This part looks at the nature of bureaucracy itself, arguing that it naturally seeks to expand the scope of the problems it seeks to solve (without solving them) in order to justify their expansion into larger organizations with more personnel, bigger budgets, and more power.
THE INCENTIVES FOR GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES TO MAKE SOCIETAL PROBLEMS WORSE
If the country is falling apart at the seams, indoctrinated and sick, dying from a fentanyl epidemic, with open borders, a large and increasing wealth gap between rich and poor, high crime rates and the masses fooled by meta-narratives, unwilling to think Bad Thoughts because of the decrease in status associated with them and swayed by the deradicalization tools the government employs, can the government itself fix these problems, either by an elected president on a reform platform or from bureaucratic changes?
First, even if an elected leader wanted to institute significant reforms, it is close to impossible to fire entrenched federal civil service employees. This is because back in the 18th and 19th centuries most federal jobs were considered “patronage”, a perk that the party that won the presidential election could shower upon its supporters via the spoils system. However, this resulted in large turnover every election with government positions directed to loyal and well connected but unqualified individuals. Starting in the 1880s various acts were passed to establish federal jobs as “civil service” which would not be subject to elections or regular turnover, beginning with the Pendleton Civil Service Reform Act of 1883. Over time more and more protections were added until it’s become extraordinarily difficult to fire anyone, making them immune to the popular will.
Our civil service as it was, a political cartoon by Thomas Nast showing a statue of Andrew Jackson on a pig, which is over “fraud”, “bribery”, and “spoils”, eating “plunder”. Included in Harper’s Weekly on April 28, 1877, p. 325.
According to a report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) only 77,000 full time federal employees were fired from 2000-2014:
“The 77,000 employees the MSPB says were fired over the past 15 years averages out to 5,133 employees annually, or just 0.26% of the 1,940,000 civil service workforce. But the percentage is even lower. MSPB [stated] that 41% of the fired employees were in their first-year, probationary period. These employees lack the extensive job protections of permanent federal employees. Adjusting to include only those employees past their probationary period, we arrive at a figure of just 0.15% of federal employees who are shown the door each year. Statistically, that is close to impossible.”
According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics annual Job Openings and Labor Turnover survey, between 2005-2017 the private sector workforce maintained an average discharges and layoff rate of 17.27%, while the public sector maintained a rate of 3.37% over the same period, including terminations both for cause and general reductions in force. Once these figures are separated, it shows only 0.53% of federal employees were terminated for cause.
According to James Sherk at the Heritage Foundation, it’s much harder to fire government workers because of time-consuming and costly protections. “Federal law makes it very difficult to separate poorly performing federal employees from their jobs,” Sherk says. “Managers who need to fire problematic employees, whether because of misconduct or poor performance, must go through draining and time-consuming procedures that take about a year and a half. Consequently, the federal government only rarely fires its employees, even when their performance or conduct justifies it,” he said. “In fiscal year 2013 the federal government terminated the employment of just 0.3% of its tenured workforce for performance or misconduct.”
An analysis by USA Today revealed particularly fast wage growth at the top end of the federal workforce. By 2009 there were 383,000 federal civilian workers with salaries greater than $100,000, 66,000 with salaries greater than $150,000, and 22,000 greater than $170,000. It has increased significantly since then.
These government workers are extremely sensitive to their salaries and positions within American society and they are hostile to any politicians or party that claims to want smaller government. Given this, is it any surprise thatin the 2016 election Washington D.C. voted 90.86% for Hillary and 4.09% for Trump?
Imagine the fair composition of juries in D.C. for trials of Trump supporters!
As the federal government employs 364,000 people in the D.C. area, not including contractors and other ancillary government jobs, one can conclude that the vast majority of federal workers voted for Hillary. When Trump won, many did everything they could to stymie his agenda from within their agencies without concern about being fired; see Peter Strzok, Lisa Page, Andy McCabe, John Brennan, James Comey as examples of civil service attempts to undermine elected officials. Indeed, these people bragged about it. Should an unelected civil service be able to override the policies goals of an elected president?
Worse than this, though, is the basic incentive structure for these organizations. For these bureaucracies, solving problems is actually the worst thing that they could do. This is because these organizations rely on government funding and they have to justify their budgets to the government on a yearly basis. For example, if the DEA solved the problem of drugs on the street what would happen to their funding? Their funding would get dramatically cut. This would be terrible for the careers of the people working there as well as for the organization itself and must be avoided. So how do you instead increase the size, prestige, and budget of your organization? The answer is simple: you create more problems to solve, not less (Parkinson’s law).
This is fundamentally why government is incapable of solving the problems it sets out to solve. This problem is summarized by Pournell’s iron law of bureaucracy, which states “In any bureaucracy, the people devoted to the benefit of the bureaucracy itself always get in control and those dedicated to the goals that [it] is supposed to accomplish have less and less influence, and sometimes are eliminated entirely.” This is summarized by Robert Conquest’s Third Law of Politics: “The simplest way to explain the behavior of any bureaucratic organization is to assume that it is controlled by a cabal of its enemies.”
Based on these incentives any sector the government involves itself in experiences a marked decline in quality and an enormous cost increase. Consider the price change for selected U.S. consumer goods and services compared to wages from 1997-2017:
Per the creator of this chart, “The greater the degree of government involvement in the provision of a good or service, the greater the price increases over time, e.g., hospital and medical costs, college tuition, childcare with both large degrees of government funding/regulation and large price increases vs. software, electronics, toys, cars and clothing with both relatively less government funding/regulation and falling prices.
As somebody on Twitter commented: Blue lines = prices subject to free market forces. Red lines = prices subject to regulatory capture by government. Food and drink is debatable either way. Conclusion: remind me why socialism is so great again.”
Basically, anything the government touches turns to hell.
Compounding these issues, governmental employees have developed a class consciousness over time. They belong to the same social circles; they speak the same vernacular; they deal with each other daily; their children go to the same schools. They see each other as part of the same class, and that outsiders — particularly middle America — pose a threat to their cushy jobs where they don’t have to work much, they can’t be fired, and they have extremely generous pensions. If middle America really knew the setup they would agitate to change it to the managerial class’s detriment, and that must be prevented. The label of “Republican” or “Democrat” is irrelevant here, it is about class: James Comey was desperate for Hillary to win despite being a registered Republican (the establishment joining together against the outsider Trump), and Trump’s Attorney General, William Barr, was close personal friends with witch-hunting Robert Mueller (also a registered “Republican”) and had ties to Jeffrey Epstein (Barr’s father gave Epstein his first teaching job). Barr also vigorously defended the sniper that killed Vicki Weaver, weaponless and holding a baby, at Ruby Ridge. There are a thousand examples of this.
Bill Barr, the “Republican” who defended the sniper who murdered a woman and baby in cold blood because Randy Weaver was a white separatist.
It’s an incestuous environment and the unwritten rules require these government employees to defend each other regardless of transgressions. Even Andrew McCabe, caught redhanded lying to investigators regarding his leaking to media outlets and fired for cause, ultimately had his extremely generous pension reinstated and went on to write a book and receive generous media appearance fees. To the extent this managerial class identifies with other classes, it is with the globalist, jet-setting class of transnational elites, the Davos crowd, the oligarchical crowd. They make a show verbally of identifying with the lowest classes, illegal immigrants and various minority groups against white middle America — but it is a show, and they do everything they can to avoid seeing them within their own enclaves. For example, despite agitating for open borders, the D.C. mayor called in the national guard to remove busloads of illegal immigrants that Texas had sent over to them.
D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser calls in the National Guard to help deal with illegal immigrants being bused in. You get to be “enriched” by diversity, not them, peasant.
In his 1911 book Political Parties, German-born Italian sociologist Robert Michaels developed a political theory called the iron law of oligarchy to explain why this rising governmental class consciousness naturally arises from democracy and why it inevitably leads to oligarchy. Quoting from its Wiki:
“Any large organization, Michels pointed out, has to create a bureaucracy in order to maintain its efficiency as it becomes larger—many decisions have to be made daily that cannot be made by large numbers of disorganized people. For the organization to function effectively, centralization has to occur and power will end up in the hands of a few. Those few—the oligarchy—will use all means necessary to preserve and further increase their power.
According to Michels, this process is further compounded as delegation is necessary in any large organization, as thousands—sometimes hundreds of thousands—of members cannot make decisions via participatory democracy. This has to date been dictated by the lack of technological means for large numbers of people to meet and debate, and also by matters related to crowd psychology, as Michels argued that people feel a need to be led. Delegation, however, leads to specialization—to the development of knowledge bases, skills and resources among a leadership—which further alienates the leadership from the rank and file and entrenches the leadership in office. Michels also argued that for leaders in organizations, “The desire to dominate … is universal. These are elementary psychological facts.” Thus, they were prone to seek power and dominance.
Bureaucratization and specialization are the driving processes behind the iron law. They result in the rise of a group of professional administrators in a hierarchical organization, which in turn leads to the rationalization and routinization of authority and decision-making, a process described first and perhaps best by Max Weber, later by John Kenneth Galbraith, and to a lesser and more cynical extent by the Peter principle.
Bureaucracy by design leads to centralization of power by the leaders. Leaders also have control over sanctions and rewards. They tend to promote those who share their opinions, which inevitably leads to self-perpetuating oligarchy. People achieve leadership positions because they have above-average political skill (see Charismatic authority). As they advance in their careers, their power and prestige increases. Leaders control the information that flows down the channels of communication, censoring what they do not want the rank-and-file to know. Leaders will also dedicate significant resources to persuade the rank-and-file of the rightness of their views. This is compatible with most societies: people are taught to obey those in positions of authority. Therefore, the rank and file show little initiative, and wait for the leaders to exercise their judgment and issue directives to follow.”
Michaels became a fascist supporter of Mussolini in Italy as a result of his observations.
German-italian sociologist Robert Michels
The other problem of bureaucratization is it saps the energy and motivation of the general population by depriving them of the ability to influence political decision-making. In the foreword to the George Schwab translation of Carl Schimtt’s Political Theology, Tracy B. Strong argues:
“When Max Weber described the workings of bureaucracy he asserted that in no case are bureaucratic (rationalized, rational-legal) relations, relations between human persons, between human beings. Bureaucracy is the form of social organization that rests on norms and rules and not on persons. It is thus a form of rule in which there is “’objective’ discharge of business according to calculable rules and ‘without regard for persons. What he meant is that it was in the nature of modern civilization to remove the non-rational from societal processes, replacing it by the formalism of abstract procedures. (He did not think everything was always already like this—merely that this was the tendency.) The disenchantment of the world is for Weber the disappearance of politics, hence the disappearance of the human, hence the lessening of the role that the non-rational and non-rule-governed play in the affairs of society. “Bureaucracy,” he will proclaim, “has nothing to do with politics.”
This is Schmitt’s theme also. “Today nothing is more modern than the onslaught against the political….There must no longer be political problems, only organizational-technical and economic-sociological ones” (PT, 65)….[If] the political is in danger of disappearing as a human form of life, this can only be because sovereignty as Schmitt understands it is increasingly not a constituent part of our present world. Thus in his book on Hobbes, he will write ‘the mechanization of the conception of the State has ended by bringing about the mechanization of the anthropological understanding of human beings.’”
****
We have established that the quality of life for Westerners has been rapidly declining, that bureaucratic institutions make problems worse and that the establishment has many tools to prevent the population from effectuating change. The next question is why is this happening? Are there natural processes involved or are there deliberate actors with specific goals? Before presenting a comprehensive theory in Section 4, let us review other possible explanations in Part 6, the final part of “Dissonance to Informational Control in Modern Society”.
This part looks at a non-comprehensive list of ways the establishment has of dealing with the rise of cognitive dissonance among the masses, ranging from providing deradicalization agents to cognitive infiltration tactics to murder.
HOW DOES THE GOVERNMENT DEAL WITH COGNITIVE DISSONANCE?
The establishment recognizes that it’s propaganda only works on a portion of the population, that it is far more likely to work with women, with non-whites, and with sexual deviants than with heterosexual white men. They use a variety of tactics to prevent those who are dissatisfied with official narratives from organizing or influencing others. We will review a non-exhaustive list of twenty of their methods; the actual goals the establishment pursues will be explained in a future section.
Deradicalization agents: The establishment utilizes social media “influencers” to push narratives slightly outside the Overton window as an attempt to control informational flow. Their strategy is to argue “it’s OK to think this far but no farther”. With many far-right personalities being banned on social media, these moderately right e-celebs attempt to keep dissatisfied young males from becoming more radical. This serves a useful role for the regime. For example, when Brett Kavanaugh was accused of being a rapist during his Supreme Court hearings, heavily-media-boosted Jordan Peterson — a man who claims to be an expert at resisting mob mentality and of the Soviet dissident Alexander Solzhenitzyn – tweeted “If confirmed Kavanaugh should step down.” When Canada rolled out the COVID vaccine mandates, instead of resisting Peterson gave in and got the shot, then later regretted it (“you’d have to kill me first” to get the booster, he tweeted). He cried when discussing how Israel was a “moral city on a hill” while being held up as some kind of hero to the right. Another example is neocon Ben Shapiro, a rabid proponent of the Iraq war, duplicitously pro-COVID vaccine, a vocal never-Trumper, pro-censorship, who used underhanded tactics to try to get Trump’s campaign manager fired1, andmore. This guy is some hero as well? There are a lot of examples of this. Sometimes deradicalization agents are forced into their role under duress. Kanye West demonstrated this by releasing the text messages of his “celebrity personal trainer”, Tavistock educated, Canadian- governmental-handler Harley Pasternak who threatened to forcibly institutionalize him (Pasternak “trained” i.e. managed Lady Gaga, Rihanna, Halle Berry, Katy Perry, Megan Fox, Robert Downey Jr., Robert Pattinson and others). Or see Kyrie Irving, who had to attend numerous ADL brainwashing sessions in order to continue playing in the NBA after a minor incident, or Nick Cannon2; celebrities must conform to a specific role or be cut off from celebrity and wealth. Blogger “Judge Dredd” refers to a seven step process for celebrities who act out of line, with each step serving as an escalation until the celebrity capitulates: (1) they receive a warning, (2) they are smeared by the press, (3) they are cut off from social media, (4) they get boycotted or fired, (5) they get cut off from bank and credit card access, (6) they get sued, and (7) if a celebrity still insists on acting out, they may be murdered.
Reserve deradicalizaiton agents: Deradicalizaiton agents don’t have to be actively used; they can be kept in reserve for special occasions. Arnold Schwarzenegger, a hero among many on the right, said “Screw your freedoms” to the unvaccinated in 2021. Tucker Carlson, considered the furthest right media personality that was allowed on air at the time, forced his head writer to resign for offering slightly offensive views the day after he did a segment on not caving into woke mobs. During the 2020 election results controversy Tucker was told not to say anything about it by his employer and he kept quiet, publicly arguing the election was legitimate. In this way he massively helped the establishment even as he railed against it on a day to day basis. Tucker is also close friends with Hunter Biden and may be a CIA asset. Leaked texts also show Tucker writing “I hate [Trump] passionately.” In plain terms, Tucker, Fox News3, the NY Post4, Newsmax, and other mainstream right-wing publications build up trust among the masses in normal times in order to cash in that trust against them at key points, undermining the people that trusted them in order to help globohomo. How can one determine who is a true believing dissident vs. a larper chasing money and fame? The best way to tell, but not a surefire method5 is if a person publicly suffers for their beliefs and doesn’t recant. Kanye lost the vast majority of his fortune and has not publicly apologized; Andrew Anglin gets his website shut down every month and globohomo has monetary judgments against him; Steve Bannon has been criminally prosecuted; Stephen Miller has been cut out from the Jewish community. Sometimes it can be hard to tell: Nick Fuentes allegedly had $500,000 stolen from his bank account by the government but he encouraged his followers to storm the capitol on 1/66, then disclaimed them after they were charged although he himself has not been charged. Public suffering plus lack of recantation seems to be the best, but not a guaranteed way to separate the true believers from larpers; this is the “handicap principle”. Another factor to assess is who the media highlights vs. who it downplays: generally the greater the media hate/hysteria toward a target, the better that targeted individual is, while the quieter/nicer, the more controlled.
Pushing outlandish figures publicly to discredit a movement: The establishment puts the media’s spotlight on far-right individuals whose attitude or behavior makes a public mockery of their movement, regardless of whether or not the individual is well intentioned. Examples of this include Richard Spencer who playacted publicly as a neo-Nazi (although he may have been on the government’s payroll) and George Lincoln Rockwell who served as a public clown figure even though he was likely honest in his beliefs. Alex Jones has always skirted this line as well, having the personality of a big, bombastic doofus, and he regularly mixes realistic conspiracy theories with outlandish ones like inter-dimensional aliens controlling our politicians.
Frivolous lawsuits with chilling effects: “To my friends, everything; to my enemies, the law” said Peruvian dictator Óscar R. Benavides – a message the establishment has taken to heart. Frivolous lawsuits called “lawfare” are used to silence dissent, a broad term which also includes conspiracies to battle state election reform legislation. Targets of lawfare include the organizers of the Charlottesville rally and more than 840 people who attended the January 6 rally; defendants go bankrupt trying to defend themselves even if they are found not guilty, the FBI destroys exculpatory evidence, and often judges and juries are biased with D.C. juries that vote 90% Democrat. The FBI will be embedded in any mainstream or semi-mainstream populist organization, so to attend politically charged public events and rallies is to invite the power of the law to target and destroy you. Civil lawsuits against Alex Jones and Kanye qualify as lawfare as well. Another victim of lawfare was General Flynn who was seen as a threat to the establishment due to his DIA experience and willingness to serve with Trump, and so he was framed by the FBI and spent years defending himself in court. He even had to sell his house to pay legal bills. Benjamin Wittes of the Lawfare blog is a major proponent of lawfare by the left. An early example of lawfare was the Great Sedition Trial of 1944 which used to silence and intimidate prominent anti-communists, and these tactics were pioneered by then-litigator and eventual Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis in his 1908 Brandeis brief. Lawfare is used in other contexts too such as pushing radical gerrymandering modifications nationwide on behalf of the establishment, or to paralyze opponents (i.e. a Hawaiian district court judge (!!) who issued a nationwide injunction against Trump’s travel ban).
Murder to silence dissent: The following is a partial list of modern-era dissidents who died under questionable circumstances. The CIA likely murdered Michael Hastings, who was about to run a negative media story on CIA Director John Brennan and highlight illegal governmental spying, by hacking his car and ramming it at high speed into a wall; General Patton died in a suspicious “car accident” for being publicly anti-communist (although prominent anti-globalist general George Van Horn Moseley was left alone given he had retired, but his reputation was smeared); brilliant establishment critic Professor Angelo Codevilla died suspiciously in 2021; Andrew Breitbart, who ran the popular anti-governmental website Breitbart and dropped dead of a suspicious “heart attack” at 437; whistleblower Seth Rich; Jeffrey Epstein (to keep him from talking about his CIA/Mossad handlers and all the powerful men he blackmailed); governor Brian Kemp’s daughter’s boyfriend was possibly blown up as a warning to keep Kemp from conducting a 2020 Georgia audit; Hillary Clinton has a list of associates who died under mysterious circumstances a mile long, and she publicly questioned whether the U.S. could drone strike Julian Assange. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia was found dead with a pillow over his face. Republican Senator Ted Stevens’s plane went down in an official “accident” after forcing him out of office on trumped up charges; the establishment potentially conspired with the Soviets to murder the head of the John Birch Society, Dr. Lawrence Patton McDonald, by downing Korean Air Lines Flight 007 in 1983.8 Congressman Jim Traficante, controversial for being a Democrat who regularly voted with Republicans, died under questionable circumstances. Prominent Federal Reserve critic Congressman Louis T. McFadden was likely poisoned.9South African blogger Uhuru Guru who highlighted the genocide of whites was arrested and murdered. The list goes on and on. (On the flip side, even though the establishment potentially didn’t murder nationalist Shinzo Abe of Japan, the government apologized to the assassin and pressured Shinzo’s nationalist religious organization, an unprecedented and disgusting act.). Another likely establishment murder was the assassination of James Forrestal in 1949.10 Truman tapped former CFR member Forrestal to be Defense Secretary but he turned out to be more nationalist than the establishment anticipated. Forrestal stated with revulsion in 1948: “Consistency has never been a mark of stupidity. If the diplomats who have mishandled our relations with Russia were merely stupid, they would occasionally make a mistake in our favor.” He resolved to counteract treason within the government. Truman fired him in March 1949. Forrestal then planned to buy the New York Sun newspaper and convert it into an anti-communist paper but he never had the chance. Five days after his dismissal he was taken to Bethesda Naval Hospital for “fatigue” where he was heavily drugged and held incommunicado for seven weeks. His diaries were confiscated by the White House. He was scheduled for discharge on May 22, 1949 but at 2 AM that morning he “fell” from a window with his bathrobe cord knotted around his neck. The death was declared suicide but his brother claimed it was murder.
Newly created meta-narratives: The introduction of each new meta-narrative is powerful, throwing people off center and distracting them. Releasing one after another keeps them from thinking about whether previous narratives were false.
Create new grievance groups and set them against each other. The establishment had the media focus on homosexual rights, when that ran out of energy they turned the focus to transsexual rights, then they advanced to transsexual indoctrination in schools and forcing child vaccinations. These cultural battles keep a lot of the public’s attention distracted.
Another example was the Liberty League, which was set up in 1934 to oppose FDR and immediately characterized as a “extreme rightwing” organization. However, it was backed by the globalists: Pierre and Irene DuPont put up $325,000 for it and it was also financed by J.P. Morgan and the Rockefellers. The backers of Liberty League were busy denouncing Roosevelt and his staff as “communist”, which many of them were, while also organizing American International Corporation, which had been formed to prevent the economy of the Soviet Union from collapsing. The Liberty League successfully corralled the opponents of FDR who were smeared in the media as “rightwing nuts” and “anti-semitic.” The ploy operated from 1934 to the 1936 elections, when it effectively destroyed Alf Landon’s campaign and no effective political opposition was organized against FDR for the rest of his time in office. It was one of the most successful political hoaxes in American history. Roosevelt then married his son to a heiress of the DuPont dynasty.11
Stall tactics resulting in energy depletion: A corollary to the Q Movement / Operation Trust is for the establishment to hint at justice that could occur at a future time; during the Trump era that included the DOJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz, DOJ head Bill Barr, and U.S. Attorney John Durham (whose direct supervisor was the wife of one of the targets of the investigation), all “hopium” operations that went nowhere, where the investigations and media dangled the hope of future justice for years in order to paralyze pressure from the right and deflate their energy. “Limited hangouts”, i.e. selective release of manipulated info, contributes to this. Being outside the power structure the dissident right has limited energy; fast “wins” add to its energy while slow, delayed actions — which includes these stall tactics and lawfare court actions that can take years to resolve —sap it.
Cognitive infiltration: Direct government agents to infiltrate online conspiracy communities and redirect their paranoia toward ends that are both useless and make them appear foolish to the general public. Examples of this include the Sandy Hook shooting where conspiracy theorists argued the dead children didn’t exist, and the flat earth theory. This cognitive infiltration strategy was articulated by Cass Sunstein in 2008 in an article titled “Conspiracy Theories” for the Journal of Political Philosophy, where he made a radical proposal: “Our main policy claim here is that government should engage in cognitive infiltration of the groups that produce conspiracy theories.”…they defined “cognitive infiltration” as a program “whereby government agents or their allies (acting either virtually or in real space, and either openly or anonymously) will undermine the crippled epistemology of believers by planting doubts about the theories and stylized facts that circulate within such groups.” Cognitive infiltration on social media is heavily boosted via bots who push arguments about, for example, the glass dome and the firmament (flat earth arguments) to distract people and lead them into harmless political dead ends.
Crush legitimate grass roots uprisings such as the Tea Party Movement, destroyed by Republican Senate head Mitch McConnell through Machiavellian backroom strategies.
Utilize AI to maximize network shatter effects in banning dissidents: Social media companies map out which people on the right and far left are popular, how they interact with their friends, allies and acquaintances, and then they “chop the head off” these networks in one swoop or multiple purges. In research for this essay, something like 80%+ of recent alt-right twitter links were dead/broken with the users having been permanently suspended, even after Musk supposedly issued blanket account amnesties.12
Ban dissents using other methods: Lean on host providers to shut down problematic internet sites (Andrew Anglin’s website has been shut down an inordinate number of times despite no criminal activity), ban dissident books on Amazon and other bookseller sites, shut down dissident bank accounts (what Trudeau did to Canadian truck protesters), dox and get them fired from their jobs. This is not a new tactic. In the 1930s 30 million people listened to Father Coughlin’s radio broadcasts and newspaper where he had an isolationist, anti-FDR, anti-establishment perspective. The government forced his radio program off the air and closed his newspaper before banning him entirely from politics under threat of losing his priesthood. Other individuals purged for wrongthink include journalist John T. Flynn, who no one has heard of today but who was bigger than Walter Lippmann in the 1930s; historian Harry Elmer Barnes — who played a central role in “revising” the history of the First World War so as to remove the cartoonish picture of unspeakable German wickedness left behind as a legacy of the dishonest wartime propaganda produced by the British and American governments; and many others include Charles Beard, William Henry Chamberlin, Russell Grenfell, Sisley Huddleston, and A.J.P. Taylor. For a deeper dive into these figures, see Ron Unz’s article American Pravda: Understanding World War 2.
