Continued from Part 1…

This part asks: If this is some sort of grand conspiracy why don’t more people know about it? How do the central bank owners keep the public from discovering their strategies? How do they coordinate, and how do they prevent leaks?

HOW DO THE CENTRAL BANK OWNERS KEEP THE PUBLIC FROM DISCOVERING THEIR STRATEGIES?

As a preamble, one of the core central bank owner policies is their deliberations and decisions must not be covered by the mainstream media or scholarly publications in order to minimize public exposure.  Scholarship from dissidents is comparatively poorly sourced versus establishment publications because the funding and status incentives for research, publication, and publicity are provided to establishment employees and deliberately starved from dissidents.  As the central bank owner’s primary goal is the centralization of wealth and power through neoliberal feudalistic debt practices, the following discussion regarding their tactics and strategies are based on

1. the words and actions of their step-down intermediaries in the public eye such as the World Economic Forum, the Council on Foreign Relations, the Bilderberg Group and Trilateral Commission which are used to coordinate policy decisions from the top;
2. public comments from current and former intermediaries who had access to the perspectives of those close to the power center;
3. analysis of the incentive structures for these elites; and
4. inferences drawn from the information provided in this essay, especially the close coordination between the world central banks, the media, and top industry figures to push the same agenda.  

So how do the Rothschilds and their allies, including the Warburgs, Rockefellers and Schiffs1 keep the public from discovering their strategies?  If enough people figure it out, they could have masses of people with pitchforks at their gates. 

Early on they purchased as much of the media as they could.  For instance, Paul Julius Reuters (i.e. the founder of Reuters news agency) was working directly with the Rothschilds as early as 1850.  George Wheeler tells us: “Around [the early 1900s] the Morgan firm was choosing the top executives for the old and troubled Harper & Brothers publishing house…. In the newspaper field, Pierpont Morgan [who worked for the Rothschilds; discussed below] at this period was in effective control of the New York Sun,… the Boston News Bureau, Barron’s magazine, and the Wall Street Journal.”2  On February 9, 1917, Representative Callaway from Texas took the floor of Congress and provided further insight. He said:

“In March, 1915, the J.P. Morgan interests, the steel, shipbuilding, and powder interests, and their subsidiary organizations, got together 12 men high up in the newspaper world and employed them to select the most influential newspapers in the United States and sufficient number of them to control generally the policy of the daily press…. They found it was only necessary to purchase the control of 25 of the greatest papers…. An agreement was reached; the policy of the papers was bought, to be paid for by the month; an editor was furnished for each paper to properly supervise and edit information regarding the questions of preparedness, militarism, financial policies, and other things of national and international nature considered vital to the interests of the purchasers.”

Charles S. Mellen of the New Haven Railroad testified before Congress that his Morgan-owned railroad had over one-thousand New England newspaper editors on the payroll, costing about $400,000 annually. The railroad also held almost a half-million dollars in bonds issued by the Boston Herald. This web of control was multiplied by hundreds of additional companies which also were controlled by Morgan and other investment-banking houses. 

Morgan’s control over the media at that time is well documented, but he was by no means alone in this. During the 1912 hearings held by the Senate Privileges and Elections Committee it was revealed that Representative Joseph Sibley was acting as a funnel for Rockefeller money to various cooperative congressmen. A letter was introduced to the Committee written by Sibley in 1905 to John D. Archbold, the man at Rockefeller’s Standard Oil Company who provided the funds. In that letter Sibley said: “An efficient literary bureau is needed, not for a day or a crisis but a permanent healthy control of the Associated Press and kindred avenues. It will cost money but will be the cheapest in the end.”  The Rockefeller’s leveraged their vast volume of petroleum and allied advertising to insure the fealty of a newspaper, and when advertising alone was not sufficient to insure loyalty the Rockefeller companies made direct payments in return for a friendly editorial attitude.

Today vast industry consolidation has made control easier to achieve than ever before.  Per the Swiss Policy Research analysis, most western media coverage is provided by one of only three news agencies: the Associated Press, Reuters and Agence France-Presse. Six companies control 90% of U.S. media due to the Telecommunications Act of 1996, and the top shareholders of Time Warner, Comcast, Disney, News Corp are Vanguard, Blackrock and Statestreet, all establishment entities.  This way the media will never report on central bank owner activities except as a fringe, low status conspiracy theory. 

David Rockefeller states in his memoirs:

“We are grateful to the Washington Post, the New York Times, Time Magazine and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost 40 years……It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subjected to the lights of publicity during those years. But, the world is more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government. The supernational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national autodetermination practiced in past centuries.”  

After taking control over media, these central bank owners bribed and installed unthinking marionettes as government officials who were willing to push their policies without question. One can see this with multiple politicians like Justin Trudeau, Boris Johnson, Joe Biden, Emmanuel Macron, Sanna Marin, Prince Charles, etc, who are all dull and unthinking puppets. 

The heads of the central banks of the world are also marionettes (despite nice perks like being able to sell their personal stock holdings right at the peak of the market).  Per Professor Quigley,

“It must not be felt that these heads of the world’s chief central banks were themselves substantive powers in world finance.  They were not.  Rather, they were the technicians and agents of the dominant investment bankers to their own countries, who had raised them up and were perfectly capable of throwing them down.  The substantial financial powers of the world were in the hands of these investment bankers (also called ‘international’ or ‘merchants’ bankers) who remained largely behind the scenes in their own unincorporated private banks.  These formed a system of international cooperation and national dominance which was more private, more powerful, and more secret than that of their agents in the central banks…”3 

Jerome Powell is nothing but an actor serving as a figurehead for real power.

The central bank owners also bribed educational institutions to focus on racial conflict and ignore class conflict.  In 2018, higher education institutions received a total of $149 billion from the federal government, representing 3.6% of federal spending. This money flowed into colleges and universities through three main vehicles: federal student aid, grants, and contracts, and these come with significant strings attached for all but the handful of schools that reject the aid.  

As the plundering of a nation’s wealth gets worse and more obvious, the central bank owners focused their media organs, who were already focused on bread and circus narratives and entertainment/celebrity stories, on wars and racial grievances to distract from class grievances: classic divide et impera.  If whites and the blacks hate each other, gays and straights hate each other, and women and men hate each other, all the better because it will drain their precious energies from focusing on the ultimate cause of all of their grief and misery.  

