary species by colonizing Mars, maybe with a stop-off first at the Moon.

This is a laudatory goal, because if one sees the upcoming neo-Malthusian catastrophe approaching with a world of limited and dwindling natural resources and mass human overpopulation, there are only two this-worldly solutions: either (1) a mass future population die off occurs when humanity exceeds its carrying capacity or (2) there is drastically reduced consumption and thus quality of life for all but the globohomo elites.1 The third off-world solution is: become an interstellar species so our locust-like, blindly all-consuming, all-destroying species can suck down the resources of other planets and expand to the stars.

Before SpaceX we had made very little progress on the space front in the decades after the Apollo program heyday. Governments had a monopoly on space exploration and launching rockets was incredibly expensive; it was like, as Elon Musk said, building a 747 jumbo jet and throwing it out after each use. Unless rockets could become highly reusable, he reasoned, the cost of space flight would remain exorbitant and we would remain a single planet species until one disaster or another would wipe out mankind.

To Musk, who wrongly believes that humanity suffers from an underpopulation problem (to keep our Ponzi social service schemes going, I guess, unless he implicitly meant a small, highly productive and creative subset of humanity), becoming a multi-planetary species would serve as insurance in case of disaster on earth. He thought there was only a small window to do it based upon our level of technology and the relative social stability that America enjoyed. After all, the Fermi paradox weighed heavily on his mind – why do we see no evidence of extraterrestrial species? Do all intelligent species destroy themselves before they can reach a multi-planetary level of development, or perhaps spaceflight across long distances and terraforming planets is simply too difficult or impossible? Or perhaps the universe is teeming with intelligent life and they hide themselves from us until we reach a proper level of development? This post delves into the paradox more if the topic interests you.

Anyway, I had read the Ashlee Vance biography of Musk many years ago. It was forgettable and piggybacked off his fame and hype without much insight that I remember. But it reinforced that Elon’s track record from a dissident perspective is at best mixed and his blind-cheerleading fanboys are nauseating, who are akin to emotional, screaming Taylor Swift fangirls but with male nerds. Tesla makes too-expensive and environmentally damaging cars2, Musk bailed out a bankrupt Solar City solely to protect his reputation, Twitter is a complete dumpster fire (filled with FBI and CIA agents who arbitrarily apply anti-populist censorship, a globohomo stooge as CEO, and it’s worth 1/3 or less of what Musk paid for it as it massively bleeds money), his pumping of DogeCoin was wildly irresponsible, and Musk’s intentions are both murky and regularly align with globohomo goals and objectives.3 This is a sample:

But SpaceX is special and different than Musk’s other endeavors because the company’s vision is so positive. We’ll briefly go through the history of the company, where it’s at now, and upcoming goals and objectives.

---

The history

Musk was a South African-born immigrant into the U.S., the son of a weird mining magnate who later had children with his step-daughter, who dropped out of his PhD program to found what became Paypal with Peter Thiel, Max Levchin and others. He walked away with a sizable fortune. There’s a 1999 video of him (pre-hair transplants) taking delivery on his McLaren with his excited then-wife. Apparently they fought about who was the alpha in the relationship, she pumped out 5 kids and then he left her; she bitterly wrote lots of online screeds how she was the left-behind starter wife.

Anyway Musk took his fortune, divided it into two and started SpaceX and Tesla with the proceeds. He believed that the biggest issues facing humanity were developing alternative energy and becoming a multi-planetary species. He worked extremely long hours at both companies and he lived and breathed them, likening them to being his babies. During the 2008 crisis he came very close to losing both companies due to insufficient capital reserves and banks pulling their lines of credit. Musk originally tried to buy a Russian rocket to launch but was laughed out of the room; who did he think he was with no background in space flight to think he could start such a company? So he went out and built his own from scratch, the Falcon 1.

The first three Falcon 1 launches were failures. Apparently he used the last of his funds on the fourth attempt (the funds of which were provided by Thiel4) which was successful. The success of Falcon 1 led to the development of the two-stage Falcon 9, 9 because the rocket has nine engines.

The Falcon 9 was a highly efficient rocket and its first stage is reusable, at least ten times if not many more. The second stage was still disposable, as the rocket equations would not have left much if any cargo capacity if the weight was used for landing it. This was utterly remarkable as there was no other functional working reusable first stage rocket anywhere in the world — either governments thought it couldn’t be done at scale (there were some tests of reusable rockets in the past) or they just didn’t devote resources to it, being complacent that everyone in the world was doing the same thing.

The Falcon 9 now makes dozens of launches a year, most of them reusing the first stage. It is the stable workhorse of the company, carrying cargo, satellites and astronauts to orbit. As Musk stated, the rocket would be considered successful once the Falcon 9 launches, which were and are publicly streamed, became boring, as that sense of boring would equate to safe and reliable. After all, watching a flight take off is mostly interesting if there’s a non-negligible chance of it blowing up.

Because the cost savings of reusability are so enormous, SpaceX launched 80% of worldwide cargo to orbit in 2023 and is on track to launch 90% in 2024, including the Starlink satellite platform which will provide everyone on earth access to satellite internet, although it has its own problems.5 It’s ridiculous that the government continues to fund the SLS program, which is an expendable super-heavy rocket in the testing stages to replace the shuttered shuttle program which is already entirely obsolete. It’s a jobs program for those too lazy or stupid to innovate.

After the Falcon 9 SpaceX designed the Falcon Heavy, which was three Falcon 9’s strapped together with two of the first stages being reusable. It was designed to carry especially heavy loads to orbit that the Falcon 9 couldn’t carry on its own, but it was quickly eclipsed by plans for Starship and it’s only been flown commercially a couple of times.

---

SpaceX currently

SpaceX is currently in the testing phase for Starship, which is the rocket which will get humanity to the moon and Mars. Below is a size comparison, but remember that the key difference is that Starship is reusable — both the first and the second stages, which makes the rocket a difference not of degree of of kind:

The Starship tests are publicly streamed and they are fun to watch. The last one was in November and it pushed boundaries far past the last test and gathered data useful for the next one. An iterative process where failure is instrumental in future success.

Interestingly, the biggest hangup now is NASA flight certification. The latest test flight was ready to go for months but placed on standby. NASA is bloated, old, and highly bureaucratic and governmental, and it will have to be massively retooled and update to account for vastly increased launch cadence in the future. Per Reddit’s wonderful SpaceX community, there are multiple Starships and boosters under development and multiple versions are ready for flight as soon as NASA approves.

Note that not every rocket version will be flown; there are many iterative improvements made through the design and construction processes themselves. As Elon says, as a general rule, it is 100x more difficult to build a streamlined factory production line than it is to build a one-off rocket.

There is an upcoming translunar commercial launch of the dearMoon project, possibly in 2024 as it’s been pushed back. The website for this project is here.

---

SpaceX in the future

Now’s a good time to mention one of the best parts of SpaceX: its long-standing president and COO, Gwynne Shotwell. She has been with the company since 2002 and president since 2008, and is quite remarkable. A mechanical engineer by background, she has displayed great leadership abilities and, with Musk, hire based entirely or almost entirely on merit. The mission of the company is too difficult to have any of the bureaucratic nonsense or AA hires that plagues other companies once they reach mission objectives. And she has done it without drama, with a very level head focused on success. There aren’t many top-level innovative women that have been successful in the business world — maybe Meg Whitman? or Sheryl Sandberg, who is a deranged shitlib? But Gywnne shows it can be done, even if it is a rare thing:

SpaceX has no current competition for what it is offering. Other companies are a decade behind if not more. Wacky Jeff Bezos’s Blue Origin is considered in the media to be a competitor, but it’s not; it’s focus is on sending people to low earth orbit in a reusable manner, but its working rocket, the New Shepard, cannot carry commercial cargo to space. It’s Falcon 9 or Falcon Heavy competitor, New Glenn, may have its first launch in 2024, but it will take years of iterative testing to get it working properly, but it will already be obsolete once Starship is functional.

Musk originally set an aggressive timetable for man on Mars by 2025, which is definitely not going to happen. The bureaucratic red tape with NASA has massively slowed down progress. There has been talk of a moon base first, which may make sense because it is so much closer. There are a lot of unknowns — is mankind ready for the risks involved with flight to Mars? Many will surely die, will the public and government support the mission even if that happens? How does one build the technologies necessary for living on Mars (such as tunneling, which is why Musk created the Boring company, which has not lived up to hopes so far)? How would the human body adapt to living in 30% of Earth’s gravity on Mars?

As argued previously, humans will always pursue technology advances because technology provides power advantages of others. This is why Kaczynski’s solution to the problems of technology was naive and stupid. Perhaps as Robert Frost wrote, “The only way out is through.” If we are a locust-like, all-consuming, all-destructive species — which seems beyond debate at this point — then humanity will have to expand among the stars or die infighting among dwindling resources here on earth. The choice from this perspective seems simple.

Thanks for reading, and thanks Elon, despite the issues I have with you, for pursuing this vision with SpaceX.

Subscribe:
Email delivery remains on Substack for now.

---

1 Mitigated to an extent if humanity adopts mass 4th generation nuclear power, something there are very few signs of it doing so far; our elites prefer wildly inefficient alternative energies so they can graft off it.

2 Namely, the lithium and rare earth mental mining for battery manufacturing is an environmental catastrophe, batteries have to be replaced every 7 years for a cost of $20,000, the interiors are sparse, the car’s acceleration is jarring and nausea inducing, the self-driving has been promised for more than a decade and never delivered, replacement parts are hard to acquire, the car can be shut down remotely by others, and there is endless range anxiety depending on weather and charging factors.

3 As I’ve written previously, “Every billionaire is effectively a corporatist or liberal, not due to drive or high intelligence – there are many dumb NPC billionaires – but because billionaires remain structurally beholden to lenders, investors, regulators, public relations, etc. that force them into those categories under threat of devastating monetary loss.  To be a dissident means opposing the established order, an order that made these people wealthy in the first place.  Don’t put your faith in these people.  They may occasionally larp (i.e. live action roleplay) as a dissident in order to use populism as a weapon in disputes with other elites, but it does not mean they have accepted populist values.”

4 I believe it was a decade or longer ago when Thiel said that he was most optimistic about biotech, cryptocurrency and space exploration. Cryptocurrency has been completely corrupted by the Tether scam and, while I’m not up-to-date on biotech developments, it seems ethnical and technical issues have slowed down biotech “progress”, even though I mostly associate biotech now with the failed, incredibly dangerous, reckless and evil Lord Fauci globohomo COVID experiment.

5 Starlink has been co-opted by globohomo and used for national security purposes, as seen as its use to benefit Ukraine during its war with Russia. It will undoubtably be used to supply internet to CIA-backed rebellions in foreign countries in the future. It could also be hijacked by the government and used as a weapon during wartime. There is also concern about the dangers of space debris/trash.

This post discusses worldwide fertility rates, concluding that based on current trends the future is going be much blacker and much more Islamic, with a corresponding massive decrease in average IQ. This corresponding massive decrease in average IQ will likely end technological civilization because the average IQ will be below baseline requirements necessary to keep it operational, as we are seeing in South Africa today.

I previously discussed globohomo turning America into a permanent one party state like they previously accomplished in California by shipping in tens of millions of non-integrating, Democrat-voting illegals. I also covered the central bank owner’s brilliant divide-and-conquer strategy of turning everyone against each other on the basis of race, gender, sexual orientation and religion so they are too busy fighting among themselves to focus on the central bank theft, which is a big part of why homogenous societies have and are being destroyed worldwide.

This post will examine demographic change more broadly, reviewing fertility rates (both population-wide and group-based) and immigration trends, with a special focus on those groups who are resistant to the worldwide trends (excluding Africa) of rapidly declining fertility rates. This post asks the question: what will the future look like based on fertility rates and immigration trends in Europe and in America?

It will also articulate my pro-natalist position for western natives even with upcoming worldwide natural resource collapse.

With that said, let’s begin.

---

The example of Israel

There was a major controversy in Israel prior to the start of the current war with Hamas surrounding the supremacy of their pro-globohomo Supreme Court (whose building was built and designed by the Rothschilds with many occult features). It’s parliament, called the Knesset, is much more religious and nationalist than the court, and they recently passed a law that allowed the Knesset to exert a measure of authority over the court. In return, there were mass pro-globohomo protests and attempts to have the law overturned.

I don’t think this controversy matters for Israel, even though it was getting a large amount of attention. This is because of the country’s changing demographics: the religious right have a lot more children than the secular pro-globohomo liberals1 which traditionally controlled the country. The Israeli Muslims have many more children than them as well. Among Jewish women, the highest fertility rate was for ultra-Orthodox (Haredi) women at 6.64 children per woman, followed by religious women at 3.92 and 1.96 for secular women. The average birth rate of Israeli Muslim women is 3.0 and of Palestinians in Gaza, 3.8 in 2019.

In 2017, the Central Bureau of Statistics projected that Israel’s population would rise to about 18 million by 2059, including 14.4 million Jews and 3.6 million Arabs. Of the Jewish population, about 5.25 million would be ultra-Orthodox Jews. Overall, the forecast projected that 49% of the population would be either ultra-Orthodox Jews (29%) or Arabs (20%). Keep in mind that in 1948 there were only 35,000-45,000 ultra-Orthodox Jews in the country, that’s how fast they have grown. Fertility rates matter.

Israel does not have an immigration problem because it has a large border wall with Egypt to keep out illegal immigrants, and expelled 40,000 illegal immigrants in 2018. Due to a lack of immigration, the changing demographic profile of the country is only affected by fertility rates, and that means that, unlike in America’s case which is drowning in illegal and legal non-white immigration (with plenty of Jewish support; immigration for thee but not for me2), Israel will increasingly become more and more nationalist and religious over time. The writing is on the wall. It’s preordained that the religious nationalists will win (unless the central bank owners label them an enemy, which it may, which is typically a mark of death3), therefore what does it matter what happens in this particular controversy? It’s a blip on the wall. And so is any other event that does not dramatically affect demographics; the only thing that matters are events that substantially change fertility rates or population sizes, or put in place the foundation for future such changes. For example, if Israel passed a law that substantially affected the fertility rate of the ultra-Orthodox, who mostly don’t work and live off welfare – by yanking their government benefits or forcing them to join the army, for example – that would then be an interesting development. Or if Hamas/Hezbollah/Syria/Iran unleash a total war and kill six or seven figures of Israelis, that would too substantially impact future demographics.

Therefore, the future of Israel based on current fertility rate trends is a relatively stable Jewish/Muslim balance, but one that will tilt aggressively further religious, right-leaning, and Ashkenazi (given the ultra-Orthodox are Ashkenazi) over time, which will ultimately wrest control of the country out of the hands of leftist Jews sooner or later (absent catastrophic events like mass death from regional war).

---

Europe

Europe fertility rates are an absolute disaster:

Replacement fertility rates are 2.1, so the historic populations throughout Europe are dramatically sub-replacement. England and Russia aren’t included on the above charts but their fertility rates are also terrible. This is a sign of a dying, exhausted continent, from two World Wars, total domination by globohomo since World War 2 if not before, secularization, and a constant stream of demoralization propaganda through media outlets and education telling white Christians how evil they are. Note specifically Poland’s abysmal 1.44 fertility rate; there’s no future invigorated Christian nationalism coming from there.

Unlike Israel which has basically no immigration, Europe is being swarmed deliberately by its leaders as part of the Kalergi Plan with both huge amounts of Islamic and African immigration, which continue constantly. See also this post by eugyppius, which demonstrates that the very same Europe that closed its borders over a virus will not close its borders from migration from the global south. Islam is currently 10% of the French population if not much higher and the most common birth name in England is Mohammed and it’s a top 20 name in France now.

It’s not just immigration; Muslims have on average an extra child compared to non-Muslims within Europe and they are much younger than non-Muslims:

Given this, Islam is expected to continue to grow rapidly in Europe:

These figures are almost certainly on the very low end of expectations, as immigration should be expected to be much higher than their projections.

Note that Russia is no better off than the rest of Europe, and the framing of Putin as the defender and savior of the white Christian west is a bald-faced lie, a LARP to fool the uneducated masses in the west. Russia is being swarmed with Muslim immigrants, and they are being given preferred status that puts them above the law just like in Western Europe. See this post by Rurik Skywalker if you want the details.

Here is a video documenting the spread of Islam over time into historically Christian lands, a trend that continues unbroken to this day:

Although note that the 20 year so-called “War on Terror” may have broken the back of fundamentalist Islam given rapid secularization trends, and hence decreasing fertility rates, which is occurring throughout the Middle East:

Anyway, France already has a lot of no-go zones where police cannot enter and French sovereignty does not exist; the Muslims riot constantly and burn and destroy infrastructure and facilities. This link discusses how the process of Islamic immigration over time results in greater and more intense degrees of warfare against the host non-Muslim population until the country is conquered. French writer Michel Houellebecq wrote a highly publicized novel Submission in 2015 documenting the ongoing Islamification of France. Chinese blogger Spandrell claims that the west needs a new religion, but without one, what we are likely to end up with is Islam:

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.

Therefore between the forced Islamification of Europe by the anti-white, anti-Christian European elites, the completely open borders from Africa (which is only going to get much worse given Africa’s demographic explosion, where African fertility is still above 6.0+ and declining much slower than globohomo’s projections), and the wide discrepancy between native European and Islamic birthrates, the future of Europe is going to be increasingly Islamic and black, and breathtakingly fast on a historic timeline. OGRE wrote about this process back in 2009. Whether globohomo will slow the process at some point4 or whether they just want to gallop toward white and Christian total erasure is unknown, but as written elsewhere (toward the bottom), our globohomo overlords feel much more comfortable around Islam than Christianity.

---

United States: the overview

With respect to the U.S., I previously covered how mass immigration is being used by globohomo as a weapon of war to bring about a permanent one party state, just like what they did to California.

The current overall fertility rate in the United States is about 1.7-1.8, well below replacement. Here’s the chart historically:

While the country is rapidly transforming via open borders and unlimited illegal immigration (likely 5-10 million a year at present rates, mostly of Christian hispanics) and legal immigration (see here just for H1B visas, 780,000 in 2024 alone), the 1.8 fertility rate of the population is misleading because there are a number of groups with much higher fertility rates than the average, while the average for the rest of the population is much lower.

For example, the white only population of the United States was essentially flat between 2010 and 2020, although due to the regime’s hatred of whites it looks like a drop of 20 million who now choose to self-identify as white + something else:

According to the 2020 census, the U.S. is 59% white, but due to the unlimited open borders, Gen Z is expected to be the last generation with a majority white population. This is resulting in some very late increase in white group identity, as reflected in some recent comments by Elon Musk.

The fertility rates per ethnicity through 2013 are as follow:

They dropped further through 2018: Hispanic 1.95, Black 1.79, White 1.64, Asian 1.52. These are all terrible and have declined significantly further post-COVID.

But look at the age of the average white compared to the average non-white:

These non-white youth are incredibly liberal, per Ryan Burge:

This demographic shift coming over the next 20 years is going to be massive and very disruptive in extremely negative ways that will definitely lower everyone’s quality of life much further — except for the globohomo elite, of course.