In 1953, historian Henry Elmer Barnes described how the censorship process worked, which remains ongoing today:“The methods followed by the various groups interested in blacking out the truth about world affairs since 1932…fall mainly into the following patterns or categories: (1) excluding scholars suspected of revisionist views from access to public documents which are freely opened to “court historians” and other apologists for the foreign policy of President Roosevelt; (2) intimidating publishers of books and periodicals, so that even those who might wish to publish books and articles setting forth the revisionist point of view do not dare to do so; (3) ignoring or obscuring published material which embodies revisionist facts and arguments; and (4) smearing revisionist authors and their books… leading members of two of the largest publishing houses in the country have told me that, whatever their personal wishes in the circumstances, they would not feel it ethical to endanger their business and the property rights of their stockholders by publishing critical books relative to American foreign policy since 1933. And there is good reason for that hesitancy. The book clubs and the main sales outlets for books are controlled by powerful pressure groups which are opposed to truth on such matters. These outlets not only refuse to market critical books in this field but also threaten to boycott other books by these publishers who defy their blackout ultimatum.”13
Hide enforced government decisions behind privately owned corporations: Government orders are often funneled through “private organizations” such as social media companies in order to get around constitutional issues. For examples, the CDC coordinated with major social media and tech companies to control information about the COVID-19 vaccines. Twitter, Facebook and other social media companies do this routinely on many issues. Senior Google engineer Zach Vorhies leaked 950 pages of internal documents that demonstrate that Google used censorship, blacklist, and machine learning algorithms to rig the 2020 election. “Fact checkers”, i.e. individuals paid to enforce false establishment propaganda, are highlighted by social media and search engines as a defense against disapproved messaging. Reddit and Wikipedia are both highlycompromisedas well. The social media companies are happy to oblige given they self-select for extreme liberalism demonstrated by their employee donations to candidates by party in 2018:
Utilize the FBI and Department of Justice to spy on and target prominent opposition figures. A declassified FISA report stated that the FBI ran 3.1 million illegal FISA searches on American citizens in 2017 alone, compared to 7,500 combined searches by the NSA and CIA in the same year. It later came out that the law firm Perkins Coie had its own NSA search terminal set up in its D.C. offices to spy on domestic opposition; it was placed there to provide the perpetrators protection. In 2023 the DOJ Inspector General revealed that more than 10,000 federal employees have access to the NSA database for surveillance inquiries, more than 3.4 million search queries were ran between 12/1/2020 and 11/30/2021, and approximately 30% were outside the rules and regulations that govern warrantless search, showing the pattern of illegal governmental behavior had only expanded. The FBI can now look at your web browsing history, emails, anything you have ever typed on your phone or computer, any audio you have made in the vicinity of your digital devices without a warrant (per Edward Snowden, the NSA picks up all of that data as part of Total Information Awareness). Then they use parallel construction to prosecute. See also the Room 641A controversy, a telecom interception facility operated by AT&T for the NSA as part of its warrantless surveillance program and a facility that is likely copied throughout the country.
The FBI should be considered the Praetorian Guard equivalent of the elites. Their top objective is to shield the corrupt elite from harm from populists while their secondary objectives are to proactively crush any populism arising from the public14 and to craft narratives that support these objectives, such as convincingmentally ill young men to commit terrorist attacks and to frame white Christians.15According to Chuck Schumer, “Let me tell you: You take on the intelligence community — they have six ways from Sunday at getting back at you.” The FBI even frames high-level politicians such as long-serving Republican Senator Ted Stevens in order to ruin his re-election prospects. The case was thrown out with the judge citing prosecutorial misconduct after Stevens had already lost the election and the prosecutors almost faced criminal prosecution. To serve and protect – the globohomo elites.
Psychology, Psychiatry and Mental Illness: The establishment wants to stick as many people on SSRIs and mood stabilization medications as possible to the point it is placed in the nation’s drinking water. They claim people are depressed, but most depression is caused by the cognitive dissonance a person feels between societal pressure to conform to industrial society’s demands and one’s inability to conform to those demands, or otherwise a desire to live a lifestyle not in accordance with those demands, which will be discussed in Part 6.
Put these tactics together and the government has a robust ability to quash or redirect thoughts and speech that it disapproves of. This is not to say that the establishment is omnipotent and is destined to win forever or that there is nothing to be done by dissidents: the more the establishment uses their tools to manipulate and destroy their opposition, the more people wake up to their overall malice and illegitimacy. The amount of legitimacy and support the establishment has shed in their attempt to take down Trump, “fortify” the 2020 election, and crack down on legitimate free speech has been eye opening and illuminating to millions of people, and more are waking up every day.
***
If the country is falling apart at the seams, indoctrinated and sick, dying from a fentanyl epidemic with open borders, facing a large and increasing wealth gap between rich and poor, skyrocketing crime rates and the masses fooled by meta-narratives, can the government itself fix these problems either by a reform-minded president or from bureaucratic changes? This is where we turn to next in Part 5.
1 This incident was highly crystallizing. Trump campaign manager Corey Lewandowski brushed past Breitbart reporter Michelle Fields in a crowded room to make room for Trump to pass, and she claimed he violently assaulted her. The incident was caught on video from multiple angles. Neoconservatives like Shapiro as well as liberals called for Lewandowski to be fired for “assault”, despite the clear video evidence to the contrary. If people of different political persuasions can’t agree on the interpretation of clear-cut video evidence, what hope is there for agreement on anything else?
3 Fox is controlled by Rupert Murdoch’s son Lachlan, an anti-Trump GOPe corporatist at best, while his brother James (who stepped down from co-control in 2020) is either an NPC or sociopathic liberal. i.e. see here, here, and here. Rupert Murdoch has hated Trump since 2015 and actively attempted to undermine him.
5 As Solzhenitsyn stated in The Gulag Archipelago, “If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them. But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart? During the life of any heart this line keeps changing place; sometimes it is squeezed one way by exuberant evil and sometimes it shifts to allow enough space for good to flourish. One and the same human being is, at various ages, under various circumstances, a totally different human being. At times he is close to being a devil, at times to sainthood. But his name doesn’t change, and to that name we ascribe the whole lot, good and evil.”
On September 1, 1983, the Korean Air Lines Flight 007, en route from Alaska to Seoul, was obliterated by air-to-air missiles from a Soviet interceptor. All 269 passengers and crew, including 61 Americans, were lost, Soviet fighters had trailed the plane for over two hours. Nearly all observers agreed that it could not have been shot down without top clearance from Moscow. The question was: Why did the Soviets do it? Why did they risk the inevitable backlash of world opinion to eliminate a harmless civilian airliner? There had to be something or someone on board important enough to make the consequences worth it. There was — someone all but ignored by the mass media: Dr. Lawrence Patton McDonald, member of Congress.
McDonald was the most dedicated anti-Communist on Capitol Hill. The Review Of The News noted: “From the time he took his oath of office in 1975 until the moment of his death, Congressman McDonald had systematically carried out a campaign against the Soviet Communists of a sort which no other U.S. elected official had ever done on his own.” Author Jeffrey St. John, in his book about he KAL 007 tragedy, Day of the Cobra, observed: “Congressman Lawrence McDonald had spent his entire career warning against the use of terrorism as an instrument of Soviet policy* particularly the use of the threat of nuclear war by the Kremlin as a weapon to paralyze the United States and its Western allies’ will to resist.” McDonald was Washington’s most outspoken critic of trade and technology transfer to the USSR. He was the president and founder of the Western Goals Foundation, which produced books and videotapes on Soviet-generated terror and espionage. He had recently written a series of articles about Yuri Andropov and the KGB, Voting appraisals gave him the most conservative rating in Congress during his five terms in office. And most significantly, Lawrence McDonald was chairman of The John Birch Society — the world’s largest and most sophisticated anti-Communist organization. He was condemned in Pravda, Izuestia, and on Radio Moscow. Dr. Lawrence McDonald was, arguably, the Kremlin’s number one enemy.
The odds against such a man ‘just happening” to be on the flight the Soviets destroyed were astronomical. Yet the news media neglected the obvious potential significance. After the incident, a host of “experts” were called in who assured the public that there was no specific reason for the attack — instead, they explained , it was due to the generalized phenomenon of Soviet “paranoia concerning their airspace.” The following statement by Secretary of State George Shultz was typical:
The answer to the broader question of motivation seems to lie in the character of the Soviet Union. There is a massive concern for security, a massive paranoia, and I think this act was an expression of that excessive concern over security.
It should be noted that as chairman of The John Birch Society ( JBS), McDonald was not only an archenemy of the Soviet Union, but of the American Establishment — of which the JBS is the most vocal critic. For years, the Society has been intellectually at crossed swords with the CFR. Congressman McDonald even wrote the fore- word to Gary Attends The Rockefeller File, in which he spoke out against “the drive of the Rockefellers and their allies to create a one-world government, combining super-capitalism and Communism under the same tent . . .”
When Lawrence McDonald established the Western Goals Foundation, its stated purpose was “to rebuild and strengthen the political, economic, and social structure of the United States and Western Civilization so as to make any merger with totalitarians impossible,” Such a merger now looms closer than ever before. When the CFR delegation paid a visit to Gorbachev and his minions in February 1987, one could only reflect on how timely McDonald’s removal was for the globalist vision.
Lawrence McDonald is dead, but his cause survives — and so does the organization he left behind.”
9 “Mr. Chairman, we have in this country one of the most corrupt institutions the world has ever known. I refer to the Federal Reserve Board and the Federal reserve banks. The Federal Reserve Board, a Government board, has cheated the Government of the United States out of enough money to pay the national debt.” – Louis T. McFadden, June 10, 1932. There were several attempts on his life. In the first assassination attempt, McFadden dodged two bullets fired at him at close range. The second was when McFadden was poisoned at a banquet. In 1936, he was taken ill at his hotel and died of coronary thrombosis [at only 60 years old], but many speculate his death as suspicious.
11 Eustace Mullins, The World Order: Our Secret Rulers, 111.
12 One example of this is Musk’s rationale to keep Alex Jones banned for suggesting Sandy Hook was a hoax. He stated, “My firstborn child died in my arms. I felt his last heartbeat. I have no mercy for anyone who would use the deaths of children for gain, politics or fame.” Yet Musk’s son died from SIDS at 10 weeks old and his ex-wife said he did not hold him in his arms when it happened. How are these events relatable? As Bill Maher said previously, “If you’re a liberal, you’re supposed to be for free speech. That’s free speech for the speech you hate. That’s what free speech means. We’re losing the thread of the concepts that are important to this country. If you care about the real American shit or you don’t. And if you do, it goes for every side. I don’t like Alex Jones, but Alex Jones gets to speak. Everybody gets to speak.”
Or see Justice Thurgood Marshall in Procunier v. Martinez (1974): “The First Amendment serves not only the needs of the polity but also those of the human spirit — a spirit that demands self-expression. Such expression is an integral part of the development of ideas and a sense of identity.” While Twitter is theoretically a privately owned company, evidence increasingly reveals it as completely controlled by the U.S. government.
14 It’s a little ironic that the FBI and the other intelligence agencies exist to quash the rise of radical populists but Hitler, who is seen as the arch-version of this type, started out as the German version of an FBI employee spying on right-wing orgs: “After World War I, Hitler returned to Munich. Without formal education or career prospects, he remained in the army. In July 1919 he was appointed Verbindungsmann (intelligence agent) of an Aufklärungskommando (reconnaissance unit) of the Reichswehr, assigned to influence other soldiers and to infiltrate the German Workers’ Party (DAP).”
15Per Sundance: “The FBI was fully aware of the Boston Marathon bombers, the Tsarnaev brothers, before they executed their plot. The FBI took no action. The FBI knew about the San Bernardino terrorists, specifically Tasfeen Malik, and were monitoring her communications before her and Syed Farook executed their attack killing 14 people and leaving 22 others seriously injured. The FBI took no action. The FBI knew Colorado grocery store shooter Ahmad Alissa before he executed his attack. The FBI took no action.
The FBI knew in advance of the Pulse Nightclub shooter (Omar Mateen) and were tipped off by the local sheriff. The FBI knew in advance of the San Bernardino Terrorists (Tashfeen Malik). The FBI knew in advance of the Boston Marathon Bombers (the Tsarnaev brothers) tipped off by Russians. The FBI knew in advance of the Parkland High School shooter (Nikolas Cruz). The FBI knew in advance of the Fort Hood shooter (Nidal Hasan), and the FBI knew in advance of Colorado grocery store shooter Ahmad al-Aliwi Alissa. The FBI took no action. Consider the case of the first recorded ISIS attack on U.S. soil in Garland, Texas in 2015. The FBI not only knew the shooters n advance, the FBI took the shooters to the venue and were standing only a few yards away when [they] opened fire. Yes, you read that correctly – the FBI took the terrorists to the event and then watched it unfold. “An FBI trainer suggested in an interview with “60 Minutes” that, had the attack been bigger, the agency’s numerous ties to the shooter would have led to a congressional investigation.”
Remember, shortly before the 2018 mid-term election, when Ceasar Syoc – a man living in his van – was caught sending “energetic material that can become combustible when subjected to heat or friction”, or what FBI Director Christopher Wray called “not hoax devices“? Remember how sketchy everything about that was, including the child-like perpetrator telling a judge later than he was trying to walk back his guilty plea because he was tricked into signing a confession for a crime he did not create. Or more recently, the goofball plot to kidnap Gretchen Whitmer that involved 18 suspects, twelve of them actually working for the FBI as the plot was hatched? And we cannot forget the January 6th. DC protest turned insurrection effort, which is clearly looking like an FBI inspired and coordinated effort. Have we forgotten the Atlanta “Olympic Park Bombing”, and the FBI intentionally setting up transparently innocent, Richard Jewel? Then, there’s the entirety of the FBI conduct in “Spygate”, the demonstrably evident FBI operation to conduct political surveillance against Donald Trump using their investigative authorities; and the downstream consequences of a massive institutional effort to cover up one of the biggest justice department scandals in history…”
This part discusses the mentality of the corporatist political type and the peculiar ways they interact with sociopathic liberals, as well as delves into Clique Theory.
CORPORATISTS ARE COWARDS AND CAVE TO A CARROT-AND-STICK APPROACH
Corporatists are fundamentally cowards. They love complaining about liberals who bully them to conform to the cause de jure, that they’re simply “moderates” and just want to make money, but at the end of the day they always give in and acquiesce to them. In 1897 Robert Lewis Dabney, Chief of Staff to and biographer of Stonewall Jackson, bitterly wrote about these “moderates” and his description of them applies just as much now as it did then:
It may be inferred again that the present movement for women’s rights will certainly prevail from the history of its only opponent: Northern conservatism. This is a party which never conserves anything. Its history has been that it demurs to each aggression of the progressive party, and aims to save its credit by a respectable amount of growling, but always acquiesces at last in the innovation. What was the resisted novelty of yesterday is today one of the accepted principles of conservatism; it is now conservative only in affecting to resist the next innovation, which will tomorrow be forced upon its timidity and will be succeeded by some third revolution; to be denounced and then adopted in its turn. American conservatism is merely the shadow that follows Radicalism as it moves forward towards perdition. It remains behind it, but never retards it, and always advances near its leader. . . . Its impotency is not hard, indeed, to explain. It is worthless because it is the conservatism of expediency only, and not of sturdy principle. It intends to risk nothing serious for the sake of the truth, and has no idea of being guilty of the folly of martyrdom. It always when about to enter a protest very blandly informs the wild beast whose path it essays to stop, that its bark is worse than its bite, and that it only means to save its manners by enacting its decent role of resistance: The only practical purpose which it now serves in American politics is to give enough exercise to Radicalism to keep it in wind, and to prevent its becoming pursy and lazy, from having nothing to whip. No doubt, after a few years, when women’s suffrage shall have become an accomplished fact, conservatism will tacitly admit it into its creed, and thenceforward plume itself upon its wise firmness in opposing with similar weapons the extreme of baby suffrage; and when that too shall have been won, it will be heard declaring that the integrity of the American Constitution requires at least the refusal of suffrage to asses. There it will assume, with great dignity, its final position.
Absolutely devastating toward corporatists.
Robert Lewis Dabney, proto-4chan poster
Sociopathic liberals have a carrot and a stick approach toward corporatists to get what they want. For the carrot, they tell them: if you play ball you’ll get rich. There is a revolving door between government and industry, including cushy lobbying jobs and board seats that influential corporatists get access to if they do what they’re told; see public choice theory. Per the New York Times, ”Under current law, government officials who make contracting decisions must either wait a year before joining a military contractor or, if they want to switch immediately, must start in an affiliate or division unrelated to their government work. One big loophole is that these restrictions do not apply to many high-level policy makers… who can join corporations or their boards without waiting.” Wikipedia provides examples of individuals who have moved between rolesin sensitive areas include Dick Cheney (military contracting), Linda Fisher (pesticide and biotech), Philip Perry (homeland security), Pat Toomey, Dan Coats, John C. Dugan1, former FCC commissioner Meredith Attwell Baker (media lobbying). Democratic Representative Dick Gephardt left office to become a lobbyist and his lobbying agency, Gephardt Government Affairs Group, earned close to $7 million in revenues in 2010 from clients including Goldman Sachs, Boeing, Visa Inc., Ameren Corporation, and Waste Management Inc. There are countless others.
Another carrot for some corporatists, especially politicians, include outright bribery laundered through book deals, with major advances provided even though the books sell almost no copies. For example Obama (a corporatist larping as a liberal who let Citibank appoint his entire cabinet) arranged for a government contract for Common Core to be awarded to Pearson Publishing Company for $350 million; later on, he received a $65 million kickback book-deal from Penguin Publishing, Pearson’s parent company. Insiders said that fathoming the math on this deal was impossible since the advance was so far from the norm. As one foreign rights associate put it: “We’re all so blown away by the numbers on this deal that the sky’s the limit, right?” She went on, “I’ve rarely seen seven-figure deals abroad, but these numbers are new to the game.” Comey, Biden, McCabe and John Brennan also got book deals from MacMillan Publishing, a subsidiary of the same publishing company, with big advances. MacMillan Publishing was owned by Israeli spy Robert Maxwell, father of Ghislaine Maxwell. Eleven Senators earned more than $2,000,000 in book royalties or advance payments in 2015.
Other carrot incentives for corporatists who play ball include insider trading (which is rampant in Congress on both sides) and public speaking fees. An easy example of this pay-for-play is Liz Cheney, whose net worth ballooned from $7 million when she took office in 2017 to $44 million in 2020 due to her willingness to advance the globohomo agenda. She was mocked for losing her reelection in 2022 for selling out and being the lone Republican on the 1/6 committee, but she laughed all the way to the bank.
The biggest carrot sociopathic liberals can offer the corporatist type, though, is favorable government regulations and even monopolies. As James Perloff explains2:
It is natural enough to suppose that rich capitalists, who made their fortunes through the free market, would be proponents of that system. This, however, has not been the case historically. Free enterprise means competition: it means, in its purest form, that everyone has an equal opportunity to make it in the marketplace. But John D. Rockefeller, J.P. Morgan and other kingpins of the Money Trust were powerful monopolists. A monopolist seeks to eliminate competition. In fact, Rockefeller once said: “Competition is a sin.” These men were not free enterprise advocates…their coziness with Marxism (it is well to remember that Marx’s coauthor, Friedrich Engels, was a wealthy businessman) becomes more comprehensible when we realize that communism and socialism are themselves forms of monopoly…[Frederick C.] Howe explained: “These are the rules of big business. They have superseded the teachings of our parents and are reducible to a simple maxim: Get a monopoly; let society work for you; and remember that the best of all business is politics, for a legislative grant, franchise, subsidy or tax exemption is worth more than a Kimberly or Comstock lode, since it does not require any labor, either mental or physical, for its exploitation.
Play ball with the sociopathic liberals and the corporatist type can remove their competition; that’s a deal this personality type would take in a heartbeat. Peter Thiel makes a similar argument in his book Zero to One, where he states, “All happy companies are different: each one earns a monopoly by solving a unique problem. All failed companies are the same: they failed to escape competition.” He conveniently leaves out the rent-seeking bribery (“lobbying”) and selling-out to sociopathic liberal requirements of monopoly formation, though.
Rent seeking.
Some of the “stick” tactics sociopathic liberals use to pressure corporate types include the following:
HR Departments: “Civil rights” law made “discrimination” illegal so corporations must keep a large human resources department and are subject to the latest fads and whims of a society forever lurching leftwards. Failure to abide by the latest laws and trends results results in lawsuits and decreased profits.
Defining norms: Leftist control over education (especially academia) and media give them the power to define normalized standards of behavior, resulting in brainwashing of both elites and the masses. Being a CEO doesn’t make someone impervious to this process.
ESG scores and stakeholder capitalism: Globalist organizations and financial institutions (e.g. BlackRock) create ESG scores which act as a social credit system for corporations which bullies them into implementing “woke” policies under threat of financial ruin. BlackRock uses the Orwellian term “Stakeholder capitalism” for their bullying and they invest 401k and pension funds into stocks but retain the voting shares of the people who invest with them. Meanwhile, BlackRock took in a large portion of the Federal Reserve’s ETF investments (which the Fed had printed out of thin air), showing the deep interplay between public/private partnerships. Such partnerships are common in 21st century America because the government sees itself limited by the Constitution over what it can accomplish so they incentivize, cajole and threaten corporations to carry out their unconstitutional bidding indirectly on their behalf— Twitter, Facebook and Google are all subject to it.
Pressure groups: Pressure groups like the ADL and SPLC in collaboration with the mainstream media attempt to ruin the lives of anyone who speaks out against leftist ideology. This applies to CEOs as much as it applies to proles.
Conflicts of interest: The boards of multinational-corporations are staffed by members from the Council on Foreign Relations, World Economic Forum, etc. who also enforce wokeness from the top down.
Outright manipulation of stock prices: Patrick Byrne, the former CEO of overstock.com, went public in 2019 with allegations of political espionage by FBI figures including FBI agent Peter Strzok. In a Fox Business interview, Byrne described how he was offered a $1 billion bribe of sorts to stay quiet. In 2018 Overstock was subject to a SEC investigation; Peter Strzok’s wife, Melissa Hodgman, happened to be the Associate Director of the SEC Enforcement Division who happened to be leading the SEC investigation of Patrick Byrne’s company. Per Sundance, “So the wife of the FBI agent who was directing Patrick Byrne in the sketchy FBI operation targeting Donald Trump… just happens to open an investigation of Byrne shortly after the corrupt FBI operation containing her husband first hit the headlines in early 2018. I wonder if the elimination of that SEC investigation was worth, oh, say $1 billion. Huh, imagine that? Coincidences. Small world.” One can only assume such actions are common. Byrne resigned from Overstock out of concern it would be targeted due to his whistleblowing.
Robert Conquest’s Second Law of Politics states that any organization not explicitly right-wing sooner or later becomes left-wing. Examples include the Church of England and Amnesty International. Even apolitical foundations set up by right leaning billionaires grow leftist over time; the Ford Foundation regularly promotes LGBT rights and social justice even though Henry Ford was so right-wing he had written a book called The International Jew.
One example of a liberal issue subject to pressure tactics was gay marriage, where the messaging and social pressure pushed onto the public, including corporate types, was a classic slippery slope:
The speed of this social change was breathtakingly fast, occurring in less than a generation. Most advertising today includes homosexuals kissing, race mixing, and commercials being 50%+ black despite making up 14% of the population, which even 10 or 15 years ago would have been seen as shocking. The media is also starting to actively push pedophelia as well. There is a real slippery slope that results from the cowardice and lack of perception that corporate types have: they will always cave to liberal pressure.
The same is true on gun control. Sociopathic and NPC liberals publicly claim to only want “reasonable and incremental gun control measures” but they won’t be and aren’t satisfied with any specific gun restriction. They haven’t been satisfied with red flag laws and they haven’t been satisfied with background checks or banning assault rifles.; if they did want only reasonable restrictions they would eventually be content with the ones passed instead of turning around and demanding more. What they really want, but won’t say publicly, is a total prohibition on gun ownership. It is the same in other western countries: Trudeau announced a Canadian gun ban, Australia banned guns in 1996 and New Zealand banned guns in 2019. These only affect law abiding citizens though: felons and jackbooted enforces of the regime are allowed to keep their weapons and avoid punishment for their crimes which serves a useful purpose in terrorizing and distracting the middle class (i.e. anarcho-tyranny).
So-called “conservatives” and “libertarians” have lost on most cultural issues of importance over the past couple centuries from limiting the size of government, to promoting balanced budgets, to limiting immigration, to limiting the trade deficit, to limiting wars (for small “c” conservatives; the neocons have gotten all the wars they want), to allowing freedom of association; the list goes on and on. This shows the inherent contradiction within nature: despite the corporate “moderate” types being rich and successful and ideological dissidents being poor losers, only the latter can dream of reforming society because they aren’t financially or ideologically compromised.
CLIQUE THEORY
Because only ideological dissidents have the intellectual capacity, analytical abilities and moral integrity to see the establishment for what it is, they are the only ones who may envision the changes necessary to replace the existing system with something better. Ideological dissidents are drawn exclusivelyfrom the Loser clique.
Clique Theory is a theory promulgated by a group of anonymous internet autists who argue that a person’s physiognomy is destiny in modern America (elsewhere and in other eras too, but to a lesser degree). The theory postulates that the U.S. has a rigid, informal social hierarchy based entirely on one’s genotype and phenotype, which is based on one’s genetics and is more rigid than the Indian caste system. An individual based on nothing more than a glance may be categorized into one of the following cliques: Jock, Prep, Nerd, Scumbag, Woman and Loser. There are also various ethnic cliques (Black, Jewish) but each of these still has a regular clique designation within it.
Per the mothballed clique theory website (and with some minor adjustment for clarity) the following describes each clique. The classifications are crude and juvenile, but they provide a helpful approximation for how phenotype and genotype affect one’s life and political outlooks:
Preps: Preps are old money types, have trust-funds set up at birth, have important connections with highly selective breeding leading to high IQ’s and good phenotypes. Preps are exclusive and have high self confidence. They have contempt for others outside their “club”, tailor laws to protect themselves and have no moral compass other than noblesse oblige. It’s hard for preps to mess up and everything is pre-wired for long term success. They are tall and good looking. The prep disadvantages are arrogance, snobbishness, and aloofness. They are also personally corrupt. They’re so used to stealing money from the system and from the other cliques at the professional level that it may spill over into their private lives. That’s why prep politicians are often embroiled in influence peddling and tawdry sex scandals with bimbos and scumbaguettes.
Jocks: Jocks have athletic prowess, courage, leadership skills. They are great at teamwork and have strong work ethics; they are competition-driven and success oriented with rugged phenotypes. They are tall and strong. The jock disadvantages are arrogance and narcissism, lower IQs, lower self-awareness, lower adaptability once sports career ends, and they are subject to physical injuries and early burn-out. Jocks are excellent in sales jobs due to their charisma.