They also focused on weakening the population as much as possible so they can never rebel even if people figure out what is going on.  Poison the water and food supplies to make the masses fat and low testosterone and give them plenty of Netflix and porn.4 Encourage abortion, casual sex and contraceptive use.  Decrease the role of religion. Do everything to break up nuclear families so people are too emotionally shattered to figure anything out.  Aaron Russo, producer of the film Trading Places and friends with a prominent Rockefeller, said the Rockefeller bragged about this strategy:

Single women make excellent foot soldiers for the establishment, repeating whatever propaganda is distributed by the media organs.  Flood each troublesome country (i.e. the white countries which are too independently minded) with non-whites who will vote for policies and politicians the central bank owners want (as blacks vote 90% for larger government/debt and Hispanics vote 58%+ that way as well) so long as the media keeps up the racial grievance angle and the immigrants are thrown some public welfare funds.  Isn’t it odd that the same strategies that central bank thieves would theoretically optimally use to demoralize, weaken and distract a host population from their theft is what the world has been experiencing for decades?

Essentially, the central bank owner strategy has been to turn the country into an atomized, impoverished, multi-ethnic, low IQ, highly estrogenated, obese and porn’d out mess, constantly arguing about race, gender, and sexual orientation instead of class.  Their strategy has so far worked wonderfully.

---

HOW IS COORDINATION ACHIEVED?

How do the central bank owners coordinate all of their lackeys worldwide — the media orgs, the bribed and extorted politicians, the corrupt business leaders, the military officials, the NGOs, the major foundations and the underling everyday bankers pushing their policies?  

Coordination based on formal meetings: The Bildberberg Group, the Council on Foreign Relations, the Trilateral Commission5, the Round Table, and the World Economic Forum are used to promulgate and coordinate policies promoting the central bank owner goals.  These groups hold both regular and special meetings as well as war-game various future meta-narrative contingencies with cutting edge AI-technology as an assist.  They come up with new public-facing front groups every generation when the public becomes too aware of the previous one’s functions or, alternatively, in order to let the leaders of the next generation make their own imprints.  The World Economic Forum is the one currently in the spotlight, but at some point it will exeunt stage left and the next one will enter the picture.

To be clear, none of these organizations have power in and of themselves; they are merely representatives of and coordination for the policies ordered by the powers at the level above them.  Eustace Mullins states that, taking the CFR as an example,

“The members of the Council on Foreign Relations have never originated a single item of policy for the U.S. Government.  They merely transmit orders to our government officials from the RIIA (the Royal Institute of International Affairs, the parent organization of the CFR) and the House of Rothschild in London.  It is true that the CFR comprises a ruling elite in the United States, but they are mere colonial governors absolutely responsible to their overseers in the World Order…Not only do they transmit orders to the White House, the Cabinet, the Federal Reserve Board of Governors, and other government institutions, but they also maintain absolute control of the foundations, whose duty it is to formulate policy or organize it in acceptable form to be transmitted to the government.  Shoup’s Imperial Brain Trust, 1969, notes that the CFR includes 22 trustees of Brookings Institution, 29 at Rand, 14 at Hudson, 33 at Middle East Institute, 14 of 19 trustees of the Rockefeller Foundation, 10 of 17 at Carnegie, 7 of 16 at Ford Foundations, 6 of 11 at Rockefeller Bros. Fund.  This proves that the CFR runs these major foundations.  In the academic world, CFR members number 58 on the faculty at Princeton, 69 at the University of Chicago, and 30 at Harvard.  Of the banks which are principal owners of Federal Reserve Bank stock, directors of Chase include 7 CFR members, 8 at J.P. Morgan, 7 at 1st Natl. City (now Citibank), 6 at Chemical Bank, and 6 at Brown Bros. Harriman.”6

Coordination based on shared education and upbringing: The central bank owners use useful idiots wherever possible, i.e. those who graduated from elite universities who have accepted the racial and sex grievance, global warming, gender fluidity and other approved dogmas, and place them in media and un-fireable civil service jobs.  These people will naturally coordinate based on a shared upbringing and outlook shaped from education, propaganda consumption and career incentives.  The more these types can be used to advance the overarching agenda without knowing what the longer-term goals are, the better; their worldview is limited enough that they get caught up in each meta-narrative being pushed, unknowing pawns in a greater game.  For example, the journalists involved in JournoList, CabalList, and whatever current incarnation it now is know that they are manipulative narrative disseminators meant to follow the establishment party line, but except for a few at the top most are satisfied with virtue signaling and don’t understand the bigger picture.

Coordination based on tax exempt foundations: The central bank owners control the United States through tax exempt foundations which create and implement government policy through staff members in key positions in the executive, legislative and judiciary branches; they create educational policy through their staff members in key positions in the educational system; and religious policy through their staff members in key positions in leading religious denominations.  Foundation is really in inapt term; they are criminal syndicates masquerading as philanthropic enterprises while they push world slavery on nations and people.  In an attempt to investigate tax exempt foundations, Norman Dodd, Director of Research for the Reece Committee, was asked by Congressman B. Carroll Reece in January 1954:

“Do you accept the premise that the United States is the victim of a conspiracy?” “Yes,” said Dodd.  “Then,” said Congressman Reece, “you must conduct the investigation on that basis.” B.E. Hutchinson, chairman of Chrysler Corp., although approving the goals of the investigation, warned Dodd, “If you proceed as you have outlined, you will be killed.”  

Dodd stated, “The foundation world is a coordinated, well-directed system, the purpose of which is to ensure that the wealth of our country shall be used to divorce it from the ideas which brought it into being.  The foundations are the biggest single influence in collectivism.”7

The foundations all use language counter to their actual goals in their public facing statements and charters.  They use such phrases as “the wellbeing of mankind” “the elimination of poverty”, the “elimination of disease”, “the promotion of world brotherhood”.  Compassion, caring, charity, these are the buzzwords of the foundations.  But their true intentions are to promote the enslavement of mankind at the orders of the central bank owners. 