---

United States: sub-groups with higher fertility rates

There are a number of groups with much higher fertility rates within the United States than the average, as stated above. Muslims, for example, have the highest fertility rate of any religious group in America:

Let’s break down these figures further:

Among Christians, then, the Mormons have 3.4 children on average and evangelicals and Catholics have 2.3 each — not terrible all things considered compared to atheists and agnostics, anyway, and they’re above the 2.1 replacement number. But note that while the Mormon fertility rate is comparatively high at 3.4, it is falling quick rapidly, also see here:

On the other hand, the Amish have a fertility rate of 6.8, which is massive, given their conscious decision to live in an entirely self-supported community, use their hands with agriculture, and with a faith-based perspective which avoids nihilism. As a result of their continued success globohomo has tried to poison their food and water supply with the Palestine, Ohio toxic chemical spill.

Among Jews, the Orthodox and Ultra-Orthodox have much higher fertility rates than secular Jews. There is also a very high intermarriage rate among the secular that is resulting in rapid assimilation (discussed in the second part of that link).

Generally speaking the religious of all faiths have much higher fertility than the non-religious (confirmed here), and the more religious, the higher the fertility rate:

As a result of much greater fertility rates among the religious over the irreligious (as the former have a worldview at least somewhat resistant to globohomo’s unrelenting and bleak materialist nihilism), it should be expected that over time the religious population of the United States, Europe, Israel, etc. will continue to grow, propagating the spread of the “religious gene”:

In a [2011] study, Robert Rowthorn, emeritus professor of economics at Cambridge University, has looked at the broader picture underlying this particular example: how will the high fertility rates of religious people throughout the world affect the future of human genetic evolution, and therefore the biological makeup of society?…

“Provided the fertility of religious people remains on average higher than that of secular people, the genes that predispose people towards religion will spread,” Rowthorn told PhysOrg.com. “The bigger the fertility differential between religious and secular people, the faster this genetic transformation will occur. This does not mean that everyone will become religious. Genes are not destiny. Many people who are genetically predisposed towards religion may in fact lead secular lives because of the cultural influences they have been exposed to.”

The model’s assumptions are based on data from previous research. Studies have shown that, even controlling for income and education, people who are more religious have more children, on average, than people who are secular (defined here as having a religious indifference)….The more orthodox the religious sect, the higher the fertility rate, with sects such as the Amish, the Hutterites, and Haredi having up to four times as many children as the secular average….

Rowthorn’s model shows that, even when the religious defection rate is high, the overall high fertility rate of religious people will cause the religiosity allele to eventually predominate the global society. The model shows that the wide gap in fertility rates could have a significant genetic effect in just a few generations.

---

A note on the human cost of collapsed fertility rates

I want to emphasize that the collapse in fertility rates has a major societal cost associated with it, not just economically but emotionally and spiritually, and especially for women. Because it’s not just that women are having fewer children; many are having none and then regretting it after it’s too late, and many others delay having children until the woman is in advanced maternal age and the risks to the child increase substantially. Globohomo tells women they can be happy and fulfilled “leaning in” and competing with men in the workforce, but this is a lie and ones who take too long to realize the lie often end up bitter and insane cat ladies. See what happened to Candace Bushnell, the inspiration for Sarah Jessica Parker’s “Sex and the City” character, where she deeply regrets not having children here, a path current female “icon” Taylor Swift is rapidly barreling toward.

Additionally, the lower classes who have lower IQs and are less educated have more children than those who are higher IQ and higher class, as Lee Kuan Yew identified decades ago, which is an IQ shredder and reverse Flynn effect (i.e. the population will get dumber over time) and which was brilliantly explained in the opening to the film Idiocracy:

Everything is backwards of what it should be.

Xtal had a sad comment back in July about how globohomo convinced her not to have children until her 40s, and now it’s too late:

It’s sad and embarrassing for me to admit the following, but I’ve been putting this out there in the hopes that women younger than me will learn from my example.

I was raised (brainwashed, really) to believe I didn’t want children. This happened to a lot of children of Boomer parents. Boomers, resentful of their own children, holding an ideal of being perpetual carefree teenagers, have in many cases thwarted their offspring’s natural instinct to reproduce (thus idiotically depriving themselves of grandchildren).

I was taught the importance of education, career, travel, “self-fulfillment.”

I married a man who doesn’t want kids.

After experiencing the security and stability of marriage, I came to realize I do want children. My mind changed. His never did though. I stayed with him anyway, although I probably should have left, but I thought I was too old to start over.

Now I’m 48. I am grappling with the stark reality that it is too late at this point. I cry about it often, and am dealing with intense nighttime dreams of what I’ve missed out on.

My message to younger women: Even if you think you don’t want children, ask yourself whether, deep down, you really feel that way, or whether you’ve allowed yourself to be indoctrinated by outside influence.

If you’ve ever daydreamed about what you’d name your kids, ever wondered whose nose or hair your offspring would inherit, ever thought about what kind of mother you’d be, these are all indications that you probably want kids someday. They’re not just idle fantasies.

Get off your butt and make those dreams a reality before it’s too late. Find yourself a good man that you love, and who will be a good parent. The dreams won’t make themselves happen: you have to move them forward.

p.s.: Your late 30s is NOT “too late.” Women can conceive and bear healthy children up through 40ish. There are increased risks, BUT IT IS NOT IMPOSSIBLE. So if you’re already older, don’t give up out of discouragement. I wish I could go back in time and shake some sense into my 35-year-old, hell, even my 40-year-old self.

Sad and depressing story.

The thing is women naturally are much more trusting of authority figures and authority messaging, and the messaging coming from these institutions is to delay childbirth, “just have fun fucking Chad on the wheel of hypergamy” until the last second, if then. It’s a form of mental and spiritual abuse and it was done deliberately and consciously by globohomo as discussed by Aaron Russo, who was friends with a prominent Rockefeller, in order to double the taxable population and make them easier to control by breaking up families. Here’s a 3 minute clip:

Men are told, alternatively, not to grow up, to turn into comic book worshipping incels, to remain mental children well into adulthood. As the blogger who wrote the excellent “Millennials, the Dying Children” article stated: “We’ll be buried in Batman coffins, surrounded by our Xbox games. Maybe whoever buries us will finally discard the morality of the Boomers.”

This is part of the reason why implicit anti-natalists like Bronze Age Pervert drive me up the wall. He preaches to his followers to focus on aesthetics – nude bodybuilding and clever historical anecdotes using ridiculous “but super cool” spelling to his fatherless followers desperate for a father figure and guidance, overlapping the target audience with Jordan Peterson and Andrew Tate – but that is only a route to hedonism and nihilism, both on a societal and a personal level. I am immensely distrustful of either implicit or explicit anti-natalists because that is the road to Death, and anyone with that message does not have your best interests at heart. If you want a role-model to emulate, find a nice, hardworking religious family with a bunch of kids to emulate, whatever your background.

---

Concluding thoughts

Demographics is destiny. The two key components of demographic change are immigration rates and fertility rates. Track both and you will understand the future of what the world will look like barring extreme disruptive developments. The future of Europe is going to be Islamic with huge amounts of African immigration if current trends continue. The future of the United States is going to still be nominally Christian but much browner with tens or hundreds of millions more illegal immigrants if current trends continue, mostly of Latin American and Christian origin. After all, the white percentage of the world population was 25% in 1900 and is 6.5% today. The future of Israel is likely to remain as it is now with similar demographic splits, although it will become more Ashkenazi over Sephardic given the ultra-Orthodox birthrates.

These demographic trends should be considered with the backdrop of massively declining worldwide natural resources, which is likely to result in a major decrease in quality of life for all but the ultra-elite down the road, to the extent they don’t dramatically shrink the world’s population through war and famine. With that said, having many kids is a sign that one’s worldview is healthy enough to propagate itself into the future and have a say in the human story. Those living in white western civilization should, if they want their values and beliefs to be reflected in the future, have children well above replacement rate, regardless of the tragedy of the commons where individual and group incentives are at odds with worldwide sustainability.

Nonetheless, because both African and Islamic populations have much lower average IQs compared to white Christian countries (65-85 compared to 100), countries that succumb to the trends outlined herein will have increasing difficulty keeping infrastructure and technology at a first world level, which requires a higher baseline IQ to maintain.

Look at South Africa for the example; it’s infrastructure is crumbling and it suffers from massive blackouts, held barely together with a lot of band-aids by the aging technocratic white coterie, whose skills will die with them. The likely far-future, then, is a reversion technologically to third world status, if not worse. Perhaps the future is simply Islamic Africans worldwide living in 7th century mud huts sitting around the campfire telling stories of the mythological whites who, like Atlantis, disappeared for unknown reasons into the nether; in between raids on rival tribes and concerns about 7th century Djinns and spirits.

Thanks for reading.

Subscribe:
Email delivery remains on Substack for now.

---

1 Israel is an interesting example because the most rabid pro-globohomo proponents are left-wing Jews, and around 30% of Jews are ambivalent to Israel’s continued existence (absent danger to their own physical security) as it is an explicitly ethno-religious state, which is an unprincipled exception toward their goal of One World Government and a mixed race, mixed religion sludge worldwide.

2 During the critical period leading up to the 1965 Immigration Act that transformed the demographic reality of America, for example, per MacDonald, “Anti-restrictionist attitudes were held by the vast majority of the organized Jewish community—‘the entire body of religious opinion and lay opinion within the Jewish group, religiously speaking, from the extreme right and extreme left,’in the words of Judge Simon Rifkind who testified in Congress representing a long list of national and local Jewish groups in 1948. Cofnas advocates the ‘default hypothesis’ that because of their intellectual prowess, Jews have always been highly overrepresented on both sides of various issues. This was certainly not true in the case of immigration during the critical period up to 1965 when the national origins provisions of the 1924 and 1952 laws were overturned—and long thereafter. I have never found any Jewish organization or prominent Jews leading the forces favoring the 1924 and 1952 laws—or those opposed to the 1965 law at the time it was enacted. Joyce (2021) shows the continuing powerful role of Jews in pro-immigration activism in the contemporary U.S., and, as noted above, there is substantial Jewish consensus on immigration into the present.”

3 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.”

4 Because they love divide and conquer tactics where the populations it rules are divided on race, gender, sexual orientation and religious lines so they are too busy fighting each other to focus on central bank theft; therefore they may want to keep a remnant of white Christians around.

This is part 3 of a reoccurring series highlighting specific individuals (either living or historical figures who are not well known) who have displayed true, unquestionable courage standing up to the globohomo behemoth against unrelenting pressures, serving as a bit of a counter to the typical grim perspective pushed on this Substack. These individuals pay a price, often a big price, for their courage, and for standing up anyway they deserve to be applauded. Part 1 covers Ian Smith, who stood up to global hysteria around the COVID narrative at its peak, while Part 2 covers Julian Assange, who pushed a vision of radical governmental transparency at odds with globohomo’s desire for control over a worldwide slave colony.

Have you heard of the journalist Gareth Jones? How about Walter Duranty?

Basically no one has heard of the former, yet everyone has heard of the latter. This is a problem, which we will discuss, but it’s emblematic of a larger issue: globohomo’s ability to raise up or alternatively destroy, to eliminate from history, any character via their propaganda organs and their control over academia, the media, and Wikipedia.1

But before discussing Jones and Duranty, what is your opinion of journalism in general? Well, if you’re reading this Substack the odds are pretty good that it’s not a positive one. Terms like dishonest, ideologue, corrupt, liar, loser, are some of the first words that may (hopefully) come to mind. And these pejorative terms are earned, they are not conjured out of thin air. The journalism profession works for the small moneyed class, they spin propaganda onto the masses to get them to believe things against their own interests so that moneyed class can benefit, and it has always been this way. Indeed, John Swinton, then-editor of the popular New York Sun, had this to say about the profession in 1883:

There is no such a thing in America as an independent press, unless it is out in country towns. You are all slaves. You know it, and I know it. There is not one of you who dares to express an honest opinion. If you expressed it, you would know beforehand that it would never appear in print. I am paid $150 for keeping honest opinions out of the paper I am connected with. Others of you are paid similar salaries for doing similar things. If I should allow honest opinions to be printed in one issue of my paper, I would be like Othello before twenty-four hours: my occupation would be gone. The man who would be so foolish as to write honest opinions would be out on the street hunting for another job. The business of a New York journalist is to distort the truth, to lie outright, to pervert, to villify, to fawn at the feet of Mammon, and to sell his country and his race for his daily bread, or for what is about the same — his salary. You know this, and I know it; and what foolery to be toasting an “Independent Press”! We are the tools and vassals of rich men behind the scenes. We are jumping-jacks. They pull the string and we dance. Our time, our talents, our lives, our possibilities, are all the property of other men. We are intellectual prostitutes.

Today there is basically no real journalism and no real journalists, at least in the mainstream. Anyone who doesn’t monolithically tow the globohomo line is expelled from work and blacklisted from having any influence. But in the past, occasionally, real journalism did exist. And just like it does now, bringing truth to power (at least if one manages to have a modicum of impact from that pursuit) is not celebrated but viciously punished, and the person promoting it would have his reputation smeared, with no material payoff in this world, while the worst, lowest scum of the earth are promoted in the media and given accolades as “bringing truth to power” – skinsuiting the term in a ghoulish, macabre exercise – that’s how this world works.

And this brings us to Gareth Jones.

Gareth Jones is the journalist who brought the truth about the ongoing Holodomor, the deliberate holocaust of the Ukrainian kulak/small farm peasant by Soviet authorities which killed 3.5-5 million in 1932-1933, to western attention. Rory Finnan, a lecturer in Ukrainian studies at Cambridge, called him “a true hero”, saying “He is a remarkable historical figure and it is also remarkable that he is not well known. Jones was the only journalist who risked his name and reputation to expose the Holodomor to the world.“

Here is a sample of what he reported:

I walked along through villages and twelve collective farms. Everywhere was the cry, ‘There is no bread. We are dying’. This cry came from every part of Russia, from the Volga, Siberia, White Russia, the North Caucasus, and Central Asia. I tramped through the black earth region because that was once the richest farmland in Russia and because the correspondents have been forbidden to go there to see for themselves what is happening.
In the train a Communist denied to me that there was a famine. I flung a crust of bread which I had been eating from my own supply into a spittoon. A peasant fellow-passenger fished it out and ravenously ate it. I threw an orange peel into the spittoon and the peasant again grabbed it and devoured it. The Communist subsided. I stayed overnight in a village where there used to be two hundred oxen and where there now are six. The peasants were eating the cattle fodder and had only a month’s supply left. They told me that many had already died of hunger. Two soldiers came to arrest a thief. They warned me against travel by night, as there were too many ‘starving’ desperate men.
‘We are waiting for death’ was my welcome, but see, we still, have our cattle fodder. Go farther south. There they have nothing. Many houses are empty of people already dead,’ they cried.

On 11 April 1933, Jones published a detailed analysis of the famine in the Financial News, pointing out its main causes: forced collectivization of private farms, removal of 6–7 millions of “best workers” (the Kulaks) from their land, forced requisitions of grain and farm animals and increased “export of foodstuffs” from USSR.

What are the causes of the famine? The main reason for the catastrophe in Russian agriculture is the Soviet policy of collectivisation. The prophecy of Paul Scheffer in 1929–30 that collectivisation of agriculture would be the nemesis of Communism has come absolutely true.

Jones had visited Ukraine in 1932-33, where he sent stories about the ongoing famine to British, American and German newspapers but they were denied by the Stalin regime – and derided by Moscow-based western journalists, men like the New York Times correspondent Walter Duranty, who wrote: “There is no famine or actual starvation, nor is there likely to be,” and dismissed Jones’ eyewitness accounts as a “big scare story”. In 1937, Eugene Lyons, a Moscow based correspondent, who repudiated Gareth four years earlier, was apologetic for his actions in his book Assignment in Utopia:

“Throwing down Jones was as unpleasant a chore as fell to any of us in years of juggling facts to please dictatorial regimes—but throw him down we did, unanimously and in almost identical formulas of equivocation. Poor Gareth Jones must have been the most surprised human being alive when the facts he so painstakingly garnered from our mouths were snowed under by our denials.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jones was cut off from the establishment for his reporting, his career in tatters: “Following a forced year in the political reporting wilderness; having been virtually ostracised by all his former political and newspaper contacts within the British ‘Establishment’, including his former employer Lloyd George, Gareth found a job as a local reporter for the Cardiff Western Mail, covering stories about rural Welsh arts & crafts.” Jones was able to establish a relationship with William Randolph Hearst, who published Jones’s accounts of the Holodomor. In retaliation, globohomo came up with a great scheme:

Instead of again trying to publicly deride Gareth’s articles, a month later, and conveniently for the Soviets, whether by accident or more probably by design, Hearst was ‘furnished’ with a series of fraudulent articles and bogus famine photo claiming an on-going Ukrainian famine in 1934, by one ‘Thomas Walker,’ a then unknown, convicted-conman who had absconded from Colorado prison. Walker, whose real name was Robert Green, was easily exposed as a complete charlatan by Louis Fischer (armed with evidence that Green had only spent 5 days in the USSR in 1934, and therefore could not visited Ukraine – information readily supplied to him by the Soviet authorities). Without ever-mentioning Gareth’s name, Fischer was thus able to destroy the credibility of all of Hearst’s reporting of any Soviet famine.

Globohomo wasn’t satisfied with just destroying Jones’s career, though. It never is when it feels slighted. Jones was murdered at the age of 29 while investigating in Japanese-occupied Inner Mongolia; he was reportedly murdered by the NKVD on direct orders from Maxim Litvinov, who ruled the Soviet Union on behalf of the Rothschild and ally central bank owners, over and above the level of Stalin. He had developed a grudge against Jones for reporting on the Holodomor, which he had been desperate to keep hidden from the world. I discussed this character previously here, where I wrote:

Of particular interest in the financing of the revolution is the role which Maxim Litvinov, born Meyer-Genokh Mojsjewicz Wallach-Finkelstein, played as a “revolutionary” in destroying Imperial Russia and handing it over to the international bankers.  Litvinov became the source of all foreign funds and was appointed treasurer of the Russian Socialist Democrat Party.  He was a representative of the Rothschilds with powers exceeding that of Lenin.  When Stalin became leader of the Soviet Union Litvinov, who feared no one, remained pre-eminent.  His rudeness to Stalin was legendary.  During World War 2 the Americans were reluctant to lend money to the Soviet Union but Litvinov sorted everything out; a Lend Lease agreement was signed and over the next four years $11 billion worth of supplies and services were provided.  Litvinov “could call the White House at any time and the President [Roosevelt] would see him immediately.”  Molotov, Litvinov’s successor in 1943, stated “Litvinov was utterly hostile to us…he deserved the highest measure of punishment at the hands of the proletariat.  Every punishment.”

Upon Jones’s death, former British prime minister David Lloyd George said, “He had a passion for finding out what was happening in foreign lands wherever there was trouble, and in pursuit of his investigations he shrank from no risk… Nothing escaped his observation, and he allowed no obstacle to turn from his course when he thought that there was some fact, which he could obtain. He had the almost unfailing knack of getting at things that mattered.”