Nerds: Nerds have the highest IQs of all the cliques, have engineering and technology prowess, excellent planning skills, and are perfectionists. They are oblivious to the powers of women and usually end up bossed around by one romantically (if they mate). The nerd disadvantages are obliviousness to humanity, zero social skills, low self-awareness, and they possess terrible phenotypes including being physically weak, emotionally clueless, high susceptibility to intimidation and bullying, and they have poor eyesight.
Scumbags: Scumbags have brute strength and endurance, manual skills and craftsmanship, reproductive prowess, a feral nature and instincts unencumbered by reflection, nuance or moral delusions. They are the clique most likely to get tattoos. Important note: Scumbags are not those who are “scumbags” morally (this confuses a lot of people); it is a specific phenotype. Scumbags watch UFC and get big muscles and get in fights at bars; some become car mechanics or HVAC technicians. The disadvantages of scumbags are they are the lowest IQ of all cliques with minimal education, zero self-awareness, the poorest planning skills, poor impulse control, and they are highly susceptible to substance abuse and the lure of scumbaguettes.
Losers: Losers are anyone not in one of the above cliques; they may be cliqued (like goths or hipsters) or cliqueless. Their high IQ’s plus high self-awareness are actually disadvantages as these traits aggravate their frustration and sense of failure as they attempt to jump their Lane. They are erudite, but only in things that don’t count like liberal arts. The one (usually worthless) advantage losers have is that, being highly aware plus being the clique least tied into the establishment due to lack of material success, they are in the best position to properly critique the societies in which they live.
Jocks and preps are naturally high status and will always be okay in any society they live in, so they don’t care about politics very much and generally go with the flow. Contrast this with losers, so sensitive and personally aware of their loser status and who cannot help but obsess over it. When the loser is autistic on top of this they will provide incisive commentary on society that no other clique can get close to matching; see 4chan /pol as an example. The disadvantages of the loser is their inability to win at anything no matter what they do (which is arguably why Hitler, an ascended loser, was potentially always destined to lose), they are highly aware but delusional, they possess poor phenotypes, work ethic and motor skills; they have voracious sexual appetites but poor prospects leading to perversion; they are highly susceptible to “get rich quick” schemes like liberal arts and the grad school scam; and they possess an often uncontrollable compulsion to spend their lives posting.
Note: if you don’t know what clique you are in, you don’t readily fall into one of the other cliques, or if you spend an excessive amount of time on internet discussion forums, you are loser clique.
Women: Women possess powers of manipulation, seduction, intimidation and bitchiness that are incomprehensible to the other cliques; they have the lowest IQs for data processing but the highest emotional IQs; they are instinct driven. Women are emotional, irrational, mistake and depression prone; physically weak; highly susceptible to the claims of religion and being ruined by other rivals within the woman clique; they are driven by their biological clocks and reproductive cycle.
A minority of people posses hybrid cliques such as scumgeneer (scumbag + nerd clique), or prepbag (prep + scumbag clique).
People may aspire to be in a different clique, but “changing lanes” is impossible and anyone who tries to do so will only end up hurting themselves. For example, a nerd trying to play sports like a jock, or a jock trying to do programming like a nerd, would bring ruination for them both – one must stay in one’s lane or it’s inevitable that person will end up hurt.
Clique theory is not completely fatalistic; one can advance or descend within one’s clique between the low, medium, high, and ascended versions of their clique although the ascended version is quite rare; most people are low versions of their clique. Friends are people who form social alliances based on clique and phenotype. Career accomplishments do not define clique which is immutable. No one generally wants to be friends with a loser clique loser, not even other losers. Internet posters on forums are mostly pure loser clique and have bad phenotypes, although a minority are loser clique hybrids with another clique – there are no frequent internet posters who are not at least 50% loser clique.
Clique flowchart. Examples of clique between ascended, high and low. This should be intuitive to the reader.
Combining clique plus political type designations is an excellent way of describing someone’s core personality. Calling someone a “medium level prep corporate type” or a “high nerd/loser hybrid dissident type (Solzhenitzyn)” or an “ascended nerd corporatist type (Bill Gates)” or a “ascended scumbag/NPC liberal (Eminem)” is highly descriptive. It is more descriptive than the Big 5 Personality Test, which is the best personality test available.
In a society hyper-focused on enforcing conformity via the Overton window or risk being cast out, jumping from one fake meta-narrative to the next to keep the public entertained, only the loser cliqued loser, the lowest of the low, the most socially awkward, the worst performer financially, the eternal outsider, can discern the truth of the state of society and dream of a course correct. It is indeed the only thing they are good at. This is because when other cliques achieve financial success or academic prominence or excel at sports – really any activity not associated with being a loser – such success comes with strings attached that require one to compromise one’s views in order to retain their social status. Only the loser, lacking any success at all, can afford to grasp and promote viewpoints that lack social status.
Here’s to the glory of the loser clique loser!
BASED ON CLIQUE AND POLITICAL TYPE, PEOPLE GENERALLY DESERVE WHAT THEY GET
Based on clique theory and political type theory, a significant majority of individuals are either system NPCs or corporatists and they follow the decisions of sociopathic liberal leaders who spin meta-narrative fantasies for them to believe. The masses embrace these fantasies wholeheartedly and they generally sign on to follow and promote whatever instructions their leaders tell them to do. Wars are fought and many men, women, and children die because of the decisions of a few individuals; history is replete with examples.
For whatever reason, nature seems to adhere to this kind of collective punishment which someone of a just mind would think is abhorrent – after all, why would anyone moral punish the many for the misdeeds of the few? From this perspective, though, when people eagerly embrace following lying, sociopathic leaders, society deserves whatever results from it. Only the loser clique loser dissidents — small in number — and young children who have not yet chosen their path are the real victims of this collective punishment, for the loser clique loser dissidents are the only ones with the individualism, the discernment, and the moral fortitude to dissent from the herd. For them to suffer for the actions of the multitudes is a real tragedy.
***
In Part 4, we will explore the widespread, sophisticated and deadly tools wielded by the establishment to stamp out rising cognitive dissonance among the masses.
1 A Department of the Treasury official in the administration of George H. W. Bush who pressed for banking deregulation and repeal of Glass-Steagall Act, then as counsel to the American Bankers Association lobbied for the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999 repealing key provisions of the Glass-Steagall Act, and then starting in 2005 returned in a senior government role as Comptroller of the Currency.
This part offers a political typology, arguing that people fall into the following political categories: liberals (two types: system NPCs and sociopaths), corporatists, dissidents (two types: ideological and non-ideological) and the lumpenproletariat. It argues that sociopathic liberal purity spirals head toward an end-point of a leftist singularity resulting in genocide of the disapproved groups.
WHICH TYPES OF PEOPLE ARE MORE LIKELY TO EXPERIENCE COGNITIVE DISSONANCE?
We’ve discussed how the degree of inclination toward independent thought is variable and depends, at least to an extent, on a group’s perceived status in society.
But what about assessing a person’s skepticism to propaganda on an individual basis? Ethnic, religious, and sexuality groups experience great variability in thought and beliefs, even though generally the more privilege a group receives from society the less likely they are to resist it. A gay black man in American is generally going to support big government and blindly listen to liberal authority figures, but not always. How can individuals be categorized?
A good way of looking at individuals is that they fall into one of four personality categorizations (with some subcategories): liberals, corporate types, dissidents, and the lumpenproletariat. Let’s briefly touch on teach of these categories.
Liberals – liberals imbibe establishment propaganda without skepticism. They intrinsically understand the Friend/Enemy distinction (as defined by Carl Schmitt1) better than other personality types, they are very sensitive to status signaling and they de-emphasize truth in favor of group consensus.
There are two subcategories: System NPCs and sociopaths.2 System NPCs are mostwomen (where the younger ones are on the wokeness vanguard, per Schopenhauer3 and Orwell, the latter who stated in 1984: “It was always the women, and above all the young ones, who were the most bigoted adherents of the Party, the swallowers of slogans, the amateur spies and nosers-out of unorthodoxy”), most homosexuals (including homosexual RINOs4), most transsexuals, most blacks and other minorities. They generally prefer to live in liberal major metropolitan areas and dislike rural areas. This type eagerly embraces establishment propaganda out of anthropic herd instinct and their subconscious knowledge of the benefits they receive; they strongly identify with authority and do everything they can within their power to defend it.5 They have no cognitive dissonance between the information they receive and their own emotional makeup.6 They are generally college educated with average IQs; some have masters degrees although relatively fewer have PhD’s. Many suffer from the Dunning–Kruger effect. Ecumenical religious types also qualify as they internalize the liberal positions of a decade ago.
System NPCs are currently liberal because the power in the west is liberal, but if society’s ideology was different the system NPCs would readily believe that instead.7
While most System NPCs are normal people, some may rise very high in the establishment. This may occur from uncommon personal qualities by combining extreme ambition, the right education or family background or marrying correctly with a total acceptance of globohomo messaging and no cognitive dissonance, which makes them very useful to those high up in power.8 Examples include Justin Trudeau, Lauren Jobs, MacKenzie Bezos and New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Arden.
It’s sad that this totalitarian system NPC horse-face terrorized New Zealand under the guise of “safety” for years.
The sociopathic types are small in number, often work in media, government or law, and know that their role is in providing false messaging to the masses for specific policy goals. As Che Guevara in Man and Socialism in Cuba stated: “The vanguard group is ideologically more advanced than the mass; the latter is acquainted with the new values, but insufficiently. While in the former a qualitative change takes place which permits them to make sacrifices as a function of their vanguard character, the latter see only by halves and must be subjected to incentives and pressures of some intensity; it is the dictatorship of the proletariat being exercised not only upon the defeated class but also individually upon the victorious class.”
Sociopathic liberals know that their actions/statements are false, creating some degree of cognitive dissonance (usually minor), but they justify it to themselves that the end justifies the means and it satisfies their conscience.9 Secular Ashkenazi Jews are extremely overrepresented in this category.
Both types of liberals generally like open borders and unlimited immigration (but only of non-integrating groups: whites and Christian immigrants are expressly disfavored) because (1) the system NPC types have been brainwashed into believing the mantra “diversity is strength”, and (2) sociopathic types like black and brown immigrants because they vote Democrat by a substantial margin, consolidating liberal power and pushing the country further left at a faster rate. The greatest percentage of Hispanics who voted for a Republican for president was George W. Bush in 2004 when he promised them free housing (which led to the 2008 financial crisis) and he only got 40-42% of their vote, while blacks regularly vote 90% Democrat.
Corporatists – these are the “moderate” Democrats and Republicans who really only care about making money, and they view their status based on their wallet. These people see the world in dollar terms, not in blood terms, therefore they are easily swayed by liberal pressure tactics when it could impact their pocketbook. They think “oh, if I just go along with whatever liberals are currently shrieking about and demanding I can go back to making money.” Thus while corporatists and system NPCs are both accepting of sociopathic liberal messaging, the system NPC is proactive in pushing the messaging they receive onto others and the corporatist is reactive in receiving the messaging. The corporate types are the best at making money. Their friend/enemy distinction is weak except they do not ally with dissidents. Corporate types generally like open borders and unlimited immigration because it increases the number of workers which has a substantial downward effect on wages.
Mitch McConnell and Lindsey Graham, both corporatists who despise the base of their own party.
Note: sometimes a corporate type will play-act as if he is a dissident and can even be confused in his own mind about what he is. The easiest way to determine the proper category is if he took the COVID vaccine or not. If yes, that person is most likely not a dissident (allowances are made for younger people whose views are not yet fully formed and for those acting under severe economic duress).
Dissidents – A dissident is someone who has moral objections to the fundamental nature of the establishment that rules over them. They see the world consciously or unconsciously in either “blood” or religious terms (or both), not in “money” or virtue signaling terms; they believe in human biodiversity, that people of similar backgrounds want to be together, and that diversity + proximity = war (per Heartiste). The deeper one gets into dissent, the fewer ideological allies and reach a person will have and the more isolated they will be. Conversely, the more mainstream one is, the more allies and reach that person will have – telling people what they want to hear is popular. Dissidents prefer the rural countryside over major metropolitan areas.
There are two subcategories: ideological dissidents and non-ideological dissidents. Ideological dissidents are those that are resistant to peer pressure and distrustful of establishment narratives spun by authority; many are skeptical of groupthink, well read and often became dissidents through the PUA, Ron Paul, Moldbug or Alex Jones onramps. These types are generally too independent to organize effectively, they are mostly loser clique (which will be defined in Part 3), have high testosterone (which is correlated with being right wing), higher than average IQs, they are almost entirely men10 and they make up a small percent of the population. They are usually poor as they lack access to corporate capital. Because many ideological dissidents are raised in liberal environments many do not “know thyself” until adulthood and they may struggle with motivation until they do (one’s political type, like physiognomy, is mostly immutable11). Of the Big Five personality traits dissidents often have high neuroticism, low agreeableness and, arguably, high conscientiousness.12 Nietzsche put it like this: “Digressions, objections, delight in mockery, carefree mistrust are signs of health; everything unconditional belongs in pathology.”
Solzhenitsyn was a classic ideological dissident.
Non-ideological dissidents are much of the white majority population that feels discriminated against, they typically live in suburban or rural areas, they don’t trust the media but they cannot articulate their objections other than Fox News talking points. They are poorly read, generally lower IQ and their objections to the establishment are visceral and emotional, not intellectual. While they may be taken in by media propaganda their emotional makeup prevents them from fully integrating the messages they receive. Their friend/enemy distinction is poor because they are susceptible to moral appeals to compassion, fairness, equality, and forgivingness.
Sarah Palin represented the non-ideological dissident wing of the Republican party.
Note 1. Dissidents of either type who fall into a privileged racial category will deliberately have their privilege revoked by society and treated on the privilege level of a white heterosexual male. An example is Supreme Court Justice Clarance Thomas, whose blackness is completely ignored by society as a dissident to the system.
Clarence Thomas, the furthest right member of the Supreme Court.
Note 2. There are zero dissident American billionaires; even those billionaires considered the “most right” leaning, i.e. Peter Thiel13, ElonMusk and Robert Mercer, are not. 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, butit does not mean they have accepted populist values.
A COVID meme where Redditor NPCs represent the 85-115 IQ middle and the tails are non-ideological and ideological dissidents. This bell curve applies to many topics.
Lumpenproletariat: The lumpenproletariat are comprised of low IQ individuals who are too dumb to conceptualize political concepts and who are entirely focused on their immediate survival. They go to work as the lowest stratum of the industrial working class, lack class consciousness, spend what little money they have, rack up credit card debt and live paycheck to paycheck, they maybe go clubbing, have sex, smoke weed. Politics isn’t relevant because they don’t care or follow it nor are they capable of offering up any resistance.
Examples of lumpenproles from the movie Idiocracy.
While these categories are based on one’s physiognomy and are mostly immutable, a combination of media propaganda, poor education and weak role models14 often confuse people into intellectually identifying with categories that cut against their true core beliefs. Hence age, experience, and wisdom can bring out the core beliefs of individuals who have been confused in their youth. A hope of this essay is that it may assist some into questioning their beliefs and identify their underlying true values.
It is unfortunate that these viewpoint categorizations are more meaningful now than ever because the personal has become the political over the past decade, especially in an era of Trump and COVID. The blending of the personal and the political has led to the loss of many friendships whereas previously one used to be able to separate politics from daily life.
NPC LIBERALS ACT LIKE A FISH IN A SCHOOL OF FISH
An interesting psychological problem with corporate types and non-ideological dissidents is that they believe finding and using a “correct” argument has the ability to wake NPC systems liberals up from their slumber and “see the light”. Their argument goes something like this: that NPC liberals are stuck in ideological echo chambers watching CNN, NYTimes, MSNBC and WaPo and which gets reinforced in school and the media, they have no real understanding of the arguments of the right and, at least if they are well meaning, they can be changed with a winning argument. Hence why Dinesh D’Souza (a corporate type larping as a dissident and who serves as an establishment gatekeeper), Charlie Kirk, Ben Shapiro and so on spend so much time calling out the hypocrisy of their opponents: “If they recognize they are being hypocrites through callouts like these, maybe they will change their minds!”
This is a fundamental mischaracterization of how the NPC liberal mind works and shows a lack of understanding of the friend/enemy distinction. Instead of trying to base their beliefs in fact and logic like the corporate types and non-ideological dissidents try to do (with low to middling success), the NPC liberal mind is more like a fish in a school of fish. To these people, pushback from their ideological opponents energizes them as it identifies on essentially a religious level who is “evil” and who must be steamrolled and conquered. This is why debating a NPC liberal is a waste of time and counter-productive; they will walk away energized from the conversation, ready for battle, and will have completely forgotten any arguments you have made by the next day.
The blogger Z-Man articulates this concept properly:
“When you watch a school of fish or a flock of birds… it appears as if they are coordinated in their actions. It’s as if one of the fish is the brain, operating in secret communication with the rest of the school, to have them dart left or right through the water. It’s almost as if they were designed to be of one mind…
Instead, it is one fish responding to the fish around him. When the fish on the outside of the school twitches, those around him twitch. The cascade of movement happens so fast it is imperceptible to the observer on the dock. The same is true of birds. That murmuration of a flock of starlings looks like a highly coordinated ballet, but in reality it is the result of a million reactions within the flock. That’s how the Left operates like a highly coordinated religious cult. They are tuned to react to one another.
This is why facts and reason are useless weapons against the Left. People in the 2A community have all had the experience of carefully explaining the facts and arguments of gun control to their lefty friend or relative. They nod along, seeming to understand what has been explained. The next time you see them, it is the same old shibboleths, as if they have no memory of the last conversation. The reason for this is the very definition of who they are is their membership in a civic religion….
That is the power of Progressivism. It is a self-contained, self-validating shared reality for the adherents. It’s why so few people break from it.More important, its immune system has evolved highly complex defenses against the way in which the Right prefers to debate. Those appeals to facts and reason are quickly turned into fuel to energize the believers into huddling closer in common defense. It’s how the Left maintains its power. It has turned the enemy’s best weapons into fuel.
It iswhy engaging with the Left is a tactical error. As much as dissidents like to accuse the Buckley conservatives of being controlled opposition, they never really got the value of the Buckley types to the Left. They were not their designated punching bags. They were the ritualized manifestation of the devil, the universal threat against which the Left is organized. It is a reminder of why they believe, why they must stick together and why they must fight by any means necessary.
An authentic alternative to the Left will therefore not confront the Left, but hide from it, refusing to engage in the traditional way. More important, it can never manifest in the traditional ways. Those white boys in fashy haircuts at Charlottesville were the best controlled opposition the Left has had since David Duke. They were what the Progressive prophesies foretold, thus confirming the shared beliefs of the coalition of the ascendant. It’s why Charlottesville looms so large for the Left.
The authentic alternative to the prevailing orthodoxy will have to evolve in the shadows and evolve its own immunity from the weapons of the Left. Instead of being attracted to confronting the Left, it will have to be repelled by it. The decisive weapon will be never manifesting in a way that allows the Left to anathematize it. Instead of playing the role carved out for them by the Left, the successful dissidents will seem formless and inexplicable. The people in charge will never see them coming.”
That NPC liberal types act as a school of fish out of anthropic herd instinct explains in part why these people usually win, because the mentality of dissidents is fractured, individualistic, filled with endless infighting as they bicker about getting to their own version of the “truth”. Their fractured, disorganized nature makes them natural losers against the NPC liberal mentality.
A photo of liberals. I think I see a few I recognize.
Additionally, if one sees the way that the NPC left gets energized by pushback from the right, using that energy to steamroll their opponents, the advent of the internet and instantaneous communications has sped up this process precipitously. This is why what has been historically considered societal degradation — publicly approved homosexuality, transsexuality15, child sexual grooming, child sex operations, legalized drug use, etc — along with a sharp rise in heterosexual male virginity has occurred in less than 15 years, a blink of an eye historically, when the first iPhone was released only in 2007.16 There were smartphones before the iPhone but the iPhone is what popularized them along with instantaneous communications to the masses. The specific mechanism by which this degradation occurs is the immediate mobilization of retaliatory responses by NPCs working at Facebook, Twitter, Reddit and other social media platforms (riled up by corporate and online echo chambers17) to dissident ideas, punishing dissidents with shadow and regular bans, doxxing, threatened job loss, public shaming, and loss of access to bank accounts, that has really supercharged this decline.
Vijaya Gadde, the smug Indian foreigner in charge of mass censorship on Twitter, including of Orange Man. She was paid tens of millions for her work and has the physiognomy of a demon.
SOCIOPATHIC LIBERAL TYPES UNDERSTAND THE IMPORTANCE OF POSITIONS OF POWER
While small in number, the sociopathic liberal types live, breathe, and obsess about the power process — how to get it, who to know to get it, what to do when they get it, who their enemies are, how to take them out. These people believe that the vast majority of people are cattle to be used and abused in order to advance their power process. They also believe that the end justifies the means politically, that whatever immoral actions they take on their path will be warranted once the (ill defined, impossible to reach) end goals are reached. These people are materialist and atheist, even if they may publicly proclaim to be religious.
As an example, if one looks at Russia during the communist revolution only a small portion of the country supported the Bolsheviks. They received just 24% of the vote at the 1917 Russian Constituent Assembly election but they disregarded the vote and seized power by force the next day. These people were ruthless, determined, controlling, highly organized, deeply deceptive, excellent liars, and experts at coordination and strategy. They lied to the masses and got them to go along with the agenda even as their quality of life drastically decreased.
Lenin, a classic sociopathic liberal.
In a similar vein blogger Rolo Slavskiy asks why the Christian Ukrainian masses are still fighting against Russia even though they are suffering enormous casualties (per leaked documents, judged as authentic by Ukrainian bloggers, showing their military rapidly lost more than half of its men), and even though the Ukrainian leadership is Jewish and foreign who will, per CATO, fight to the last Ukrainian. The point Slavsky makes is that it doesn’t matter how well represented a group is in government; most people simply follow authority figures no matter who they are, and sociopathic liberals understands this better than any other group:
The Ukrainians are fighting because they were told to fight. That’s it. That’s how authority works; people naturally follow orders from on high. It’s probably genetic even because following the chieftain used to be a viable strategy for survival. For most of history, there wasn’t such a huge disconnect between the ruler and the ruled. Both groups needed each other to a large extent and the captain went down with the ship if things got too bad. The interests of the ruler and ruled aligned more often than they didn’t.
Now though, a hostile shtetl rules both Ukraine and the West. Their authority is illegitimate, but, they remain the authority regardless. And so, when orders come down from on high, most people obey them. Not all people, mind you. Our little Substack community is filled with people who are suspicious of the ruling elite, for example. Some people, it seems, have a heretic gene within them that predisposes them to distrusting authority. This is probably a part of our natural design as well. Genes play out on both an individual and group level. You need the vast majority of people to be conformists, but you also need a certain percentage to challenge the status quo. Certain groups of people seem to have a slightly higher predisposition to heresy than others, but the general distribution is more-or-less the same. The majority will, despite their various viewpoints and supposedly deeply-held ideological convictions, follow orders from on high.
Point being, if Russia had control of these territories, they could just as easily have called up the people to fight NATO instead of having NATO call them up to fight Russia.
That is why the fight for these positions of authority is so important. If the power of authority wasn’t so overwhelming, these positions wouldn’t be so coveted. Heretics could just go to the people directly, convince them using the logic of their arguments, and the deed would already be done – the people would be convinced to no longer obey the authorities. But this is not what happens. This is not the observable reality that we are dealing with. Hippy-style appeals to the power of the people to organize themselves without hierarchies or appeals to authority fall flat on their face because only a certain percentage of people are capable of thinking this way. Most people are always following the leader. The only real question is: who is the leader? It doesn’t have to be the president of a country or a general, mind you. It could be a cult leader or a celebrity artist or even a boss at the company.
Ukrainian soldiers go to get shot up and bombed to pieces because their commander told them to do so.
They showed up for the draft because the police told them to do so.
They fight against Russia because their president told them to do so.
They hate Russia because their teachers in school told them to do so.
There really isn’t much more to the riddle than that.
This should be a sobering realization for Westerners. Your countrymen, if told to do so, will be carted off to war with Russia as well. They may grumble about it and they may shirk their duties as best they can, sure. But they’ll go along with it just like they went along with the Great Reset, the Great Replacement and all the other insane agendas that have been forced by them by people in positions of authority.
See also the Milgram experiments which reinforces this concept. As much as the term “evil” has religious connotations that often glosses over the mechanisms and real world motivations of sociopaths, there really isn’t a better term for a small group of individuals who conspire to exploit the majority masses using lies, intimidation, and brainwashing, plus relying on an utterly amoral, end-justifies-the-means materialist mentality while believing there’s no such thing as objective truth, only subjective truth to be bent and manipulated at will. This group is simply evil even though they consider themselves on a righteous crusade against the unrighteous.
EXAMPLES OF SOCIOPATHIC LIBERAL TACTICS
Michael Anton has a short guide on certain common rhetorical tools these sociopathic liberal types employ to advance their agenda. According to Anton, these include:
the Law of Merited Impossibility, where sociopathic liberals state: “That will never happen, and when it does, boy will you [homophobes, transphobes, racists, sexists, whatever] deserve it”;
the Celebration Parallax, which may be stated as “the same fact pattern is either true and glorious or false and scurrilous depending on who states it”;
the Law of Salutary Contradiction, whose formulation is “That’s not happening and it’s good that it is”;
the Smails exhortation, where “democracy” has been redefined to mean “getting exactly what [the establishment] wants”;
the “War on Noticing” via The Lie-Back Imperative, where the establishment “Right” argues the Left not only doesn’t mean its proto-genocidal rhetoric but isn’t even saying it;
the Enmity Counter-accusation, where the left calls you its enemy for recognizing its enmity; and
the last, where “Deplorable Americans” are loudly and incessantly said to be the worst people in the history of the planet, pure unadulterated evil, with no legitimate concerns, interests or grievances, yet attempts by these people to gain some measure of federalism and local control is met with “if you try that we will kill you.”
It’s worth reading to understand these common liberal rhetorical positions.