According to Mullins,

“Examining the dominant members of the Rockefeller Foundation, we find men whose lives have been devoted to war and revolution, chemical warfare, international intrigue, and mass murder; we find the chairman of the board was John Foster Dulles, who inherited the title of “most dangerous man in America” from his mentor, William Nelson Cromwell; Dulles obtained crucial financing for Hitler, and sent the key telegram involving the U.S. in the Korean War, while his brother, a director of Schroder Bank, set up the CIA; we find Karl T. Compton, who gave the word to drop the atomic bomb on Japan in 1945 and unleashed the horror of atomic warfare on the entire world (he was also trustee of Ford Foundation); we find Lord Franks, key member of the Rhodes Trust, the Schroder Bank; what we do not find is anyone who has ever engaged in any charitable endeavour.  The Rockefeller directors of what is properly the “Rockefeller Syndicate” interlock with the nation’s major banks, corporations, universities and government departments.  This is the network which illegally rules America, which, by its tax evasion, places a tremendous tax burden on all American taxpayers, and which makes our elections a farce because these men determine all policies which are implemented in the United States…through the Sealantic Fund, the Rockefeller’s control American schools of theology and the religious institutions of America; through the Rockefeller Brothers Fund they control government policy.…The list of trustees of the Rockefeller Foundation shows it continues to be the ruling hierarchy of the U.S.”8

Norman Dodd stated that while investigating tax exempt foundations, he interviewed H. Rowan Gaither, president of the Ford Foundation.  Gaither explained to Dodd, “Most of us here were, at one time or another, active in either the OSS or the State Dept., or the European Economic Administration.  During those times, and without exception, we operated under directives issued by the White House, the substance of which was to the effect that we should make every effort to alter life in the U.S. as to make possible a comfortable merger with the Soviet Union.”  The Ford Foundation spends vast amounts of money to promote racial agitation and possibly civil war in America, completely polarizing the races, and has backed many revolutionary groups in the U.S. engaged in riots and other criminal offenses.9  

Think tanks such as Rand are funded by the foundations for military and espionage work. Morgan and Rockefeller directors are heavily represented on the board of The Brookings Institution, whose budget is funded by the major foundations – Ford, Rockefeller, Carnegie, Milbank Memorial Fund.  The Brookings Institution, among its other tasks, originated the monetary programs implemented by the Federal Reserve System to destroy American farmers (which is ongoing10), who are especially vulnerable to Fed policies because of their need for significant capital for their operations.  Just as in the Soviet Union in the early 1930s when Stalin ordered the kulaks to give up their small plots of land to live and work on the collective farms, the American small farmer faces the same type of extermination, being forced to give up his small plot of land to become a hired hand for the big agricultural Soviets or trusts.11 

The Tavistock Institute, heavily funded by the foundations to the tune of billions per year, developed the mass brain-washing techniques which have been widely used on the American public by modifying individual behavior through topical psychology.  Tavistock’s pioneer work in behavioral science along Freudian lines of “controlling” humans established it as the world center of foundation ideology.  Its network extends from the University of Sussex to the U.S. through the Stanford Research Institute, Esalen, MIT, Hudson Institute, Heritage Foundation, Center of Strategic and International Studies at Georgetown, where State Dept. personnel are trained, US Air Force Intelligence, and the Rand and Mitre corporations, along with the personnel of the foundations.  Tavistock originated the mass civilian bombing raids carried out by Roosevelt and Churchill12 against Germany as a clinical experiment in mass terror, keeping records of the results as they watched the “guinea pigs” reacting under “controlled laboratory conditions.”  They were also responsible for the experiment in compulsory racial integration, the use of drug experiments (see MK Ultra), and placing German foster children with pedophiles. The goal of their research is to break down the psychological strength of the individual and render him helpless to oppose Rothschild central bank owners.  Any technique which helps to break down the family unit and family inculcated principles of religion, honor, patriotism and sexual behavior is used by Tavistock as weapons of crowd control.  Ten major institutions are under Tavistock’s direct control with 400 subsidiaries and 3,000 other groups and think tanks which originate many types of programs to increase establishment control.13  

Tavistock also conducted a longterm study on gender transitioning teenagers with extensive brainwashing beginning in 2011, years before transsexualism was unleashed onto the public.

According to an article by William H. What in Fortune magazine in November 1955, the foundations only grant funds to “big team” projects in institutions which are under their control.  Whyte says 76% of all foundation grants are made to these “team” projects”, citing huge sums given to the Russian Research Center at Harvard by Carnegie, and Ford grants to the Center for Advanced Study in Behavioral Sciences at Stanford.  Foundation grants are rarely given to individuals and most can be traced to some underlying propaganda drive.14

---

HOW ARE LEAKS PREVENTED?

How do the central bank owners prevent traitors in their midst?  While the core of the conspiracy is the Rothschilds and a small, mostly Jewish ruling aristocracy of England and Europe, most of whom have owned stock in the Bank of England since 1700, along with a couple others such as the Rockefellers, based on circumstantial evidence there are various levels or rings of access and knowledge: the inner sanctum where much of the overarching long-term goals and strategies are revealed; the middle sanctum, where an individual can have a say on strategy but must obey orders; and the outer sanctum, loyalists without knowledge of the overarching plan but who serve as loyal foot soldiers and receive preferment in society.

The core only let those people into the inner sanctum and reveal this grand strategy to those who are wholly dependent on its favors; in other words, if they swear allegiance to their anti-humanistic goals and the central bank owners have enormous leverage on them.  That way an inner sanctum member can never leave and if they try they would be destroyed or murdered.  “The few who understand the system, will either be so interested in it’s profits or so dependent on it’s favors, that there will be no opposition from that class,” said Treasury Secretary John Sherman.  There have been swirling rumors that to reach the inner sanctum one must be a pedophile and let others in the group have evidence of one’s misdeeds as blackmail (see the Marc Dutroux case as an example); this isn’t farfetched as it is exactly what Jeffrey Epstein was caught doing – note his safe was cleared out by the FBI post-arrest, it “went missing” and the issue dropped.  And Epstein was intimately connected to the Rothschilds.15 Additionally their lackeys in the security agencies are infested with pedophiles which is also public knowledge. Not every family member of the core families are involved in the overarching plans – they have quite large extended families at this point and occasionally one of their own even falls for the propaganda fed to the masses.

An example of an inner sanctum member — but not a core central bank owner — was J.P. Morgan.  Morgan became known as the most powerful banker in the world although his principal role was to secretly carry out commissions for the House of Rothschild.  He carried out his assignments covertly, cultivating a sleigh-of-hand reputation as anti-semitic to keep public distance from his masters.  Morgan was a direct descendant of Alexander Hamilton, who had chartered America’s first central bank at the behest of Rothschild interests.  The Morgan-Rothschild connection explains the otherwise incomprehensible mystery of why Morgan left such a modest fortune at his death in 1913, a mere $11 million after his debts were paid.  Although the present members of the Morgan family seem financially secure, none of them is counted among the “big rich.”16 George Soros is another well known inner sanctum member as is Bill Gates.