The U.S. eventually came around to investigating the Holodomor – 50 years later. Uh, great, thanks America.

What lessons can be drawn from this story?

There are a couple that come to mind:

1. Nothing has changed since then. When globohomo decides to push a narrative or downplay a narrative they will always get their way. They decide what the public knows and doesn’t know, and there are no real checks to them on this kind of power. During the COVID scam doctors who didn’t follow the party line lost their livelihoods, dissidents were banned on social media with ruthlessness. All globohomo had to do was tell these asshole administrators, censors, and bureaucrats that they were righteous for their actions and they did it eagerly. As Aldous Huxley said, “The surest way to work up a crusade in favor of some good cause is to promise people they will have a chance of maltreating someone. To be able to destroy with good conscience, to be able to behave badly and call your bad behavior ‘righteous indignation’ — this is the height of psychological luxury, the most delicious of moral treats.”
2. Jones wasn’t the first and isn’t the last journalist to be murdered by globohomo for having moral integrity. Andrew Breitbart died of a “heart attack” at 43 (the CIA is on record that they utilize heart attack guns to kill people with heart attacks leaving no trace, what are the odds a prominent government critic died from a heart attack at 43? And then his coroner was murdered under “suspicious circumstances” two months later). The CIA likely murdered Michael Hastings, who was about to run a negative media story on CIA Director John Brennan and highlight illegal governmental spying, by hacking his car and ramming it at high speed into a wall. There are a bunch of others, read here if you want to read more, item #6.
3. Do not assume that doing the right thing will result in material reward in this Demiurgic hellworld. The incentives for this reality are all aligned against truth and justice and toward lies and manipulation to benefit the ultra powerful and most ruthless. Jones sought to do honor to his profession, to himself, to mankind and to God, and he ended up murdered and forgotten. As Thomas Ligotti concludes in “The Conspiracy Against the Human Race”, “If truth is what you seek, then the examined life will only take you on a long ride to the limits of solitude and leave you by the side of the road with your truth and nothing else.” 
4. Lastly, globohomo has absolutely zero compunctions about repeating the Holodomor. There is an argument they are doing it now, again, by controlling both sides in the Russia/Ukaine “not-war” in order to churn endless amounts of white Christian dead bodies. They are also entirely ignoring Muslim Azerbaijan’s ongoing ethnic cleansing and takeover of Orthodox Christian Armenia as everyone focuses on Israel/Hamas. Don’t think for a second that they won’t do it to you too, here in America, as soon as the opportunity presents itself. They are just waiting for the opportunity. See the excellent Revolver News article: “Are you ready to be an American kulak?”

Hopefully this post can go a ways toward keeping Mr. Jones’s memory alive, and to spit on the grave of Walter Duranty, Maxim Litvinov, the central bank owners, and the rest of these ghouls and monsters.

Thanks for reading.

Subscribe:
Email delivery remains on Substack for now.

---

1 As one small example, Douglass Mackey aka Ricky Vaughn, who helped bring Trump to power in 2016 and then who was viciously prosecuted in a show-trial for posting memes, has no Wikipedia page. He has been “unpersoned” despite being a notable figure.

This is a politics post. Because politics is downstream of culture and culture is downstream of society’s beliefs, this post feels like a bit of a regression. However, it is useful to review certain common misconceptions about the makeup of the Supreme Court, its ability and willingness to check the power of the legislative and executive branches, and how it may address lawfare manifested in the upcoming Trump trials and 2024 election issues (such as efforts to remove Trump from multiple state ballots).

A number of months ago I analyzed the composition of the U.S. Senate, concluding that, even though the Senate was roughly evenly split, there were really only seven Republican Senators that consistently voted in a pro-American manner, or maybe fifteen if one was being generous. In other words, representation for right-wing populists was dismal, 15% of the Senate at most, and therefore they served merely as fig leaves, cover for the myth of popular representation as globohomo-backed politicians of the uni-party establishment dictate actual policy.

This leads to questions about populism’s support in other governmental institutions. How supportive of America First populism or dissident policies is the Supreme Court, especially by its Republican Supreme Court justices?

The Supreme Court is generally perceived as being one of the last bastions of Republican control in the United States. Pro-globohomo, viciously anti-white liberals control the university system, the schooling system, the media, the entertainment complex, the Senate, effectively the House and the governorships (both are roughly tied with slight Republican majorities, but many “Republicans” are RINOs while the Democrats vote monolithically), the top brass of the military, the neutered police forces, the CIA, DOJ, FBI, NSA, EPA, IRS, Homeland Security, etc. Republicans do control a solid majority of State legislatures and the rank-and-file of the military and police do lean heavily Republican, but that’s it.

The Supreme Court is presently 6-3, with six appointed Republican Supreme Court justices: John Roberts, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Brett Kavanaugh, Amy Cohen Barrett and Neil Gorsuch, and three appointed Democrat justices: Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson.

How much of a check does this Court have on legislature and executive overreach? What do the “Republican” and “Democrat” labels mean in practice? And how do we make that determination?

As background, there are about 60 cases that the Supreme Court decides in any given year. You can see the specific case breakdown hyperlinked for 2022-2023, 2021-2022, 2020-2021, 2019-2020, 2018-2019, and 2017-2018. Many of these cases deal with complex procedural technicalities, many with criminal law, many with administrative law and various other apolitical topics. Very few cases are high-profile and political.

Chief Justice John Roberts is very sensitive to public opinion and the court’s perceived legitimacy. He does not want to be seen as crafting law from the bench, as the court faces court-packing threats like the court faced in 1937 with the “switch in time saved nine”. As such, Roberts really doesn’t like to take on high profile cases — to take on a version 2 of Bush v. Gore would probably give him a heart attack, and the Court rejected all 2020 election challenges (although Thomas and Alito hinted at their willingness to consider them) — and Roberts generally does all he can to reach consensus with as many justices as possible, even if that means narrowing the scope of the ruling to be so attenuated as to be near meaningless, if the Court agrees to hear the case at all.

As Obama said when he decided not to pursue a career track toward becoming a Supreme Court justice, “If you’re going to make change, you’re not going to do it as a Supreme Court clerk.” The cases before the court take years to get there in a winding, circuitous process; the Court was and is too slow, too cumbersome, far too reactive to be able to proactively remake society the way Obama wanted. The court is essentially a stopgap measure to radical change, but easily swayed by media and political pressures.

---

Methodology

How should one analyze the 360 or so cases from 2017 until the present? For purposes of this post the cleanest approach is as follows: compare the voting records of the Republican justices to the record of the most conservative member of the court, the wonderful Clarance Thomas.1 Thomas is constantly smeared in the media with one-sided, biased media allegations about financial impropriety2, and he was barely confirmed to the seat because of the politicized allegations of Anita Hill. He received and continues to receive rougher treatment from globohomo – despite being a proud black man – than any of the white justices, including crybaby Brett Kavanaugh who had similar tactics used against him, simply because Thomas is at least dissident-adjacent and dissidents receive no preference at all in society, no matter their race, gender or sexual orientation. People only receive preferment and protection within their checkmark box victim category if they are liberal or pro-globohomo.

To compare Republican justice voting records to Thomas’s, we will narrow the scope further with the following parameters:

1. We will limit the analysis of the voting record to a period designated from Trump’s 2017 inauguration when everything became much more politicized and hysterical until today;
2. We will limit the analysis to cases where Thomas dissented from the majority opinion, because if Thomas is in the majority then it either involves liberals joining the decision (which they wouldn’t do in a politicized case) or from a unanimous or near-unanimous Republican vote, which isn’t helpful to parse differing beliefs of the justices (although I must give them credit for rejecting the OSHA COVID-19 mandate for private sector employees with 100+ employees, to which the liberal justices dissented); and
3. We will limit the analysis of cases to those that are politicized, which generally means cases involving voter access, redistricting, state rights, Trump cases, immigration cases, gun rights cases and gay/transgender rights cases.

By parsing the cases in this manner, we are able to decrease the applicable cases from 360+ down to a mere 8, which are reviewed below.

Note: this isn’t meant to be a comprehensive analysis, merely a useful heuristic, as the analysis does not look into important politicized cases that the Court simply declined to take up for consideration.

---

The cases

The following are the eight cases that Thomas dissented from, the topics of those cases, and whether the other Republican justices joined Thomas in dissent (in green) or joined the majority (in red):

Allen v. Milligan: This was a case regarding whether Alabama’s congressional redistricting discriminated against black voters. The Court decided 5-4 to maintain an injunction that required Alabama to create an additional majority-minority district. Roberts and Kavanaugh joined the Democrat justices. This case alone will likely net the Democrats multiple House seats (4-5+?) in 2024.

Moore v. Harper: The Court ruled in a 6–3 decision that the Elections Clause does not give state legislatures sole power over elections, rejecting independent state legislature theory. The case arose from the redistricting of North Carolina’s districts by its legislature after the 2020 United States census, which the state courts found to be too artificial and partisan, and an extreme case of gerrymandering in favor of the Republican Party. This is important given Republicans control state legislatures by a wide margin, 28-19-3 in 2023, so this case dramatically curtailed their authority. Roberts, Kavanaugh and Barrett sided with the Democrat justices.

Biden v. Texas: The Court reversed the Fifth Circuit by a 5–4 vote and held that the federal government has the authority to revoke the Migrant Protection Protocols, the revocation of which ended Trump’s “Remain in Mexico” immigration policy. This has and will continue to have a major impact on encouraging massive levels of illegal immigration. Roberts and Kavanaugh sided with the liberals.

New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. City of New York: This was a case addressing whether the gun ownership laws of New York City, which restrict the transport of a licensed firearm out of one’s home, violated the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution. After the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case, New York City and New York state cynically amended its laws to allay the challenged provision. In a per curiam decision in April 2020, the Supreme Court determined that the case was moot, vacating and remanding the case to lower courts. Alito, Thomas and Gorsuch wanted to hear the case; eventually the case was re-heard in 2022 and had a proper 6-3 decision in favor of gun rights. Why such tentative, slow support for gun rights in the first place?

Bostock v. Clayton County: The Court held that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 protects employees against discrimination if they are gay or transgender. Gorsuch and Roberts joined the liberal justices in this decision.

Trump v. Vance: This case arose from a subpoena issued in August 2019 by Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance Jr. against Mazars, then-President Donald Trump’s accounting firm, for Trump’s tax records and related documents, as part of his ongoing investigation into the Stormy Daniels scandal. Trump commenced legal proceedings to prevent their release. The Court agreed that Trump was obligated to provided the records and documents; only Alito and Thomas dissented.

Trump v. Mazars USA, LLP: This case involved subpoenas issued by committees of the US House of Representatives to obtain the tax returns of President Donald Trump. The Court agreed that Trump was obligated to provide his tax returns; only Alito and Thomas dissented.

Sessions v. Dimaya: In this case the Court held that 18 U.S.C. § 16(b)[1] a statute defining certain “aggravated felonies” for immigration purposes, is unconstitutionally vague. The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) classifies some categories of crimes as “aggravated felonies”, and immigrants convicted of those crimes, including those legally present in the United States, are almost certain to be deported. Those categories include “crimes of violence”, which are defined by the “elements clause” and the “residual clause”. The Court struck down the “residual clause”, which classified every felony that, “by its nature, involves a substantial risk” of “physical force against the person or property” as an aggravated felony. Essentially, the Court held that illegal aliens committing certain felonies would not result in almost certain deportation. Gorsuch agreed with the liberal justices.

---

Analysis

There is a very limited sample of politicized cases, which are but a very small percentage of the cases that the Court has heard over the past six years. From this sample, though, we can see a kind of trend emerge: Alito is almost as conservative as Thomas is, agreeing with him on all of these controversial decisions; Roberts and Kavanaugh almost always disagree with Thomas and Alito on these decisions, and Barrett and Gorsuch are wishy-washy.

Much more importantly than these cases though is that, as stated above, the Supreme Court wouldn’t consider 2020 election cases except as briefly hinted at otherwise by Thomas and Alito in their dissent to Texas v. Pennsylvania.

We can therefore say with a reasonable measure of confidence that the Supreme Court will not step in to resolve contentious 2024 election cases (at least if it involves challenging globohomo’s dictates) and it is questionable to what extent, if any, they will be willing to uphold challenges to Trump or his allies’ legal cases, regardless of their merits.

This isn’t to say that a Republican dominated Supreme Court has no value; they likely slow down to an extent the egalitarian ratchet effect which, if the Court were majority Democrat (and possibly had insane, deranged bloodthirsty Merrick Garland on it), we would still be under oppressive OSHA COVID vaccine mandates and who knows what other sort of additional horrendous anti-white, anti-civilizational dictates. A world of decisions led by anti-white dim racists Sotomayor, Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson is a world of even more rapid civilizational collapse and destruction. I guess the right-wing under this setup also gets occasional fig leaf “victories” such as:

1. Theoretically getting rid of college affirmative action (which won’t happen in practice, admission committees will simply find new ways to discriminate),
2. Theoretically allowing individual discrimination against same-sex-marriage (which in practice means forever continued lawfare harassment against those businesses) and
3. Overturning Roe v. Wade in Dobbs — congrats, evangelicals — even though the practical effects of that decision are (1) to prevent abortions by only poor, low-time-horizon lumpenproleteriat, as those with more resources and better planning will just go to the next state over for their abortions; (2) to dramatically curtail Republican wins in the 2022 Senate and House elections; and (3) to result in energized Democrat and independent votes in the 2024 elections.

These three so-called victories are at best Pyrrhic victories, meaningless to the big picture as the country rapidly careens toward implementing what happened in California but on a national level: a permanent one party state based on wide-open borders and tens of millions of new non-integrating immigrants, with the Supreme Court utterly powerless to do anything about it…

---

Why does this matter?

There are four reasons:

1. This post continues my general theme of encouraging people to put less faith in the political process or the system as a whole, to set realistic expectations for oneself. I increasingly believe this world is controlled by the Demiurge, and that we are put here as kind of a prison (if there’s any purpose at all). Schopenhauer comments on this point: “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”;
2. As i have written elsewhere (see Takeaway #1), the best way to judge a system for modeling the world is by its predictive accuracy. The black-pilled take has been much more accurate than any other take I’ve seen so far. This post highlights this perspective by arguing that the Supreme Court is highly unlikely to support Trump during 2024’s upcoming election theft;
3. This post is one piece of a multi-post assemblage that will be used in the future to argue that the odds of a “redneck rebellion” succeeding are exceedingly unlikely; and
4. My broader perspective of philosophical pessimism is deepening and entrenching, perhaps not in a healthy way. This will be discussed more in a future post.

---

Conclusion

As unsatisfactory as the current ideological composition of the Court is – to the point there should be no significant hope or expectation that the Court will stop any of globohomo’s devious plans – it could be much worse. Globohomo likely murdered Thomas-tier conservative Antonin Scalia in 2016 (he was found with a pillow over his head in a hotel room as a public statement) and it wouldn’t be surprising for them to do the same to Thomas. Thomas is 75 years old, though, and rumored to not be in such fantastic health, while Alito is 73 years old, which should be worrying for conservatives in the medium-term even without conspiracy concerns. If liberals appoint a couple of justices and swing the majority their way, one can expect the speed of globohomo stripping you of your vestigial rights to intensify significantly.

Subscribe:
Email delivery remains on Substack for now.

---

1 Thomas’s conservatism approaches dissident thought (defined previously here) in many ways, although he is an originalist which is, like standard conservatism, always losing.

2 These media-created allegations have no downside for globohomo. They could potentially get Thomas to resign and/or recuse himself from criminal 2020 election cases; they want to apply pressure on conservative justices to cave on important cases; and they want to set the foundation for packing the court or impeaching the justices if Democrats receive a large enough congressional majority. There is also a rumor that Ginni Thomas is a listed co-conspirator in one of the Trump cases, which would be a brilliant (and incredibly evil and devious) move by globohomo to force Thomas’s recusal from these cases. If I were a globohomo strategist this is exactly the type of move I would devise.

“We are unchanged; we are still the same as we were in the eighth century….Oh that you could only consent to be again what you were once, when we were both united in faith and communion!” – Aleksey Khomyakov

Ignatius of Maidstone had some interesting criticism regarding my post about the egalitarian ratchet effect. That post presents the argument that the egalitarianism at the heart of Christianity doubles down on itself and intensifies over time in a ratchet-like manner, reaching the point where we are today dealing with transsexualism and child sex reassignment surgery and with more horrors to come, and that the process will continue unabated unless society’s core values are transvalued, if ever.

The push for egalitarianism is codified in numerous biblical passages, such as “the first shall be last and the last shall be first” (Matthew 20:16), “There is neither Jew nor Greek; there is neither slave nor free; there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus” (Galatians 3:28 NKJV), “Whosoever will be great among you, let him be your minister; And whosoever will be chief among you, let him be your servant” (Matthew 20:26-28), and “Brothers and sisters, think of what you were when you were called. Not many of you were wise by human standards; not many were influential; not many were of noble birth. But God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong. God chose the lowly things of this world and the despised things — and the things that are not — to nullify the things that are, so that no one may boast before him” (1^st Corinthians 1:27).

In other words, obliterate natural hierarchy and rejoice as equals, brothers and sisters in Christ! This was initially intended on a spiritual level to undermine the Roman Emperor’s claim to divinity, but in recent centuries evolved to mean on the physical plane as well.

The problem with this is that in this reality nothing is equal and nothing will ever be equal, which creates an endless amount of tension. Oh, equality isn’t here? Then that means racism, sexism, and all the other -isms are holding us back! We must double down and flatten and destroy those holding back utopia on earth, brothers!

One can see how this might present problems.

Now, Ignatius’s criticism is that the ratchet effect doesn’t apply to Eastern Orthodoxy, the second largest Christian communion worldwide with 260 million members. He wrote in the comments to that post:

The problem started in 1054, when the Western Church split from the Eastern Church [i.e. the East-West Schism or the Great Schism], believing that the West could function under an authoritarian pope, who himself owned land and property. Thus, the [Catholic] Church pivoted from concerns about Heaven and Eternity, and towards materialist endeavours. Their pontiff was no longer subject to obedience at a council of bishops.

Essentially, the Roman Catholics wanted to create a heaven on Earth. [Modern day liberalism] is the fruit of that.

Ignatius is right about this: Eastern Orthodoxy does not suffer from the egalitarian ratchet effect. Eastern Orthodoxy has not ratcheted much past the original transvaluation of values under Paul (which, as argued previously, was enormously radical and led to the destruction of Rome, but also offered reinvigorated meaning to its believers in a world that had descended into decadence).

Below is a chart visualizing the societal progression under egalitarianism in the West across time. More change to doctrine = more egalitarian.

Orthodoxy prides itself on offering a doctrine which is everlasting and unchanging. This can’t really be said for Catholicism, whose Scholastics adopted Aristotlean logic which led inexorably to Protestantism which then led in turn, via Unitarianism, to modern secular egalitarianism. Catholics also introduced substantial doctrinal changes since the Great Schism such as mandatory celibacy, papal infallibility and immaculate conception. Radical ecumenical and social justice-oriented changes were seen as recently as Vatican II, and the current Pope comes across as very liberal in both belief and action, with near-daily headlines like “Pope Francis Softens Vatican’s Ban on Blessing Gay Couples” and documents released like this. This has led to a collapse in faith among the laity.