The sociopathic liberal type has an interesting personality quirk: for reasons that are both puzzling and debatable,they project their own sociopathic motivations and behavior onto their hapless enemies.18 Perhaps it is for offensive purposes — once you accuse someone else of something, it’s a much weaker response for them to accuse you of the same thing back — or perhaps it is a mental defense because no one wants to think of themselves as evil (“I’m only doing it because they did it first, you don’t want them to win do you?”). Hence, Trump was accused of “Russian collusion” even though it was Hillary’s team that was up to their eyeballs working with Russian oligarch and FBI informant Igor Danchenko on the fake Christopher Steele Trump-Russia dossier, and top FBI agents were bribed by Russians.
An example of a liberal sociopath type is Anthony Fauci, priest diviner of COVID, deciding whether and to what extent the virus will “attack” one week versus the next and how fearful the population needs to be, where the NPC liberal masses looked to him as a God-type and a savior. Fauci could not believe there were citizens stupid enough to wear masks into a restaurant and take them off at the table as he suggested they do, according to former White House spokesman Brian Morgenstern.
“[Fauci] went on to laugh about how ‘ass-backwards’ it was that people entered a restaurant wearing a mask, then sat down and conversed with people without a mask. [Yet] he wasn’t saying things to that effect publicly, just laughing privately at the American rubes he was fooling,” Morgenstern wrote in an excerpt for an upcoming book. In July of 2020, Fauci told ABC News Chief Medical Correspondent Dr. Jennifer Ashton that he was considering recommending goggles or an eye shield protection for all. “If you really want perfect protection of the mucosal surfaces … and have goggles or an eye shield, use it,” Fauci said. Of course, he didn’t believe any of this. As Morgenstern recalls: “I vividly [remember] my blood boiling during an infuriating meeting in the Roosevelt Room of the White House, when Fauci laughed about his own goggles comment, making it clear how cynical he was and that he could get people to believe anything.”
Lastly, a repeated pattern through history is that this personality type will push and push in their accumulation of power until they hit resistance: then, if they don’t have enough force to conquer the resistance they will shift and try a different angle and start the process again. If they do have enough force to push through, especially militarily, they will do so ruthlessly and without hesitation and then,once they defeat the resistance, they will blame the resistor for being the originator of the conflict. A sociopathic bully gaslighting and blaming the victim, claiming through their propaganda outlets that they were in fact the real victim. An example of this is Japan in World War 2 where the U.S. intentionally cut off Japan’s access to oil, knowing it would make them desperate and lead directly to a military response. FDR likely had prior knowledge of Pearl Harbor but he needed America to be attacked to shatter the powerful anti-war isolationist faction. According to GPO statistics, 93% of Americans were opposed to US entry into the war even after the German invasion of France. Appendix A will discuss how these sociopaths have used this strategy throughout history, from Napoleon’s wars to the American Civil War to World War 1 to World War 2 to Libya to Iraq.
Based on Biden’s purges of dissidents in the American military and police forces on the pretext of mandated COVID vaccinations, combined with the extreme hatred the establishment has for the white middle class, it wouldn’t be surprising for them to push these people against a wall, eventually triggering a violent reaction (through a Trump indictment? Through the use of 87,000 new IRS agents to harass the middle class? Through outright criminalization of free speech?20 Through escalating Ukraine/Russia to nuclear war?), then use the loyal military and police to crush the dissidents, blaming the victim for “causing” the conflict and consolidating further power for globohomo.
THE DANGERS OF VIRTUE SIGNALING SPIRALS LEADING TO A LEFTIST SINGULARITY
A holiness spiral occurs when sociopathic leftists engage in a intra-leftist power struggle by virtue signaling about who can go the furthest left.21 They do this by signaling their support for increasingly small concentric rings of the oppressed (women, minority women, disabled minority women, etc.), and whoever is able to signal solidarity with the smallest conceivable ring ends up as the ‘winner’ for being the most virtuous, which they then parlay into political power. Historically one can see this strategy in America which went from support for slaves, to support for women’s liberation/19th amendment, civil rights, illegal immigrants, homosexuals, transsexuals, and then child transsexual indoctrination, with victorious leftists at each of these historical stops parlaying their holiness into political gain (and each of these involved a smaller concentric ring of the oppressed). Anyone who doesn’t meet the latest leftist holiness spiral is cast out and treated as an enemy. As the number of excluded enemies grows over time the greater the odds violence is ultimately used against them which, unless stopped, ultimately leads to a leftist singularity of genocide against the excluded peoples (i.e. Bolshevik mass murder of the kulaks, Chinese communist mass murder of their political enemies22 and Khmer Rouge mass murder in Cambodia are three recent historical examples).
Left wing holiness spirals only end in one of three ways:
A sociopathic individual of the holiest leftist groups ascends to power, as with Oliver Cromwell and Stalin, and then discovers that his followers are becoming even holier than he is and demanding greater holiness which threatens his rule, and therefore he turns away from those who were loyal to him based on shared faith in holiness and turns to those who are loyal out of desire for power, and he purges those to his left (such as Stalin using Beria and his apolitical gang, and Cromwell with his troops);
The leftist holiness spiral continues unabated cumulating in the Leftist Singularity, i.e. genocide of the hated mass of enemies until it profoundly weakens the polity and results in foreign conquest, as with Khmer Rouge Cambodia; or
A military leader takes power and puts an end to the holiness spiral, with examples such as Franco in Spain and either Napoleon or the Thermidorian reaction to the French Revolution, depending on how you look at it.
A common end to a leftist holiness spiral.
****
Part 3 of “Dissonance to Informational Control in Technological Society” discusses the mentality of the corporatist political type and the peculiar ways they interact with sociopathic liberals, as well as delves into Clique Theory.
2 There is arguably a third type, but it is being excluded for brevity: people in, or with backgrounds from, subjugated nations who consciously or unconsciously believe that by allying with globohomo they can right historic wrongs against their dominant neighbor. i.e. the Irish or people with Irish backgrounds, or Ukrainians, both motivated by ressentiment against England and Russia respectively, are much more liberal than other “white” countries. i.e. see here and here. This ressentiment overpowers their thinking abilities because the alliance with globohomo is rapidly resulting in the destruction of both countries to a far greater degree than they ever suffered under their previous subjugation, with rampant black and Islamic immigration into Ireland and a wiping out of white Ukrainian males during the western-forced Ukraine/Russia war along with a ban on the Eastern Orthodox Church and forced legalization of homosexuality.
3 Prominent NPC RINO homosexuals include (at least rumored) Lindsay Graham, Marco Rubio, and Kevin McCarthy. Interestingly prominent individuals who at least larp as dissidents also seem disproportionately (at least rumored) homosexual: Nick Fuentes, Milo Yiannopoulos, Peter Thiel, Matt Gaetz, Bronze Age Pervert, Matt Drudge (before he sold out pre-2020), George Santos, Jim Hoft. It is an interesting question why this is.
4 I am inclined to quote Schopenhauer here in his essay On Women:
“Hence, it will be found that the fundamental fault of the female character is that it has no sense of justice. This is mainly due to the fact, already mentioned, that women are defective in the powers of reasoning and deliberation; but it is also traceable to the position which Nature has assigned to them as the weaker sex. They are dependent, not upon strength, but upon craft; and hence their instinctive capacity for cunning, and their ineradicable tendency to say what is not true. For as lions are provided with claws and teeth, and elephants and boars with tusks, bulls with horns, and cuttle fish with its clouds of inky fluid, so Nature has equipped woman, for her defence and protection, with the arts of dissimulation; and all the power which Nature has conferred upon man in the shape of physical strength and reason, has been bestowed upon women in this form. Hence, dissimulation is innate in woman, and almost as much a quality of the stupid as of the clever. It is as natural for them to make use of it on every occasion as it is for those animals to employ their means of defence when they are attacked; they have a feeling that in doing so they are only within their rights. Therefore a woman who is perfectly truthful and not given to dissimulation is perhaps an impossibility, and for this very reason they are so quick at seeing through dissimulation in others that it is not a wise thing to attempt it with them. But this fundamental defect which I have stated, with all that it entails, gives rise to falsity, faithlessness, treachery, ingratitude, and so on. Perjury in a court of justice is more often committed by women than by men. It may, indeed, be generally questioned whether women ought to be sworn in at all. From time to time one finds repeated cases everywhere of ladies, who want for nothing, taking things from shop-counters when no one is looking, and making off with them.”
“The common man is unjust, but not on principle; he is selfish, but he is incapable of the imperative of Ibsen’s exalted selfishness; he is the slave of his passions, but incapable of higher sexual love, for even this is an expression of Culture – primitive man would not understand Western erotic even if it were explained to him, this sublimation of passion into metaphysics. He lacks any sort of honor, and will submit to any humiliation rather than revolt – it is always leader-natures who revolt. He gambles in the hope of winning, and if he loses, he whimpers. He would rather live on his knees than die on his feet. He accepts the loudest voice as the true one. He follows the leader of the moment – but only so far, and when the leader is eclipsed by a new one, he points out his record of opposition. In victory he is a bully, in defeat he is a lackey. His talk is big, his deeds small. He likes to play, but has no sportsmanship. Great thoughts and plans he castigates as “megalomania.” Anyone who tries to pull him up along the road of higher accomplishment he hates, and when the chance offers, he crucifies him, like Christ, burns him, like Savonarola, kicks his dead body in the square in Milan. He is always laughing at the discomfiture of another, but has no sense of humor, and is equally incapable of true seriousness. He denounces the crime of passion, but eagerly reads the literature of such crimes. He herds in the street to see an accident, and enjoys seeing another sustain the blows of fate. He does not care if his countrymen are spilling their blood as long as he is secure.”
7 Hence Robert Conquest in Reflections of a Ravaged Century, p. 64:
“Hitler himself said that Communists far more easily became Nazis than Social Democrats did. On another occasion he remarked, “the Reds we had beaten up became our best supporters,” a point also noted by others. A remarkable firsthand example is given by Patrick Leigh Fermor in A Time of Gifts…In a German workmen’s bar late one night he made friends with a group of young factory hands just off a late shift. One of them offered to put him up in a family attic. There he found what seemed to be a “a shrine of Hitlerism” – flags, photographs, posters, slogans, emblems. His new friend laughingly said he should have seen it last year – all “Lenin and Stalin and Workers of the World Unite.” He and his friends were Communists and used to beat up Nazis in street fights. Then, “suddenly,” he had realized that Hitler was right, and he and his friends were now SA men. “I tell you, I was astonished how easily they all changed sides,” he said.”
8 See also Zero HP Lovecraft’s reformulation of an argument from Vaclav Havel, as detailed in Appendix B.
There are a myriad of ways sociopaths choose to lie to their marks. The following is a description of some prominent political figures and the various ways they choose to lie:
Trump, who was considered a moderate liberal until 2015 and socialized with the Clintons (they attended his wedding to Melania), Al Sharpton and other liberal leaders, lies like a high-pressure salesman; however, he basically believes everything he says and even when wary of his specific claims one should take the issue seriously, especially when he attacks the competitor’s product.
Hillary is a sociopathic liar who conceals her wrongdoing and tries to destroy her enemies (as an aside, she stated publicly that the lesson of 1984 is to trust “our leaders”).
Biden is a the type of liar who has no idea and doesn’t really care about whether his claims may be true or false. He just says whatever he thinks would be useful for this or that audience to hear at that particular moment. It’s an emotional performance art.
Obama is a lawyerly liar who picks his spots carefully and prefers to mislead over outright lie.
Elizabeth Warren has some similarities to Biden but is more self-aware that she’s lying about her personal history, and she has some similarities to Hillary but is more concerned with lies that generate sympathy rather than ones that conceal wrong-doing.
Bill Clinton is a liar who uses emotional seduction for political gain and personal gratification.
“The nobler and more perfect a thing is, the later and slower is it in reaching maturity. Man reaches the maturity of his reasoning and mental faculties scarcely before he is eight-and-twenty; woman when she is eighteen; but hers is reason of very narrow limitations. This is why women remain children all their lives, for they always see only what is near at hand, cling to the present, take the appearance of a thing for reality, and prefer trifling matters to the most important. It is by virtue of mans reasoning powers that he does not live in the present only, like the brute, but observes and ponders over the past and future; and from this spring discretion, care, and that anxiety which we so frequently notice in people. The advantages, as well as the disadvantages, that this entails, make woman, in consequence of her weaker reasoning powers, less of a partaker in them. Moreover, she is intellectually short-sighted, for although her intuitive understanding quickly perceives what is near to her, on the other hand her circle of vision is limited and does not embrace anything that is remote; hence everything that is absent or past, or in the future, affects women in a less degree than men. This is why they have greater inclination for extravagance, which sometimes borders on madness. Women in their hearts think that men are intended to earn money so that they may spend it, if possible during their husbands lifetime, but at any rate after his death.”
11 Per Conquest, p.228: “Not all young, or old, people are susceptible to education. The Emperor Marcus Aurelius, Gibbon tells us, had this trouble with his son and successor, Commodus…That is to say, he was forced by family circumstances into a world to which he felt no attachment or inclination.
This is, perhaps, an exotic example. Still, young people are even now pressed by family expectations into a sphere that is alien to their personalities. All this is only to say that some, like Commodus, are more or less uneducable. Others have had a good education by the time they are eighteen, or even younger, but have neither the desire nor the bent for “higher” education.
For people can be educated, culture and so forth without having been to university at all…nor is this only a matter of genius. Even erudition is possible outside academe, a point illustrated perfectly by Gibbon himself, the greatest of historians, who did indeed attend Oxford briefly when fifteen years old, from which (as he tells us) he got nothing.”
12 From here: “People who are susceptible to hypnosis and suggestion…In the cases of males only, tend to act on the spur of the moment and consequently live an inconsistent lifestyle.”
13 From Financial Times: “In April 2022, about the same time that Founders Fund sold out of most of its cryptocurrency holdings, Thiel said he was optimistic about the future of bitcoin. He told a cryptocurrency conference in Miami that “we’re at the end of the fiat money regime” and suggested its price — which was then trading at about $44,000 — could increase by a factor of 100.”
14 See globohomo’s portrayal of male role models on television for their general approach toward masculinity: here, here and here.
15 The term “transsexualism” was coined by Magnus Hirschfeld during Weimar Germany where he advocated for homosexuals and transsexuals. See also Harry Benjamin.
16 Obama only came out in favor of gay marriage in 2012; only 10 years later, Tucker Carlson, the furthest-right personality allowed on television, also came out in favor of it on his show in December 2022.
17 Per Cass Sunstein: “The biggest issue is simple. It’s group polarization, which means that if you listen to people like you, you’ll probably get more extreme and more confident too. If Republicans talk or listen to each other, they’ll probably become more extreme, and the same is true for Democrats. We’ve seen plenty of that, and we’re going to see more. By the way, it happens on university campuses on both the left and the right, and we should worry about both. (I worked in the Obama administration, and I am worried that the left might go nuts in coming years.)”
18 As Scott M. Peck states in People of the Lie, p.73-75, “A predominant characteristic, however, of the behavior of those I call evil is scapegoating. Because in their hearts they consider themselves above reproach, they must lash out at anyone who does reproach them. They sacrifice others to preserve their self-image of perfection….Scapegoating works through a mechanism psychiatrists call projection. Since the evil, deep down, feel themselves to be faultless, it is inevitable that when they are in conflict with the world they will invariably perceive the conflict as the world’s fault. Since they must deny their own badness, they must perceive others as bad….In The Road Less Traveled I defined evil “as the exercise of political power – that is, the imposition of one’s will upon others by overt or covert coercion – in order to avoid…spiritual growth”. In other words, the evil attack others instead of facing their own failures. Spiritual growth requires the acknowledgment of one’s need to grow. If we cannot make that acknowledgment, we have no option except to attempt to eradicate the evidence of our own imperfection….Utterly dedicated to preserving their self-image of perfection, they are unceasingly engaged in the effort to maintain the appearance of moral purity. They worry about this a great deal. They are acutely sensitive to social norms and what others might think of them….the words “image,” “appearance,” and “outwardly” are crucial to understanding the morality of the evil. While they seem to lack any motivation to be good, they intensely desire to appear good. Their “goodness” is all on a level of pretense. It is, in effect, a lie. This is why they are the ‘people of the lie.’”
Also, p. 119: “Evil [is] defined as the use of power to destroy the spiritual growth of others for the purpose of defending and preserving the integrity of our own sick selves. In short, it is scapegoating. [The evil] scapegoat not the strong but the weak. For the evil to misuse their power, they must have the power to use it in the first place. They must have some kind of dominion over their victims.”
19 A strong possibility is that the FBI and CIA knowingly facilitate the fentanyl trade (like the latter did previously with the heroin trade, which dried up after the Afghanistan withdrawal), which is manufactured in either China or Mexico and then distributed into Middle America as one aspect of its war against its own population and especially white Christians. As one data point: If the Mexican cartels had such ferocious independence, why, after accidentally killing an obese American black felon in northern Mexico, would the cartel beg for forgiveness and immediately turn over the 5 members that carried it out? Are such actions not better explained by a weak, dependent organization on foreign support? (The counter-argument is that they didn’t want to attract “heat” to themselves, but it is a weak one).
21 See also Zero HP Lovecraft’s reformulation of an argument from Vaclav Havel as detailed in Appendix B.
22 The New York Times estimated that the 20-30 million dead Chinese during the Great Famine of the Great Leap Forward 1958-1962 was deemed “woefully inadequate”.
This part looks at the common routes to developing cognitive dissonance against establishment propaganda, why such dissonance is reasonable, why one cannot flee elsewhere anymore to avoid having to deal with it, and which types of people are most likely to experience it.
THE RISE OF COGNITIVE DISSONANCE AMONG THE MASSES
“The masses have never thirsted after truth. Whoever can supply them with illusions is easily their master; whoever attempts to destroy their illusions is always their victim.” – Gustave Le Bon
Normal people often experience cognitive dissonance to mass media propaganda in their own area of expertise. However, they compartmentalize their dissonance and refuse to apply it to other areas of life. Michael Crichton called this phenomenonthe Gel-Mann Amnesia effect:
“Briefly stated, the Gell-Mann Amnesia effect is as follows. You open the newspaper to an article on some subject you know well. In Murray’s case, physics. In mine, show business. You read the article and see the journalist has absolutely no understanding of either the facts or the issues. Often, the article is so wrong it actually presents the story backward—reversing cause and effect. I call these the “wet streets cause rain” stories. Paper’s full of them.
In any case, you read with exasperation or amusement the multiple errors in a story, and then turn the page to national or international affairs, and read as if the rest of the newspaper was somehow more accurate about Palestine than the baloney you just read. You turn the page, and forget what you know.
That is the Gell-Mann Amnesia effect. I’d point out it does not operate in other arenas of life. In ordinary life, if somebody consistently exaggerates or lies to you, you soon discount everything they say. In court, there is the legal doctrine of falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus, which means untruthful in one part, untruthful in all. But when it comes to the media, we believe against evidence that it is probably worth our time to read other parts of the paper when, in fact, it almost certainly isn’t. The only possible explanation for our behavior is amnesia.”
Michael Crichton, who passed away in 2008, was 6’9”, mogging all the shorties
Curtis Yarvin argues that the Gel-Mann Amnesia effect is rational because the costs of generalized dissidence is too high for most people. He states,
Given Conquest’s law—‘everyone is reactionary on the subjects they understand’—many adopt a craven, but all too human, corollary. After taking a bold stance in their own specialty, they have no stomach for any other fight. Reactionary enlightenment in one field should cast Bayesian doubt on other fields. Instead, local enlightenment reinforces global ignorance. Logically, the specialist should reason that if his own field, which he knows closely, is corrupt, other fields which he cannot examine in detail may be corrupt as well. But emotionally, the cost of a general dissidence far exceeds the value of extending the inference. The sweet spot is general compliance, local dissidence.
Visualization of the Gel-Mann amnesia effect.
Outside of most people’s dissidence in their own area of expertise, one may attempt to convince others of alternative viewpoints, to provide facts and statistics and alternative narrative framing outside of the mainstream, but one likely won’t make headway in adjusting their perspective until they experience a level of cognitive dissonance from events in their own lives that becomes too painful to ignore. It’s sometimes easier to shake a normal person out of their brainwashing during periods of major economic uncertainty.
Obviously biased media reporting is one way to shock people out of compliance. Let’s go through a couple examples.
An example that woke up many people was the media coverage over the George Zimmerman trial in 2012. Zimmerman was accused of murdering Treyvon Martin after the 6’2”+ Martin pushed the 5’8” Zimmerman onto the ground and was beating him senseless until Zimmerman shot him in self defense. The media portrayed Zimmerman as an overzealous racist and Martin as an angelic schoolboy, showing multi-year old photos of a beaming and much younger and smaller Martin, and highlighting he was just going out for a walk for “a bag of skittles.” Obama injected himself into the conversation and said “If I had a son, he would look like Treyvon.” Thanks for pouring gasoline on a tense racial situation, Barack. The country had not yet recovered from the 2008 financial crisis at the time and the fear and uncertainty from it was in the back of everyone’s minds.
Another eye opening incident wasthe2006 Duke Lacrosse scandal which the media obsessed about for months, hysterical about a fake gang-rape that never happened.
Another was the 2014Michael Brown incident where Brown robbed a store, violently assaulted the clerk, grabbed a cop’s gun and, per the DOJ from witness interviews, tried to bull-rush the cop leading to him being shot to death and this was used as evidence of institutional racism. He was even canonized with a plaque.
Other than shockingly biased media events, many normal people have become disillusioned with official narratives through a couple other routes:
Men who are unsuccessful in their romantic lives take the “red pill” to try to improve their dating results.1 They deconstruct female behavior between what women say they want versus their revealed preferences (where unconscious female desires result in hypergamy2), pioneered by pick-up artists Roosh, Roissy, Mystery, Strauss, etc.
Nutritionally, where expert-approved carb-heavy “food pyramid” diets result in obesity, diabetes and other health issues, and (usually) men seek out better diets (the biologist P.D. Mangan is a fantastic expert on nutrition and health); and
Political disillusionment, where politicians running for office promise reforms yet never deliver, such as in 2017 when Republicans controlled the House, Senate, and Presidency on a populist platform of immigration and trade reform and Obamacare repeal, and instead got…tax cuts for the rich.
These route to dissent involve an individual experiencing cognitive dissonance in their lives resulting in a prolonged period of emotional or psychological pain, followed by the desire to find an explanation to alleviate their pain, which mainstream society cannot provide given their narrative falsehoods are the cause of it. The lower status an individual is in the eyes of society, the more likely that person is likely to experience psychological pain leading to cognitive dissonance. Currently white males, the most disfavored group in the United States, have much higher levels of disillusionment toward the establishment than women and non-whites because the latter are much greater beneficiaries of the system.
Regular people also become more open to alternative ideas during times of fear and uncertainty such as when societal unrest, high inflation, or unpopular wars occur. The establishment can and does try to co-opt these emotions into approved directions, to express anger at government approved targets (Afghanistan and Iraq after 9/11), or to offer de-radicalization “off roads” to keep people from radicalizing further.
Pat Tillman bought into globohomo’s 9/11 propaganda, went to fight in Afghanistan, grew disillusioned, and then was likely murdered so he would not become an anti-war leader.
These off-roads are provided by certain controversial figures promoted by the establishment such as Ben Shapiro, Mike Cernovich, Paul Joseph Watson, Jordan Peterson, Bronze Age Pervert3 and many other “right wing” so-called influencers.
Ben Shapiro: the trusted voice of Americans, for Americans.
GENERAL COGNITIVE DISSONANCE AS A REASONABLE DEFAULT POSITION
The media constantly pushes agenda-driven, false meta-narratives but, because of the Gell-Mann amnesia effect most people do not want to accept generalized cognitive dissonance, which therefore allows this system to continue. We can see this play out in the present. The default position for individuals who wish to break free of their Pavlovian cradle-to-grave programming, then, should be to assume that what we are experiencing now is nothing new, that most or everything we have been taught in school about history is either (1) remnants of meta-narrative lies in the past, pushed to advance elite agendas at the time in question; or (2) deliberately falsified history to push media narratives in the present to advance the agendas of the elite today. Look at the establishment’s present focus on forcing teachers to teach children critical race theory and to hate their own history and culture as an example.
The corollary to this is that the “conspiracy theories” so casually mocked and dismissed by our rulers – who use all the tools at their disposal to brand unapproved theories as low class and worthy of derision, that anyone who entertains them is unhinged and perhaps shouldn’t be allowed to hold a job – perhaps these theories should be re-examined with a fresh eye, an eye sensitive to how much we care about being judged by society versus how much we care about pursuing truth.
It is up to you after weighing the evidence of a theory, examining the veracity of the people pushing the theories and the counter-theories and what their incentives are for truth and lie to make your own determination. Don’t believe any random anti-establishment theory for its own sake (“Do not be so open-minded that your brains fall out” said Chesterton), but instead retain a healthy degree of skepticism. For any issue you care about, perform a deep dive and consider the available evidence, while understanding that countervailing narratives will be harder to find and much weaker sourced than mainstream narratives due to funding, publishing, reporting and other incentives.
Let’s go through some historical examples.
Is the evidence compelling that the Soviets were poised to attack Nazi Germany only a few months after the start of Operation Barbarossa because the Soviet troops were massed offensively and they had maps of Germany in hand (Suvorov’s thesis in Icebreaker)?
What about the theory by James Bacque in Other Losses that Eisenhower intentionally caused the starvation or exposure deaths of around a million German prisoners of war held in Western internment camps, covered up by the West?
What about the question of whether esteemed scientist Albert Einstein was a plagiarist and a thief?
How much of Roman antiquity actually happened – perhaps its far less than mainstream society believes? Perhaps even 700 years of history, 300-1000 AD, simply didn’t happen?
Was Nixon guilty or was Watergate a CIA plot and he was innocent?
We know the U.S. plans false flag operations – see Operation Northwoods – what other false flags has it planned or participated in?
Was the Oklahoma City bombing the result of a governmental conspiracy?5
What percent of white Americans actually owned slaves in 1860 pre-Civil War – was it actually only 1.4%? (The answer is yes despite Snopes obfuscation). And were Jews overrepresented in the slave trade? Did slaves have terrible lives and desperately want their freedom, or did many lead better lives than the free poor, who had no value and no protector?
Are many rappers really “thug rappers”, or did they put on a front to sell records and many were actually homosexual dilettantes (see Tupac’s early mannerisms for an example)?
Do current top elites have access to life extension therapies that the public doesn’t have access to?7
Don’t rely on anyone else, media spin, or establishment experts to make up your own mind for you – do your research and make up your own mind.