Only let those into the middle sanctum (i.e. those who have a say on mid-term strategy but are not let in on long-term goals) those who are willing to tow the party line publicly without exception.  An illuminating Larry Summers and Elizabeth Warren anecdote illustrates the role of the middle sanctum, per Warren’s autobiography, “involv[ing] a dinner that Ms. Warren had with Lawrence H. Summers, then the director of the National Economic Council and a top economic adviser to President Obama. The dinner took place in the spring of 2009, after the oversight panel had produced its third report, concluding that American taxpayers were at far greater risk to losses in TARP than the Treasury had let on. After dinner, “Larry leaned back in his chair and offered me some advice,” Ms. Warren writes. “I had a choice. I could be an insider or I could be an outsider. Outsiders can say whatever they want. But people on the inside don’t listen to them. Insiders, however, get lots of access and a chance to push their ideas. People — powerful people — listen to what they have to say. But insiders also understand one unbreakable rule: They don’t criticize other insiders. I had been warned,” Ms. Warren concluded. Warren shut her mouth and followed orders after that. 

Another example of a middle sanctum member is well-known Soviet double agent Henry Kissinger. Russian Ambassador Dobrynin casually referred to Kissinger, saying “I am the laughing third man, sitting still.  Kissinger is negotiating for us too”, and later Brezhnev, dictator of Russia, stated he didn’t take a role in Middle East negotiations because “We don’t need representation.  Kissinger is our man in the Middle East”.

For the outer sanctum, i.e. loyal foot soldiers who carry out the plans and receive preferment but are not let in on mid- or long-term plans of their masters, the central bank owners try to limit access to relevant media, government and industry jobs to racial allies, especially left-wing Jews who won’t pose an ideological danger to the overall plan17 or otherwise minorities with racial, sexual or sexual orientation grievances.  These people receive limited notifications and instructions from higher up before the public is informed but they have no voice in matters; globohomo enforces rigid task compartmentalization18 to minimize the number of people who understand what is occurring within an organization to prevent damaging leaks like Edward Snowden or Seth Rich.

How do the central bank owners silence any domestic enemies?  First, they establish a rigid Overton window, enforced by controlled media and corporate HR departments, over which speech is allowed and which is career and reputation ban-worthy (ban-worthy speech is any speech that threatens the goals or legitimacy of the establishment and is referred to as being “political incorrect”).  They discourage and ruin any governmental whistleblowers and make examples of other wrong-thinkers while over time shrinking the allowed discourse as the agenda advances.  The discourse allowed in America today is far more narrow and rigid than a generation ago.  They also brainwash the youth via education and media propaganda so the next generation has no idea how to think about things clearly. As Orwell argued in 1984, limiting discourse has a significant effect on limiting wrong-think in general.

Once satisfied that external enemies to their objectives have been destroyed (such as Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan, both of whom had publicly owned central banks; see Appendix A for details) and internal enemies have been sufficiently silenced, the central bank owners took the next step toward their goals of wealth consolidation: they ordered the U.S. off the gold standard, enabling printing of fiat currency at an exponentially increasing rate thereby spiking inflation, widening the wealth gap, enabling corporate consolidation into megacorps (including too-big-to-fail megabanks) and decreasing the wealth of the masses.  

While the Rothschilds had already been manipulating the price of gold while on the gold standard, where they publicly fixed on a daily basis19, this new approach would generate astronomically greater profits.  

Is it any wonder why the disconnect between the general population’s productivity and compensation started growing in 1971, the year of the end of Bretton Woods Agreement which had limited monetary printing to physical gold holdings?   The end of Bretton Woods allowed the central bank owners to start printing infinite fiat currency, handing much of it to themselves and their allies and greatly increase the inequality in America:

For a whole series of data showing the shocking decline in American quality of life starting in 1971, see: https://wtfhappenedin1971.com/

According to a RAND study, the aggregate income for the population below the 90th percentile between 1975-2018 would have been $2.5 trillion (67%) higher in 2018 had income growth since 1975 remained as equitable as it was in the first two post-war decades.  From 1975-2018, the difference between the aggregate taxable income for those below the 90th percentile and the equitable growth counterfactual totals $47 trillion. 

Following this staggering theft, the central bank owners continued their strategy of undermining and destroying any countries worldwide that had their own independent central banks or that tried to go back to the gold standard.  Qaddafi in Libya and Saddam in Iraq are two recent examples. Libya had the only central bank in the world run on genuine state banking lines which exhibited the classic symptoms of full employment, zero inflation and excellent worker’s rights, and in 2010 Qaddafi announced the creation of the gold dinar as a replacement for the settlement of all foreign transactions in a proposed region of over 200 million people; this is why he was murdered. In November 2000 Saddam Hussein decreed that all oil payments would be made in euros as he did not wish to deal “in the currency of the enemy”, which is also what cost him his life.  See Appendix A for further details.

To recap, the central bank owners bribed, threatened or coerced any individual or nation that could potentially weaken their position with respect to worldwide control and domination, and  they smeared or destroyed any that resisted.  They stole the wealth of the masses via endless monetary printing, inflation and taxes while confusing, weakening and dispiriting them under a massive propaganda deluge of bread-and-circus distractions, poor education designed to turn students into unthinking automatons and race baiting agitation, along with physically weakening them with various chemicals and poisons in their food, water and air, until they became too weak to resist additional destructive measures. 

See photos from the 1972 Rothschild Illuminati Ball here.

*****

What is the goal for this four hundred year banking dynasty?  They have seemingly all the power and money in the world, but it’s not enough.  They want more, they want everything.  How do they get everything? This is where we turn to next in Part 3.

---

1“Seven men in Wall Street now control a great share of the fundamental industry and resources of the United States. Three of the seven men, J.P. Morgan, James J. Hill, and George F. Baker, head of the First National Bank of New York belong to the so-called Morgan group; four of them, John D. and William Rockefeller, James Stillman, head of the National City Bank, and Jacob H. Schiff of the private banking firm of Kuhn, Loeb Company, to the so-called Standard Oil City Bank group… the central machine of capital extends its control over the United States… The process is not only economically logical; it is now practically automatic.”  John Moody, The Seven Men, McClure’s Magazine, August, 1911, p. 418., from here.