That isn’t to say that everyone in the Catholic Church leadership is liberal, though. According to the wonderful Archbishop Vigano, the Catholic Church has been infiltrated by a “Deep Church” pushing “heresy, sodomy and corruption.” He states,

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

Not exactly a ringing endorsement for the state of the Catholic Church.

Now, the Bible is unambiguous in condemning homosexuality. Comparing the extent to which a population within countries dominated by Orthodoxy or Catholicism believes homosexuality is “morally wrong” in accordance with the Bible, then, should be a decent proxy for assessing the laity’s susceptibility to doctrinal changes and liberalism. Here are the results:

Poland, considered one of the most conservative Catholic countries in the world, is rapidly en route toward legalizing gay marriage as part of its deal with the Devil for economic improvements in return for selling its soul within NATO (1999) and the EU (2004):

As part of this trend Poland just elected a pro-globohomo government.

The Orthodox Church doesn’t really have the liberalism-slippage issues that plague Catholicism. It has other issues which we will discuss, but not these. It offers a religious stability of dogma that, in this world of incessant, radical change, is admirable and commendable. Among other reasons, this has made the religion more attractive to those on the American right who are looking for a religious solution to the degeneracy of the West and who see Catholicism and Protestantism as unworkable.1 I believe that this line of logic was at least part of the reason that led Roosh on his religious journey after the sad cancer death of his sister to Orthodoxy (first to Armenian Orthodoxy and then to Russian Orthodoxy), although he has since adopted rigid ideological guardrails enforced at rooshvforum.com where he is the final arbiter on what is Orthodox approved and what is Orthodox forbidden. Uh, thanks I guess, Roosh, for banning all unapproved discussion from your followers. The narrowing of the scope of ideas he is willing to contend with is sad to see and speaks to a rigid mind living in great fear [update: he’s now shutting down his forum].

Anyway, I wanted to do a more in-depth examination of Orthodoxy and give a fuller response to Ignatius, and had some ideas to what I viewed as its strengths and weaknesses, so I turned to the book The Orthodox Church (1963) by Timothy/Kallistos Ware which offered a clear and concise history, its benefits, the reasons from their perspective for the Great Schism, and his understanding of the ongoing challenges that the Church faces. It offers a strong summary of the Church and I recommend it, and some of the ideas it presents are discussed below.

---

Pre-Schism Background

The Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic Churches were united as one until the Great Schism. They both continue to accept the first seven ecumenical councils as legitimate. These counsels generally related to controversies surrounding the nature of Jesus in relation to God (most importantly the condemnation of Arianism), the structure of the Church, the relation of the various regional apostolic sees to each other (Rome was first among equals until the Schism; then Constantinople became first among equals), and whether the worship of icons were acceptable or heretical idol worship.

It is hard to understand for those of us raised in the secular, liberal, nihilistic west devoid of meaning, but the Church at the time provided an all-encompassing world perspective that grounded its followers and gave him a reasoning for his suffering:

Not without reason has Byzantium been called ‘the icon of the heavenly Jerusalem’. Religion entered into every aspect of Byzantine life. The Byzantine’s holidays were religious festivals; the races which he attended in the Circus began with the singing of hymns; his trade contracts invoked the Trinity and were marked with the sign of the Cross. Today, in an untheological age, it is all but impossible to realize how burning an interest was felt in religious questions by every part of society, by laity as well as clergy, by the poor and uneducated as well as the Court and the scholars. Gregory of Nyssa describes the unending theological arguments in Constantinople at the time of the second General Council: ‘The whole city is full of it, the squares, the market places, the cross-roads, the alleyways; old-clothes men, money changers, food sellers: they are all busy arguing. If you ask someone to give you change, he philosophizes about the Begotten and the Unbegotten; if you inquire about the price of a loaf, you are told by way of reply that the Father is greater and the Son inferior; if you ask ‘Is my bath ready?’ the attendant answers that the Son was made from nothing.’

There were certain ongoing issues between the Rome and Constantinople, and these came to a head in 1054 with the Great Schism, which put each out of communion with the other and which continues to this day.

---

The Great Schism

The two primary causes of the Great Schism of 1054 were (1) Rome’s ecclesiastical doctrine of Papal supremacy, where Catholics believed the Pope can issue dictates to the other episcopal sees, versus the Eastern Orthodox view that Rome was merely the first among equals (“primus inter pares”) like a well respected older brother; and (2) the Filioque, which was a singular word that the Catholics added to the Nicene Creed. For some the addition of the word implies a serious underestimation of the Father’s role in the Trinity; for others, its denial implies a serious underestimation of the role of the Son.

Ware states that there were other issues too. There were language differences, both written and spoken (Greek vs. Latin), political differences (recognition of the Holy Roman Empire), structural differences (the Pope supplied order in the West after barbarian invasions weakened secular rule, while the secular Byzantine Emperor maintained law and order in the East), and the degree of division between clergy and laity, among others.

These issues culminated in the representative of the Pope’s excommunication of the Constantinople Patriarch, followed by counter-excommunication, which caused the Schism. But relations really soured after the massacre of the Latins in Constantinople (1182) followed by the Fourth Crusade (1202-1204), where the Crusaders took and sacked Constantinople, killing an estimated 2,000 Orthodox civilians.2

The theology of the Churches drifted apart as the Catholics replaced their faith-based tradition with that of rationalist Scholasticism, which tried to reconcile Christian beliefs and traditions with that of Aristotle, whose works had been reintroduced into Christian lands by the Muslims (the Christians had previously burned or lost almost all of Aristotle’s works). Their acceptance of Aristotle’s philosophy eventually led to the Renaissance, then to Protestantism and then to secular liberalism, as previously described here.

New Catholic disciplines and doctrines were gradually introduced after the Schism, including mandatory clerical celibacy (not required by the Eastern Orthodox if already married before being ordained), papal infallibility and immaculate conception. Meanwhile, the Eastern Orthodox leaned into mysticism via Hesychasm. Eastern Orthodox theologians charged that, in contrast to Eastern Orthodox theology, western theology was based on philosophical discourse which reduces humanity and nature to cold mechanical concepts. To the Orthodox the nature of God and reality was outside the ability of man to formulate into reason.3

Nonetheless, there were two failed attempts at reconciliation between the Churches, one in the 13th century and one in the 15th. Constantinople eventually fell to the Muslims in 1453 and the population gradually converted to Islam due to the onerous nature of Dhimmitude (or were massacred in the Armenian Genocide). The heart of Eastern Orthodoxy shifted to the Russian Orthodox Church where it remains today, surviving the horrors of communism despite relentless persecution4 and the political cravenness of top leadership.

---

The structure, politics and demographics of the Church today

Each country with an Orthodox Church is national in character, modified to fit the local customs of the region. Its liturgy is conducted in the local languages and the religious texts are translated into those languages. In other words, they are ethnic Churches.

These ethnic Churches are self-governing to a degree. This Lutheran Witness article provides a decent background on the Orthodox structure and the current schismatic issues affecting the Church, despite an otherwise liberal, pro-western slant:

Autocephalous churches each elect their own leader and have full authority to operate as independent church bodies in all matters. Autonomous churches have some authority regarding internal self-governance but rely on a mother church (one of the autocephalous churches) in many matters, including the appointment of a leader….

Currently, there are 13 — or maybe 14, 15 or 16, or maybe more — autocephalous churches within Eastern Orthodoxy. There are 14 about which everyone agreed until quite recently: Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem, Russia, Serbia, Romania, Bulgaria, Georgia, Cyprus, Greece, Poland, Albania and the Czech Lands/Slovakia.

In 2019, amid mounting tensions between Russia and Ukraine, the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople granted autocephaly to the Orthodox Church of Ukraine, which had formerly been a daughter church of the Russian Orthodox Church. In retaliation, the Patriarch of Moscow declared the separation of the Russian Orthodox Church from Constantinople — a significant schism in Eastern Orthodoxy since nearly half of its adherents fall under the umbrella of the Russian Orthodox Church (110 million in Russia and its subsidiary churches). A schism of this magnitude has arguably not occurred since the Eastern Church splintered from the Western Church in A.D. 1054. If this declaration leads to a lasting divide, then the Russian Orthodox Church can no longer be considered an autocephalous church of Eastern Orthodoxy but will have the same standing as the Oriental Orthodox Church, which broke from the established church in A.D. 451 (long before the Great Schism).

This seems like a big deal, especially considering the issue is taking place in the heart of Orthodoxy itself:

Ukraine, after all, has 35 million Orthodox believers, which is the third most numerous Orthodox country in the world, making up 13.4% of the global Orthodox total. Roosh views the creation of the Orthodox Church of Ukraine by globohomo in 2018 as as an attempt to sow division and weaken the Church with the intent of undermining and destroying it. Actions like Zelensky signed a law on July 28, 2023 changing the date of the Christmas public holiday in Ukraine from Jan. 7 to Dec. 25 as part of the efforts to “renounce Russian heritage” give credence to his perspective.

In terms of Orthodoxy’s reach, despite growing in absolute numbers to 260 million adherents today, its percentage of Christianity’s total has fallen significantly since 1910 and continues to fall:

Today, just 12% of Christians around the world are Orthodox, compared with an estimated 20% a century ago. And 4% of the total global population is Orthodox, compared with an estimated 7% in 1910. Fewer Orthodox in post-Soviet republics consider religion to be ‘very important’ in their lives.

---

The strengths and weaknesses of Orthodoxy

This section will review Orthodoxy in light of the neoliberal feudalism framework. Jesus said to judge a tree by the fruit that it bears, so I think it is fair to look at the real world results of Orthodoxy based upon its successes and struggles and not from a deontological perspective. This isn’t meant to be a comprehensive or final analysis.

Positives

• Orthodoxy as a “real” religion. A serious monotheistic religion is going to be exclusionary to other belief systems and hold its own perspective as the “true” religion. Those that do not have an exclusionary worldview, that are open to secular humanism and relativism and ecumenism, are inevitably going to have a demoralized, non-reproducing laity who will shed followers to globohomo as the religion, skin-suited and hollowed out, suffers a quiet, drawn out death. Every Protestant denomination suffers from this and Catholicism and Anglicanism increasingly do as well. The more a religion changes its doctrines over time (such as Mormonism acting under outside pressure), the more it can be molded to conform to societal whims. Orthodoxy has had the same doctrines and practices as it has had since the Schism, although it still has internal conflicts such as with the Old Believers, and it should be applauded for its stability.As part of its resistance to globohomo, most Orthodox believers support traditional views of gender norms in marriage. Compare Orthodox countries’ views on this to Catholics:

• Orthodoxy’s healthy outlook. This is a corollary to the above; a healthy religion will see itself positively and wish to spread its beliefs to others, both on a personal and an institutional level. While the Church supports a separation of Church and State by encouraging a secular ruler to decide on secular matters (Famuli vestrae pietatis, also “Render unto Caesar what it’s Caesar’s”), unlike in the West they believe such a secular ruler should promote the Orthodox religion. In other words, the Orthodox do not suffer from the demoralization that plagues the West. Again, compare the Orthodox to Catholic countries:

• Orthodoxy is correct that the changing doctrines of non-Orthodox Christianity has corrupted and destroyed western civilization under the guise of rationalism. Orthodox theologian David Bentley Hart has a great article addressing head-on Nietzsche’s criticisms of Christianity here. He agrees with Nietzsche and Heidegger’s interpretations to an extent but he believes that modern nihilism is not the final form of Christianity but merely the result of it’s receding, that Christianity was so great, and so fully conquered the Hellenistic Gods that came before that there is simply no room to go back to them, and that all there is to be done is re-embrace Christ and Orthodoxy. He writes:The word “nihilism” has a complex history in modern philosophy, but I use it in a sense largely determined by Nietzsche and Heidegger, both of whom not only diagnosed modernity as nihilism, but saw Christianity as complicit in its genesis; both it seems to me were penetratingly correct in some respects, if disastrously wrong in most, and both raised questions that we Christians ignore at our peril….Christianity, however, was a slave revolt in morality: the cunning of the weak triumphed over the nobility of the strong, the resentment of the many converted the pride of the few into self-torturing guilt, the higher man’s distinction between the good and the bad was replaced by the lesser man’s spiteful distinction between good and “evil,” and the tragic wisdom of the Greeks sank beneath the flood of Christianity’s pity and pusillanimity. This revolt, joined to an ascetic and sterile devotion to positive fact, would ultimately slay even God. And, as a result, we have now entered the age of the Last Men, whom Nietzsche depicts in terms too close for comfort to the banality, conformity, and self-indulgence of modern mass culture.Heidegger’s tale is not as catastrophist, and so emphasizes less Christianity’s novelty than its continuity with a nihilism implicit in all Western thought, from at least the time of Plato…Nihilism, says Heidegger, is born in a forgetfulness of the mystery of being, and in the attempt to capture and master being in artifacts of reason…Scandalously to oversimplify his argument, it is, says Heidegger, the history of this nihilistic impulse to reduce being to an object of the intellect, subject to the will, that has brought us at last to the age of technology, for which reality is just so many quanta of power, the world a representation of consciousness, and the earth a mere reserve awaiting exploitation; technological mastery has become our highest ideal, and our only real model of truth….I should admit that I, for one, feel considerable sympathy for Nietzsche’s plaint, “Nearly two-thousand years and no new god”—and for Heidegger intoning his mournful oracle: “Only a god can save us.” But of course none will come. The Christian God has taken up everything into Himself; all the treasures of ancient wisdom, all the splendor of creation, every good thing has been assumed into the story of the incarnate God, and every stirring towards transcendence is soon recognized by the modern mind—weary of God—as leading back towards faith. Antique pieties cannot be restored, for we moderns know that the hungers they excite can be sated only by the gospel of Christ and him crucified. To be a Stoic today, for instance, is simply to be a soul in via to the Church; a Platonist, most of us understand, is only a Christian manqué; and a polytheist is merely a truant from the one God he hates and loves….
• Orthodoxy allows already-married men to become ordained: This seems like a reasonable position to take and would likely dramatically lower priest molestation rates, to the extent those scandals have not been overblown by globohomo.
• Decentralization: The trends of humanity on a historic timeline are toward ever-increasing centralization and control, so to have a decentralized religious structure able to absorb pressures imposed on any particular country or region (such as the atheist Soviet Union’s control over Eastern Europe, or Islam’s control over Constantinople) is a benefit.
• A balance of energies: Society and individuals are best served by an energy that mixes egalitarian and inegalitarian energies. Orthodoxy offers a degree of such balancing with its rigid adherence to tradition, whether or not one agrees that the specific balance it achieved is the correct one.
• The potential for revolutionary change: Perhaps I am not understanding his perspectively clearly, but it seems like Rolo Slavsky, who is a lapsed Orthodox, thinks that Orthodoxy has the potential to undergo a mystical Ghost Dance rebellion as a way to check the power of globohomo.
• The focus on suffering and mysticism: Russians have always focused more than other nations on the nature of suffering, and that focus in conjunction with Orthodoxy seems to be an interesting focus for such a fallen world. One loses family, friends, health, mental and physical abilities as one ages; war, plague, starvation, all sorts of calamities happen. The nature of reality is suffering and beyond human understanding. Life is about letting go of attachments and control and diminishing the ego, which is the attraction for the ascetic ideal. That being said, this is also a negative, as the Orthodox tendency to over-emphasize suffering is the quintessential component of life-denying slave morality.“ See Ivan the Terrible and His Son Ivan on 16 November 1581”, painting by Russian realist artist Ilya Repin made between 1883 and 1885. It has been called one of Russia’s most famous and controversial paintings, and reflects the typical Russian approach toward suffering.
• The ability to deal peacefully with the Jewish population. Eustace Mullins, in his book “New History of the Jews”, argues that Jews and Christians can coexist peacefully in society based on the example of the Byzantine Empire without expulsions or pogroms: The history of the Jews demonstrates two things; first, that there has never been a reconciliation between them and their hosts; second, that no nation has ever succeeded in barring them permanently…in every case where the Jews were expelled from a nation, often under conditions of great suffering, within a few years, the Jews have returned!  Again, one can find no parallel in the historical record of other groups, this strange compulsion, this incredible persistence in putting their heads into the lion’s mouth again and again….In all of recorded history, there was only one civilization which the Jews could not destroy.  Because of this, they have given it the silent treatment.  Few American college graduates with a Ph.D. degree could tell you what the Byzantine Empire was.  It was the Empire of East Rome, set up by Roman leaders after the Jews had destroyed Rome.  This empire functioned in Constantinople for 1,200 years, the longest duration of any empire in the history of the world.  Throughout the history of Byzantium, as it was known, by imperial edict, no Jew was allowed to hold any post in the Empire, nor was he allowed to educate the young.  The Byzantine Empire finally fell to the Turks after twelve centuries of prosperity, and the Jews have attempted to wipe out all traces of its history.  Yet its edicts against the Jews were not cruel; in fact, the Jews lived unmolested and prosperously in the empire throughout its history, but here alone the vicious cycle of host and parasite did not take place.  It was a Christian civilization, and the Jews were not able to exercise any influence…It was Ezra Pound who launched upon a study of Byzantine civilization, and who reminded the world of this happily non-Jewish land.  From the Byzantines, Pound derived his non-violent formula formula for controlling the Jews.  “The answer to the Jewish problem is simple,” he said.  “Keep them out of banking, out of education, out of government.”  And this is how simple it is.  (Out of media too would be a critical addition).