FLIGHT TO AVOID COGNITIVE DISSONANCE IS NO LONGER POSSIBLE
For decades when people were faced with rising crimes, lawlessness, homelessness, illegal immigration, stretched governmental resources, toxic schools, unaffordable housing, high taxes and rapidly declining quality of life, people were able to flee to other cities, states or countries in order to get away. However, these social ills have spread from liberal cosmopolitan areas like a cancer to the point where it is not possible to avoid these negative policies wherever one flees anymore — at best, one is delaying its encroachment into their suburban or rural area by a number of years. Moving state to state in the U.S. is a rear-guard, losing action because globohomo is importing endless numbers of illegal immigrants and busing them into red areas, many liberals are fleeing the results of the policies they previously espoused and bring their voting patterns with them, and, regardless, federal law trumps state laws and much of societal ills are federally mandated.
Estimated state costs of illegal immigration, excluding federal costs, in 2017. It is much, much higher in 2023.
Due to globalization these trends have also impacted essentially every country in the world: certain countries historically seen as safe-havens such as New Zealand have banned gun ownership, squelched freedom of speech, had severe COVID lockdowns and are also busy importing many non-integrating minorities, while others like Chile and Portugal have also suffered severe crackdowns on freedoms during COVID (in December 2021 Portugal imposed an array of post-Christmas COVID restrictions, including mandatory teleworking. Close to 90% of the population was fully vaccinated).
While the rational impulse when faced with this chaos is to move and find a new place to live in peace there is nowhere to go for a permanent solution and people are being faced with a difficult choice of living where they are or buying themselves a little more time in a rural area.
WHICH GROUPS OF PEOPLE ARE MORE LIKELY TO FEEL COGNITIVE DISSONANCE?
The groups most likely to experience cognitive dissonance from the establishment’s messaging are the ones that are least likely to benefit from the system. Despite the claim that straight white males are highly privileged due to the structural nature of society, they are discriminated against at every level — from affirmative action in school, to scholarships, to government contracting, to the ability to organize based on identity, to the ability to speak freely, to the protections afforded in the workplace, to television and movies (the antagonist is almost always a white male) and advertisements, to regime propaganda blaming white males for everything bad in the world. To argue that the system prioritizes straight white males requires an enormous break from reality. Even nominally pro-white television is designed as a “hook” to catch viewer attention; after the viewer has been sufficiently lured in, elements of wokeness, deviancy and female super-empowerment are gradually introduced until the show’s ratings fall and viewers go on to repeat the process, having learned nothing but still being exposed to a big serving of globohomo propaganda in the meantime. Indeed, the further one gets from a straight white male the more privilege one receives. The most privileged group is a black, transexual, Muslim, obese disabled female Democrat — it doesn’t get further away from white males than that.
An intersectionality chart showing the degree of privilege one receives in western society.
This dovetails with the concept of bioleninism that a blogger named Spandrell has discussed at length. As he explains, populist-hating elites have organized the lowest status members of society into foot soldiers for the establishment: the darker the pigmentation, the dumber, the more crippled, the more obese, the more with alien belief systems like Islam the better, because these people have low natural status in western society, have little chance of succeeding in such an environment, so they blindly take any opportunity given to them to remake society in order to improve their own social status. It is their primary, perhaps onlychance to improve their social status so they are likely willing to do what they’re told. The establishment loves using these shock troops because of their unrelenting loyalty to their causes. White straight men are too independent with too many options to blindly follow attempts to remake society to benefit its leaders so from this perspective they are seen as undesirable. The establishment then rewards their loyal foot soldiers with preferment in society.
Therefore, the lower officially mandated status a group receives in society the more they are likely to feel cognitive dissonance against the messaging pushed by the upper echelons, and the higher officially mandated status a group receives in society the less likely they are to feel cognitive dissonance. This is true across space and time and is irrespective of race. While white males have the lowest status in society today and therefore feel the most cognitive dissonance, it was the opposite in Nazi Germany. Hitler bragged about how the white male masses ate up official propaganda even when it contradicted itself the moment before8:
“We have frequently found ourselves compelled to reverse the engine and to change, in the course of a couple of days, the whole trend of imparted news, sometimes with a complete volte-face. Such agility would have been quite impossible, if we had not had firmly in our grasp that extraordinary instrument of power which we call the press—and known how to make use of it.
A year before, when the Russo-German Pact was signed, we had the task of converting to a completely reverse opinion those whom we had originally made into fanatical opponents of Russia—a maneuver that must have appeared to be a rare old muddle to the older National Socialists. Fortunately, the spirit of Party solidarity held firm, and our sudden about-turn was accepted by all without misgiving.Then, on 22nd June 1941, again: “About turn!” Out shot the order one fine morning without the slightest warning! Success in an operation of this nature can only be achieved if you possess the press and know how to make tactical use of it.
When you regard the role of the press from this angle, you will realize at once that the profession of the journalist now is very different from that of the journalist of yore. There was, indeed, a time when the profession of journalism was one without real importance, for rarely had the individual journalist any opportunity to give proof of personal character. Today, the journalist knows that he is no mere scribbler, but a man with the sacred mission of defending the highest interests of the State. This evolution has been in progress throughout the years following our taking power, and today the journalist is conscious of his responsibilities, and his profession appears to him in a new light.”
Therefore the inclination or disinclination of a group toward independent thought is variable and depends, at least to an extent, on their perceived status in society.
But what about judging a person’s skepticism to propaganda on an individual basis? Ethnic, religious, and sexuality groups experience great variability in thought and beliefs, even though generally the more privilege a group receives from globohomo the less likely they are to resist it. A gay black man in America is generally going to support big government and blindly listen to liberal authority figures, but not always. How can individuals be categorized?
1 Learning “game” was an earlier memetic evolution in the male vs. female dating game (which is always evolving as each tries to gain an edge over the other); more recent evolutions include low-status men dropping out of the dating game entirely and becoming “incels” (involuntarily celibate), or, to a much smaller extent, turning to something called “androcentrism” where men stop dating entirely but peruse prostitution to fulfill sexual desire (one of its proponents, a steroided Polish man called “Looks Maximus”, ultimately had an emotional breakdown and denounced the community and his followers).
2 Hypergamy is as toxic for women as it is for men. Women end up having sex with very high-status men (“Chad”) far beyond their ability to lock that man down for marriage and children because men are fine “hooking up” down/far down from their status level, leading women to become angry and bitter when they are unable to successfully pair bond. The more men that a woman has sex with, the harder it is for her to pair bond and the weaker her pair bond will be. This also applies to men but to a much lesser extent. This results in a phenomenon where women “settle” in their 30s before their eggs expire, but they are generally very unhappy with their sub-par mate. These Red Pill comics demonstrate the phenomenon described here, but please note that they are sexual and very crude in nature: Comic 1, Comic 2, Comic 3, Comic 4, Comic 5, See also here.
3 Bronze Age Pervert encourages the youth to support neocon military intervention and divert their actual grievances into empty lifestyle gestures and ‘aesthetics’, i.e. homosexuality.
Also see author Jim West’s book DDT/Polio – Virology vs. Toxicology building on Dr. Morton S. Biskind’s 1950s research and testimony connecting DDT and polio.
5 Per Gore Vidal in Perpetual War for Perpetual Peace, p. 113, 117, 119, published originally in Vanity Fair, September 2001.
6 “Technology advancements in five major areas are necessary for an integrated weather-modification capability: (1) advanced nonlinear modeling techniques, (2) computational capability, (3) information gathering and transmission, (4) a global sensor array, and (5) weather intervention techniques. Some intervention tools exist today and others may be developed and refined in the future.” From here; also see NATO’s conference in Norway in 1990 where the the core technology was discussed. Proceedings published in “Ionospheric Modification and its Potential to Enhance or Degrade the Performance of Military Systems”.
7 David Rockefeller lived to 101, Henry Kissinger has lived past 99, George Soros is well into his 90s, Jacob Rothschild is late 80s, Klaus Schwab is mid 80s, as examples.
This part looks at the gap between government approved experts/institutions and the results deriving from their guidance, concluding that they seek to increase and perpetuate problems – not solve them – for their own benefit. Mass belief in such experts and institutions derives from the Dewey education system which outputs compliant, unthinking corporate workers for easy exploitation by the system. This, in turn, contributes to the masses as a gray blob of undifferentiated NPCs.
GOVERNMENT APPROVED EXPERTS AND INSTITUTIONS KEEP THE MASSES PACIFIED
Westerners are taught that we live in a highly specialized, complex society and we should focus on our specialized skillset and leave medical, psychological and public policy matters to government sanctioned experts. To do self-research into matters is inevitably going to result in poor decision making because we lack the formal education, specialized knowledge and board approval to reach proper conclusions.
Yet if we judge a tree by the fruit it bears, this reliance on experts has been disastrous.
Mental health issues are at historic highs despite the prevalence of psychologists and psychiatrists and freely issued SSRIs.
Despite putting much of the country on cholesterol lowering medications new studies show that high LDL is actually a good thing. The most important lipid marker with the clearest correlation of heart attack risk is the triglyceride to HDL ratio where a ratio over 3.5 gives a 16x the heart attack risk as those in the lowest group, and this ratio is entirely ignored by medical doctors.
Statins, which are handed out like candy to society, apparently do nothing.1
After decades of sunscreen use the FDA now warns it’s bad for your health — to what extent is unknown.
With medical doctors constantly warning about the health dangers of red meat consumption is it a surprise that Hong Kong, which has the world’s highest meat consumption, also has the longest lifespans in the world? And India, with the second lowest per capita meat consumption in the world has a life expectancy of 68.3 years?
The preventative side of medicine and diet is an absolute joke. How can one trust medical experts when it comes to how to live?
Height/weight chart from 1959 before so-called experts normalized obesity.
Medical education is a disaster for aspiring doctors as testing standards have been eviscerated in order to equalize the outcomes for blacks and other non-whites. These aspiring doctors spend an inordinate amount of time learning woke dogma instead of medicine, and even medical studies are not allowed without significant non-white test recipients (per the above link, “The NIH insists that participants in drug trials must also match national or local demographics. If a cancer center is in an area with few minorities, the lab must nevertheless present a plan for recruiting them into its study, regardless of their local unavailability.”)
The medical intervention side isn’t much better.
Despite being the first-line option to treat cancer, chemotherapy adds only 2% to the 5-year survival rate of cancer patients according to a 2004 study.
Goldman Sachs has questioned whether curing diseases is a sustainable business model as it’s much more profitable to manage diseases on a longterm basis instead of curing afflictions. It’s the same subscription model logic that has BMW requiring subscriptions to heat car seats and why air conditioning and heating is designed with a limited shelf-life “programmed obsolescence” when models fifty years ago would last forever. Would we even know if there was a cheap cancer cure as the medical complex would shelve it to keep profits high (could this be one?)? Or how about Pfizer burying a drug that lowered the risk of Alheizmers by 70%? Does ADHD drugs such as Adderall, handed out to children like candy, cause Parkinson’s after adulthood? Perhaps the AMA has already crushed a potential cure for cancer?
Let’s look at the medical establishment’s response to the COVID narrative. Early indicators at the start of the so-called pandemic showed that COVID was dangerous only for the elderly. On the Diamond Princess cruise ship in February 2020 (a month before the panic started in March), of the 3,711 people on board the ship at least 705 tested positive for the virus and 7 died, all of whom were more than 70 years old.
It was clear in February 2020 from the Diamond Princess lockdown that COVID-19 was only a risk to those who were old and with co-morbidities.
Physician-scientist John Ioannidis warned in March 2020 about the lack of evidence for the deadliness of COVID, which turned out to be even lower than he suggested. Was that < 1% mortality rate worth shutting down the world’s economy with zero economic impact studies? The government could have told old and at-risk people to shelter at home. But the official medical and public health experts morphed their public messaging, haphazardly or intentionally, to push for predetermined political outcomes all in the name of “science”. Relying on the CDC and Dr. Fauci, the messaging went from:
instituting indefinite nationwide lockdowns, despite a lack of economic impact studies; to
a rollout of untested mRNA vaccines with a promise that it was “95% effective” against COVID, applying relentless pressure on the public to comply including threats of job loss and travel and even the ability to enter stores. Lord Fauci, the priest diviner of COVID, telling the faithful the latest revelation: COVID vaccines were 95% effective. Hallelujah!Pfizer and Moderna had removed the control groups in their studies, and the rollouts were conducted in record-breaking time with incomplete trials despite every mRNA vaccine trial since the 1980s having been terminated early due to excessive side effects and pathogenic priming, to
During this process all major dissenting voices to the COVID narrative on social media were silenced, suspended or banned. Examples include Alex Berenson, Robert Malone, Mike Yeadon, Sucharit Bhakdi, and Joe Rogan (who pathetically groveled to his establishment masters in an insincere apology).
One should keep in mind this meta-narrative was conducted for a virus with flat overall mortality in 2020, with conflicting information about whether the COVID-19 virus itself has even been isolated — PCR and rapid tests only tested for the broad COVID class, not COVID-192; and PCR positivity rates depend on the number of times the sample was amplified, i.e. if amplified 25x+ the false positivity rate is enormous. Official amplification rates on tests has never been revealed, but it was estimated by various parties to have been amplified 40x under Trump; after Biden won in 2020, the CDC announced they would lower amplification rates.
While the media pushed “Trust the Science!” slogans throughout the “pandemic”, which pro-government supporters eagerly adopted and pushed on their unfortunate friends and family as a virtue signal, what these people really trusted wasScientism: science as politicized approval by committee, i.e. trust the “scientific consensus” which relied on incomplete and inaccurate data modeling combined with massive pressure to conform to group decisions. This is an awful, intentional bastardization of the traditional understanding of science as a series of rigorous, repeatable experiments under rigid criteria. If you can’t repeat an experiment it isn’t science — it’s scientism.3 They used this same process for global warming – remember Al Gore in 2006 blockbuster “An Inconvenient Truth” where he breathlessly promised all the ocean ice would melt by 2014, by relying on “scientific consensus” and “scientific modeling”? (Globohomo apparently wasn’t trying very hard with his follow-up, a Downs-syndrome low IQ child).
Science expert and inventor of the internet Al Gore was correct, the ice caps melted by 2014 resulting in Waterworld and Kevin Costner is the last survivor.
To compound the issue further most studies are fake, which is called the “replication crisis.” Due to lopsided funding incentives — most scientists rely on university and government funds for their studies and want to advance in their careers and achieve future funding, so they tell their sponsors the data they want to hear — most studies can’t be replicated. There’s also a revolving door between government and scientific institutions so the motivation to advance political agendas instead of following actual science is enormous.
INSTITUTIONAL CREDIBILITY COLLAPSE FORCES ONE TO RELY ON SELF- RESEARCH
Establishment approved experts not only offer terrible advice but they seem to actively go out of their way to promote the wrong advice. They do this because it creates a dependency feedback loop that creates more work for the experts and hence more profits. To most people leaving important decisions up to experts is comforting; it relieves a person of personal responsibility. To take on that personal responsibility without having an initial understanding of a topic, having to do your own research with trial and error using your own logic and intuition, while still balancing all the other areas of your life is a daunting task. But it cannot be otherwise and arguably should never have been otherwise. You are ultimately responsible for your health and welfare, not impersonal “experts” who see you as a dollar sign and a number.
“We live in an age where the authorities label truth as falsehood, and falsehood truth. I can’t take anyone’s word for anything, and have to do my own research on the most trivial of matters, such as if a tablespoon of safflower oil in my cashew butter is going to start a cascade reaction in my body that leads to an untimely stroke. The authorities have abused me for so long that I can no longer trust them. I have to become an expert on everything, and I hate it.
In the past, you became an expert within a specific domain. For men, that meant farming, war, or governance. You spent most of your waking hours perfecting your skill in those fields, and trusted other experts for matters which you did not know. Today, the experts are liars. They will say anything the oligarchs want to keep their jobs and maintain a pleasurable lifestyle. We don’t have experts anymore, only shills, marketers, and traitors to mankind. The “experts” have declared this additive to be safe in food, but they lie for profit, and I must search online for the real story. This takes time and does not guarantee the information I’ll receive is accurate, but if I care the least bit about my health, I have no choice. After doing this for several years, I realize that I don’t have just one job (writer) but several…
Nutritionist — I’m an expert on the poisonous nature of the American food supply. I know that vegetable oils are industrial waste. I know that they put a non-food seaweed addictive (carrageenan) in ice cream and lunch meats. I know that the increase in heart attacks and cancers is specifically due to foods that industry-controlled doctors claim are “healthy.” I know all of this because I spent dozens of hours researching it. I never intended to become a nutritionist, but I’m halfway to getting a degree in the field.
Baker — All I wanted was bread without high-fructose corn syrup, but I could not find it in the supermarket, so I became a baker. I started with a bread machine and have graduated to hand-kneading and using loaf pans. Then I wanted pizza without soybean oil. So I learned how to make pizza. I wanted banana bread and cookies and cakes without the typical sludge they put into them, so I learned how to bake them. I’m not far away from grinding my own flour. I never intended to be a baker, but today I’m almost qualified to open a bakeshop.
Doctor — I was on a pre-med track in undergraduate school before deciding that I did not want to be a doctor, but because Western medicine has become corrupt and murderous, I had to become a doctor after all! I often review scientific studies and data. I’m always researching natural cures, skeptical even of over-the-counter drugs like ibuprofen and loratadine. I look for patterns of side effects in anecdotal reports of “vaccine” treatments. All of these I do because if I let a real doctor, who is trained by the pharmaceutical industry, do to me as he wills, he will dump a load of toxins in my body or make me a pill popper for life. I never intended to become a doctor, and deliberately decided against the field, but if you come to me with an illness, I believe I’d do less harm to you than a real doctor with my apple cider vinegar and baking soda treatment plan….
(He continues to list various things he has had to become an expert in due to lack of faith in authority figures)
In casual conversation, I’m expected to share my opinion on everything under the sun, but even what I do know is but a drop in the ocean of knowledge. Why must I know everything? Why must I have an opinion on all things?”
Roosh V after becoming an Orthodox Christian. Who are you going to trust, a scientist or a guy who looks homeless and crazy? … But all kidding aside, it’s definitely Roosh.
Maurice Samuel, in his book “You Gentiles”, makes a similar point when he discusses relying on his own experiences and thoughts instead of on books and experts4:
“There is no test or guarantee of a man’s wisdom or his reliability beyond what he says about life itself. Life is the touchstone: books must be read and understood in order that we may compare our experience in life with the sincere report of the experience of others. But such a one, who has read all the books extant on history and art, is of no consequence unless they are an indirect commentary on what he feels around him.
Hence, if I have drawn chiefly on experience and contemplation and little on books – which others will discover without my admission – this does not affect my competency, which must be judged by standards infinitely more difficult of application. Life is not so simple that you can test a man’s nearness to truth by giving him a college examination. Such examinations are mere games – they have no relation to reality. You may desire some such easy standard by which you can judge whether or not a man is reliable: Does he know much history? Much biology? Much psychology? If not, he is not worth listening to. But it is part of the frivolity of our outlook to reduce life to a set of rules, and thus save ourselves the agony of constant references to first principles. No: standardized knowledge is no guarantee of truth. Put down a simple question – a living question, like this: “Should A. have killed B.?” Ask it of ten fools: five will say “Yes”, five will say “No.” Ask it of ten intelligent men: five will say “Yes,” five will say “No.” Ask it of ten scholars: five will say “Yes,” five will say “No.” The fools will have no reasons for their decisions: the intelligent men will have a few reasons for and as many against; the scholars will have more reasons for and against. But where does the truth lie?
What, then, should be the criterion of a man’s reliability?
There is none. You cannot evade your responsibility thus by entrusting your salvation into the hands of a priest-specialist. A simpleton may bring you salvation and a great philosopher may confound you.
And so to life, as I have seen it working in others and felt it within myself, I refer the truth of what I say. And to books I refer only in so far as they are manifestations of life.”
Give up decisions in life to experts at your own peril. But it isn’t easy; it takes discernment and mistakes, trial and error, leaving room for uncertainty in ones outlook and a willingness to always be willing to reassess a situation if new facts are presented, that is refined over a lifetime. When presented with information, asking Cicero’s famed “cui bono?” (“Who benefits?”) is usually a good place to start. This isn’t to say one can’t build up some element oftrust with specific experts, but such trust should be built up over a lengthy period of time after verifying the person’s expertise, motivations, and accuracy as best as possible (and always try to retain some degree of skepticism in case that person fails you).
THE PUBLIC’S BLIND TRUST IN EXPERTS DERIVES FROM MODERN EDUCATION
Most have given up their critical thinking skills because they were taught to trust experts and authority figures in formal education, drilled in from a young age.
There are two primary ways to educate children: the first and most common way is to have them memorize an endless series of facts; facts about science, facts about history, facts about geography, facts about math. The student regurgitates this information, is graded on it, and advances to continue their studies so long as they show aptitude for this repetition. Self-study is discouraged; individual ideas are not explored; interpretations not approved by the teachers or handbooks are given low marks and the student is not allowed to advance. The type of person to graduate from such a system is a 22 (or after graduate school or PhD, 25 or 28) year old man-child, a person who knows only theory, nothing about it is applied in the real world, nothing about trial and error or dealing with practical consequences for one’s decisions, compared to prior generations where work would start either in childhood or shortly thereafter. The reward for willing regurgitation of platitudes has traditionally been employment with the expectation that the graduate will adopt himself to the mantras of the employing institution without any critical thinking or reasoning. A cradle to the grave system of control and indoctrination.5 This method was promoted successfully by Dewey in America.6
Education as factory; standardized output.
The alternative way to educate a child is to encourage their own personal development; to inquire, to make mistakes, to learn and experience and grow using their own intuition and beliefs as a guide which ultimately contributes both to the character, strength and intelligence of the child. Entry into the workforce involving limited formal education and then long-term apprenticeship to learn skills.7 This method is mostly frowned upon in the modern west.
Schopenhauer has much to say on this exact point in his essay On Education:
“The human intellect is said to be so constituted that general ideas arise by abstraction from particular observations, and therefore come after them in point of time. If this is what actually occurs, as happens in the case of a man who has to depend solely upon his own experience for what he learns — who has no teacher and no book — such a man knows quite well which of his particular observations belong to and are represented by each of his general ideas. He has a perfect acquaintance with both sides of his experience, and accordingly, he treats everything that comes in his way from a right standpoint. This might be called the natural method of education.
Contrarily, the artificial method is to hear what other people say, to learn and to read, and so to get your head crammed full of general ideas before you have any sort of extended acquaintance with the world as it is, and as you may see it for yourself. You will be told that the particular observations which go to make these general ideas will come to you later on in the course of experience; but until that time arrives, you apply your general ideas wrongly, you judge men and things from a wrong standpoint, you see them in a wrong light, and treat them in a wrong way. So it is that education perverts the mind.
This explains why it so frequently happens that, after a long course of learning and reading, we enter upon the world in our youth, partly with an artless ignorance of things, partly with wrong notions about them; so that our demeanor savors at one moment of a nervous anxiety, at another of a mistaken confidence. The reason of this is simply that our head is full of general ideas which we are now trying to turn to some use, but which we hardly ever apply rightly. This is the result of acting in direct opposition to the natural development of the mind by obtaining general ideas first, and particular observations last: it is putting the cart before the horse. Instead of developing the child’s own faculties of discernment, and teaching it to judge and think for itself, the teacher uses all his energies to stuff its head full of the ready-made thoughts of other people.The mistaken views of life, which spring from a false application of general ideas, have afterwards to be corrected by long years of experience; and it is seldom that they are wholly corrected. This is why so few men of learning are possessed of common-sense, such as is often to be met with in people who have had no instruction at all.”
Schopenhauer. Notice the keen, peering intellect behind the eyes. A man worth having a beer with.
How can we expect the masses of indoctrinated people, educated in a method of repetition which ignores reason and experience, to defend their own interests when they cannot figure out what their own interests even are?8 Worse, the level of formal indoctrination is getting cruder: do we expect California public school children, raised on anti-white race-grievance books (see their Department of Education recommended reading list, with classic books banned and IQ tests for black students banned) to even be able to function as a drone in a 21st century tech economy?
PEOPLE ACTING OUT META-NARRATIVES INSPIRED THE “NPC” MEME
The use of formal education to stamp out the same product in an industrialized manner has contributed to the NPC plague.
Many have noticed the countless individuals who adopt the current meta-narrative and virtue signal to friends, family and on social media with dramatic urgency, all chanting the same mantras. This led to the rise of the still-relevant non-playable character “NPC” meme in 2016:
A non-playable character in a video game is a digital character controlled by the computer (instead of a player) that has a predetermined set of behaviors that potentially impact gameplay, but will not be the product of true artificial intelligence. Our standard-output education system feeds into the NPC phenomenon, but so does entertainment, media, and technology generally.
Twitter user Zero HP Lovecraft eviscerates the mentality of NPCs in a series of tweets. He blames their mindset primarily on the advance of technology, which creates widespread uniformity of thought, and ties it into Kaczynski’s theory of liberal oversocialization:
“The NPC meme isn’t about free will and it isn’t about inner monologues and it isn’t about seeing yourself as the hero of your own personal Campbellian journey. It’s about the homogenization of inner life in the era of mass media.
There’s a sort of implicit claim that is fundamental to humanistic thought, which is fundamental to this era of western thought, it’s the idea that Gaussian variance aside, everyone has petty much the same experiential topology. Let’s call it human neurological uniformity (HNU). Ignoring such people as autists for the moment, and given HNU, which most people believe perhaps without ever having thought about it, what do we expect to happen when everyone watches the same small pool of TV shows and news broadcasts?
Suppose you have agency, inner life, etc. And you decide, using the marvelous brightness in your soul, to watch 60 hours of Game of Thrones. Because you are normal, you now have thoughts about John Snow and Daenerys, thoughts which you share with millions of others.
And there is nothing wrong with enjoying TV shows, but when millions of people watch the same TV show, and the same news commentators, and read the same articles, they think all the same thoughts, literally the same thoughts, with the same words, the same words we all heard.
We all have looping behaviors because life is on average repetitive. People are predictable despite individual variation in the same way that thermodynamic systems are predictable without modeling every individual particle.