2 John Swinton, editor of the New York Sun, had this to say about the profession of journalism in 1883: “There is no such a thing in America as an independent press, unless it is out in country towns. You are all slaves. You know it, and I know it. There is not one of you who dares to express an honest opinion. If you expressed it, you would know beforehand that it would never appear in print. I am paid $150 for keeping honest opinions out of the paper I am connected with. Others of you are paid similar salaries for doing similar things. If I should allow honest opinions to be printed in one issue of my paper, I would be like Othello before twenty-four hours: my occupation would be gone. The man who would be so foolish as to write honest opinions would be out on the street hunting for another job. The business of a New York journalist is to distort the truth, to lie outright, to pervert, to villify, to fawn at the feet of Mammon, and to sell his country and his race for his daily bread, or for what is about the same — his salary. You know this, and I know it; and what foolery to be toasting an “Independent Press”! We are the tools and vassals of rich men behind the scenes. We are jumping-jacks. They pull the string and we dance. Our time, our talents, our lives, our possibilities, are all the property of other men. We are intellectual prostitutes.”

3 Quigley, Tragedy and Hope, p. 326-7.

4 Streaming video porn is incredibly expensive to provide; why else would it be offered free of charge, in most cases without any ads at all?

5 A David Rockefeller invention. Senator Barry Goldwater termed the Commission “David Rockefeller’s newest international cabal” and said, “It is intended to be the vehicle for multinational consolidation of the commercial and banking interests by seizing control of the political government of the United States.”  Perloff, 155.

6 Mullins, 71-72.

7 Mullins, 212-213.

8 Mullins, 232.

9 Mullins, 280-281.

10 Per Gore Vidal in Perpetual War for Perpetual Peace, p. 61: “But Dyer has unearthed a genuine ongoing conspiracy that affects everyone in the United States.  Currently, a handful of agro-conglomerates are working to drive America’s remaining small farmers off their land by systematically paying them less for their produce than it costs to grow, thus forcing them to get loans from the conglomerates’ banks, assume mortgages, and undergo foreclosures and the sale of land to corporate-controlled agribusiness.  But is this really a conspiracy or just the Darwinian workings of an efficient marketplace?  There is, for once, a smoking gun in the form of a blueprint describing how best to rid the nation of small farmers.  Dyer writes: “In 1962, the Committee for Economic Development comprised approximately seventy-five of the nation’s most powerful corporate executives.  They represented not only the food industry but also oil and gas, insurance, investment and retail industries.  Almost all groups that stood to gain from consolidation were represented on that committee.  Their report [An Adaptive Program for Agriculture] outlined a plan to eliminate farmers and farms.  It was detailed and well thought out.”  Simultaneously, “as early as 1964, congressmen were being told by industry giants like Pillsbury, Swift, General Foods, and Campbell Soup that the biggest problem in agriculture was too many farmers.”….So a conspiracy has been set in motion to replace the Jeffersonian ideal of a nation whose backbone was the independent farm family with a series of agribusiness monopolies where, Dyer writes,”these companies controlled 96% of U.S. wheat exports, 95% of U.S. corn exports,” and so on through the busy aisles of [grocery stores].  Has consolidation been good for the customers? By and large, no.”

11 Mullins, 290-291.

12 Churchill was utterly corrupt and had to be regularly bailed out by his benefactors, including a massive 1 million pound bailout in 1940.

13 Mullins, 285-288.

14 Mullins, 249.

15 “Mrs. de Rothschild was named chairwoman of the bank in January 2015. That October, she and Epstein negotiated a $25 million contract for Epstein’s Southern Trust Co. to provide “risk analysis and the application and use of certain algorithms” for the bank, according to a proposal reviewed by the Journal. In 2019, after Epstein was arrested, the bank said that Mrs. de Rothschild never met with Epstein and it had no business links with him. The bank acknowledged to the Journal that its earlier statement wasn’t accurate.” Also see this Substack post “What does a Rothschild, a Goldman Sachs top lawyer and a CIA agent have in common?”

16 Mullins, 34-36.

17 According to the Hudson Institute, compared to other ethnic groups this is highly irregular: “All the other ethno-religious groups that, like the Jews, formed part of the coalition forged by Franklin Delano Roosevelt in the 1930s have followed the rule that increasing prosperity generally leads to an increasing identification with the Republican party.  But not the Jews.  As the late Jewish scholar Milton Himmelfarb said in the 1950s: ‘Jews earn like like Episcopalians (then the most prosperous minority group in America) and vote like Puerto Ricans (who were then the poorest).’ Jews also remain far more heavily committed to the liberal agenda than any of their old ethno-religious New Deal partners.  As the eminent sociologist Nathan Glazer has argued, ‘whatever the promptings of their economic interests,’ Jews have consistently supported ‘increased government spending, expanded benefits to the poor and lower classes, greater regulations on business, and the power of organized labor.’…on abortion, gay rights, school prayer, gun control and assisted suicide, the survey data shows that Jews are by far the most liberal of any group in America.”

18 Per Sundance: “It was during this process when I discovered how information is purposefully put into containment silos; essentially a formal process to block the flow of information between agencies and between the original branches. While frustrating to discover, the silo effect was important because understanding the communication between networks leads to our ability to reconcile conflict between what we perceive and what’s actually taking place.” 

19 Per the News Chronicle of December 12, 1938, which reads “The story of the gold-fixing has often been told.  How every weekday at 11 a.m. the representatives of five firms of bullion brokers and one firm of refiners meet at the office of Messrs. Rothschild (except on Saturday) and there fix the sterling price of gold….A price of gold is first suggested, probably by the representative of Messrs. Rothschild, who also acts for the Bank of England and the Exchange Equalization Account.” From Mullins, 30.

Continued from Dissonance to Informational Control in Technological Society: Part 6…

This part argues that a handful of families own the central banks of the world, controlling society via unlimited fiat printing and a sophisticated propaganda and security apparatus.  It then offers a historical overview for how this system took over the world.

WHAT DO THE POWERS THAT CONTROL GOVERNMENTS WANT?