Negatives

• Orthodoxy seems to always be losing. Its center of religious belief and administration, Constantinople, was overrun by Muslims in 1453, and Orthodox believers living there gradually converted to Islam or were massacred in the Armenian genocide. The Soviets imprisoned, terrorized and murdered countless Orthodox and suppressed the religion. Now globohomo has cleaved off Ukrainian Orthodoxy and skin-suited it for their own ends, while Azerbaijan repeatedly seizes the territory and murders those living in ultra-weak Armenia (which may escalate to genocide). The decentralized centers of power, while a positive for reasons discussed above, is also a negative because it makes them politically weaker than if the Church was centralized. Furthermore, its acceptance of a secular “Caesar” ruler governing secular affairs puts them always, to an extent, at the mercy of secular governments. Perhaps the nature of suffering is a good thing; perhaps God wants to keep His followers in pain and downtrodden so they pray with devotion. As Ware writes about the Soviet calamity:What effect did communist propaganda and persecution have upon the Church? In many places there was an amazing quickening of the spiritual life. Cleansed of worldly elements, freed from the burden of insincere members who had merely conformed outwardly for social reasons, purified as by fire, the true Orthodox believers gathered themselves together and resisted with heroism and humility. ‘In every place where the faith has been put to the test,’ a Russian of the emigration writes, ‘there have been abundant outpourings of grace, the most astonishing miracles – icons renewing themselves before the eyes of astonished spectators; the cupolas of churches shining with a light not of this world.’ ‘Nevertheless,’ the same author rightly adds, ‘all this was scarcely noticed. The glorious aspect of what had taken place in Russia remained almost without interest for the generality of mankind….The crucified and buried Christ will always be judged thus by those who are blind to the light of his resurrection.’ It is not surprising that enormous numbers should have deserted the Church in the hour of persecution, for this has always happened, and will doubtless happen again. Far more surprising is the fact that so many remained faithful.Still, for non-religious outsiders perpetual losing isn’t really a point of sale to becoming a believer.
• The ethnic nature of the religious communities makes it difficult to join. The countries with the most adherents are Russia, Ukraine and Greece, and their liturgy and writings are conducted in their national languages. This can make conversion very difficult for non-ethnic outsiders.
• Orthodoxy’s rejection of Aristotelian logic makes it weak technologically. A religion that is static and unchanging seems like it will always lag behind in the times, which may be a good thing (as it resists the egalitarian ratchet effect) but it also makes it susceptible to falling behind technologically, which requires a belief in the power of transformative and rapid change to advance. As Kaczynski wrote, “The conservatives are fools: They whine about the decay of traditional values, yet enthusiastically support technological progress and economic growth. Apparently it never occurs to them that you can’t make rapid, drastic changes in the technology and the economy of a society without causing rapid changes in all other aspects of the society as well, and that such rapid changes inevitably break down traditional values.” Orthodoxy avoids this criticism by not enthusiastically supporting technological progress or economic growth, at the price of remaining on the losing side of conflicts.
• The static nature of Orthodoxy may inhibit personal growth. The same criticism can be made to personal growth and our ability to understand the world. Brett Andersen has posited a life-affirming philosophy buttressed by the latest scientific advances, rooted in human psychology and human nature, reflecting Nietzsche and Heraclitus that everything is change except for change itself, and that values and perspectives must themselves evolve over time. If Andersen is correct, a static, dualist perspective only holds people back from the process of complexification which lies at the heart of the universe and our relation to it.
• The nature of belief. Orthodoxy presupposes belief in its suppositions that can be difficult for those with evidence-based minds to accept on faith. The resolutions of disputes such as the Arian conflict, Nestorius’s dispute with Cyril, and the debates surrounding the use of icons are perplexing. One is expected to take on faith that they resolved in the form and manner in which God wanted, as opposed to resolving by chance or from majority rule/power politics.The Orthodox deontological way of thinking is not one that comes naturally to those pursuing cause-and-effect analysis, nor does it exactly match up with my own observations which sees reality as metaphysically infused with malevolence. The basic nature of reality is that living things can only survive by eating other living things, which is a nightmare, and reality is therefore likely controlled by the Demiurge. Despite some commonality between classical gnosticism and Orthodoxy, my observations are at odds with the view of a loving, omnipotent God in control of both material and spiritual reality, or that the God of the Old Testament is the same God as the God of the New Testament. Additionally, most of what we know about the life and philosophy of Jesus himself comes from Paul of Tarsus, who likely crafted his narratives as part of a non-violent revenge strategy against Rome.
• There is no way from within the religion to disprove it. This criticism applies to all religions, but as Rolo Slavsky has pointed out, any time the Orthodox lose or suffer a calamity they always default to one of two explanations: (1) it’s all part of God’s plan, just have faith; or (2) God is punishing His believers for lacking sufficient faith. I personally have a lot of beliefs, some very strongly held, but I could name plenty of conditions under which my faith would be shaken. For the Orthodox, what are the conditions, if any, under which they could lose faith? As I explained to Ignatius of Maidstone, if Orthodoxy was entirely wiped out, would that mean to him that the religion was false? I can look back on polytheistic ancient Hellenism and conclude that the wiping out of all the old Gods either means that those old Gods never existed or otherwise that they have receded from the world. What are the conditions under which his faith could or would be shaken?
• The doctrinal disputes seem silly and inconsequential. The perspective that differences in small minutia in doctrine, such as using two versus three fingers for making the sign of the Cross in their dispute with the Old Believers, or the addition of the one word Filioque to the Nicene Creed, are seen as having enormous theological and spiritual consequences, but as an outsider they seem quite silly.
• Some of the trends in Orthodox countries are concerning. For example, look at the changes in acceptance of legal gay marriage among younger adults in Greece and other Orthodox countries. How resistant will it be long-term to globohomo?Uh oh.Or look at Russia: “Russians are much less religious, at least in terms of active practice, and the ROC is less influential than the Catholic Church. Abortion is legal, while it is not in Poland.”

---

Conclusions

Orthodox Christianity offers an attractive, unchanging stability to its followers and a comprehensive, non-nihilistic worldview. Orthodoxy in both its Christian and other Abrahamic forms presents an exclusionary monotheistic framework that will survive into the future as everything non-Orthodox gets subsumed by globohomo secular materialism. But given its drawbacks, I am not convinced that Orthodox Christianity is likely to succeed in the material realm against globohomo now or in the future. Whether that matters is up to you.

Thanks for reading.

Subscribe:
Email delivery remains on Substack for now.

---

1 Orthodoxy in any belief system is likely to exhibit similar resistance to globohomo secular egalitarianism, which is easy to see based on a group’s fertility rates. Orthodox Judaism and conservative strains of Islam have much higher fertility rates than mainstream society, as do the Amish. Mormons traditionally had much higher birthrates than normal Christians but their birthrates are plummeting.

2 As a side note, it is interesting how Catholics and the Orthodox handled heresy and power struggles differently. Catholics were quick to burn heretics at the stake, such as the Cathars and the Knights Templar, while the Orthodox, who rarely did the same (such as with the Old Believers and their leader in Russia), were quick to mutilate their political opponents in Byzantium.

3 Also see the positions of Aleksey Khomyakov, who co-founded the Slavophile movement and became one of its most distinguished lay theoreticians. The Russian religious philosopher Nikolai Berdyaev located Khomyakov’s significance in his attempt to free Christianity from rationalism. As he wrote in his 1912 book, Aleksei Stepanovich Khomiakov:

Khomiakov will be eternally remembered, first and foremost, for his statement of the problem of the Church and his attempt to reveal the essence of the Church. Khomiakov approached the essence of the Church from within, not from outside. First of all he did not believe that it is possible to formulate a concept of the Church. The essence of the Church is inexpressible; like all living organisms, she cannot be encompassed by any formula, is not subject to any formal definitions. The Church is, first of all, a living organism, a unity of love, ineffable freedom, the truth of the faith not subject to rationalization. From the outside the Church is not knowable or definable; she is known only by those who are within her, by those who are her living members. The sin of scholastic theology was that it attempted to formulate rationalistically the essence of the Church; that is, it attempted to transform the Church from a mystery known only to believers into something subject to the knowledge of objective reason.

4 Ware, p. 155:

When the Bolsheviks seized power in October 1917, the Church of Russia found itself in a position for which there was no exact precedent in Orthodox history. The Roman Empire, although it persecuted Christians, was not an atheist state, opposed to all religion as such. The Turks, while non-Christians, were still worshippers of One God and, as we have seen, allowed the Church a large measure of toleration. But communism is committed by its fundamental principles to an aggressive and militant atheism. A communist government cannot rest satisfied merely with a separation of Church and State, but it seeks either by direct or indirect means to overthrow all organized Church life and to extirpate all religious belief. ‘The Party cannot be neutral towards religion,’ wrote Stalin. ‘It conducts an anti-religious struggle against all and any religious prejudices.’…

All seminaries and theological academies were ordered to be closed down…All Church buildings, lands, and moneys were declared to be national property…From 1918 until 1938, churches were methodically desecrated, closed, and destroyed, often against the wishes of the overwhelming majority of the population and at times in the face of their active opposition…

In the years between the two World Wars the Christians of Russia underwent sufferings which in extent and in cruelty equalled anything endured by the early Christians…At one time as many as 150 bishops were in prison at the same moment (before 1917 the total number of diocesan and assistant bishops in the Russian Empire was less than 130). In 1918 and 1919 alone, about 28 bishops were killed; between 1923 and 1926 some 50 more were murdered by the Bolsheviks. Parish clergy and monks also suffered severely: by 1926, according to information supplied by a bishop living in Russia at the time, some 2,700 priests, 2,000 monks, and 3,400 nuns and other ordained persons had been killed, while emigre writers today calculate that since 1917, among priests alone, at least 12,0000, and possibly far more, have been executed or have died through ill treatment..It will never be known how many laity suffered impoverishment, prison sentences, or death because of their faith. In the words of the Archpriest Avvakum: ‘Satan has obtained our radiant Russia from Good, that she may become red with the blood of martyrs.’

This is a post about the careful, long-term planning of the central bank owners behind World War 2 who manipulated events to bring about certain desired results. The hope is to provide perspective on how such events are unfolding today, which are developing in a similar manner, likely to result in war, panic, and finally a central bank digital currency dialectical solution. To be forewarned, this is long, detailed and technical, so bring your big boy thinking cap.

Additionally, while previously covering parts of World War 2 here and here, this elaboration is necessary for an upcoming post about the odds of success for a potential middle class rebellion against globohomo, which is an energy increasingly lurking in the background for some on the far-right. This war goes to the heart of the question: on a historical basis, has the international financial system ever been seriously challenged since it arose in the 17th century?

The commonly accepted story of World War 2 is that a hypnotically persuasive politician, drunk on aggression and power, a gambler of lives and of nations, seeing the early and continued appeasement of his foolish and weak enemies, plunged the whole world into a disastrous war.

This post will present a theory contrary to the mainstream understanding of history. It’s not that Hitler wasn’t these things – he was, although his underlying rationale is not commonly understood, dating back to a 2,000 year old conflict – nor is it meant to downplay Nazi mass murders committed in Eastern Europe, but rather to argue that the world’s central bank owners set in motion the events of World War 2, and they did so deliberately and consciously with the intention of furthering their worldwide power and control. They nurtured and brought forth the Nazi movement with a clear eye toward its – and Germany’s – future destruction. Through such destruction they planned to remove Germany’s abilities to threaten globalist rule forever, as well as dirty the cause of self-determination and nationalism throughout the West.

However, through a combination of Hitler’s strategic abilities, innovative German military tactics and technological innovations, and the clear superiority of the average German soldier compared to their enemies1, the war ended up being closer than the central bank owners had planned for. Not close enough, though.

The core of the argument is presented in the 2005 book “Conjuring Hitler: How Britain and America Made the Third Reich” by Guido Giacomo Preparata. I had originally touched on it in a footnote about the motivations of the central bank owners. The text is detailed and well-researched, and its publication unfortunately ended the author’s academic career, whose liberal censorious views allow no dissent to their monolithic ideology. It’s an incredible book and I highly recommend it.

The book’s thesis, supported by a wealth of corroborating evidence, is that the financial powers in Britain /America deliberately built up Hitler and the Nazis in Germany, along with sponsoring the Bolsheviks in the Soviet Union from its inception, so that they would tear each other apart and leave Britain/America as the undisputed controllers of the European continent. They perused a similar successful strategy in World War 1.

The Bolsheviks were viciously anti-German, viewing the Germans as “capitalists” who had to be conquered on behalf of worldwide communism, even as they came to temporary agreements with them. The Nazis, meanwhile, considered Slavs in Eastern Europe to be sub-human untermenschen who should be exterminated in order to open up lebensraum, free space for Germans to expand eastward, and were deliberately incubated due to the particular provisions of Versailles treaty, the Dawes Plan and other measures. These ideologies were fundamentally opposed to each other, and this situation did not come about randomly — it was planned, with great foresight and intention by the financial powers who controlled Britain and America.

---

The animating idea: Mackinder’s Heartland Theory

The British and American approach were informed by Halford Mackinder’s 1904 Heartland Theory, which posited that control of Europe would belong either to a land power (Germany allied with Russia) or a sea power (England plus America). Under this theory one or the other would ultimately win in a zero sum game. Mackinder provided a warning to England that continent-sized powers with a strong industrial base, large populations, and national resources could dominate world politics if the sea powers were not careful.  Such a power would be immune to blockades by sea, rendering British and American control of the waterways irrelevant.

This theory was hugely influential among the British elite and they adopted it wholeheartedly in their strategies. These elite thought in Empire terms, not in national or civilizational terms, as Britain had ruled the empire on which the sun never sets from the 16th century. Any concern about the mass suffering of humanity from these strategies – of millions of women, of children, of the elderly who would suffer under the expected starvation, hyperinflation or bombings – was seen as weakness, a detriment to the ruling class’s continued power and control, and those that focused on this were deliberately excluded from positions of authority.

One can see such tension historically in Rome (land power) vs. Carthage (sea power), which only ended after the Third Punic War when Rome destroyed Carthage.  Cato the Elder ended every speech with “Carthāgō dēlenda est”, which meant “Carthage must be destroyed”, prior to that final war.

Mackinder’s theory served as a contrast to Alfred Thayer Mahan’s influential 1890 argument in “The Influence of Sea Power Upon History” that island states such as England or the United States could prevail in the world through sea power.

To England the worst nightmare would have been a German/Russian alliance to control the European continent, which would have relegated England to a secondary power.  As such, they would do anything it took to ensure that such an alliance would never materialize, even at the cost of 70 million lives between the two World Wars and the passing of the baton of empire to America.2They viewed this as a matter of survival, an absolutely critical natural security priority, and they have retained that philosophy to this day. This perspective explains why England (and the U.S.) have worked so hard to dynamite deepening German/Russian ties in the 21st century by blowing up the Nordstream 2 pipeline (confirmed by Seymour Hersh) during the controlled Russia/Ukraine war. Have you seen Mackinder’s Heartland theory tied to the Nordstream 2 pipeline explosion before this moment? If not, why not? The same principles and theories are at play here, same as they were more than a century ago.

With that said, the point of this post is not to rehash the past for its own sake (although it may be helpful to clear the cobwebs of decades-old propaganda from a reader’s eyes), but rather to shine light on our ruling globohomo overlords, how they operate, how their planning extends for decades, and how ruthlessly and deviously they are prepared to act in relation to their plans for the world.

To understand the origins for World War 2 we must first begin with the origins for World War 1.

Let’s begin…

---

The late 19th century and the start of World War 1

Germany was not on the British Empire’s radar as a potential threat until it formed the Second Reich in the 1870s. It had been a fragmented backwater before then, and Britain was focused on its rivalry with France and fighting against Czarist Russia in Central Asia.

The Second Reich quickly became an imperial upstart. As the new man on the world stage they wanted attention, competition for its own sake, and sought to expand their foreign colonies. They were beginners at the game of Empire, though, and naive; its rulers were confused and unsure regarding the country’s strategic imperatives despite their nervous rhetorical bombast. Chancellor Bernhard von Bulow would decry in his memoirs that the German people had no political ability whatsoever. Even with that drawback, though, the Germans were impeccable administrators, possessed unsurpassed arts and sciences, and established an enviable network of commercial stations and railway. As the German navy grew to challenge the waterways the British grew to see them as a threat.

As their rivalry with England increased, Germany’s relations with France remained in the gutter from the Franco-Prussian war of 1870. Germany intuitively knew that it would be no good to be potentially caught in a multi-front war with France, England and potentially Russia. While Bismark tried not to antagonize Russia, Austria, its closest ally which was decidedly anti-Russia, stood in its way.

Under Mackinder’s theory the British came to believe the German/Russian alliance had to be prevented at all costs. In choosing its victim, Germany was decided to be an easier target because (1) the Reich was the dynamic half of the Russo-German threat and (2) it could be surrounded and blockaded with greater ease compared to Russia. Britain drew in France as an ally with the Entente Cordiale. Because France had allied itself with Russia by advancing them loans in 1887, and with time-honored and intense military cooperation, France was able to draw in Russia. Kaiser Wilhelm tried for rapprochement with Russia in 1905 but it was too late by then, and Tsar Nicholas was severely dressed down by his ministers for considering it. Britain drew Russia closer with the Entente Cordiale part 2, creating the Triple Entente. Germany was encircled. And worse, France had knowledge of Germany’s war plans, the Schlieffen Plan, thanks to a traitor.

The spark of World War 1, the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand, was instigated by Russia’s military attache, Colonel Victor Artamanov, who had told the chiefs of Serb intelligence to go ahead with it. Britain lied to Germany that Russia was unprepared to intervene and that Britain had no biding obligations to Russia or France; then lied to Russia that the Germans were rapidly conveying divisions to the East and that the situation looked upon the Reich with disfavor. Then Britain lied to the public by pretending to offer a mediation in the name of peace. “Britain had always been careful to spin the international tangle so as to drive the opponent in the position of the assailant, and reserve for herself the role of the peace-loving defender. This was a psychological artifice tailed for mass seduction, and the Germans had no knowledge or understanding of such tricks.” Austria issued the ultimatum to Serbia, Serbia turned it down on the orders of her patrons, and the British Treasury began printing money for war. “The war against Serbia into which Austria was deliberately incited by the ruinous intrigues of Serbia at the instigation of Russia was a trap into which Austria fell, not knowing it was fomented by Russia to create a pretext of general mobilization and war to make Austria and Germany appear to the world as the willful originators of the great conflict.” Upon hearing the news of Russia’s massing of troops, Wilhelm said:

“In this way the stupidity and clumsiness of our ally is turned into a noose. So the celebrated encirclement of Germany has finally become an accomplished fact…The net has suddenly been closed over our heads, and the purely anti-German policy which England has been scornfully pursuing all over the world has won the most spectacular victory which we have proved powerless to prevent while they, having got us despite our struggles all alone into the net through our loyalty to Austria, proceed to throttle our political and economic existence. A magnificent achievement which even those for whom it means disaster are bound to admire.”

As Germany prepared to unleash the onslaught onto the Western Front, Britain issued one last cunning call for peace provided Germany did not attack France, making Germany look again like the aggressor instead of the fool caught in the trap that it was. Abel Fery, the French Under-Secretary of State, wrote in his notebook: “The web was spun and Germany entered it like a great buzzing fly.”

Five years after WW1, a U.S. Senator, Robert Owen, undertook a deep, dispassionate study of the war’s origins and presented his findings in 1923, concluding that in 1914 Germany had no reason for war, knowing that it would have would too risky and disruptive to its burgeoning trading and commerce. When in 1916 Wilhelm brooded over the butchery at the front, he whimpered that he never wanted this war, by which he meant a massacre of global magnitude. “This is exactly right,” rejoined the British Prime Minister Lloyd George in a public response, “The emperor Wilhelm did not want this war. He wanted another war, one that would have allowed him to dispatch France and Russia in two months. We were the ones that wanted this war, as it is being fought, and we shall conduct it to victory.”

---

The fall of the Tsar and rise of the Bolsheviks

The scale of butchery of the war was historically unprecedented. Russia quickly got cold feet, especially with Hindenberg’s successes against them in the east. What did Russia have to gain from the war? Britain wanted to maintain its empire, France its pride, Germany its life. Russia had little to gain from this adventure. But Britain had leverage over Russia: Russia owed them a huge amount of money, a sum roughly a third of her annual income; Britain had knowledge of Rasputin’s upcoming murder a week before it happened, demonstrating a deep subversive network within Russia, and Britain threatened Tsar Nicholas with revolution: “The British ambassador in Russia himself was a the center of the scheme to overthrow the czar if he should ever lose his stomach for war…[To that end, he] had gathered a coterie of wealthy bankers, liberal capitalists, conservative politicians, and disgruntled aristocrats.” Britain was dead set at any cost to prevent a German/Russian rapprochement.