Industrialization is a process of mass repetition and homogenization. Industrial man is highly repetitive and homogenized, and the mechanism that repeats and homogenizes is broadcast media. Before that it was books, pamphlets and newspapers. The nature of our inner life in broadcast media vs. written media is different. The idea of the NPC refers to a kind of total conformity of being that is brought about by broadcast media.
Tocqueville described the NPC meme in 1895. “What is still more strange is that all these men, who kept themselves so apart from each other, had become so much alike that it would have been impossible to distinguish them if their places had been changed.” He was talking about the effects of reading books mass-produced by the printing press. Cobbett in 1795: Every farmer is more or less of a reader. There is […] no class like that which the French call peasantry…They have all been readers from their youth up. Ironically avid readers are probably less NPC-ish than “illiterate” TV-primary people. In a highly literate society, visual and behavioral conformity frees the individual for inner deviation. Not so in an oral society where inner verbalization is social action.
You can log in to Netflix and see a hundred different shows, but they’re all very similar in their underlying themes and worldviews. Even the older stuff is carefully curated to mesh with contemporary sensibilities, mostly. The same characters in different shows, the same dramas. The effect of watching so much TV is you form a series of unilateral friendships. It feels like you personally know all the people you are watching, and you move into social alignment with them, just like with a group of in-person friends.
This fits the Kaczynskian take that leftists are “oversocialized”. A person could be so thoroughly conditioned with society’s values as to compromise their own agency to make choices as independent individuals. We find ourselves in a pervasive system of cradle to grave social conditioning, starting with childhood to early adulthood and then continually reinforced through authority figures in media, entertainment, and politics. The cumulative effect of all this can result in tragic individuals who can think and feel just as any of us can, yet are compelled to to comply with their social conditioning in order to avoid unbearable psychological suffering. This is very different to a community or subculture with its own distinct aphorisms and in-jokes. The oversocialized never chose to be the way they are, it was imposed upon them.
TV, movies, and pundits (newscasts, podcasts, bluechecks) are the medium of oversocialization. If you dig back into early memories of childhood cartoons and sitcoms you can almost remember the way it happened. It’s not indoctrination exactly, since that implies a baseline.
We are all oversocialized and the act of waking up is the act of bearing and confronting the pain of pushing back against our social programming. You only do this if you have a powerful incentive to do so, i.e., you are already in a circumstance of tremendous psychological pain. The common pathway to right-wing shitlordery is through the PUA/Redpill/manosphere pipeline. Gamers are rendered sterile by their oversocialization and the soul-crushing pain of TFW no GF (i.e. “that feeling when no girlfriend”, a meme) causes them to confront their social programming in all arenas of the mind.
In the evolving meaning of the NPC meme, we are realizing that it is most effective as a way to instantaneously convey that a person is in the grip of Kaczynskian oversocialization. Even naming the evil spirit is enough to cause tremendous psychic distress, as we have seen.
If social programming privileges one group over another, it is safe to say that the disprivileged group will tend to be the one that is in the most pain, and therefore the most likely to break free of their programming. This should raise some uncomfortable questions for everyone.”
One can imagine how much worse this phenomena has become after the mass-adoption of the iPhone, with constant establishment-approved pop-up propaganda appearing on people’s phones, along with the centralization of the internet into a couple of nodes (sites owned and operated by Facebook and Google such as WhatsApp, YouTube and Instagram account for over 70% of all internet traffic). Additionally, social media algorithms promote establishment-approved topics and “influencers” and de-emphasize or censor disfavored topics/individuals, fueling this homogenizing process further. As Huxley wrote in Brave New World, “A really efficient totalitarian state would be one in which the all-powerful executive of political bosses and their army of managers control a population of slaves who do not have to be coerced, because they love their servitude.”
In other words, stop reading, watching and following what everyone else is reading, watching and following, or your thoughts and feelings will synchronize with everyone else where you become just another homogenized, gray herd creature, lacking true individuality or uniqueness.
Your mind is their target.
*******
This concludes The Dissemination of Information in Technological Society.
1A study reviewed research of almost 70,000 people and found that elevated levels of “bad cholesterol” did not raise the risk of early death from cardiovascular disease in people over 60. The authors called for statin guidelines to be reviewed, claiming the benefits of statins are “exaggerated.”
2Per the CDC: “CDC encourages laboratories to consider adoption of a multiplexed method that can facilitate detection and differentiation of SARS-CoV-2 and influenza viruses.”
3 “Learn from science that you must doubt the experts. As a matter of fact, I can also define science another way: Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts. When someone says science teaches such and such, he is using the word incorrectly. Science doesn’t teach it; experience teaches it. If they say to you science has shown such and such, you might ask, “How does science show it–how did the scientists find out–how, what, where?” Not science has shown, but this experiment, this effect, has shown. And you have as much right as anyone else, upon hearing about the experiments (but we must listen to all the evidence), to judge whether a reusable conclusion has been arrived at.” – Richard Feynman, The Pleasure of Finding Things Out
5According to Soviet defector Yuri Bezmenov, the ideological brainwashing repetitively given in formal education results in many people suffering from a form of ideological demoralization: “’They are programmed to think and react to certain stimuli in a certain pattern [alluding to Pavlov]. You can not change their mind even if you expose them to authentic information. Even if you prove that white is white and black is black, you still can not change the basic perception and the logic of behavior’…Demoralization is a process that is “irreversible.” Bezmenov actually thought (back in 1984) that the process of demoralizing America was already completed.”
7 A man’s purpose is a combination of what he is good at and interested in, no matter how popular or obscure the topic, discovering its essence and then sharing it with others. It is up to us whether we choose to engage with our purpose, which provides soul satisfaction — regardless of whether or not one “succeeds” — or to ignore our purpose and feel a continual, nagging sense of dissatisfaction. Few people in this world are blessed with the actualization of their purpose, and most people have not been provided the education or role models to even provide them with this conceptualization. As Tolkien said in The Return of the King, p. 190, “It is not our part to master all the tides of the world, but to do what is in us for the succour of those years wherein we are set, uprooting the evil in the fields that we know, so that those who live after may have clean earth to till. What weather they shall have is not ours to rule.”
8 Aristotle, echoed by St Ignatius Loyala, famously said, “Give me a child till he’s seven, and I will show you the man.”
Additionally, while the repetition of formal education has a massive indoctrination effect, people are much more susceptible to propaganda when they don’t recognize that what they are experiencing is propaganda, which occurs most easily and subliminally through entertainment.
This part argues that the American public is presented with the illusion of choice in it’s elections which is inherently false. Furthermore, media framing is used to manufacture the public’s consent to this process.
THE MASSES HAVE ESSENTIALLY NO POWER IN AMERICAN DEMOCRACY
“Capital must protect itself in every possible way, both by combination and legislation. Debts must be collected, mortgages foreclosed as rapidly as possible. When, through process of law, the common people lose their homes, they will become more docile and more easily governed through the strong arm of the government applied by a central power of wealth under leading financiers. These truths are well known among our principal men, who are now engaged in forming an imperialism to govern the world. By dividing the voters through the political party system, we can get them to expend their energies in fighting for questions of no importance. It is thus, by discrete action, we can ensure for ourselves that which has been so well planned and so successfully accomplished.” – Montagu Norman, Governor of the Bank of England, addressing the U.S. Bankers’ Association, New York, Idaho Leader, 26 August 1924.
Despite playacting to their families and friends that they have high social status by disseminating establishment approved talking points, the masses have essentially no power in American democracy. Even if we ignore the power of the media in shaping narratives and debates, other factors explaining of powerlessness of citizens include:
Federal elections are determined almost entirely by which party is financed better and which party is the incumbent;
The parties, especially the Democrat party, decide on their candidates behind closed doors (the Republicans also try but they’re less competent at it);
The FBI regularly involves itself in investigations to help sway elections;
The steady flow of illegal immigration ensure a steady flow of new Democrat voters;
Courts regularly overrule “democracy” on flimsy pretexts even when voter preference is established via referendum.
Thanks for, uh, “fortifying” the election, libs.
Let’s go through each of these items briefly.
Federal elections are determined almost entirely by which party is better financed and which party is the incumbent. The vast majority of incumbents win reelection, as in 91% of elections the better financed candidate wins.
Candidates and cabinet members are decided on behind closed doors. Candidates are chosen by party members behind closed doors and primaries are either rigged or utilize various deceptions to secure the desired outcome. For example, in the early 2020 Democrat primaries Biden came in fourth place behind Bernie Sanders, Pete Buttigieg and Elizabeth Warren, then inexplicably won Super Tuesday despite poor Super Tuesday polling. Insiders have bragged about how they pick their candidates in books such as The Party Decides.
With respect to cabinet members, through early 1988, 14 Secretaries of State (i.e. every one since 1949), 14 Treasury Secretaries, 11 Defense Secretaries, and scores of other federal department heads were chosen because of their membership in the Council on Foreign Relations (“CFR”). David Halberstam stated regarding the CFR, “They walk in one door as acquisitive businessmen and come out the other door as statesmen-figures” and the New York Times has acknowledged that the Council has “a uniform direction.”3
Even if the candidates and parties of the public win the parties ignore the desires of their constituents. This is because politics is “kayfabe”, which is a wrestling term meaning the convention of presenting staged performances as genuine or authentic. Both parties are controlled by the same financial interests, so even if the public wants change it appears impossible to achieve through the electoral process. Per Professor William F. Shughart, “One key conclusion of public choice [theory] is that changing the identities of the people who hold public office will not produce major changes in policy outcomes. Electing better people will not, by itself, lead to much better government.” This is demonstrable both in recent politics and in politics going back decades. Let’s start recent and work backwards:
George W. Bush manipulated public opinion and faked Weapons of Mass Destruction (“WMD”) to get us into a disastrous war in Iraq which had nothing to do with 9/11; he planned to invade Iraq just three days after the attack. He actively conspired to protect Saudi Arabia from complicity in 9/11 even though 15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudi citizens (and a number of them were CIA assets) and various individuals at the Saudi embassy in the United States were involved. Saudi aircraft were allowed to leave the country while the rest of the nation’s airplanes were grounded, and GWB’s administration deliberately used false testimony from a known lying informant codenamed “Curveball” as partial basis for war with Iraq in Colin Powell’s 2003 U.N. speech. 9/11 was used as an excuse to dramatically curtail the freedoms of American citizens via the Patriot Act, and GWB presided over a dramatic increase in illegal immigration and the national debt along with a subprime mortgage housing bubble that he helped create by bribing hispanic votes with 0-down loans for houses.The famous Iraq shoe throwing incident.
It’s unclear what positions Biden ran on other than as an anti-Trump candidate. Inflation spiked massively and he has brought the world close to nuclear war over a nation, Ukraine, which only 16% of Americans can point out on a map. His cabinet also increased aggression against China over Taiwan as shown by the Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi’s Taiwan visit.
This kayfabe strategy is nothing new. Although Richard Nixon was considered a conservative based on his rhetoric and style and liberals hated him, his policies were constructed on the instructions of the establishment. He broke all records by giving more than 100 Council on Foreign Relations members government appointments. By 1970 syndicated columnist James Reston wrote: “It is true that Nixon rose to power as an anti-communist, a hawk on Vietnam, and an opponent of the New Deal, butonce he assumed the responsibilities of the presidency, he began moving toward peace in Vietnam, coexistence with the Communist world of Moscow and Peking, and despite all his political reservations, even toward advocacy of the welfare state at home.” His administration permitted the Soviets to discharge their $11 billion World War 2 debt at less than ten cents on the dollar, and then receive millions of tons of our grain at subsidized rates. He also opened up forty U.S. ports to their ships and pushed Congress to grant the USSR most-favored-nation trade status.4
Another instance of kayfabe was Ronald Reagan who was presented to the public as a conservative. Campaigning in 1980, he said he intended to balance the budget by 1983. However, the federal deficit actually increased from $40.2-$78.9 billion under Carter to $127.9 billion in 1982 and $208.9 billion in 1983. He chalked up more government debt that all the presidents before him combined. While Congress bears some culpability for this Reagan’s own budget proposals estimated deficits from $100-200 billion dollars. The civilian work force in the executive branch grew by nearly 100,000 between 1981 and 1986. He appointed more than 80 individuals to his administration who were members of the Council on Foreign Relations, the Trilateral Commission or both. When communist Poland defaulted on its interest payments to American banks Reagan didn’t pressure Warsaw — he bailed out the banks by having the U.S. taxpayers pick up the tab.5 And who could forget Reagan’s support for the 1986 illegal immigration amnesty which radically sped up the racial transformation of America?The 1986 immigration amnesty really slowed down the border invasion. Thanks Reagan.
The FBI, working in conjunction with a complaint media, decides what to investigate and what to announce publicly also has a dramatic impact on elections. Hunter Biden’s laptop was known to be authentic months prior to the 2020 elections yet knowingly downplayed as false by the FBI, 51 intelligence agents lied and falsely discredited it (orchestrated by Blinken), the media refused to cover it and Twitter and Facebook banned the NY Post for covering it. The FBI even threatened the laptop repairman who had Hunter’s laptop. This coverup had a meaningful impact on election results. Additionally, the FBI regularly tries to stage events for “optics” so a story can be spun even if the narrative has no relation to the underlying event. Two examples of this: (1) then-Senator Jeff Sessions randomly met a Russian official among hundreds of people, with the forgettable and brief interaction being used as the basis to argue that he lied at his AG confirmation hearing and therefore he needed to recuse himself from the Russia investigation (this frame involved a heavy assist from media allies); and (2) released text messages between Peter Strzok and Lisa Page show their disappointment that Trump had private security (failing to mention any concern about the Secret Service, curiously enough) and how as a result they were not able to arrange a brief public interaction between Trump and a Russian proxy which would have been the basis for more smears. The FBI looks deeply at optics – as long as the basic meetup happened, they can make everything up about the circumstances and facts surrounding it.
Even in the rare instances of a direct democracy referendum making the opinions of the public known, the courts will step in and overrule it, or other legal shenanigans will result in it being thrown out. An example is California Proposition 8 in 2008 prohibiting gay marriage (52% vs 48%), struck down by the courts; another is 1994’s California Proposition 187 (58% to 42%) which would have prevented illegals from using non-emergency public services, also struck down by the courts. The impact of overturning Prop 187 has been catastrophic, resulting in a state with an unknown number of illegals (but likely over 10 million), and eviscerated the quality of public services. Another instance is the 2022 Recall Los Angeles District Attorney George Gascon effort which failed because of rigid signature matching where 30% of signatures were thrown out. Compare that to the 2018 legislative elections and 2016 presidential election where liberals strenuously fought against any signature matching and the California signature rejection rate was 1.4% and 1.0%, respectively.Anti-democratic judge Mariana Pfaelzer, single-handedly responsible for destroying California by overturning the voter’s will by blocking Prop 187.
A combination of Democrats encouraging the entry of tens of millions of Democrat-leaning Hispanic immigrants along with Republican leadership’s support (despite the base’s objections) in order to depress wages has radically transformed the voting base of the U.S. population in a few decades. California today has a supermajority Democrat legislature; Republicans have no power despite being the state of Reagan a generation ago and Schwarzenegger a decade ago. Voter’s lack of support for mass immigration doesn’t matter; the elites imported in a permanent new underclass based on race to further their quest for power regardless. Hispanics at minimum vote 58% Democrat; the highest Hispanic vote for a Republican was to George W. Bush in 2004 when he got 42% of their vote (one source says 40%) and blacks consistently vote 90% Democrat. With whites 62% of the population and rapidly decreasing it’s a simple math equation: liberals are trying to complete what they accomplished in California but nationally.6 If they succeed and achieve a supermajority with no checks on their power we may end up with a repeat of the Russian revolution but on a racial level against whites instead of an economic level against kulaks.
The Postal Service announced a new elections division specifically to handle mail-in ballots. Chuck Devore at The Federalist concludes “the more our elections rely on the Postal Service, the more interference we can expect.” Jim Hoft writes, “A major part of their election scheme is the work done by the US Postal Service with mail-in ballots. Democrats NEED mail-in ballots and Democrats NEED the assistance of the US Postal Service.”
A 2014 Princeton study also concluded the average American citizen has no power: “Multivariate analysis indicates that economic elites and organized groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on US government policy, while average citizens and mass-based interest groups have little or no independent influence.” As Henry Adams wrote in the 1890s: “We have a single system and in that system the only question is the price at which the proletariat is to be bought and sold, the bread and circuses.”7
Putting this all together, it’s illogical for the average American citizen to passionately care about our “representative” voting system when the gulf between their passion and their ability to influence governmental policies is close to zero.
THE MEDIA SERVES AS A BRAINWASHING TOOL VIA FRAMING DEVICES
It’s not just the media picking, choosing and running with meta-narratives and associated sub-narratives to fulfill major political goals that’s an issue, but the way the media chooses to report on and frame issues at all. Why was a particular topic picked for coverage? Will it enhance the prestige of the organization? Will advertisers like it? Will it be clickbait enough to draw the public’s attention away from competitors? Will it promote various agendas of the owners/publishers of the organization? Will it help advance the writer’s career? How is the report being written and what words are being used? What people are being interviewed how much coverage in the interview does that person get, what quotes are chosen to be used, and with how prominently is that person’s quote displayed? Where is the article placed on the media org’s masthead and what title is chosen and why? If the article involves non-public information, what were the agendas of the people providing that information in the first place?
The pernicious idea that there is objective reporting happening on any issue is simply a lie.Any article written by anyone at any time and under any circumstances has an agenda in mind, whether it is a stated or implied one. To read an article regardless of content is to put you in the writer’s mindset and frame of reference.8 You can choose to consciously reject the contents of the article but the residue of the ideas being promoted will linger within your mind regardless of any conscious decisions you make. Hence the power of outrageous clickbait articles to advance establishment agendas; their frame has been implanted into your mind.9
Furthermore, who is being selected as the subject of the reader’s sympathy, and what corresponding photos go along with it? Women in particular are extremely sensitive to visual imagery of dead children and hurt animals, which is why the photo of the drowned Syrian child was disseminated so widely to force open Europe’s borders to massive numbers of Muslim immigrants in 2015, a similar photo was used successfully in the Vietnam war to stoke anti-war sentiment, a starving polar bear was pushed hard to advance a global warming agenda, and one can see the false testimony by 15-year old “Iraqi” Nayirah to help advance the first Gulf War (she was really the daughter of the Kuwaiti ambassador). One should be careful about extending too much sympathy to people you don’t know; humans aren’t designed to feel sympathy for the whole world and what develops is a fake sympathy leading to sympathetic blowoutwhere one becomes less able to show sympathy for the people who need it in one’s own life.
Therefore, it’s important to be conscious about the types of content you consume, to be sensitive to the impact an article can have on you regardless of whether you reject its messaging or not, and as a default try to ask what the agenda is of the writer, the publisher, and the people interviewed. Most people read content by the most prestigious organizations for their “team” (New York Times, Washington Post, Vanity Fair for the liberals, and Fox News and the New York Post for conservatives) without considering the underlying agendas being pushed.
One instance demonstrating the media’s everyday power is the lopsided coverage between the Ghislaine Maxwell trial and the Johnny Depp trial, which coincided simultaneously. The Depp trial, where he sued his ex Amber Heard for defamation for publicly calling him a wife-beater, was covered in lurid detail, with multiple daily updates and stories on all the mainstream website, expert analysis, and public coverage. The charges against Maxwell included sex trafficking underage women with Jeffrey Epstein to rich and powerful men like, per public reports, Bill Clinton, Bill Gates, Alan Dershowitz and many others, but the trial was conducted behind closed doors, rarely mentioned in the media, with limited expert analysis and extremely pertinent information downplayed and ignored by the media. For example, Maxwell’s victim and client list was never released — is this the first time in history someone has been found guilty of sex-trafficking no one and to no one? Alexander Acosta at his confirmation hearing had said “I was told Epstein ‘belonged to intelligence’ and to leave it alone.” Who was Maxwell and Epstein working for? US intelligence, Israel intelligence, perhaps both? And to what end — to have blackmail on the rich and powerful? For what purpose? And who else were they connected to? Biden’s Secretary of State Antony Blinken’s stepfather Samuel Pisar was the longtime lawyer and confidant of Israel/Soviet spy Robert Maxwell, Ghislaine’s father. What was the extent of Blinken’s relationship to Maxwell and why was he appointed Secretary of State? Why was Maxwell an extremely influential Reddit moderator, “very much involved in manipulating the news feed of r/worldnews” with the 8th most Reddit karma of all time, and who tried to influence Redditors with a pro-child pornography public position? Why were the Rothschilds intimately connected to Epstein?10 These questions and many other have never been addressed. But to someone who follows the mainstream media without a proper degree of skepticism, one would have been wrapped up the Depp trial and would more or less ignore the Maxwell trial, despite the importance of the latter being so much greater to society.
The publicly accessible video of Biden bragging about forcing Ukraine to fire its anti-corruption prosecutor or lose $1 billion dollars of aid.11
There are many more examples. Working with establishment historians, they can even render entire (disfavored) eras boring and unworthy of public attention such as post-Civil War Reconstruction, World War 1, and the Byzantine Empire.
The power of the media to keep topics in the public mind, or to make them disappear forever, is immense. A couple of famous examples are presented in a Revolver News article:
an event with baseball player Jackie Robinson taking the field against a racist crowd and his teammate putting his arm around him which quieted the crowd never happened;
the deaths from the Tulsa Riot have been grossly exaggerated;
Emmett Till’s death supposedly represented to the media what was normal in the south in the 1950s, but nothing about the case was typical;
the killing of Matthew Shepard was portrayed by the media as a homophobic murder yet the murder had nothing to do with his sexuality;
the Central Park Five have been held out as an indictment of American’s criminal justice system but the truth is they were almost certainly guilty;
the “Stonewall Inn” raid was targeting the mafia, not homosexuals; and
John Grisham’s famous book “A Time to Kill” about white on black racism switched the races of the perpetrator and victim.
This is only a small slice of the media’s ability to create stories out of thin air.
Another aspect of media brainwashing is their choice of words they use in their framing. See the following charts from the New York Times on their use of the words “Emmett Till”, “white privilege”, “transphobia”, “racism”, “sexism”, “homophobia”, and a host of other liberal trigger words, which are repeated endlessly to induce a Pavlovian trigger response:
This media can dial down or turn up the reporting on a topic if new political realities demand it, which the New York Times is possibly in the process of doing now that the Orange Man threat has abated, transitioning from wokism to statism. See this multiple-part tweet (click and scroll down):
Balaji@balajis
NYT is transitioning from wokism to statism. Because the US establishment doesn’t want domestic chaos anymore. They’re in control. So you’ll see less riots calling for abolishing police, more funding for riot police. Less on toxic masculinity, more on troops for foreign wars.
7:51 PM · Feb 15, 2023
534 Reposts · 3.41K Likes
Consider also the political and moral connotations behind the changing application of labels, for example, from “illegal immigrant” (bad) to “migrant” (neutral to good). Or consider the use of opposite labels depending if the subject is considered “good” or “bad” by the media for the same underlying behavior, for example between Russia and the U.S.:
Even a more face neutral term like “minority” is a politically loaded term — a minority of what? When one thinks of a minority one thinks of someone black, brown, Muslim, transsexual, homosexual, etc. But if looked at from a broader perspective, the percentage of the world population with European Caucasian ancestry is currently 6.5%, shrunken from 25% merely 100 years ago. It’s interesting how much difference the scope of the term makes on its definition.
As Alain Besancon remarked, “The moment the individual accepts the language of the ideology, he allows his mental world and his sense of self-respect to be hijacked along with the language. No matter how inadvertently he may have stumbled into the use of the official vocabulary, he is now part of the ideology and has, in a manner of speaking, entered into a pact with the devil….”12
Even if you consciously reject the weaponization of these terms out of hand, you will likely accept their framing unless you are careful. Repetition is powerful. Your mind is their target.
*****
In Part 3 we will look at the role of government approved experts and institutions in keeping citizens pacified, the importance of self-research, an examination of how modern education is taught, and a discussion of the “NPC” meme.
1 Republicans complain about electronic ballot fraud now, but Democrats have been complaining about it in previous eras. Liberal author Gore Vidal in his book Imperial America, p. 33, quoted Dr. Howard Strauss, a Princeton computer science professor, who warned: “The presidential election of 1992, without too much difficulty and with little chance of the felons getting caught, could be stolen by computers for one candidate or another. The candidate who can win by computer has worked far enough ahead to rig the election by getting his “consultants” to write the software that runs thousands of vote-counting computers from coast to coast. There are so many computers that use the same software now that a presidential election can be tampered with – in fact, may already be tampered with. Because of trade secrets, nobody can be the wiser.” It is not Republican vs. Democrat ballot fraud, really, but elite establishment fraud against the anti-establishment masses. Vidal then alleges that George HW Bush used such a method to rig the 1988 Republican presidential primary against Bob Dole after Dole trounced him in the Iowa caucus. For a couple points of interest, see former CIA chief Bush laughing in his speech at Gerald Ford’s funeral about JFK’s assassination:
Or even, puzzlingly enough, Bush being the lone survivor out of 9 downed American airmen who got captured and eaten by the Japanese during the 1944 Chichijima incident.
2 “As the man who implemented the David Brock blueprint for suing the President into paralysis and his allies into bankruptcy, who helped mainstream and amplify the Russia Hoax, who drafted 10 articles of impeachment for the Democrats a full month before President Trump ever called the Ukraine President in 2018, who personally served as special counsel litigating the Ukraine impeachment, who created a template for Internet censorship of world leaders and a handbook for mass mobilizing racial justice protesters to overturn democratic election results, there is perhaps no man alive with a more decorated resume for plots against President Trump.” Read the whole thing here.
6 A common liberal response to this argument is “oh, the white settlers did this to the Native Americans, so it is justice that it happens to them in return.” They’re right in the sense that white settlers wrongly abrogated many of the treaties they signed with the indigenous populations and the Trial of Tears was sad and improper, but (1) 90% of the entire Native American population died specifically from smallpox, because they had no prior exposure to the disease and their immune systems had no defense to it, quoted from this otherwise COVID CNN propaganda piece :
“‘That’s how the author Diane Glancy describes the devastating effects of smallpox in her historical novel, “The Reason for Crows.” That pandemic was part of a biological catastrophe that eventually wiped out an estimated 90% of native peoples in North America. “It was disease more than the cavalry that defeated the Indians,” says Glancy, an acclaimed poet who is the daughter of a Cherokee father and an English/German mother.’”