“History, as seen by a Monetary Economist, is a continuous struggle between producers and non-producers, and those who try to make a living by inserting a false system of book-keeping between the producers and their just recompense…The usurers act through fraud, falsification, superstitions, habits and, when these methods do not function, they let loose a war. Everything hinges on monopoly, and the particular monopolies hinge around the great illusionistic monetary monopoly.” – Ezra Pound, An Introduction to the Economic Nature of the United States (1950)

“For more than a century ideological extremists at either end of the political spectrum have seized upon well-publicized incidents such as my encounter with Castro to attack the Rockefeller family for the inordinate influence they claim we wield over American political and economic institutions. Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as ‘internationalists’ and of conspiring with others around the world to build an integrated global political and economic structure – One World, if you will. If that’s the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it.”1  – David Rockefeller, Memoirs, page 405.

Cutting to the heart of the matter, the objective of the powers that control governments is to enslave mankind through the expansion of individual, corporate, and governmental debt as high as possible to the point where humanity will end up slaving away solely to service the interest on its debt.2  This objective necessarily entails the complete disappearance of the middle class throughout the world, leaving a tiny number of central bank owning families, a small cadre of working professionals servicing them, and the vast multitudes of the world’s population living hand-to-mouth in perpetual bondage to the banking class.  To put this system into place requires total ownership and control of the media, which is used as a weapon to distract the public via bread and circus propaganda and divert their energies into fighting with each other (using race, gender, and sexual orientation divide et impera tactics) so no force rises to challenge it.  The banking class seeks nothing less than a permanent neoliberal feudalism where they control the entirety of the world’s wealth, a system they intend to last forever. 

Professor Carroll Quigley of Georgetown University, a man possessing impeccable liberal credentials and extensive high-level contacts, revealed the network behind this in his 1350-page 1966 book Tragedy and Hope.  He spoke highly of this group and was given special access to insider records, including archived files from the Council on Foreign Relations.  Quigley stated the network’s aim is “nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole.  The system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements arrived at in frequent private meetings and conferences.”3  Worse, they want total control over all individual actions.  Quigley argued that an individual’s “freedom and choice will be controlled within very narrow alternatives by the fact that he will be numbered from birth and followed, as a number, through his educational training, his required military or other public service, his tax contributions, his health and medical requirements, and his final retirement and death benefits.”4  

Father Pedro Arrupe, head of the Jesuit Order of the Roman Catholic Church, was well aware of this group and he made the following charges during his remarks to the Ecumenical Council in 1965: “This…Godless society operates in an extremely efficient manner at least in its higher levels of leadership.  It makes use of every possible means at its disposal, be they scientific, technical, social or economic.  It follows a perfectly mapped-out strategy.  It holds almost complete sway in international organizations, in financial circles, in the field of mass communications; press, cinema, radio and television.”

The best way at explaining the banker’s motivations and strategies is to delve into how this system developed from the start.  There are two eras to this process: the pre-central bank money-lending era in Europe and the central bank era.  

---

The Pre-Central Bank Era

Before the era of central banks that began in the late 17th century, European kings would turn to money lenders to finance their wars.  These kings were worried about short term problems and the survival of their regimes; to borrow funds from third parties was an immediate solution while longer-term loan payback issues could be dealt with later or by future generations.  These money lenders were Jewish, unshackled by the strict anti-usury practices Christians and Muslims were subject to5, and they were able to leverage the debts placed on the kings to carve out special privileges, especially the ability to lend at exorbitant rates to the nation’s nobility and general population.  Any industry that received expansion of credit in this manner resulted in major price appreciation, so individuals were forced to take out debt at whatever rate was demanded or get priced out of their industries.  For example, Jewish money lenders first arrived in England in 1066 in the wake of William I’s defeat of King Harold II at Hastings.  They had financed the war and, in return for their support, William I richly awarded the money lenders by allowing them to practice usury under royal protection.  By charging rates of interest of 33% per annum on lands mortgaged by nobles and 300% per annum on tools of trade or chattels pledged by workmen, within two generations 1/4 of all English lands were in the hands of usurers.  At his death in 1186, the English financier Aaron of Lincoln’s wealth exceeded that of King Henry II.  The famous economist Dr. William Cunningham compares “the activity of the money-lenders in England from the eleventh century onward to a sponge, which sucks up all the wealth of the land and thereby hinders all economic development.”6

The money-lenders attempted to finance both sides of European conflicts, hoping for long, drawn out wars to increase the debts owed to them and thus their leverage against the debtor kings.  These lenders sought to obtain a balance of power among European countries so that if any king tried to cancel their debt arrangements they could finance other nearby countries to overthrow them.  In this way they could ensure kings would pay their debts and not abrogate them by decree.  They also used less savory methods including allegedly paying for Charles I’s assassination7 and likely assassinating the heirs of King Louis XIV, the Sun King.8 But these lenders were still ultimately subject to the laws of the countries they were in and they had to tread with a measure of caution — the sovereign could always try to cancel the debts owed or even kick them out of the country, both of which King Edward I did in 1275 and 1290, compelling the entire Jewish population of 16,511 to leave England.9  These money-lenders did not have sovereign power until the era of central banks.

---

The Central Bank Era: War and Debt Slavery in Perpetuity

“Permit me to issue and control the money of a nation, and I care not who makes its laws.” – Mayer Amschel Rothschild

In 1696 the money-lenders achieved one of their core objectives: the establishment of the Bank of England.  William of Orange had dethroned his brother James II in 1688 with their financial support, and in return William surrendered the royal prerogative of issuing England’s money free of debt and interest to them.  This led directly to the establishment of the privately owned Bank of England, whose ostensible purpose was to lend King William unlimited sums at interest to enable the prosecution of war, but whose hidden purpose was to fleece the English people in perpetuity by allowing the creation of the nation’s money out of nothing at interest.  Coinciding with the establishment of the bank were a large number of new taxes on citizens, including a 20% corporate and personal income tax which were needed by the government to pay interest on loans they would subsequently seek from the central bank10 (while the money-lenders utilized tax exempt foundations and other loopholes to avoid the taxes that the masses had to pay11).