A British double-agent nicknamed Parvus set up the scheme to overthrow the Tsar with German gold, who naively thought they were putting pressure on the Tsar to withdraw from the war. The Germans, as noted above, were naive and gullible and had no understanding of the depths of political intrigues. They made excellent soldiers but, as prodders, they were easy to manipulate and control by the experienced British, who had centuries of knowledge of the subtle, nuanced levers of power. Truly, the British embodied their nickname the “Perfidious Albion”.

The Germans foolishly allowed Lenin passage back to Russia in April 1917. The subsequent ascension of the Bolsheviks (to which Jacob Schiff in the United States contributed more than $20 million of his own funds, an astronomical figure today, and the U.S. provided extraordinary support3) did knock Russia out of the war, but at a much steeper cost than they bargained for: the installation of a permanently hostile anti-capitalist Bolshevik government, owned by the Rothschild central bank owners, who would settle the war today cheaply in return for a much bigger, nastier war down the line. If Germany had understood the nature of the game being played — if they had truly understood Britain’s goals to keep Germany and Russia asunder at any and all costs — they would have worked with the Tsar and tried whatever the cost to both keep him in power and to conclude a peace treaty.

It didn’t matter that the Bolsheviks withdrew from the war, anyway, as America joined the war when the Russian front appeared to be creaking. Remember that the Rothschild central bankers owned America just like they owned Britain.4 They had completed their coup d’etet in 1913 where they set up the 16th Amendment authorizing personal income taxes, the IRS, the Federal Reserve and the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) all in the same year.

America’s entry into the war proved too much for Germany which led to their surrender and the harsh, but very cleverly tailored, Treaty of Versailles.

Germany had not been defeated on its own territory. It had lost the war, but it was not destroyed. This necessitated the next long-term phase of the geopolitical game for power, with a clear objective in mind: to let Germany rebuild and rearm so that it could be, once and for all, fully and completely annihilated.

---

The second act of the siege

Per Preparata, the overarching story of the second act of the German siege is as follows:

After 1918 began the second act of the siege: that is, an astounding political maneuver willingly performed by the Allies to resurrect in Germany a reactionary regime from the ranks of her vanquished militarists. Britain orchestrated this incubation with a view to conjuring a belligerent political entity which she encouraged to go to war against Russia: the premeditated purpose was to ensnare the new, reactionary German regime in a two-front war, and profit from the occasion to annihilate Germany once and for all.

To carry out these deep and painstaking directives for world control, two conditions were necessary: (1) an imposing and anti-German [regime] secretly aligned with Britain had to be set up in Russia, and (2) the seeds of chaos had to be planted in Germany to predispose the institutional terrain for the growth of this reactionary movement of ‘national liberation’. The first objective was realized by backstabbing the Czar in Russia in 1917 and installing the Bolsheviks into power; the second by drafting the clauses of the Peace Treaty so as to leave the dynastic clans of Germany unscathed: indeed, it was from their fold that Britain expected the advent of this revanchist movement.

What unraveled in Germany after the Great War was the life of the Weimar Republic, the puppet regime of the West, which incubated Nazism in three stages: a period of chaos ending with the hyperinflation and the appearance of Hitler (1918-23); a period of artificial prosperity during which the Nazis were quiet and the future war machine of Germany was in the process of being assembled with American loans (1924-29); and a period of disintegration (1930-32) paced by the financial mastermind of the twentieth century: Montagu Norman, the Governor of the Bank of England.

After the incubation was completed and the Hitlerites obtained with the aid of Anglo-American financial capital the chancellorship of the Reich (January 1933), the formidable recovery of Germany began under the Nazi wing, British loans, and the financial artistry of Germany’s central banker: Hjalmar Schacht, Montagu Norman’s protege. There followed the unbelievable ‘dance’ of Britain and Nazi Germany (1933-43), led by the former to push the latter to go to war against Russia. And Russia, too, acting in sync with London, appeased the Nazis in order to lure them into the trap of the Eastern Front….Britain calculatingly prevented the Americans from opening a western front for three years so as to allow the Nazis to penetrate and devastate Russia undisturbed…In the end, after this spectacular feat of dissimulation, Britain dropped the mask and closed in on the duped Nazis, who would be crushed on two fronts by the colluded Soviet and Anglo-American forces.

We will briefly delve into each of these phases.

---

Phase 1, 1918-1923: A period of chaos ending with the hyperinflation and the appearance of Hitler

The Treaty of Versailles was not what it appeared to be. While on its face the Treaty was ruinous for Germany, demanding a level of reparations that could not be paid back (especially after losing 13% of her territory which included 75% of her iron ore reserves, 26% of her coal production, as well as 44% and 38% of her pig iron and steel production respectively), the Allies did not expropriate the wealth of the German landed class, which it could have done as a first step by sequestering the certificates of the German war loan from their wealthy subscribers, who held the bulk of such securities. In other words, it let German’s right-wing aristocracy, steeped in deep military and hierarchical tradition, remain intact. By structuring Versailles in this manner, it would be the common man who would be forced to bear the brunt of inflation and excess taxation, which would in turn help radicalize them: “So the Treaty was in essence an articulate trap by which the German upper class – the custodians of Reaction – were to be left untouched, and thus uncured of the feudal disease, while the grief and resentment of the underclass – the proximate victims of the reparations’ bloodletting – was counted on to provide as much fodder for ‘radicalism’ as the sheltered Junkers required to re-establish a reactionary, anti-Bolshevik regime.”

The Versailles debt bubble was twice the size of Germany’s income, so the British financiers would have known that short term disastrous hyperinflation awaited. It would have been expected that engineering such a result would result in annihilation of the country’s currency resulting in societal destabilization, which could then be “solved” via massive foreign investments thereafter in order to buy everything in Germany for cents on the dollar.

Furthermore, France occupied the Ruhr in January 1923, which produced 80% of Germany’s remaining coal, iron, and steel. And the Soviets unleashed a Red Terror within Germany that was not designed to seize power (it couldn’t; it didn’t have any solid base of support there), but rather to help the British game to bring forth the rise of the Nazis in order to later destroy Germany: “Everything seemed to conspire in favor of the Hitlerites: they could count on London for the political and financial strangulation of the German people, and they could thank Moscow for causing all this Communist inferno, which made them stand tall as the Fatherland’s defenders.”

Speaking of the Nazis, Hitler professed a passionate admiration for Britain, whose folklore and tradition he revered and whose partnership he desired above all else. General Karl Haushofer and conservative ideologue Moeller van den Bruck at various points made clear to Hitler the testament of Mackinder and the importance of an embrace with the East, but Hitler ignored them. “This fellow never comprehends” van den Bruck confided to a friend. Hanfstaengl chalked up Hitler’s anti-Slav fixation to the influence of Alfred Rosenberg. Mein Kamph made clear he wanted lebensraum in the East:

In the concluding section of the book, the geopolitical agenda of the Third Reich was clearly exposed: ‘The aim of the German foreign policy,’ announced Hitler, ‘must be the preparation for the reconquest of freedom for tomorrow.’ Britain, indeed, was bent upon ‘world domination’,’ but she had no further interest, he added, ‘in the complete effacement of Germany’, which would bring about ‘French hegemony on the continent.’ Therefore, he concluded…Germany’s priority was an alliance with Britain. The foregoing argument…was a reiteration of the fallacious hope that Britain could be lured with such a shoddy bait as the hostility toward France, when in fact the fate of the British empire had always been staked on the prevention of the Eurasian embrace. No amount of coaxing could induce Britain to conceive her dominion otherwise.”

To be fair, though, as mentioned above, the rise of the Soviets meant that an Eurasian embrace was impossible, so Germany’s options were very limited. Additionally Hitler would later argue that a world war with Germany would bankrupt Britain and result in the end of its empire, which was also true and did happen thereafter. But Britain was more than ready to hand the baton to America, which it shared a common culture and language (and the same central bank owners) instead of letting Germany prosper.

Meanwhile, Russia had descended into civil war after the overthrow of the Tsar. The British and Americans wanted the anti-capitalist Bolshevik Reds to win against the pro-west, aristocratic, pro-Tsarist Whites, because if the Whites won then they would make natural allies for an alliance with a right-wing German resurgence (and again, everything revolved around preventing such an alliance, per Mackinder). However, the British and Americans could not look as if they were supporting the communists because it would have laid bare the scam of the whole affair, and then the Whites might turn to the Germans decisively for aid. So they publicly pretended to support the Whites and promised tremendous support while in actuality offering very little material aid, stringing along the Whites with promises of future aid and sabotaging them at every opportunity until they were finally wiped out and Bolshevism reigned supreme. Per Preparata:

“What Britain would do, with the help of America and the most heinous complicity of France and Japan, who should have had no part in this anti-European plot, was to engage in a mock fight on the side of the Whites versus the Reds, committing very limited resources and men. Thus what was in fact an operation of sabotage by neglect – a pretense to fight – was masked as a pro-White intervention, whose surreptitious objective was to instigate the Whites to combat under unfavorable conditions, deceitfully hamper their advances, prepare the terrain for their rout, and finally evacuate the Allied contingent by blaming the defeat on the putative inefficiency of the Whites.”

Meanwhile, they embedded a Jewish double agent, Ignaz Trebitsch-Lincoln, high up within the nationalist right wing in Germany to undermine and ruin the autocratic 1920 Kapp Putsch against the weak German government, which if it had succeeded their alliance with the Russian Whites would have been an immediate priority.5

The figures involved put the whole farce to light: “When it came to killing the Germans, America had been ready to see 2 million of its soldiers die. But when the time had arrived to fight the 3-5 million ‘evil Communists,’ London and Washington committed together approximately 1% of the American contingent in France….Siding ‘officially’ with the Whites, 500 Anglo-American soldiers were killed by the Reds in the polar north, which was part of an extraordinary double-cross of the White generals staged by the Anglo-American clubs for the benefit of the Reds themselves: such was the twisted beauty of imperial scheming.”

---

Phase 2, 1924-1929: A period of artificial prosperity during which the Nazis were quiet and the future war machine of Germany as in process of being assembled with American loans

The Governor of the Bank of England, Montagu Norman, was an incredible man, brilliant and devious, and a name who very few know. He was Governor of the Bank for an extraordinary duration of 24 years (1920-44) during this most unusual period of world history. He came from an important banking family on both sides of his lineage, and he was a secretive but mentally unstable genius, possessing a prodigious memory. His motto was “never explain, never apologize.” His personality was likened to that of a spider, as he had a special ability to get people to do what he wanted without it seeming like he was doing so. Norman, more than any other figure other than maybe Max and Paul Warburg and Jacob Schiff, were responsible for crafting the strategy for permanently crushing Germany. Other important parties were J.P. Morgan & Co., the Federal Reserve Bank of New York (Benjamin Strong), John Foster Dulles, others in Kuhn, Loeb and Company, and Norman’s lackey at the head of the German central bank, Hjalmar Schacht.

The means by which Germany would be resurrected was with the Dawes bailout. Schacht’s plan was adopted by the financier overlords, which was to give funds for rebuilding not to the profilgate ministers of Weimar, but rather to a cluster of giant conglomerates specifically created for this purpose. John Foster Dulles recommended Schacht (an unknown minor figure) to Morgan & Co., Morgan to Norman, and Norman to Weimar’s incumbent figureheads.

As I had written elsewhere: “Lloyd George told the N.Y. Journal American, June 24, 1924, how the international bankers were the decision makers and not the heads of state of the participating countries in the settlement to the war: ‘The international bankers dictated the Dawes reparations settlement.  The Protocol which was signed between the Allies and Associated Powers and Germany is the triumph of the international financier.  Agreement would never have been reached without the brusque and brutal intervention of the international bankers.  They swept statesmen, politicians and journalists to one side, and issued their orders with the imperiousness of absolute monarchs, who knew that there was no appeal from their ruthless decrees…the orders of German financiers to their political representatives were just as peremptory as those of allied bankers to their political representatives.’”

The Dawes bailout bestowed upon Germany five years of ‘synthetic prosperity’, her so-called ‘Golden Years’ (1924-1929). The Dawes plan was a J.P. Morgan production, directed by Norman. The key was the new agreement on reparations payments which lightened Germany’s payments, with the critical provision a new ‘transfer clause’ whereby reparations payments could be suspended if the strain against the mark should become too strong. This opened up the floodgate of international borrowing; up until 1930, some $28 billion flowed into Germany, 50% as short-term credits, like fattening a pig up for slaughter:

“This initiated Weimar’s absurd cycle of the ‘golden years’: the gold that Germany had paid as tribute after the war, sold, pawned and lost during the inflation to the United States, was sent in the form of Dawes loans back to Germany, who then remitted it to France and Britain, who shipped it as payment for the war debts to the United States, who channeled it once again, burdened with an additional layer of interest, to Germany, and so on….It did not take much to realize that the arrangement was a house of cards: the moment Wall Street decided to recall its loans, Germany would plunge into complete, irredeemable bankruptcy. What next? Nobody wished to give the prospect a careful thought. Only the fall was certain. It was just a matter of time.”

The I.G. Farben concern, one of the giant conglomerates, entered into an alliance with Standard Oil and had on its board numerous American captains of industry and business, including Paul Warburg, first member and creator of the Federal Reserve Board and Chairman of Manhattan Bank. During World War 2, Farben would supply Germany with the following essentials: 100% of Germany’s synthetic rubber, 100% of their dyestuffs 100%, 95% of their poison gas, 90% of their plastics, 84% of their explosives, 70% of their gunpowder, 46% of their aviation gasoline, 36% of their synthetic gasoline.

Britain and America raised up Germany in order to facilitate its future destruction. “Since 1924, the Anglo-Americans equipped what would become Hitler’s war machine through well over 150 foreign long-term loans contracted in less than seven years: the more thorough and elaborate the fitting, the more devastating the German army, the bloodier the war, the more resounding the foregone victory of the Allies (and the defeat of Germans, who were being set up), and the more sweeping and permanent the Anglo-American conquest. There was neither greed nor treason behind the Dawes bailout, but solely the long-term objective of fitting a prospective enemy with a view to bringing him down in a fiery confrontation – a confrontation to be orchestrated at a later stage.”

---

Phase 3, 1930-1932: A period of disintegration

The great 1929 Wall Street Crash was initiated by Paul Warburg as previously discussed here, in coordination with Montagu Norman. The American policy of cheap money had been to sustain the continuous flotation of German securities in New York in order to fuel Germany’s rise. With the crash Americans wanted their money back. They immediately stopped buying German securities:

As soon as the ‘stream’ of foreign money was drained out of Germany, all the trappings of the Allied bailout snapped closed upon her….As in 1923, the German Grid was literally colonized by the Allied investors: more than 50% of all German bank deposits belonged to foreigners in 1930: this was money that would vaporize at the first sign of distress. And, finally, the unshakable burden of the reparations impeded any freedom of financial initiative on the part of the Reich. The ‘Dawes machine’ had nailed Germany to the cross, right and proper.

Official unemployment in Germany rose to 5 million and major important banks failed. Tight exchange controls were initiated, but there was no return to normal. The combination of the retention of the German landed aristocratic class post-World War 1, the hyperinflation of the early 1920s followed by the Dawes loans and then economic collapse, along with the regular irritant and threat of the communists, juiced the rise of the anti-Soviet Nazis who went from 4% of the vote in 1928 elections to 37.3% in the 1932 elections. 9 million Germans were jobless out of a labor force of 20 million — two out of every five Germans employed in 1929 were without work in the winter of 1932-33.

The Nazis themselves were funded to a significant part with foreign funds:

“Who had been funding them from the beginning? According to one hideously humorous folk tale eagerly circulated, the Nazis financed themselves by way of rallies and contributions, in addition to the storm troopers’ late endorsements of razor blades called ‘Sturmer’ (‘Stormer’) and a brand of margarine called ‘Kampf’ (‘Battle’). Ten years of political activity all over the nation, and three technologically innovative, mass-publicized elections in a country half-bankrupt, funded by means of tickets, piddling donations, and margarine?….In 1934 the foreign correspondent of the Manchester Guardian confirmed the widely diffused rumor that the bulk of Nazi funding was foreign in origin.”

Hitler demanded Hindenburg’s mandate to become Chancellor, but Hindenburg hated Hitler. Hindenburg appointed brilliant Kurt von Schleicher as Chancellor of the Reich instead and he initiated a public program of large-scale work-creating endeavors. But Maxim Litvinov, who covertly ruled the Soviet Union on behalf of the central bank owners, had already told Ivan Maisky, the newly appointed Soviet Ambassador to London, that the Nazis would soon come to power. The international bankers suddenly gave the Nazis unlimited credit and president of the Reichbank and Montagu Norman puppet Schacht confided that the Nazis would be in power within three weeks. This came to pass.

---

Phase 4, 1933-43: The ‘dance’ of Britain and Nazi Germany

Once the Nazis were in power Britain, the USSR and the U.S. provided them with resources, military know-how, patents, money and weapons in very large quantities. Explains Preparata:

Throughout the 1930s, the United States acted as a mere supplier to the Nazis in the shadow of Britain, who produced the entire show. This show had to end with Britain’s participation in a worldwide conflict as the leader of the coalition of Allied forces against Nazi Germany. But the Hitlerites had to be duped into going to war against Russia with the guarantee that Britain, and thus America, would remain neutral: Hitler would not want to repeat the errors of World War 1. Therefore Britain had too ‘double’ herself, so to speak, into a pro-Nazi and anti-Nazi faction – both of which, of course, were components of one and the same fakery. The complex and rather grotesque whole of Britain’s foreign policy in the 1930s was indeed the result of these ghastly theatrical diversions with which the Hiterlites were made to believe that at any time the colorful Nazi-phile camp would overthrow the hawks of the War Party, led by Winston Churchill, and sign a separate peace with the Third Reach. The secret goal of this unbelievable mummery was to drive Hitler away from the Mediterranean in 1941 and into the Soviet marshes, which the British would in fact allow him to ‘cleanse’ for three years, until the time would arrive to hem the Nazis in and finally crush them.”

Preparata believed the best chance Germany had to stop this process was under von Schleicher, the ‘Red General’, or secondly if Hitler had pursued a Mediterranean policy in the war and not get sucked into the Russian morass, although I have my doubts about this given the Russians were about ready to invade Germany when Barbarossa was launched.

Anyway, in the 1930s the international financiers turned back on the tap of loans to Germany. Hitler understood and hated the game with these financiers, but he knew he had to abide by their dictates in order to accomplish his goal in the East. The Reich borrowed from the Reichbank (at interest, which is the core component of our sick central bank system as explained here), which in turn received funds from the international financiers. These funds were then used for infrastructure projects and for re-armament. Schacht reduced interest rates from over 8% in 1933 to 2.81% by 1935, enabling a tremendous amount of borrowing and furthering the German economic “miracle”: it looked as though the whole endeavor was pervaded with the lightness of a zero-interest loan.

---

It is not time yet!