This more than anything else left white Christian settlers with huge expanses of empty land to expand into; and (2) white Christian countries are the top target for immigration worldwide. If white Christians are so irredeemably racist and evil why does everyone want to come to Western Europe, the U.S., Canada or Australia? It’s not just wealth; Japan and South Korea and plenty of Islamic countries are wealthy but there is very limited immigration. Could it be something about the high trust, anti-tribal, law-abiding, entrepreneurial atmospheres in these western countries? If so, what do liberals think life will be like for them personally if they get their wish and kill it off?
8 See Carl Schmitt, Concept of the Political, section 3: “First, all political concepts, images, and terms have a polemical meaning. They are focused on a specific conflict and are bound to a concrete situation; the result (which manifests itself in war or revolution) is a friend-enemy grouping, and they turn into empty and ghostlike abstractions when this situation disappears. Words such as state, republic, society, class, as well as sovereignty, constitutional state, absolutism, dictatorship, economic planning, neutral or total state, and so on, are incomprehensible if one does not know exactly who is to be affected, combated, refuted, or negated by such a term. Above all the polemical character determines the use of the word political regardless of whether the adversary is designated as nonpolitical (in the sense of harmless), or vice versa if one wants to disqualify or denounce him as political in order to portray oneself as nonpolitical (in the sense of purely scientific, purely moral, purely juristic, purely aesthetic, purely economic, or on the basis of similar purities) and thereby superior.”
9 This is also why the media continues to have such impressive power despite public trust in media being at an all-time low: they continue to set the narrative framing.
10Per the WSJ: “Mrs. de Rothschild was named chairwoman of the bank in January 2015. That October, she and Epstein negotiated a $25 million contract for Epstein’s Southern Trust Co. to provide “risk analysis and the application and use of certain algorithms” for the bank, according to a proposal reviewed by the Journal. In 2019, after Epstein was arrested, the bank said that Mrs. de Rothschild never met with Epstein and it had no business links with him. The bank acknowledged to the Journal that its earlier statement wasn’t accurate.” Also see the Substack post “What does a Rothschild, a Goldman Sachs Top Lawyer and a CIA agent have in common?”
“If the prosecutor’s not fired you’re not getting the money [$1 billion]. Well son of a bitch, he got fired, and they put in place someone who was solid at the time.”
Trump was impeached the first time for investigating this.
12 Robert Conquest, Reflections of a Ravaged Century, 112-113.
This section argues that only those who are low status can think freely because those with high status are constrained by their social circles and fear of losing wealth and status. The establishment requires those who imbibe its messages not just to accept their framing but to actively play-act it out to others. Because the public is dumb, they can only pay attention to one “meta-narrative” of establishment lies at a time. These meta-narratives, which follow one after the other in an unending stream, are used to further establishment objectives at the expense of the public.
HOW IS INFORMATION DISSEMINATED, AND WHY IS IT BELIEVED?
“We’ll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false.” – William J. Casey, Director of the CIA from 1981-1987 in a confirmed quote
The United States has a sophisticated propaganda apparatus which offers multiple streams of approved information to the public. These include the mainstream media, cultural outlets such asNetflix /Hulu/Disney+, movies and television (whose shows are called “programming” for a reason), official government organs (FBI, CIA, the DOJ, the CDC, etc.), properly credentialed “experts”, and through government mandated educational materials from preschool to university.
Disfavored information from non-official sources is smeared by the establishment with vitriolic terms to convey its low, unapproved status — “fake news”, “conspiracy theories”, and other Pavlovian trigger labels. These labels convey an implied threat to people’s social status, which is very important to most people to protect. The threat is: “If you listen to and believe alternative streams of information you risk losing your job, your source of income, and you may be ostracized by your friends and family.” As a result, most people rationally shut down their minds to unofficial information sources. They need to make a living and survive in society; why risk one’s livelihood for so little gain? The risk-reward ratio is skewed. This is assuming that non-official information is even possible to receive; in the past establishment-disapproved authors were unpublishable, dissident figures were thrown in prison or murdered (such as former Nuremberg prosecutor Frances Parker Yockey) or in recent times many social media figures have been banned, shadow-banned, have had their websites removed for wrong-think, or one may even be criminally prosecuted (see Douglass Mackey).
A good rule of thumb is that the more status a person has, the more sensitive they are to the dangers of being labeled low status, which could risk their careers and preferred place in society. Using the amount of education as a proxy, consider the over-conformity of doctors, lawyers, and other working professionals to government propaganda. Why would these people risk losing their jobs, with degrees costing hundreds of thousands of dollars plus years of training, with many carrying enormous debt loads, for listening to disapproved views? It would be ridiculous. The safe course of action for well educated individuals is to consume only officially mandated information within the narrow (and ever narrowing) range of acceptable public discourse, called the Overton Window.
The corollary is that the less status a person has in society, the more free they are to speak their minds, to not be conditioned, and to have independent thought. A relatively debt-free high-school educated truck driver is not likely to lose his job when he speaks his mind, and even if he did, without a politicized licensing board looking over his shoulders he would likely be able to find another quickly.
Consider your Pavlovian emotional, instinctual response to the phrase “black men are more violent than white men on average.” If you are properly conditioned/educated by western society, your emotional reaction will likely be immediate and overwhelming: “No, they’re not!” “I need to end this conversation.” Even though the evidence behind this argument is extremely strong with extensive FBI crime statistics over decades (American black men commit 8x the rate of murders as whites, for example), to speak of it is verboten; this is an argument outside the Overton window; it is dangerous; it cannot be said in public without social ostracism. Most people will not engage on the merits of such an issue either publicly or, to a lesser extent, privately as well (even though these self-styled “anti-racists” almost always live in white neighborhoods, shy away from black neighborhoods, and want to send their children to “good schools”, a euphemism for mostly white schools: they practice what Lawrence Auster called unprincipled, hypocritical exceptions in their own lives, virtue signaling while avoiding personal costs). See the below Twitter thread for more details:
The thread above can be clicked on to expand it; Twitter no longer allows embedded links.
Or consider another example: what is your emotional response to the phrase “democracy”? If you are properly conditioned by the media, government, and schooling, then it likely makes you think of wonderful, shiny things: equality, justice, apple pie, white picket fences, flag waving, freedom. It is considered an intrinsic good, it cannot be questioned, we must spread “democracy” worldwide to give this wonderful virtue to everyone!
Ahhhhh, the smell of Freedom.
But this response is also Pavlovian. Democracy is only good insofar as it is a vehicle to increase the quality of life for its citizens. If democracy ceases to increase their quality of life, should it still be considered “good”?
We are all Pavlov’s dogs, reacting to pre-programmed stimuli.
As the range of acceptable discourse narrows and the range of disallowed discourse increases, the gulf between those who accept officially mandated information, and those who have grown to distrust officially mandated information has widened. One may gingerly, with great trepidation, cross the first informational threshold of disallowed thought/belief in their lives, quivering and sweating, realizing that the official dogma on a particular topic is full of lies; then perhaps the second topic, and the third, the fourth and the fifth, each one easier to accept than the last. Eventuallythe skeptic may reach a place where he looks back into the distance and, if he squints, he can see where he started, where the vast majority still are, and the question becomes how does he communicate with them?
If this gulf grows wide enough, one may see and feel their interactions with most people ascontaining an unbridgeable gap, a chasm filled with alien beliefs about life and values, too far apart to bridge by mere conversation. Sure, one can engage on child rearing and the latest Netflix shows and what the latest so-and-so is up to in their lives but such conversations are shallow and lack a real sense of connection that people need in their lives. As Oscar Wilde said, “A bore is someone who deprives you of solitude without providing you with company.” To bring up topics with “normies” outside of the currently-allowed, presently-socially-acceptable, ever-narrowing band of discussion is to risk being perceived as odd or unpopular; and as one brings up a disallowed topic, one can instantaneously see their eyes flash with:
“this is an unacceptable thought”;
“if I listen to this my social status be at risk, which is unacceptable” (a remnant of human history where, in small hunter-gatherer societies, to be cast out of the group into the wilderness alone was akin to death); therefore
“I need to bow out of this conversation as quickly as possible so my social status is not eroded.”
A visualization of the communication gap between dissidents and regular people.
IT IS NOT ENOUGH TO BE SILENT, ONE MUST PERFORM
Adding to this problem is that the imbibers of official propaganda are strongly encouraged to evangelize that dogma onto others. The American system of so-called “democracy” demands active participation on behalf of its citizens, even though the average citizen has no power outside of a single vote once every two years and little knowledge of issues outside of what they’ve been told by the media and approved experts. The media saturates the airwaves with propaganda and the populace absorbs it; the highly educated adopt the approved “high status” positions as their own and then perform for their family and friends as if their opinions mattered.
We can see this in countless examples, from COVID hysteria to Roe abortion hysteria to Ukraine hysteria and Black Lives Matter hysteria to anti-Trump hysteria to gay pride hysteria (everyone with rainbows on their faces on social media). It was not enough to believe that Trump was “racist” and “sexist” and “the next coming of Hitler”; it had to be publicly stated on all of one’s social media; it had to be talked about with family and friends incessantly and with an urgency and dramatic sense of impending doom unless one DOES SOMETHING (does what? Be hysterical to anyone who would listen, I guess). Same with gay marriage. To not be passionately pro gay marriage on social media, and to not have discussed it relentlessly, meant that one was, at best, an unenthusiastic supporter of such policies and hence on some level a low status enemy.
This process allows the powerless citizenry to assuage their feelings of powerlessness by aligning themselves with the system’s authority and wielding it against others. 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.”
We can contrast this American governance style with a model that does not rely on the play-acting of its citizens to maintain its power: post-Soviet Russia. Russia’s relationship with its population is alien to the western perspective. While it has television and government stations and pushes a party line and has elections, generally the attitude of Putin and other leaders is that the government has the power, Russian civilians have no power and citizens are not privy to official deliberations, decisions or even basic explanations; just do what the government tells you to do – stick to your job, mind your own business and avoid taking political positions. Just do what you’re told. See here and here and here if you want further details on this.
Comparing these systems, the post-Soviet Russian perspective ismore honest and proper because in both systems the average citizen has essentially no power, but in the former the expectation is that one must play-act as if they do. Unfortunately, many confused, pitiful people actually believe the official propaganda, getting angry or hysterical over their performance, to an astute observer’s dismay.
THE CRAFTING OF META-NARRATIVES
The active participation and performance by American citizens in society is a fickle thing; it’s attention span is short, having been eviscerated by social media, quick-cut television and film, and from being pulled in too many directions. There is only so much time someone can stay hysterical about allowing gay marriage or wearing a pussyhat or frightened about the dangers of COVID before getting bored and moving on. But if the masses are not being led from panic to panic, keeping them in a heightened state of adrenaline and fear, then they might start questioning narratives and going off in unapproved directions. Thus, the establishment has the media push long-term stories called “meta-narratives”, crafted in conjunction with governmental and transnational agencies, lasting anywhere from multiple months to a year or longer, one after the other to further their agendas. Each meta-narrative involves various sub-narratives and contingencies ready to morph into the next meta-narrative if the politics of the moment require it. That way the public’s attention will be manipulated into officially approved directions even as other important events are occurring and de-emphasized or unreported.
The public’s energy canbest be harnessed by concentrating it on a singular point of focus like that of a big, dumb animal, so only one meta-narrative runs at any particular time. When a meta-narrative is running, there are an endless number of media stories on it, often using circular reporting where unnamed sources are quoted and rumors build off each other. It will be among the top stories day in and day out. The narrative will be made simple for the public to follow. Action items will be issued by the media for the public’s active participation on both sides, pro and con. Approved public figures will be highlighted and personalized so the public knows who they are. The coverage will be wall-to-wall and simple mantras repeated per the propaganda rule “if you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it”. Because the meta-narrative is false, once it has served its political purpose the media adroitly pivot to the next one, leaving no time for reflection or understanding that the public was fooled because that could lead to unpleasant consequences for the perpetrators. It is rare for the establishment to confirm that a meta-narrative scam the public fell for is false; the most recent one that comes to mind is the Iraq war WMD deception.
A rare peak into the media’s narrative collusion processes was the brief reporting on the 2007 private google groups forum JournoList where 400 liberal journalists and academics colluded on media talking points and synchronized arguments for maximum political effect. Fred Barnes, executive editor of The Weekly Standard, discussed JournoList, stating, “… hundreds of journalists have gotten together, on an online listserv called JournoList, to promote liberalism and liberal politicians at the expense of traditional journalism.” JournoList ultimately closed down due to unwanted public scrutiny and many of its members joined an offshoot called Cabalist until it too was revealed and then shut down. Whatever unreported follow-up of Journalist and Calabist continues to exist, though, as the media continues to parrot not just the same talking points, but even the same phrases in order to generate a hypnotic effect:
Examples of media collusion using the same codewords; this happens on a regular basis. See also this short 2 minute video where many media personalities repeat the same political messages word-for-word.
Ben Rhodes, Deputy National Security Advisor for Strategic Communications and Speechwriting under Obama, gave a rare look into the process of creating media echo chambers, bragging about how adept the administration was in building a circular reporting echo chamber to increase support for the 2007 Iranian nuclear deal:
“We created an echo chamber. They were saying things that validated what we had given them to say,” he admitted in the Times interview when asked about the plethora of “experts” praising the deal in the press. The Times article, which will appear in the paper’s Sunday magazine, notes Rhodes, who has a writing degree from NYU, was skilled as a “storyteller.” “He is adept at constructing overarching plotlines with heroes and villains, their conflicts supported by flurries of carefully chosen adjectives, quotations and leaks from named and unnamed senior officials,” reporter David Samuels writes. “He is the master shaper and retailer of Obama’s foreign-policy narratives.”
Asked about his misleading version of the deal, Rhodes said, “In the absence of rational discourse, we are going to discourse the [expletive] out of this. “We had test drives to know who was going to be able to carry our message effectively, and how to use outside groups like [the anti-nuke group] Ploughshares, the Iran Project and whomever else. So we knew the tactics that worked. We drove them crazy,” he said of Republicans and others who opposed the deal, including Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
Rhodes bashed the media for not properly reporting on foreign affairs and revealed how he fed information to reporters such as Jeffrey Goldberg of The Atlantic, a respected “Beltway insider,” as the Times called him. “All these newspapers used to have foreign bureaus,” he said. “Now they don’t. They call us to explain to them what’s happening in Moscow and Cairo. “Most of the outlets are reporting on world events from Washington. The average reporter we talk to is 27 years old, and their only reporting experience consists of being around political campaigns. That’s a sea change. They literally know nothing.” Rhodes’ assistant, Ned Price, gave an example of how they would shape the news by feeding a narrative to their “compadres” in the press corps and letting it echo across social media. “I’ll give them some color,” Price said, “and the next thing I know, lots of these guys are in the dot-com publishing space, and have huge Twitter followings, and they’ll be putting this message out on their own.”
This strategy is routinely used by those in government to build and promote false narratives; most are just not as egotistical as Rhodes in demanding public credit and revealing methods.
Reliance on “conspiracy theories” is unnecessary for this argument. According to the Swiss Propaganda Research group, 63-90% of geopolitical coverage in nine leading European newspapers relied on just three global news agencies for reporting – the American Associated Press (AP), the quasi-governmental French Agence France-Presse (AFP), and the British agency Reuters. These newspapers had no investigative research on their own, and their commentary was almost always in favor of the US/NATO position (82% positive, 2% negative coverage), while the agency stories were not checked by the newspapers for any propaganda. The power deriving from such a concentration of narrative sourcing is obvious.
IDENTIFICATION OF THE MOST RECENT META-NARRATIVES
As of 2023, the most recent meta-narratives pushed by the media for political gain have been:
2017-2018: “Trump is a Russian stooge!” The media reported on this with wall-to-wall coverage and over-the-top hysteria for two years.1 Every Trump administration figure was personalized and profiled in depth and their every action and statement held aggressively under a microscope. This is a common Saul Alinksi “Rules for Radicals” tactic.2 This narrative led into…
2018: “Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh is a rapist!” An attempt to prevent the ideological balance of the court from shifting toward Republicans.3 Leading into…
2019: “Get him out! Get him out!” Trump’s first impeachment on the basis of Trump attempting to look into Biden’s questionable Ukrainian dealings.4 This led into…
2020-2021: “Global pandemic!” Two years of media hysteria over COVID with an intensity rivaling the worst of the Trump-is-a-Russia-stooge meta-narrative.5 Leading into…
2022: “Putin is evil!” Russia/Ukraine war and major inflation. If you want details on this, see here. Leading into…
Each of these meta-narratives were pushed so aggressively and uniformly by the media that they distracted the public’s attention away from other stories. People felt that each update in the unfolding of the current meta-narrative was vitally important, that to turn away for even a second could mean missing out on critical information that might personally impact them. Other issues occurring at the time such the wide open southern border with millions of entering illegals, endless monetary theft by the Federal Reserve and the major banks, the lack of job opportunities for Americans, stagnant wages, spying by the NSA and social media companies, the sabotage of food production facilities and farms causing massive degradation in the food supply (currently quietly underway; over 100 facilities were burned between 2020 to June 2022 with a major uptick in 2022); using 87,000 new armed IRS agents to shakedown middle America; and gradual erosion the 1st Amendment via “Hate Speech” exceptions7 were swept aside in the dramatic push for the meta-narrative and ignored. All anyone could talk about was the current hysteria. And that’s why it is so powerful.
FUTURE META-NARRATIVE CONTINGENCIES ARE QUEUED-UP DEPENDING ON NEED
The establishment has many meta-narrative contingencies queued up depending on political need. These include but are not limited to:
Cyber Polygon, which involves preparation for a cyber attack on key U.S. infrastructure, to be blamed on Russia but instigated by globohomo itself;
Restarting COVID hysteria, with Monkeypox used as a test;
Escalating the Russia/Ukraine war where even nuclear war is a possibility (the establishment leaders can hide in well stocked bunkers);
Prosecuting Trump and more of his followers for 1/6, with the government prepared for the possibility of civil unrest which would give them an excuse to crack down;
Triggering a currency crisis caused by loss of faith in the banking system, the popping of the sovereign debt bubble and/or the end of the petrodollar system which would impoverish the west via hyperinflation; or
To help determine which meta-narrative to utilize next the establishment uses computer simulations, polling8 and artificial intelligence and attempts, in part, to pick issues that create a “shatter effect” among the right. A shatter effect results from applying pressure to right-wing wedge issues, creating intra-right infighting which squanders much of their limited energy. For instance, Steve Sailer and other human biodiversity (HBD) believers became hysterical over COVID and demanded immediate and extreme government intervention. This put them at odds with those who were anti-vaccine and anti-shutdown. The Ukraine war set elements of the pro-Ukraine and pro-Russia right against each other. The anti-abortion Supreme Court ruling set the religious right up against the secular right. One can expect future meta-narratives to continue taking into account the benefits of shatter effects with the goal of helping the establishment achieve its desired dialectical synthesis, discussed below.
Once you see and understand the concept of meta-narratives it becomes impossible to unsee. The more people become aware of how it works the fewer people will fall for it, which will ultimately make meta-narratives weaker and give time back to those poor individuals passionately but powerlessly acting out their Two Minutes Hate.
The media’s ability to so easily agitate NPC’s against Orange Man was an astonishing thing to behold.
With that said, the rollout of each new meta-narrative, designed for shock and awe, is always disconcerting and unpleasant even for the most hardened dissident.
HEGELIAN DIALECTICS IN META-NARRATIVES
When a meta-narrative is being established, its creators spend considerable time not just on the official government approved pro-meta-narrative position, but also on the official government approved anti-meta-narrative position. It is the energy created by this dialectic — where citizens are given two binary “choices” and allowed to debate between these artificial choices, ignoring any other options — that gives the meta-narrative the energy to transform society and lead to a pre-approved “solution”.
In such a dialectic, the media frames their articles with a pro vs. con approach, trotting out various officially designated “experts” to provide details and framing necessary for a controlled debate. This two-sided choice triggers primal instincts in humans where through evolution we are used to picking a tribe and going to war against another tribe. It’s the same instincts used for picking and cheering on sports teams. Nuance and subtlety are discarded; root for your team and shut up or you’ll be considered an enemy sympathizer. Goering commented on this general concept:
“…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.”
An example of a small false dialectic was the trial of Kyle Rittenhouse. On one side was the pro-conviction, pro-BLM position against the anti-conviction, pro-self defense position. Each screamed at and debated each other while a third position was basically ignored — that BLM was simply a front group of the United States government acting out rioting orders by its FBI handlers for political goals, see here, here and here for details. The true objectives were to portray Trump as weak on crime, to destroy small businesses already ravaged by COVID, and to strike fear in the hearts of citizens trying to defend themselves using firearms with the threat of criminal prosecution. The stakes for the public were relatively minor. Regardless of Rittenhouse’s defense verdict, the synthesis was a modest decline in the ability and willingness for gun owners to defend themselves from criminals.
A large false dialectic was the COVID-19 pandemic, where the positions pushed by the media were: (1) COVID is a deadly pandemic, it’s origins are unknown, people sick with it should take Remdesivir and be placed on breathing machines if they are really sick, and we must lockdown society without economic impact studies in order to save the population, vs. (2) COVID is a deadly pandemic, its origins were Chinese biolabs, sick people should take HCQ and everyone should shelter and stay at home, but maybe total shutdowns aren’t totally necessary. Dissenting voices to this dialectic were banned from social media, squelched, and threatened with job loss and/or actually fired. An alternative position was a belief that COVID-19 was a difficult-to-differentiate flu equivalent with equivalent mortality rates, and it would not have been noticed without the media hype.9 Evidence for this position includes a John Hopkins analysis (later yanked for political reasons) stating total mortality was flat in 2020, also confirmed by Stanford research that was later banned; the incidence of flu in 2020 was zero; and there’s a question over whether PCR tests can even detect COVID-19 vs general cold/flu.10 The stakes for this dialectic were high and the enormous energy generated created a powerful synthesis: the ushering in of forced vaccinations and COVID vaccine passports (later placed on hold), with residual resentment for China in case the establishment decides to later treat them as an enemy (beginning in 2023).
Another dialectic involved being team pro-Trump vs team anti-Trump during his presidency as opposed to judging the man on his performance issue by issue. Too many people blindly chose a team and rooted for it like a sports match, ignoring the failings of their “side” because to recognize such failings during a tribal war would mean to weaken one’s team.11 The synthesis of the Trump movement and the hysterical anti-Trump reaction led to globohomo tyrannically cracking down on American citizens:
Biden’s September 1, 2022 speech where he called, in veiled language, for the extermination of Trump supporters.
Historically, a major false dialectic was the Vietnam war, where one had to either be “pro war” or “anti war”. A third perspective – the perspective of Robert Welch of the John Birch society – was that our military rules of engagement were limiting to the point of incapacity and that we should either dramatically relax them in order to win or otherwise withdrawal if we wouldn’t fight properly. His analysis is worth reading here. This rational perspective was ignored by the establishment. The ultimate synthesis of this dialectic was the withdrawal from Vietnam after a tremendous loss of blood and treasure, including thousands of POWs ignominiously left behind, and a collapse in the public’s willingness to fight communism by direct U.S. military means. This was a major win for globalist, pro-communist sympathizers in the U.S.
Lastly, see the 1966 Cloward-Piven strategy where two prominent academics famously conspired to generate a national crisis in order to usher in a predetermined outcome drastically expanding the size of government.
….
In Part 2 and Part 3, we will look at whether regular citizens have any power in American democracy, how media serves as a brainwashing tool via framing devices, the role of so-called experts and institutions in keeping citizens pacified, a critique of modern education, and a discussion of the “NPC” meme.
Trump won, barely, by 107,000 votes across 3 states. Even he was surprised by his victory and possibly horrified. The reaction from the establishment to his surprising victory was over-the-top, nonstop hysteria, which continued without pause for the length of his presidency. The leaked Peter Strzok/Lisa Page textsshowed the typical elite perspective: “I want to believe the path you threw out for consideration in Andy’s office that there’s no way he gets elected – but I’m afraid we can’t take that risk. It’s like an insurance policy in the unlikely event you die before you’re 40” and, in one particular message when Page asked if Trump would ever become president, Strzok reportedly replied, “No. No he won’t. We’ll stop it.” James Comey hit on this point as well in his book: “It is entirely possible that, because I was making decisions in an environment where Hillary Clinton was sure to be the next president, my concern about making her an illegitimate president by concealing the restarted investigation bore greater weight than it would have if the election appeared closer or if Donald Trump were ahead in all polls. But I don’t know.”
2 Alinski was Obama’s inspiration; he incidentally dedicated his book to Lucifer. The exact dedication quote from Rules for Radicals: “Lest we forget at least an over the shoulder acknowledgment to the very first radical: from all our legends, mythology and history (and who is to know where mythology leaves off and history begins – or which is which), the very first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom – Lucifer.”
4 Trump’s first impeachment over Biden’s corruption was later proven conclusively by emails and documents found on Hunter Biden’s laptop — “10 for the big guy”. Also see Biden’s on-air confession where he stated, “”If the prosecutor’s not fired you’re not getting the money [$1 billion]. Well son of a bitch, he got fired, and they put in place someone who was solid at the time.”
7 As Thomas Sowell said, “Freedom is unlikely to be lost all at once or openly, it is far more likely eroded away bit by bit amid glittering promises and expressions of noble ideals. Thus hard-earned freedoms for which many have fought and died have now been bought and sold for words or money, or both.”
As Michael Malice said, “The claim ‘hate speech is not free speech’ implies ‘free’ is a type of speech, as opposed to how speech is treated in a free society.”
And as George Washington said, “If freedom of speech is taken away, then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter.”
8 Polling is used either for information gathering purposes or to manipulate public opinion. Polling hacks the human herd-instinct to make politicians or issues appear more or less popular than they actually are.
10 To the extent there was an increase in total mortality in 2020, it is unclear to what extent it can simply be blamed on regular hospital operations, including surgeries, being suspended during the first year of the “pandemic”. Increases in mortality post-2020 (i.e. when COVID was already circling for a year) can be attributed to the untested, experimental, dangerous mRNA vaccines.