With their new ability to print money out of thin air and lend it to the government at interest (instead of using their own money which had always carried with it some measure of risk), the owners of the Bank of England achieved a level of supra-sovereign power above that of the king.  They had won and England was theirs.  This dynamic has continued into the present.12  

The central bank owner’s next step was to involve England in a series of wars in order to dramatically increase the national debt (printed out of thin air!), thereby increasing the interest payments that the English public would be forced to pay.  The equation was simple: the more debt owed on printed money, the more interest paid into the pockets of the central bank owners, so the incentives of this model always favored the accumulation of more debt.  They placed direct and indirect pressure on the government via the media (which they controlled as a first order priority through various shell companies and intermediaries) and via other tactics.  As a result England became involved in the War of the Spanish Succession (1701-14), American War of Independence (1775-83), war against France (1792-1815), War of 1812, War War I and II, each of which assisted in raising its national debt from a minuscule amount to over £5 trillion in 2017.13   

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

The money-lenders were happy to continue funding both sides in European wars (like Nathan Rothschild funding all the belligerents, England, Prussia, and France, at Waterloo, with France receiving a loan of 10 million pounds14) as well as funding both sides of the U.S. Civil War (the North through their American agent August Belmont and the South through the Erlangers, Rothschild relatives15).  In The Rothschilds, the Financial Rulers of Nations, John Reeves noted that when the family met in London in 1857 for a wedding, Prime Minister of England Benjamin Disraeli declared: “Under this roof are the heads of the family of Rothschild – a name famous in every capital of Europe and every division of the globe.  If you like, we shall divide the United States into two parts, one for you, James, and one for you, Lionel.  Napoleon will do exactly and all that I shall advise him.”16  Otto Von Bismark stated in 1867: “The division of the United States into two federations of equal force was decided long before the civil war by the high financial power of Europe. These bankers were afraid that the United States, if they remained in one block and as one nation, would attain economical and financial independence, which would upset their financial domination over the world. The voice of the Rothschilds predominated. They foresaw the tremendous booty if they could substitute two feeble democracies, indebted to the financiers, to the vigorous Republic, confident and self-providing. Therefore they started their emissaries in order to exploit the question of slavery and thus dig an abyss between the two parts of the Republic.” Rothschild family biographer Niall Ferguson notes a “substantial and unexplained gap” in private Rothschild correspondence between 1854-1860.  He says all copies of outgoing letters written by the London Rothschilds during this Civil War period “were destroyed at the orders of successive partners”.17 

That being said, the central bank owners learned that even better than driving up public debt of countries at war with each other and profiting from increased interest payments from both was to use their central banks as a cudgel of expansion against any countries that did not have privately-owned central banks, especially any country that had implemented interest-free, publicly owned state banking systems.  Their goal became to destroy the sovereignty of other countries in order to establish central banks there that they would own.  They were ruthless in its implementation.  Combining industrial production of the advanced nations they controlled, unlimited monetary printing and the use of the ignorant, unwashed masses as boots-on-the-ground, they defeated Napoleon in France18, Imperial Russia in World War I, Germany, Italy and Japan in World War II, Iraq under Saddam Hussein and Libya in 2011.  These were all states which had state banking systems which distributed the wealth of their respective nations on an equitable basis and provided their populations with a standard of living far superior to that of their rivals and contemporaries.  See Appendix A for details on each of these examples.

---

THE PUBLIC/PRIVATE CENTRAL BANK DISTINCTION AND THE FEDERAL RESERVE

Circling back and to restate, private ownership of all of the central banks of the world by a handful of families is at the heart of the elite’s conspiracy.   There are two types of central banks: truly publicly owned central banks, and privately owned central banks (whether private or nominally public in name only).  In a publicly owned central bank, the bank prints money without payment to third parties and then uses it to stimulate economic activity.  In a privately owned central bank, the private bank prints money and then loans it to the nation’s government and charges interest on it.  The interest charged on the printed money creates wealth out of thin air for the owners of these central banks without having done any work, and it creates an inflationary tax on the citizenry and impoverishes them (without the vast majority of people even knowing! Which is the genius of it, a world of slaves who don’t know the status of their slavery).  Their goal is to grow the debt owed by the public at a faster and faster rate, forcing even greater interest payments paid to the privately owned central banks, bringing their ultimate objective of controlling all of the wealth of the world closer and closer.  Governments with privately owned central banks are forced to institute significant personal income taxes on their citizens in order to pay the interest accruing on the loans printed out of nothing.  

In the United States the 16th Amendment authorizing personal income taxes, the IRS, the Federal Reserve and the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) all came into existence in 1913, after two previous failed Rothschild-sponsored central bank attempts.19  The establishment of the Federal Reserve required much financial shenanigans by the perpetrators, including artificial bank runs such as the fake panic of 1907, bribery of politicians, and incorporating powerful figures like the Rockefeller’s into their alliance.  Senator Aldrich met with Henry P. Davison of J.P. Morgan; Frank A. Vanderlip, President of the Rockefeller-owned National City Bank; A. Piatt Andrew, Assistant Secretary of the Treasury; Benjamin Strong of Morgan’s Bankers Trust Company; and Paul Warburg, the Rothschild’s direct representative, at Jekyll Island, where they conspired to bring about the central bank under a great veil of secrecy.20  

Second to the Rothschilds, the Warburgs were considered the most important international banking family of the 19th and 20th centuries.  In 1814, the Warburgs became one of the first affiliates of N.M. Rothschild of London.  They were related to the leading banking families of Europe, the Rosenbergs of Kiev, the Gunzburgs in St. Petersburg, the Oppenheims and Goldschmidts in Germany.  Moritz Warburg was apprenticed to the Rothschilds in Italy and Paris.  He had five sons who spread out and coordinated their actions and strategies: Aby founded the Warburg Instituted; Max financed the German struggle in World War I and later the Nazi regime; Dr. Fritz Warburg was the German commercial attache in Stockholm during World War I; Paul and Felix emigrated to America and joined the firm of Kuhn, Loeb & Co. with Jacob Schiff, who had been born in the Rothschild house in Frankfort.21  Paul wrote the Federal Reserve Act and saw it through Congress.  He represented the U.S. at the Versailles Peace Conference, while his brother Max represented German interests.22

According to a Committee on Banking, Currency and Housing Staff Report from the House of Representatives in 1976, a few families which owned controlling stock in existing banks caused those banks to purchase controlling shares in the Federal Reserve regional banks at their founding, and examination of the charts and text and the stockholders list of the 12 regional Federal Reserve Banks show the same families in control in 1976. These are our overlords, and they sit, hidden out of view, constantly scheming against the blissfully unaware public.