The British had a number of opportunities to crush the Germans early, but they did not want to: the time was not ripe yet. They had spent multiple decades to get to this moment, and they did not want the opportunity to go to waste. Germany had to be allowed to grow and become a major threat to the world before they would be allowed to be destroyed; otherwise the resultant victory would not be large enough for the international financier’s purposes. When Mussolini was about to go to war against Germany over Austrian Nazis botching a coup in Vienna, Britain said ‘no’. London had further chances when Germany invaded the Rhineland with a mere three battalions, then with the Austrian annexation, then with Czechoslovakia. A group of generals led by the Chief of the General Staff, General Ludwig Beck, plotted to assassinate Hitler in 1938 if Britain gave the okay — Britain refused. Britain had detailed plans of Germany’s planned invasion of Russia with Barbarossa via Captain Winterbotham, the British spy. There was nothing that England did not know.

Then a conspiracy led by Pope Pius XII plotted to assassinate Hitler in early 1939. The message from the British: no, do not move forward. “These plots to assassinate Hitler were always a nuisance and a source of embarrassment to Britain: she did not want the fruit of her conjuration dead just yet; certainly not at this early stage. And so the stewards sabotaged this plot as well.”

---

Conclusion

We all know what happened thereafter:

Preparata’s thesis cleanly solves many puzzles leading up to World War 2, puzzles that are not answerable under the traditional narrative:

If it is true that the British stewards intrigued at Versailles to conjure a reactionary movement that would feed on radicalism and be prone to seek war in the East; if it is true that the Anglo-Americans traded heavily with and offered financial support to the Nazis, continuously and deliberately from the Dawes loans of 1924 to the conspicuous credits via the Bank of International Settlements in Basle of late 1944; if it is true that the encounter in Cologne in von Schröder’s manse was the decisive factor behind Hitler’s appointment as Chancellor; if it true that such financial support was accorded to make Nazism an enemy target so strong as to elicit in war a devastating response – retribution that would make the Allied victory clear-cut and definitive; if it is true that appeasement was a travesty since 1931; if it is true that Churchill refused deceitfully to open a western front for three years, during which the expectation was that the Germans would find themselves so hopelessly mired in the Russian bog as to make the British closing onslaught from the West as painless as possible; and if it is true that Hess brought with him to Britain plans for evacuating the Jews to the island of Madagascar, for such was the last policy pursued by the Germans before adopting the Final Solution – a plan that clearly was given no sequitor; if all the foregoing is true, then it is just to lay direct responsibility for incubating Nazism and planning World War II, and indirect responsibility for the Holocaust of the Jews, at the door of the Anglo-American establishment.

The result of the war was that there was no more Germany to speak of: all there remains is a benumbed population subject to permanent U.S. control and endless, soul-destroying propaganda. Innumerable horrors have been done to it, some of which are described by The Underdog here. The country remains militarily occupied to this day, occupied by one hundred and nineteen U.S. military bases:

Re-reading Conjuring Hitler in preparation for this post surprisingly left a feeling a lingering sadness on this go-around: perhaps possessing a greater understanding and weight of the horrors unleashed, tens of millions of lives lost in both wars because of the games conducted by the great powers for power and control, financed and set up by the Rothschild central bank owners for their dreams of world domination, and with the great masses of western civilization serving as mindless cannon fodder, easily susceptible to media propaganda to act against their own interests, chewed up and sacrificed on the altar of the Demiurge.

Now, the book didn’t really cover the important central bank ownership angle, an angle that was explored in depth by South African central banker Stephen Mitford Goodson and which I reviewed here. Also, Preparata portrays the international financier’s machinations as more or less brilliant and unstoppably devious and everyone else as essentially low IQ retards, easy to fool. Maybe that perspective is true, maybe it isn’t, but it’s certainly depressing. Also, it’s easy to construe the book as “look how bad the Allied powers were for giving rise to Hitler” but, without discounting the huge numbers of deaths caused by Germany, I took the lesson more as: look how much of a head-start the central bank owners and the Anglo-Saxons had on understanding the nature of power; look how brutally and unflinchingly they played the game no matter the death and destruction wrought; look at how they planned with layers of contingencies built into each plan; and look how deceptive they were, always trying (successfully) to get their enemies to be goaded into the first military move, a strategy they regularly use including in the 2022 Russian/Ukraine war.

And all for what? So the globohomo elites can control most of the world’s wealth, engage in murders and perverted sex addictions to their heart’s content, and then torture and genocide the peasants for fun and to get a rush of power and control, to feel like God? How empty that all is, how fundamentally unsatisfying. It brings to mind two things. The first is the emperor Diocletian, the first Roman emperor who ever retired. There was a large amount of political instability after he abdicated, and the citizens begged him to return in order to restore order. Diocletian responded: “If you could show the cabbage that I planted with my own hands to your emperor, he definitely wouldn’t dare suggest that I replace the peace and happiness of this place with the storms of a never-satisfied greed.”

The other story is a tribute that Kurt Vonnegut wrote for his friend Joseph Heller, originally published in the New Yorker in 2005:

“True story, Word of Honor:
Joseph Heller, an important and funny writer
now dead,
and I were at a party given by a billionaire
on Shelter Island.
I said, “Joe, how does it make you feel
to know that our host only yesterday
may have made more money
than your novel ‘Catch-22’
has earned in its entire history?”
And Joe said, “I’ve got something he can never have.”
And I said, “What on earth could that be, Joe?”
And Joe said, “The knowledge that I’ve got enough.”
Not bad! Rest in peace!”

Amen to that.

Subscribe:
Email delivery remains on Substack for now.

---

1 Trevor N. Dupuy, a noted American military analyst, US Army Colonel, and author of numerous books and articles, studied the comparative performance of the soldiers of World War II. On average, he concluded, 100 German soldiers were the equivalent of 120 American, British or French soldiers, or 200 Soviet soldiers. “On a man for man basis,” Dupuy wrote, “German ground soldiers consistently inflicted casualties at about a 50 percent higher rate than they incurred from the opposing British and American troops under all circumstances [emphasis in original]. This was true when they were attacking and when they were defending, when they had a local numerical superiority and when, as was usually the case, they were outnumbered, when they had air superiority and when they did not, when they won and when they lost.” Many other noted historians agreed with this assessment

2 Preparata, Preface xix: “The leitmotiv of this book is the conscious nature of the effort expended by the British clubs to preserve the empire, it being understood that such an effort was worthwhile even if it meant surrendering leadership to the American brethren, whom the London clubs cultivated as their spiritual heirs. The message conveyed here is that Britain’s imperial way was possibly the most atrocious manifestation of machiavellism in modern history for she stopped at nothing to defend her dominant position; she knew of no means that could not justify the end. To achieve world hegemony, Britain did not retract from planning in Germany an interminable season of pain and chaos to incubate an eerie, native force, which she thought of manipulating in a second world conflict – that too a British idea. All of this was, from the beginning in 1919 till the end in 1945, a cool-headed, calculated plot. Needless to say, I am well aware that such a thesis might too easily lend itself to being booed by the patriotic ‘experts’ of Western academia as yet another grotesque conspiracy theory; but in fact this thesis provides no more than a thread with which one may finally string together a collection of clues and solid evidence, which have been available for years, and have formed ever since a platform for dissenters, that is, for those students of history and economics that have had the candor to acknowledge that the central tenet of international relations was, then as now, secrecy….all great historical developments, good or ill, are unfailingly animated, fought and countered by the initiates of the several antagonistic ‘societies’; and the herds, despite themselves, always follow. In the twentieth and early twenty-first centuries, it is the Anglo-American clubs that have carried the day, and their tenure has little to do with human rights, free markets and democracy, regardless of what they may shamelessly profess. What follows is the story of the most important battle they victoriously fought so far: the horrifying campaign against Germany.”

3 Per Preparata, p. 72: “The magnitude of Western assistance to the Bolsheviks is not known, though in early 1918, for instance, it was a matter of some notoriety that the United States was conveying funds to Bolshevik Russia for purchases of weaponry and munitions via Wall Street operator Raymond Robins, for whom Trotsky was ‘the greatest Jew since Jesus.’ The significant number of contracts, concessions, and licenses subsequently released by Lenin’s empire to American firms during the Civil War, and in its immediate aftermath, formed something of a smoking gun of Bolshevism’s early Allied sponsorship: $25 million of Soviet commissions for US manufactures between July 1919 and January 1920, not to mention Lenin’s concession for the extraction of asbestos to Armand Hammer in 1921, and the 60-year lease granted in 1920 to Frank Vanderlip’s US consortium formed to exploit the coal, petroleum and fisheries of a North Siberian region covering 600,000 square kilometers.”

4 Per Preparata, p. xvi footnote 3: “So-called ‘democracy’ is a sham, the ballot a travesty. In modern bureaucratized systems, whose birth dates from the mid-nineteenth century, the feudal organization has been carried to the next level, so to speak. A chief objective of what Thucydides referred to in his epoch as synomosiai (literally ‘exchanges of oaths’), that is, the out-of-sight fraternities acting behind the ruling clans, has been to make the process of the exaction of rents from the population (a ‘free income’ in the form of rents, financial charges and like thefts) as unfathomable and impenetrable as possible. The tremendous sophistication, and the propagandistic wall of artfully divulged misconceptions surrounding the banking system, which is the chief instrument wherewith the hierarchs expropriate and control the wealth of their surrounding community, is the limpid testimony of this essential transformation undergone by the feudal/oligarchic organization in the modern era. The West has moved from a low-tech agrarian establishment built upon the backs of disenfranchised serfs to a highly mechanized post-industrial hive that feeds off the strength of no less disenfranchised blue- and white-collar slaves, whose lives are mortgaged to buy into the vogue of modern consumption. The latter-day lords of the manor are no longer seen demanding tribute since they have relied on the mechanics of banking accounts for the purpose, whereas the sycophants of the median class, as academics and publicists, have consistently remained loyal to the synomosiai. The other concrete difference between yesterday and today is the immensely increased throughput of industrial production (whose potential level, however, has always been significantly higher than the actual one, to keep prices high). As for the ‘democratic participation’ of the ordinary citizens, these know in their hearts that they never decide anything of weight, and that politics consists in the art of swaying the mobs in one direction or another according to the wishes and anticipations of the few having the keys to information, intelligence and finance. These few may at a point in time be more or less divided into warring factions; the deeper the division, the bloodier the social strife. The electoral record of the West in the past century is a shining monument to the utter inconsequence of ‘democracy’: in spite of two cataclysmic wars and a late system of proportional representation that yielded a plethora of parties, Western Europe has seen no significant shift in her socio-economic constitution, whereas America has become, as time progressed, even more identical to her late oligarchic self, having reduced the democratic pageant to a contest between two rival wings of an ideologically compact monopartite structure, which is in fact ‘lobbied’ by more or less hidden ‘clubs’: the degree of public participation in this flagrant mockery is, as known, understandably lowest: a third of the franchise at best.”

5 Preparata, 111: “Had the coup succeeded, the Versailles Treaty might have all been for naught. True, Kolchak was already finished when the Kappists invaded Berlin: thus a White, full-fledged Russo-German alliance could hardly have come into being at the time of the putsch, but a revived dynastic Reich, propped by a few satellites in Central Europe, would have certainly conspired, and successfully so, to loosen completely the unsteady grip of Bolshevism over Eurasia in the medium term by bolstering the armies of the other Russian Whites – Denikin, Yudenitch, and the survivors of the Siberian debacle.”

This post offers a preliminary analysis of the Israel/Gaza conflict from the perspective of globohomo’s broader goals and objectives.

I generally try to design my posts around social, geopolitical, and spiritual factors above the fray of day-to-day politics, because a focus on day-to-day politics generally misses the forest for the trees. But occasionally there will be event that happens that reflects on larger trends, and I’ll feel compelled to break away from the scheduled release order of posts and address the topic directly.

These events are felt as an emotional gut-punch which lingers, usually signifying the event is something that is likely to have much wider and longer-lasting repercussions than the day-to-day politics, and which I have to sit back and intellectualize the complex underlying feelings. Two of these events covered in this manner were the Russian oligarchy’s recent assassination of Prigozhin and Donald Trump being hit with a slew of frivolous globohomo criminal lawsuits. I had similar emotional gut-punches when globohomo ramped up the COVID narrative scam in March 2020, when they rigged and stole the election from Blormf in a very obvious manner at the end of 2020 and at the start of the Russian/Ukraine “Not War”.

When one of these impactful events happens, it can be hard to separate the deluge of competing propaganda “facts” and false narratives as well as their implications. For example, when the Russia/Ukraine war started pretty much everything argued on both sides was wrong. The Z-bloggers thought Kiev would fall in a matter of days, while the Ukraine bloggers thought their later counter-offensives would have spectacular results. Only when time passed and the smoke cleared did it become apparent that the “Not War” was America’s next forever war after Afghanistan, that it was designed to rape the American taxpayer and to churn dead white Christian bodies on both sides. But to this day this position is almost entirely unknown except for Rurik Skywalker and maybe a couple others.

Therefore, when assessing an event like Hamas’s attack on Israel, it is best to sit back and ponder it, to be tentative about reaching conclusions that will only be really understood down the line.

A couple things seem obvious, though:

1. It seems hard to believe that Israel did not have advance knowledge of a major military buildup on its border (a sentiment echoed by a popular Israeli Substack blogger),
2. Iran was behind the planning, funding, and supplies for the attack, the proximate cause of which is to scuttle Israel-Saudi normalization talks (which I think will be scuttled),
3. Iran has war-gamed the response to the broadcasted atrocities (rape, torture, and mass-murder of civilians, including announced ISIS-style publicly broadcast executions of captives) and will have lots of nasty surprises in store during a Gaza ground invasion, and urban combat will negate to a large extent Israel’s tech advantages and result in lots of IDF casualties, and
4. Hezbollah may enter the war at any moment, and from there it’s possible that Syria, Iran, and Israel’s Muslim population join in.

But why is this attack important? After all, Josiah Lippincott is correct that Israel is not America and that America have no business being in the region at all, given that it has enormous domestic issues to deal with and is out of money. The middle east has always been home to tribal blood feuds, and that’s not ending anytime soon. I love the little chart he led with:

I would much prefer to withdraw all U.S. forces from abroad and to end all foreign aid and let the world fend for itself. But that’s not the reality we live in. We currently live in Pax Americana (which is itself controlled by the central bank owners1) and Israel is an American protectorate shoved into the heart of the Arab region. It’s mere existence stirs conflict and controversy, although the Muslim world is not sympathetic either, mired in tribal backwardness, corruption, and brutality, although it’s avoided the worst of globohomo degeneracy for now.

Here is a quote from Guido Giacomo Preparata in his excellent “Conjuring Hitler” on how our central bank owning overlords operate:

“To isolate each conflict, the targeted territorial portion had to be severed from its adjacent district, and bled white by prolonged strife waged in the name of political, religious, or ethnic diversity. Thus the Anglo-Americans have always acted: in Europe by spinning everybody against Germany (1904-45); in the Near East, by jamming Israel in the heart of the Arab world (1917-present); in the Far East, by planting thorns in the side of China: Korea, Vietnam, and Taiwan (1950-present); in Central Asia by destabilizing the entire region intro tribal warfare with the help of Pakistan to prevent the Caspian seaboard from gravitating into the Russian sphere of influence.

Most importantly, in such trying games of conquest, results might never be expected to take shape quickly, but might take a matter of weeks, months or even decades. Imperial strategems are protracted affairs. The captains of world aggression measure their achievements, or failures, on a timescale whose unit is the generation.”

Think about those fault lines: (1) Germany (which is a conquered, humiliated and brainwashed American protectorate now) has shifted to Ukraine with Russia, but other than that we have (2) China/Taiwan, (3) India/Pakistan, and (4) Israel/Muslim world (with a sub-irritant of Palestinians as a thorn in the side of Israel2).

Our globohomo overlords installed each of these conflicts as a means of leverage to keep nations compliant, keeping a relative balance of power which they have done since time immemorial. As I wrote when discussing the motivations of our overlords:

The money-lenders attempted to finance both sides of European conflicts, hoping for long, drawn out wars to increase the debts owed to them and thus their leverage against the debtor kings.  These lenders sought to obtain a balance of power among European countries so that if any king tried to cancel their debt arrangements they could finance other nearby countries to overthrow them.  In this way they could ensure kings would pay their debts and not abrogate them by decree….

According to Professor Stuart Crane as told by Gary Allen, “If you will look back at every war in Europe during the Nineteenth Century, you will see that they always ended with the establishment of a ‘balance of power’.  With each reshuffling there was a balance of power in a new grouping around the House of Rothschild in England, France or Austria.  They grouped nations so that if any king got out of line a war would break out and the war would be decided by which way the financing went.  Researching the debt positions of the warring nations will usually indicate who was to be punished.”

And I think that’s the cause of the emotional reaction: it may be the start of the opening of a second front (Israel/Middle East3) after Ukraine/Russia, which, if so, one can then reasonably conclude that it could lead to a third and fourth front. This is also geopolitically rational, right? Because if the U.S. gets sucked into the Middle East somehow (given U.S. Jews are in control of the government4, see also here), and given it’s military inventories are already getting low in the Ukraine war, then it would be the proper time for China to invade Taiwan, if it decides to do so, because the U.S. would not be able to competently respond.

And from there, one could imagine a U.S. draft being called. Kulak believes calling a draft would result in imperial suicide, but keep in mind that the U.S. population was ~90% against entry into both World War 1 and World War 2 before authorities managed affairs to change their minds. The U.S. population is obese, lazy, and entitled now, with very little patriotism and some degree of greater resistance to globohomo propaganda, along with trends toward increased anti-semitism5, but I don’t think it would be too hard to gear the population up for war with a false flag on domestic soil (Cyber Polygon?) or endless propaganda or otherwise (perhaps an end to free speech or an internet shutdown?). As Goering famously said:

“…after all, it’s the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it’s always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it’s a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger.”

People are idiots and will always follow leadership during times of perceived danger, the perception of which the media controls.

---

The end of Pax Americana

After all, Pax America is on its last legs. The following graph visualizes Pax Americana; note especially how many bases there are in Germany.

It was also summed up in the great Team America: World Police, which has actually left a bitter taste in the mouth on re-watch given how badly America has squandered its wealth and position. Nothing last forever, though, and corruption and decadence is an inevitable result of wealth.

Pax Americana wasn’t all bad, as it resulted in unprecedented global peace since the fall of the Soviet Union, per Noah Smith, who argues that we aren’t going to like what comes next:

The signs are all there for Pax American to wind down: the U.S. government has too much debt, its population is set against each other, it’s military is increasingly gay, trans, non-white and woke, greatly eroding combat capabilities, U.S. manufacturing was maliciously sent abroad to China in the 1990s so that globohomo elite could profit off it and the military-industrial complex has enormous problems competently delivering weapons.

And it’s about time to end based on historical metrics, judged by the average length of time a country retained world reserve currency status:

Losing reserve currency status would result in a dramatic and shocking higher cost of borrowing and inflation domestically, given the U.S. government has historically exported inflation abroad as part of the benefits it receives from the petrodollar system as described by Tree of Woe here (and part 2, 3, 4).