11 This same dynamic occurred when pro-globalist Giorgia Meloni became Italian Prime Minister, where American conservatives rallied behind her despite her then-known anti-populist bias, which was then born out on the ground when Muslim migrants to Italy tripled. See here, here, and here.
This section looks at how people think, how perspectives differ on a generational level, and the ethical theories that will be used for the rest of this essay.
WHAT IS THE NATURE OF PEOPLE’S INNER EXPERIENCES?
Before criticizing the masses for failing to investigate and organize societal trends in their own minds, let’s first ask if the masses have frequent inner thoughts. The concept is strange, but the answer may be less than one would expect according to a 2007 University of Nevada Department of Psychology study on college students. Per the study, regarding the frequency of common phenomena of inner experience (inner speech, inner seeing (aka images), unsymbolized thinking, feeling, and sensory awareness), the frequency of common phenomena of inner experience is low, with 13-30% of participants not experiencing a specific form of inner experience during the study at all:
If this study is accurate, many people may lack specific types of inner experience, and the overall frequency of some types of inner experience may be surprisingly low. Perhaps the low frequency of inner speech (17% not experiencing it at all, and the overall frequency being 26%) explains the nature of extraverts, or why many women verbalize what they feel to those around them as a running commentary. Regarding unsymbolized thinking, defined as “thinking a particular, definite thought without the awareness of that thought’s being conveyed in words, images, or any other symbols”, the overall frequency was only 22% with 30% of participants not experiencing it at all. A lack of frequent unsymbolized thinking may explain why so many people live paycheck-to-paycheck with no ability to plan for expenses. The premium for car insurance isn’t an event that’s planned for, it’s just something that happens; if a person has the money great, if not they’ll deal with it when the bill comes in. It’s why people living on food stamps eat steak, buy expensive hardbacks and then run out of money before the month ends. The idea that the person will need to eat at the end of the month just like they did last month doesn’t cross their minds.
If this explanation for the general population’s behavior is accurate, the ramifications are disquieting. If many individuals do not experience specific types of thinking at all (such as unsymbolized thinking), what would that say about the nature of democracy (one person one vote) or about standardized education? What would that say about the Western outlook, which believes that everyone is inherently equal except societal racism/ sexism/other -isms and -phobias holding people back?
THE CALCIFICATION OF ONE’S WORLDVIEW WITH AGE
Not only do many people seem to lack frequent unsymbolized thoughts, but most people’s beliefs calcifies as they age: they become no longer open to new ideas, perspectives or experiences which could stimulate changes in younger people’s belief system. Science shows that aging individuals adopt and rigidify the beliefs they learned as children or adolescents while society evolves and changes with the next generation. An example of this is J.K. Rowling’s transsexual position: she grew up in an era when being pro-homosexuality was taboo but hip and exciting but transsexualism was off-bounds; society moved on to make transsexualism the taboo but hip and exciting thing, leaving her behind. Or consider Matt Stone and Trey Parker of South Park fame, whose 90’s libertarian irreverence locked into place, unable to adjust to changing circumstances and they’ve been irrelevant for well over a decade.
This happens in every generation.1People’s worldview become less sophisticated and more about instinctive reaction to base nature and emotional feelings as they age, and it’s happened with the boomer generation in charge of America today. For transparency, the following criticism is not meant to absolve younger generations of their culpability about the state of society (and they are also criticized toward the end of this section), but merely to describe how rigid mental calcification affects society.
The boomers were a generation where, growing up, they were coddled by the “Greatest Generation” and experienced no external challenges. Times were good and post-World War 2 America was on the ascendency. The boomers took advantage of this time of plenty and prosperity and adopted a superficial bootstrap mentality (“You can make it on your own, just work harder!”), a blind belief in formal education (“Just go to college, then you’ll get a great job!”), an extreme belief in “individual rights” and casual drug use and sex (“Peace and love, brother!”), a declining religiousness and a singular focus on making money at the expense of society. College was cheap, health care was cheap, housing was cheap, raising children was cheap, opportunities were unlimited, and interest rates were decreasing for an uninterrupted 40 years starting in the 1980s which in turn increased asset prices in an almost straight line (as there is a direct inverse correlation between asset values and interest rates):
Declining interest rates for 40 years.Leading to 40 years of S&P price appreciation.
The mentality created from growing up in idle times of prosperity created the seeds of decadence and decay which would later manifest. The boomer’s fixed worldview of prosperity resulted in a selfish, entitled, self-absorbed, naively idealistic, short-sighted generation, and they decided to drastically increase government spending so they could enjoy life and retirement at the expense of future generations. As Carl Schmitt argues, when times are good nobody likes a pessimistic naysayer.2 Sticking with this bootstrap mentality, white boomer parents cast out their children at eighteen with no financial support in stark contrast to the Jewish, Indian, Asian and Muslim American populations who continued to support their children indefinitely and which therefore gave them a massive leg up on historic white Christian Americans.
These selfish boomers are the people who lead the nation now, a country swimming in debt, illegal immigration, degeneracy, tense racial relations and a host of other seemingly unsolvable problems, and their objective seems to be to kick the can down the road until they die off then let others deal with it — “oh well, it won’t be my problem anymore, it’s yours”. Some cultural signs of a stagnant, decaying society include endless forgettable movie reboots and Marvel movies (“capeshit”), dull music with auto-tuned beats and no memorable hits in a decade, politically correct videogames, replacing statues with woke versions, and awful, decadent architecture and art3 (such as “Piss Christ”).4
The San Francisco Federal building, an example of modern architecture.Compare to any number of examples of older architecture. Which would a neutral observer say is superior?
Bruce Gibney makes a similar argument in his book “A Generation of Sociopaths”. He argues:
“[In 1978] the gross debt-to-GDP ratio was about 35 percent. It’s roughly 103 percent now — and it keeps rising. The boomers inherited a rich, dynamic country and have gradually bankrupted it. They habitually cut their own taxes and borrow money without any concern for future burdens. They’ve spent virtually all our money and assets on themselves and in the process have left a financial disaster for their children. We used to have the finest infrastructure in the world. The American Society of Civil Engineers thinks there’s something like a $4 trillion deficit in infrastructure in deferred maintenance. It’s crumbling, and the boomers have allowed it to crumble. Our public education system has steadily degraded as well, forcing middle-class students to bury themselves in debt in order to get a college education….[the boomers instituted] a massive push for privatized gain and socialized risk for big banks and financial institutions. This has really been the dominant boomer economic theory, and it’s poisoned what’s left of our public institutions….
I think the major factor is that the boomers grew up in a time of uninterrupted prosperity. And so they simply took it for granted. They assumed the economy would just grow three percent a year forever and that wages would go up every year and that there would always be a good job for everyone who wanted it. This was a fantasy and the result of a spoiled generation assuming things would be easy and that no sacrifices would have to be made in order to preserve prosperity for future generations. On an abstract level, I think the worst thing they’ve done is destroy a sense of social solidarity, a sense of commitment to fellow citizens. That ethos is gone and it’s been replaced by a cult of individualism. It’s hard to overstate how damaging this is. On a concrete level, their policies of under-investment and debt accumulation have made it very hard to deal with our most serious challenges going forward.”
Good times inevitably carry the seeds of its ultimate demise within it, bringing to mind a G. Michael Hopf quote: “Hard times create strong men. Strong men create good times. Good times create weak men. And, weak men create hard times.” The boomer “good times” mentality rapidly brought about “weak men” in the Millennial and Generation Z generations, whose stuck-in-perpetual-adolescence mentality is also having disastrous effects.
Boomers booming away the nation’s future, swapping unlimited debt for immediate consumption.
MILLENNIAL AND YOUNGER GENERATIONS ARE STUCK IN PERPETUAL ADOLESCENCE
If American standards of living are rapidly declining while decadence is skyrocketing, how can these younger generations even begin to think about reforming the system when they are stuck in a mental haze of perpetual adolescence? One blogger discusses this point in detail:
I am one of the oldest millennials. Something terrifying is happening to us. We are dying while we are still children….
The oldest of us are rapidly closing in on 40. We are the least married, least fecund generation in history. Really, only 30% of people under 40 are married! Big-brained thinkers blame economic conditions, largely because big-brained thinkers go through years of training to ensure they don’t see what is right in front of their faces….
My entire life, the only message I got from school, or church, college, and the media was that every decision I made, from what degree to pursue, to where I lived, to whether to marry, was with the goal of having a maximally pleasurable life. True, as someone raised in a conservative church, I was warned against fornication and substance abuse, but these were framed in terms of interfering with the good life. In the 1990s, there was no difference between Christians and non-Christians in that general outlook. Both Christian and non-Christians were equally horrified at the notion that a bright young woman might not end up “maximizing her potential,” which meant putting 40 hours a week into a cubicle. Both warned her against getting married too young, because marriage could cut short a promising career. Evangelicals, for their part, indulged in a pious fiction that the unmarried 25-year-olds in the church were all virgins, but still, everyone agreed that the proper way to treat the world is as your playground.
Any kind of social responsibility or context to our choice-making was completely absent from what our boomer elders told us. What is the social purpose of marriage? Conservative boomers couldn’t say. They appealed to “tradition” without understanding why it existed, to a Biblical literalism that was as mindless as it was quaint, in a world where their own self-indulgent concept of marriage had led to record-smashing divorce rates in the 1970s and 80s, and my generation growing up with every weekend alternating between parents. The boomer had already set up the foundation of marriage as an exercise in self-indulgence; gay marriage came as the consequence. If marriage has a social purpose, to channel and direct human sexuality in a way that promotes social cohesion and provides for a man’s progeny, then gay marriage is nonsense….
It’s sad to watch my generation collapse into nihilism and fear as our bodies begin the process of dying. The men become bugmen, living to consume, filling shelf after shelf with toys their adult brains can’t find amusement in, because they know of nothing else to do. The women are in a panic, desperately trying to hold onto their evaporating youth, trying to prove to themselves that a woman can be just as sexy and alluring at 35 as she could at 23. There’s a lot of rage at the Boomers, but it’s aimless and uninformed….
Boomers have a perpetual teenage mentality that their parents never understood, and they raised us to be the eternal teenagers they didn’t get to be. When you’re 17, the idea of just buying cool stuff, having consequence-free sex, and binge-consuming media for the rest of your life sounds fantastic. You do not understand that when you are 40, you will not want that any more. There are tons of guys my age and younger who wear Star Wars T-shirts, collect Marvel [toys], and have gotten vasectomies, and they have no idea why they’re so miserable. There are women my age who just broke up with another live-in boyfriend of three years and have no children. So here we are, and we’re falling apart.
Our parents instilled in us a totalizing selfishness that they never got to indulge, assuring us that marriage and family “would just come” when “the time is right.” As far as they were concerned, that’s just what happens. Except it “just happened” to them because of all the social capital of previous generations that was still there for them, which they razed to the ground. Now my generation is absolutely miserable because we’re reaching that age where your brain shifts modes from “consume and copulate” to “prepare your offspring for adulthood,” and we don’t understand that’s what is actually happening. Women of my generation have been told their entire lives that loneliness is a psychological disorder, that children are parasites, and that exhausting yourself for 40 hours a week at work is the meaning of life. It turns out that continuing to live as though you were a teenager does not in fact bequeath eternal youth. “Age is just a number” is the most insidious of all Boomer proverbs.
For my generation, there is not really a path back out. All the social institutions of this country have been detonated in the quest for money and self, or via the hysterical condemnation of every kind of organic social relation as “sexist” or “racist.” In the cities, nobody knows anybody. Professional associations and social clubs are borderline nonexistent. Nobody knows or cares about anyone, and nobody knows how to start. It’s so sick and twisted that my generation uses the word “community” to refer to people who buy the same consumer products, like going to see a movie means you’re part of the “Star Wars community.” Even churches have been consolidated into massive theme parks where anonymous masses of people go to be entertained; centuries-old congregations have shuttered as the people moved to the megaplex. Brain-dead “conservative” pundits can only worry our declining birth rate in terms of funding entitlements or GDP; hardly anyone will come right out and say a society with low fertility is fundamentally sick and disordered.
Millennials need to accept that the values inculcated in us were a load of horse crap. I don’t see that happening, as we’re mostly are upset that we can’t live the idyllic lives of self-indulgence the Boomers promised us. Even suggesting that divorce should be harder, marriage should be younger, and women were built to be mothers, not office drones, causes the average Millennial to dissolve into hysterical outrage. We’re the generation that thinks having a country is racist and the most important thing about space exploration is making sure hijab-clad Muslims are a part of it. So we’re probably not going to snap out of it. We’ll be buried in Batman coffins, surrounded by our Xbox games. Maybe whoever buries us will finally discard the morality of the Boomers.
The perfect image of the millennial generation.
What a nightmare.
THE CHOICE OF VALUES
We’ve established that the gulf between what most people want and what they receive from society is a wide chasm, amplified by unthinking thought patterns and generational attitudes poorly adapted to the modern world. But by what standard are we to judge these trends?
There are three main ethical theories that attempt to justify moral rules and principles: deontological ethics, virtue ethics and consequentialism. Briefly stated:
Deontological ethics focus on the rightness or wrongness of actions from a duty, rule or obligation based perspective (such as religious believers whose actions derive from the requirements of the religion without focusing on the real-world consequences, for they believe they will be judged by God in the afterlife).
Virtue ethics focus on the development of the individual’s character and understanding of the virtues that make up good character. This theory holds that a good and moral person will naturally act in the right way, and that this is the best way to determine right and wrong. Virtue ethics places importance on understanding the virtues, such as courage, justice, and wisdom, that make up a good character.
Consequentialism focuses on means-end testing to maximize the value(s) chosen by the person conducting the analysis. These values can either be hedonistic utilitarianism (trying to maximize overall wellbeing of society) or preference utilitarianism (emphasizing certain subjective values and seeking objectives which maximize those values; for example, a desire for mankind to advance technologically, or a desire for humanity to get close to Promethean perfection, or a desire to protect/preserve nature, etc). Under utilitarianism, objective truths about our material universe do exist but objective values do not exist for human beings due to our imperfect minds. The closest we can get is to listen to our intuition, the voice of morality inside ourselves about which values are most important and then seek to achieve them.
Having a discussion about the state of society without settling on the ethical method being employed results in people arguing past each other, making it harder to achieve agreement.
Because most of the provided analysis is descriptive about the nature of society as opposed to prescriptive, the hope is that this essay may appeal to those under any of these ethical theories. The method employed attempts toformulate a descriptive framework for human nature and society judged by its predictive value, derived recursively under a time-consuming trial and error process. It attempts to discern the perennial laws governing material reality and human nature until it’s explanatory power synchs up as closely with current and future events as possible.
After extensive analysis there will be some moral judgments applied, primarily based on the Golden Rule (“do unto others as you would have them do unto you”). There will also be an interpretation offered of where Western society’s core values originate that may upset those with a deontological outlook.
ONE MUST UNDERSTAND THE PRESENT IN ORDER TO UNDERSTAND THE PAST
How does one even begin to develop a predictive framework to analyze human nature and society? Carl Sagan famously said, “You have to know the past to understand the present.” It’s a nice quote and certainly true in some respects, but Sagan got the cause and effect mostly backwards. It is difficult understand the past until you understand the present; to discern in real time, by observing the people you know in your own life how they choose what to believe, who they listen to and who they ignore, and why; seeing the ways news propagates and how narratives evolve, and whether they are believed or not and why; what people are taught in school and what is left out of their education, with various strains of thought forbidden; and the various assumptions, incentives and demands people receive that impacts their work, their mating choices, their lives. As Orwell wrote in 1984, “Those who control the present control the past, and those who control the past control the future.”
How can one attempt to properly understand the past, whether and to what extent historical narratives are true, what information is being conveyed by who and for what purpose, without first developing the discernment necessary to separate fact from fiction in the present? It is exceedingly difficult. With careful observance one may learn how false stories are generated today; how these stories are pushed by authority figures to further their own power and control; how these narratives are taught to the masses via media, entertainment and schooling, who absorb these official dogmas and uncritically teach it to their own children, who then perpetuate the cycle. A judicious individual can take these lessons on propaganda and misinformation and then apply them to what we know of history.
If one focuses on the present, observes and comes to understand people’s motivations and then applies those lessons to the past, a more accurate understanding of the world can be ascertained. This is where we turn to next.
1 See Edward J. Watts, The Final Pagan Generation, 7: “The work of scholars such as Glen Elder has shown that, in the modern world, social and economic conditions experienced during childhood. People who grew up at different times and under different conditions often do not understand the same event in the same way because their life experiences have conditioned them to react to certain stimuli and ignore others. Their different worldviews are not shaped by any one dramatic day. They instead reflect the slow process of learning to live in the world in which they were born. We know intuitively that older and younger people now share neither the same concerns nor the same reactions to events, but we often forget that this generation gap existed in antiquity as well. Obscuring or ignoring generational differences, then, prevents us from seeing shape people’s behaviors for the rest of their lives, the full implication of historical events.”
2 “Without wanting to decide the question of the nature of man one may say in general that as long as man is well off or willing to put up with things, he prefers the illusion of an undisturbed calm and does not endure pessimists. The political adversaries of a clear political theory will, therefore, easily refute political phenomena and truths in the name of some autonomous discipline as amoral, uneconomical, unscientific and above all else declare this- a devilry worthy of being combated.” ― Carl Schmitt, The Concept of the Political
3 The Turner Prize exemplifies the decline. Joseph William Mallard Turner was a British landscape artist who made beautiful, romantic paintings. A prize was made in his honor, which degenerated into the worst of filth. Per Robert Conquest in Reflections on a Ravaged Century, p. 210: “It is already some years since the Tate gave the Turner Prize to half a mother cow with half a calf, cut horizontally, in a glass case. (A friend phoned the Tate to tell them that the supposed mother was in fact a heifer – and a good sign was that the unfortunate Tate people laughed heartily.). And all this defended by the typically mind-scrubbed ex-financier in charge, Lord Palumbo, on the grounds that Turner, too, was rejected in his time…Later Turner Prizes, some less “transgressive” than others, show a similar taste – the latest being smeared with elephant dung.”
4 But this trend is nothing new. “We can assert with some confidence that our own period is one of decline; that the standards of culture are lower than they were fifty years ago; and that the evidences of this decline are visible in every department of human activity. I see no reason why the decay of culture should not proceed much further, and why we may not even anticipate a period, of some duration, of which it is possible to say that it will have no culture” – T. S. Eliot, 1948
5 Most office workers only “work” a couple of hours a day, staring at their iPhone for sports and politics updates the rest of it. As an example of this, Elon Musk fired 80% of Twitter employees with no discernible loss in site quality. But the whole economy is like this and has been like this for a very long time. As Henry Adams wrote in 1910, “The whole fabric of society will go to wrack if we really lay hands of reform on our rotten institutions.” Then he added, “From top to bottom the whole system is a fraud, all of us know it, laborers and capitalists alike, and all of us are consenting parties to it.”
This section looks at the bourgeoisie, secular, materialist aspirations of the Western masses and concludes that their lifestyles have been eroded massively over the past decades.
WHAT DO MOST PEOPLE WANT IN LIFE?
The general outline is the same everywhere. Most people, regardless of background, want to get married and have a family. They want to have a fulfilling career and make a positive impact on those around them. They want to own a home in a safe area with a sense of community. They want to have health insurance. They want a legacy they can pass onto their children, both morally and financially. They want to be able to send their kids to good, safe, clean schools and afford college that will prepare them for life. They want time for their hobbies, whether it is fishing, hiking, travel, reading, sports, etc. They would love to have the option of a one-working-spouse household. They want to feel like they are part of a community of like-minded people, with similar backgrounds and similar beliefs, and that their input matters and they are appreciated. They want to feel and be healthy. They want to be able to retire one day. They want to have trustworthy experts who can answer questions and offer guidance in their lives. They want to feel like their interests are being properly represented in government. They want some connection to God.
Most people especially want to feel that they are improving their situation in life, that their status – i.e. their standing in their communities, the amount of money they make and the impact they have – increases over time with the efforts they put in. To increase one’s status makes one happy; it increases one’s mating prospects and treatment by society while to decrease one’s status makes one feel depressed, that they are going in a bad direction. People inevitably take for granted their current status; they compare themselves to people on the “next rung up”, not those on rungs below them or far above them. See the Dunbar number where humans naturally maintain a maximum of ~150 relationships.
As a corollary, most people want to avoid ideas and influences which society perceives as low status. Being a recipient of “wrong-think” increases the odds of losing social status – of alienating friends and acquaintances, of risking one’s job and standing in their community – which could cause that person a great deal of emotional and psychological pain.
Because status is relative, there is a never-ending, zero-sum struggle against others regardless of society’s overall quality of life – there will always be a similar mate pool and social hierarchy to compete for. This is Nietzsche’s will to power, where in Beyond Good and Evilhe states, “Even the body within which individuals treat each other as equals … will have to be an incarnate will to power, it will strive to grow, spread, seize, become predominant – not from any morality or immorality but because it is living and because life simply is will to power.”
COMPARED TO WHAT PEOPLE WANT, WHAT DO WE ACTUALLY HAVE IN SOCIETY TODAY?
Today sixty percent of Americans live paycheck-to-paycheck with significant amounts of credit card, student loan debt, and mortgage loans and car loans (if they’re lucky enough to own a house and car). According to Social Security statistics, in 2018 33% of Americans earned less than $20,000 per year, 46% less than $30,000, 58% less than $40,000 and 67% less than $50,000. Two working parent households are required in order to try to pay basic expenses. Per a UBS report 44% of consumers don’t make enough to cover their bills.
On the social front everyone is atomized and social networks are shattered. People have few close friendships. Parents and grown children live halfway across the country from each other and see each other a couple times a year. There are no communities; except for a couple of religious outliers (religious Muslims, religious Jews and the Amish; Catholic fertility rates are basically at replacement and declining and Mormon fertility rates are also declining) all others have are gutted. The right of free association has been banned in America for decades; see Supreme Court cases Shelley v. Kraemer (1948), Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. United States (1964), Katzenbach v. McClung (1964), and Daniel v. Paul (1969). The southern border is wide open and many millions of illegals stream into the country each year with the approval of the US government, driving down wages, dividing communities and providing votes from a swelling underclass for the establishment.
Meanwhile the US military industrial complex gets involved in endless wars for the purpose of fleecing the public with obscenely overpriced military hardware and a bottomless hole of graft, while projecting coercive hard power with ~800 military bases in over 70 countries. It is unclear who is in charge; it’s not the president (Joe Biden has dementia and regularly flubs reading simple cue cards, and Trump battled the entrenched bureaucracy for four years to no effect) and it’s not any one specific governmental agency, so who is it? Many foreign governments view the United States as “agreement incapable” because there is no one clearly in charge, and even recently signed agreements are tossed out and ignored.
The Pentagon has never passed an audit.
Whatever the case may be, the officials pushing these policies have stripped American citizens of their rights, dignities, and quality of life while enriching and empowering a small number of corporations and individuals who financially benefit. The combined effects of these policies is akin to a kind of Hell on Earth. These officials then export these policies worldwide to force a handover of every country’s sovereignty to globalized elitesfor exploitation. They do this by riling up a country’s underclass (whether it be women, ethnic minorities, or homosexuals) via deceptively “do-gooder” NGOs or otherwise overthrowing their rulers directly. This process is defined as “globohomo”, i.e. the combination of globalization plus homogenization, or alternatively the combination of globalization plus homosexuality.
A mural of Afghan “pro-democracy” protesters using an image of George Floyd in U.S. occupied Afghanistan; an example of global homogenization of American culture.U.S. military bases enforce globohomo hard power. It’s commitment to global hegemony was reaffirmed in a 2023 Senate vote 86-9 to maintain 2001’s “War on Terror” authorization.
All of these issues are consistently getting worse. Is there no limit to this depravity and degradation? The gulf between what people want and what they get from government has not been greater in living memory.
HOW DO PEOPLE RESPOND WHEN YOU TALK TO THEM ABOUT THESE ISSUES?
Based on a lot of anecdotal observation if you bring up these issues with most people and solicit feedback, it appear they become hesitant, unsure of how to respond. They seem to search in their heads for canned media lines they can repeat but come up short. Their ability to independently ponder, assess and organize political, social, and economic trends affecting their lives seems to be weak. Food prices are skyrocketing? Housing prices are increasing? Education and health care are unaffordable? How can one explain these things? Blame a nebulous “inflation”? Blame “Russia and Putin”? Blame “right wing religious fanatics” for opposing… abortion? Blame the “economic damage” caused by COVID, or by COVID vaccine deniers? Blame congressional “dysfunction”? Blame “political divisiveness”? Blame Trump’s “unpresidential demeanor” and “racism” (“Orange Man Bad”)? None of these explanations feel to normal people to be quite satisfactory, so it seems that they try not to think about it, are silent and either try to busy themselves with their personal lives, distractions like sports/television, or otherwise numb themselves with drugs and alcohol. Cast adrift in a stormy sea; waiting for a sign of calm to magically return.
To independently think about societal trends and link them requires a certain skillset: interest in politics, the ability to make inferences between seemingly disconnected issues; the ability to form hypothesis about common causes; the willingness to observe events and see if results fit into the hypothesis and if not to adjust one’s worldview until they become more predictable; the ability to reason independently of authority figures; the willingness to be comfortable with doubt/uncertainty for long periods of time; the ability to resist group pressure. It requires basically being autistic, anti-authoritative and politics focused, something most people are not.
In the next section we will look at how people think, how perspectives differ on a generational level, and the ethical theories that will be used for the rest of this essay.
1 “Political correctness is communist propaganda writ small. In my study of communist societies, I came to the conclusion that the purpose of communist propaganda was not to persuade or convince, not to inform, but to humiliate; and therefore, the less it corresponded to reality the better. When people are forced to remain silent when they are being told the most obvious lies, or even worse when they are forced to repeat the lies themselves, they lose once and for all their sense of probity. To assent to obvious lies is in some small way to become evil oneself. One’s standing to resist anything is thus eroded, and even destroyed. A society of emasculated liars is easy to control. I think if you examine political correctness, it has the same effect and is intended to.” – Theodore Dalrymple