As Pax Americana ends – regardless of whether we have World War 3 or not – the transition to a multi-polar world will continue, and such a world is likely to result in massively higher costs of living as well as hugely spiking deaths from ethnic, religious and state conflicts moving forward.

To be clear, a transition from a unipolar to a multi-polar world does not impact the top layer of control by the central bank owners who own the BRICS central banks. I’ve touched on this point many times (see the second part of this post or this analysis of the Russia/Ukraine war); also see this post by Edward Slavsquat to get a feel for it. Alex Soros bragged about it ten years ago on Instagram, when he asked “The question is, which of these flags will fall first?” and included a photo of the U.S. flag.

The WEF itself has publicly bragged about an upcoming multi-polar world in this deleted but archived post, where it predicted:

US dominance is over. We have a handful of global powers. Nation states will have staged a comeback, writes Robert Muggah, Research Director at the Igarapé Institute. Instead of a single force, a handful of countries – the U.S., Russia, China, Germany, India and Japan chief among them – show semi-imperial tendencies. However, at the same time, the role of the state is threatened by trends including the rise of cities and the spread of online identities.

If globohomo is bragging and predicting a multi-polar world, you can be sure they aren’t losing control in it.

---

CBDCs and the Great Reset

As argued previously, central bank digital currencies (CBDCs) are primed up and ready for roll-out. CBDCs will be used to micro-manage human behavior to an extent never seen before in human history, with the greatest loss of human freedom of all time, enforced by an ultra-woke AI. If you don’t comply your funds will be stolen and you will be locked out of life. They need a major triggering event to bring this system into effect, with a shocked and terrified population calling out for a solution, any solution (which will be hand-ready to deliver); COVID was a test-run and designed to get Trump out of office (among other objectives6), as they did not plan for him to win in 2016.

This triggering event could easily be World War 3 by inciting conflict in these four primed fault line areas, and the concern is that Israel/Hamas will expand to be the second triggered fault line. World War 3 would also serve as a fantastic excuse for globohomo to shift blame for their destruction of Western economies, currencies, and populations away from themselves and onto something else, as globohomo will do anything within its power to avoid accepting public blame for their crimes.

Hopefully the Israel/Gaza conflict stays localized and does not spread further, and I will look back on this post like I look back on all the immediate post-Ukraine invasion commentary by all the squawking heads online, with bemusement and a head shake for a concern that did not materialize.

Thanks for reading.

Subscribe:
Email delivery remains on Substack for now.

---

1 The 16th Amendment authorizing personal income taxes, the IRS, the Federal Reserve and the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) all came into existence in 1913.

2 Gaza’s population is 3 million on a 140 square mile strip of land. It survives entirely on foreign aid, but at the same time no Arab state is willing to grant them passports to move (WSJ: “Arab countries won’t grant them citizenship. My life attests that doing so would be a boon for all involved” and see here). As such, it’s implicit purpose is to serve as an irritant for Israel, just as Israel’s existence is to serve as an irritant on the larger Arab world.

3 As one of the smartest men in the world Chris Langan has argued here and here, the central bank owners, while mostly Jewish, are more than willing to sacrifice their genetic brethren if it advances their overarching goals.

4 Per the Jerusalem Post, Jewish Journal, and Jewish Telegraphic Agency, Jews serving within the Biden administration include Antony Blinken, Secretary of State; David Cohen, Deputy CIA Director; Janet Yellen, Secretary of the Treasury; Merrick Garland, Attorney-General; Avril Haines, Director of National Intelligence; Ron Klain, Chief of Staff; Eric Lander, Director, Office of Science & Technology Policy; Rachel Levine, Deputy Secretary, Health and Human Services; Alejandro Mayorkas, Secretary of Homeland Security; Anne Neuberger, Director of Cybersecurity, National Security Agency; Wendy Sherman, Deputy Secretary of State; Jeff Zients, COVID-19 Coordinator; Rochelle Walensky, Director, Center for Disease Control; Jared Bernstein, member, Council of Economic Advisors; Douglas Emhoff, second gentleman, husband of US Vice President Kamala Harris.

It’s not just limited to Democrats, of course. Among the Trump administration, also per the above Jerusalem Post link, there were also a huge number of Jews. Among them included Jared Kushner, son-in-law and senior advisor; Elliot Abrams Special representative for Venezuela, then Iran; David Friedman, Ambassador to Israel; Jason Greenblatt, Special Representative for International Negotiations, the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict; Steve Mnuchin, Secretary of the Treasury; Stephen Miller, Senior Advisor, Policy; Gary Cohn, Director, White House National Economic Council; Reed Cordish, Assistant to the President, Intragovernmental and Technology Initiatives; Avrahm Berkowitz, Deputy Advisor to the President; Rod Rosenstein, Deputy Attorney General; Elan Carr, Special Envoy to monitor and combat antisemitism; Ellie Cohanim, Deputy Special Envoy to monitor and combat antisemitism; Jeffrey Rosen, Attorney General; Morgan Ortagus, Spokesperson, State Department; David Shulkin, Secretary of Veterans Affairs; Lawrence Kudlow, Director National Economic Council; Ivanka Trump, daughter, Advisor to the President; John Eisenberg, National Security Council Legal; Ezra Cohen-Watnick, Acting Under-Secretary of Defense for Intelligence; Len Khodorkovsky, Deputy Secretary of State and Senior Advisor to the US Special Representative for Iran.

5 There has been a massive amount of anti-Jewish Islamic immigration into America as a result of predominantly Jewish-pushed open borders (see perplexed comments like this one that completely miss this point, thinking eternal blood-feuds can be negotiated with), along with white America’s increasing embitterment at the Jewish position of “closed borders for me but not for thee” given Israel has a border wall and closed immigration.

6 Other objectives furthered include: (1) it instituted permanent vote by mail in key states so that future elections would be much easier for globohomo to rig; (2) it was a test to see how weak/complaint the populations worldwide are to tyrannical dictates, and those populations failed miserably; (3) it was an opportunity to print $11 trillion dollars+ and funnel most of it to themselves, their friends and allies; (4) it was an opportunity to crush small and medium sized businesses in favor of big businesses; (5) it was an opportunity to test experimental and dangerous mRNA technologies on a wide scale. Probably some others, but those off the top of my head. It was a masterful operation. Now, they didn’t get away with permanent vaccine passports this time around, likely because the uptake on the COVID booster was terrible (~20%). But hey, they pushed the envelope and made a lot happen with it.

This post links the last 40 years of American so-called prosperity to a declining interest rate environment and massively inflating debt levels, which have raised asset prices and peppered over a deteriorating quality of life, making it easier for people to ignore. But the days of declining interest rates are over and therefore so is the party, and much harder times are ahead.

Western society is in a very unusual situation.

When the Bolsheviks seized power in Russia in 1917 on the basis of economic equality, they inherited a country that was extremely backwards and poor. Sure, they crushed the small but burgeoning kulak class (which existed thanks to the efforts of Pyotr Stolypin) and murdered millions of middle class, small, independent farmers in what is the current Ukraine, but generally speaking the quality of life of the peasants overall did not get that much worse. Furthermore, the peasants were generally very religious and remained so in spite of the Bolshevik’s militant atheism.

America, on the other hand, is rich. Really rich. Richer than any nation in history as it gallops to a permanent Bioleninist one party state. But average wages peaked in 1971 and have been slowly crushed under the central bank’s unbacked fiat system, unlimited immigration and the forced exportation of manufacturing jobs abroad, a process of neoliberal feudalism which is intensifying. You can see a whole bunch of charts here to see the shocking changes.

America was able to hide these problems with a 40-year declining interest rate environment, from the early 1980s until 2022, which raised asset prices (for homes, education, business equipment, the stock market, etc.) and made borrowing easier for the length of this “golden” period, with some blips along the way.

There is a simple formula for this: lowering interest rates = more borrowing power = higher asset prices, and the opposite is also true (higher interest rates = decreased borrowing power = decreasing asset prices).

Here is the result in the stock market:

Globohomo bailed out the big banks in 2008, then dropped rates to 0% for many years in order to create the biggest asset and debt bubble of all time.

But the party is over: The Fed Funds rate suddenly spiked in 2022-2023 and is now over 5%, signaling the end of the 40 year falling rate/rising asset prices dynamic. Jamie Dimon recently warned that rates may likely rise further to 7% (or higher).

As the 40 declining rate period occurred, people were forced to take out more and more debt to afford ever-appreciating assets. I discussed previously how the money lending process worked to steal the assets of the general population, where I wrote:

Any industry that received expansion of credit…resulted in major price appreciation, so individuals were forced to take out debt at whatever rate was demanded or get priced out of their industries.  For example, money lenders first arrived in England in 1066 in the wake of William I’s defeat of King Harold II at Hastings.  They had financed the war and, in return for their support, William I richly awarded the money lenders by allowing them to practice usury under royal protection.  By charging rates of interest of 33% per annum on lands mortgaged by nobles and 300% per annum on tools of trade or chattels pledged by workmen, within two generations 1/4 of all English lands were in the hands of usurers.  At his death in 1186, the English financier Aaron of Lincoln’s wealth exceeded that of King Henry II.  The famous economist Dr. William Cunningham compares “the activity of the money-lenders in England from the eleventh century onward to a sponge, which sucks up all the wealth of the land and thereby hinders all economic development.”

This process has played out in America now as well. People took out more and more debt in order to survive as interest rates dropped in this unusual environment. Per Wikipedia, “In 1978, the financial sector comprised 3.5% of the American economy (that is, it made up 3.5% of U.S. GDP), but by 2007 it had reached 5.9%.Profits in the American financial sector in 2009 were six times higher on average than in 1980, compared with non-financial sector profits, which on average were just over twice what they were in 1980. Financial sector profits grew by 800%, adjusted for inflation, from 1980 to 2005. In comparison with the rest of the economy, U.S. nonfinancial sector profits grew by 250% during the same period. For context, financial sector profits from the 1930s until 1980 grew at the same rate as the rest of the American economy.” The financialization of the American economy is significantly worse now compared to 2009; in 2020 the financial sector comprised 8% of the American economy; finance now makes up 25% of corporate profits while it employs only 4% of the work force. This trend is only intensifying.

Look at consumer and government/welfare debt since 1980:

Here is another visualization showing the issue is endemic and well above the level of whichever party controls the presidency:

Due to the $11 trillion+ printed during “COVID” the above charts would look much worse today.

Because the total amount of debt is so massive, increases in rates will have a much greater and negative impact than in prior periods. Raising rates further will crash the real economy because of extremely high valuations and unprecedented debt levels — simply put, if the interest expense of running one’s business doubles or triples from lower rate environments, then the profits drops and hence the value of the business declines. This process is playing out slowly over a multi-year process, not weekly or monthly; it’s a slow grind and bleed-out. One can assume globohomo will then gobble up the shrinking middle class’s assets for pennies on the dollar to help bring about the Great Reset. They have used this yo-yo high/low interest rate strategy many times historically.

Let’s look at housing as an example. People are already either priced out of home ownership or otherwise locked into their existing homes, unable to sell and buy another because their mortgage expense (acquired when rates were low, for many – but not all – on a 30 year fixed term) would triple. If you can’t move because of your living situation, how are you different from a serf?1

Compounding this issue, the resilience of the average American via their skillsets and health has collapsed. Here is a chart showing the changes in American jobs per sector over time, gutting us from a productive manufacturing to a useless service based economy, from Grundvilk:

Agriculture and manufacturing, traditionally understood “real” jobs that led to self-sufficiency and a middle class lifestyle, have been replaced with “education”, “health care”, and “trade (retail and wholesale)”, which are useless paper shuffling, indoctrination and “service economy” slave jobs. That’s if there are any jobs to be had – John Carter explains in his latest post that whites, and especially white men, are basically banned from corporate jobs today. Wonderful.

So let’s sum this up. The 40 years of secular materialist “good times” are over, brought to an end by the beginning of a rising interest rate environment after the accumulation of unprecedented amounts of personal and governmental debt. The “good times” were declining for a long time before that but were peppered over with increasing debt which made it easy to ignore. Now it will be declining faster and more intensely. This isn’t a prediction that will play out over a day or a week or a month or a year or multiple years, but more long-term. And it has nothing to do with stock market performance, which globohomo can keep inflated by printing infinite Federal Reserve loldollars and shoving it into the market at their discretion (or crash it by withholding future funds). This is a magic trick, by the way, as people will look at a stock market chart going constantly up which short-circuits their brains into somehow believing the collapse isn’t already here – but it is here, now, and it’s to your quality of life.

This prescient 4chan post from 2013 accurately sums up the state of affairs, previously discussed here:

---

America has no social capital remaining to weather the intensifying storm

All that America has anymore is consumerism. Worship at the idol of eating, Tinder, drinking, travel-shrewing, fancy cars and big houses. Due to the death of God as foretold by Nietzsche, we live in a world that is unsustainably materialist and nihilist, regardless of one’s religious beliefs. We exist to consume on a giant ball in space in a hostile, unforgiving universe and with a God that, if he exists, does not interfere in human affairs, and therefore we need to be managed by caring technocratic experts (this isn’t my argument, this is just a description of the baseline understanding for current Western society).

Because of this process social capital — community trust, community vitality and spirit — has been obliterated. Everyone is atomized both on a friend, family and dating level, gatherings of like minded people are forbidden by government, there is mass censorship, a stifling political correctness, zero ability to petition government for redress, feminization and digitization of society and there is a rapidly declining quality of life. See here for the grim details.

Suicides in America are at an all-time high, per 2nd Smartest Guy in the World here:

Additionally, it’s not just raising interest rates and the end of social capital that mean the party is over. Here are twenty common functions of American life the government wants to regulate or ban. The below is globohomo’s gameplan for the upcoming restrictions on basic living as explained by UKFires, which has a lot of establishment credibility, even attracting a full debate in the House of Lords in February 2020:

Net Zero disobedience is already being criminalized, per David Turver. Turver also states:

The Net Zero zealots have forced the closure of [Britain’s] last remaining fertiliser plant and they also want to close the available routes to import ammonia. Not only that, but no shipping and no aviation will also impede our ability to import food.

The “experts” on the Climate Change Committee want to “release” 11% of our agricultural land by 2035 and up to a quarter by 2050.  By “release” they mean turn over to tree-planting or energy crops. One has to ask, without fertiliser or imported food and much less agricultural land, how are we going to feed ourselves?

It is plain to see that we are heading towards economic disaster, social catastrophe and potentially famine.

Grim stuff.

---

Work toward self sufficiency, decreased spending and find God or suffer

Regardless of what globohomo has planned for us down the road, because of the prevalence of nihilism, without a spiritual foundation to provide meaning to man’s actions in this world the environment already currently feels choking, oppressive, stifling; like the whole country has become an open air prison.

It feels like a pressure cooker, and I’m seeing people become more frayed, more stressed, acting out in strange and unusual ways, turning to drugs and other reckless behaviors or worse. And this trend is markedly increasing. As I argue here, those who are going to best be able to manage the shift are going to have to consciously choose a path away from materialism and back toward idealism/God because materialism and spirituality have a direct inverse correlation. In an environment where one’s materialist consumption is going to become more and more limited, one is going to have to rediscover a firm belief in God in order to manage their stresses and outlooks properly. Those that fail to make this difficult transition will see their stressors continue to increase until they suffer breakdown.

The Orthodox Russians under the Soviets managed to bear their hardship well – even though they faced massive discrimination and brutalization – in no small part because they lived in poverty to begin with. I suspect the western transition to dramatically lower standards of living and quality of life is going to be much harder, much more chaotic and much worse overall, because the consumption patterns, mental outlooks, personal health and most importantly the baseline expectations are so much worse. Americans expect to consume a tremendous amount, and not being able to do so anymore — oh boy, it’s going to be a very rocky road…

For those secular materialists (and this to an extent is all of us) who make the transition to an element of belief, because this involves changes to our core views, it is likely to have an extremely jarring ripple effect on every area of our lives. As Brett Andersen explained before his recent schizophrenic breakdown, our beliefs are structured in a hierarchical pyramid structure with core beliefs at the top (comprising the Big Questions; religious/metaphysical beliefs, beliefs about the self, self-narratives, etc.), mid-level goals/beliefs (e.g. career goals, political beliefs), low level goals/beliefs (e.g. the goal of passing a test, belief in a scientific hypothesis), and sub-routines (e.g. solving an equation, brushing your teeth). It is easy to change lower-level beliefs which do not impact higher layers, but changes to the higher layers have a rippling effect on the layers below, so such fundamental changes will likely be very painful and disruptive.

The above images are clickable to the relevant Youtube moment.

Per Andersen here:

The mind is arranged in this kind of hierarchy of abstraction and the worldview questions are at the top. And so all of our subsidiary goals and beliefs are nested inside of our answers to the big questions. Now for most people the answers to the big questions are not really explicit, right? For most people, most people are not philosophers, right? And that’s totally fine. Most people don’t have an elaborated philosophy of epistemology. They have implicit assumptions about how they know what is true and they don’t have an elaborated ontology. They have implicit assumptions about what is real and unreal. But nevertheless, those implicit assumptions are still of vital importance because your assumptions about what is real and unreal constrains what you can possibly believe in because something that presents itself to your sensory experience that you have a priori deemed as being impossible, it’s very likely that you’ll deny that or find some explanation for it that deems it unreal in some important sense. So disruptions to our answers to the big questions, if we allow those to be disrupted, that will generate a lot more psychological entropy than other kinds of disruptions because everything that was nested inside of them also becomes disrupted.

As an aside, Andersen believes (as does Ma Mu) that it becomes more easier to disrupt one’s highest order beliefs with psychedelic therapies. These therapies have been demonstrated in clinical trials to have strong and prolonged impacts on those with PTSD and other difficult-to-cure disorders.

Anyway, lower your debt levels, lower your consumption patterns to live well below your means, try to develop an element of self-sufficiency, and try to find a relationship with God. Upcoming years and decades will be a “batten down the hatches” situation – I suspect we will not see such easy, “good times” again for the rest of our lives, and probably not for a long time thereafter. There are simply too few natural resources left and the world population is too large, and there is way too much debt and decadence, necessitating some future extreme population die-off on a globohomo pretext because our overlords were too evil or stupid to set population levels at or below a neo-Malthusian sustainable level generations ago.

Hopefully this post provides some perspective to navigate the trials and tribulations ahead.

Subscribe:
Email delivery remains on Substack for now.

---

1 Additionally, I expect air travel to be curtailed for the peasants down the road. The perks that belonged to the masses in prior generations will be increasingly phased out but be retained by the globalist class. People will be increasingly landlocked, chained in place. Massive cost of living increases will eat away what meager savings proles have and the travel-shrew phenomenon will no longer be necessary to help suppress birthrates.

Furthermore, the societal decline of IQ and the rise of generalized incompetence makes air travel tenuous longterm on its own. We have incompetents (labeled as “clowns” in internal emails) designing new planes that can’t fly, and white men engineers who keep the whole thing together with regular maintenance are generally reaching retirement age. Remember just a generation ago we had supersonic commercial aircraft. What will happen to air travel when planes start crashing on a regular basis?