The Federal Reserve Act was presented as a “victory of democracy.”  In reality, private bankers could determine inflation, recession, and boom periods; they could swing the stock market at will; and they could subordinate the fiscal powers reserved for Congress.  They sought to run up the debt through the expansion of government spending.  Simultaneously, they benefited from the increased money supply and bid up the stock market or destroyed it at their leisure. Paul Warburg arranged the 1929 stock market crash; first he advised all member banks to get out of the stock market or sell it short on March 9, 1929, then on October 24 the Federal Reserve Bank suddenly increased the rediscount rate to 6%, thousands of orders hit the exchange to sell “at market”, and six days later the Federal Reserve Bank ordered the contraction of brokers’ loans in the amount of $2.3 million, the combination of which caused the crash.  Congressman Louis T. McFadden stated “It was a carefully contrived occurrence.  The international [central] bankers sought to bring about a condition of despair so that they might emerge as the rulers of us all.”23 

Laws were made to allow the central bank owners to set up tax-free foundations, avoiding the taxes they imposed on everyone else.  They compounded their wealth tax-free.  Since Woodrow Wilson took his oath of office and signed the Federal Reserve Act, which he later reportedly regretted24, the national debt has risen from $1 billion to over $30 trillion.  Continuing the tradition, after printing $11+ trillion dollars during the two years of COVID and handing much of it to the central bank owner’s friends and allies, the United States hired 87,000 new IRS agents in 2022 to shake down the population to pay the interest owed on this newly created debt.

---

WORLD WAR I

After conquering America in 1913 the central bank owners turned their attention to World War I.  They wanted an attenuated, long, drawn out war in order to drive up national debts.  In 1916, the promoters of the war were dismayed when Germany insisted it could not continue fighting because of shortages of food and money.  To keep Germany fighting Paul Warburg, head of the Federal Reserve System, hastily arranged for credits to be routed to his brother, Max Warburg, through Stockholm to M.M. Warburg Co. Hamburg.  Food presented a more difficult problem.  It was decided to ship it directly to Belgium as “relief for the starving Belgians.”  The supplies could then be shipped over Rothschild railway lines into Germany.  As director for this “relief operation” the Rothschilds chose Herbert Hoover.  The plan was so successful that it kept the war going for an additional two years, allowing the U.S. to get into the “war to end wars”.25  

Lloyd George told the N.Y. Journal American, June 24, 1924, how the international bankers were the decision makers and not the heads of state of the participating countries in the settlement to the war: “The international bankers dictated the Dawes reparations settlement.  The Protocol which was signed between the Allies and Associated Powers and Germany is the triumph of the international financier.  Agreement would never have been reached without the brusque and brutal intervention of the international bankers.  They swept statesmen, politicians and journalists to one side, and issued their orders with the imperiousness of absolute monarchs, who knew that there was no appeal from their ruthless decrees…the orders of German financiers to their political representatives were just as peremptory as those of allied bankers to their political representatives.”26

After the war the international bankers copied their successful central bank model and spread it throughout most of the countries of the world.  By the turn of the twentieth century there were only 18 central banks, yet after a conference in 1922 attended by heads of state, governors of the Bank of England, Banque de France and the Federal Reserve Bank of New York and a host of other international bankers, it was resolved to set up central banks in all countries where they were not in existence, and that the central banks should be “independent” of their governments (i.e. immune from public influence).  The number of new central banks increased dramatically and currently stands at 157, the coordinated establishment of which proves that they are “part of an international monetary trust”.27 Coordination of the central banks is via the Bank for International Settlements, set up in 1930.

---

THE CENTRAL BANK OWNER’S DECISIVE SUPPORT FOR SOVIET COMMUNISM

Even the Soviet Union, supposedly the “enemy” of the United States, was financed from the beginning by the Rothschilds and their allies.  According to Gary Allen’s research, the USSR was practically manufactured by the U.S. elite and they played a major role in the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917.  He quotes W. Averell Harriman, ambassador to the USSR from 1943 to 1945 as saying, “Stalin paid tribute to the assistance rendered by the United States to Soviet industry before and during the war.  He said that about two-thirds of all the large industrial enterprises in the Soviet Union had been built with United States help or technical assistance.”  Allen explains how financiers in America and Britain intentionally created an enemy for the West; he divulges how Kuhn, Loeb & Co. (where the two Warburg brothers worked) even financed the First Five-Year Plan of the Soviet Union.  Through these means, plutocrats gained a geographic homeland from which to launch assaults against other nations of the world.  Indeed, The New York Journal-American stated on February 3, 1949: “Today it is estimated even by Jacob’s grandson, John Schiff, a prominent member of New York Society, that the old man sank about $20,000,000 for the final triumph of Bolshevism in Russia.  Other New York Banking firms also contributed.”28   In the summer of 1917, fifteen Wall Street financiers and attorneys led by Federal Reserve director William Boyce Thompson traveled to Petrograd – the nerve center of the Russian Revolution – and provided $1 million by J.P. Morgan to the Bolsheviks through the National City Bank, the only bank in Russia the Bolsheviks did not nationalize.29  During the 1920s the Rockefeller’s Chase Bank helped found the American-Russian Chamber of Commerce, scoop up Russian oil fields, build the Soviets a refinery and made an arrangement to market their oil in Europe and it was involved in financing Soviet raw material exports and selling Soviet bonds in the United States.30  

Three of the most prominent officials of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York are on record as supporting Bolshevism: William Laurence Sanders, George Foster Peabody and William Boyce Thompson.  Thompson announced he was giving $1 million dollars to promote Bolshevik propaganda in the United States.  Because the Federal Reserve Bank of New York was controlled by five New York banks which owned 53% of its stock, and because these five banks were directly controlled by N.M. Rothschild & Sons of London, we can only conclude that these three men were merely stating the preferences of their employer.31

Of particular interest in the financing of the revolution is the role which Maxim Litvinov, born Meyer-Genokh Mojsjewicz Wallach-Finkelstein, played as a “revolutionary” in destroying Imperial Russia and handing it over to the international bankers.  Litvinov became the source of all foreign funds and was appointed treasurer of the Russian Socialist Democrat Party.  He was a representative of the Rothschilds with powers exceeding that of Lenin.  When Stalin became leader of the Soviet Union Litvinov, who feared no one, remained pre-eminent.  His rudeness to Stalin was legendary.  During World War 2 the Americans were reluctant to lend money to the Soviet Union but Litvinov sorted everything out; a Lend Lease agreement was signed and over the next four years $11 billion worth of supplies and services were provided.  Litvinov “could call the White House at any time and the President [Roosevelt] would see him immediately.”  Molotov, Litvinov’s successor in 1943, stated “Litvinov was utterly hostile to us…he deserved the highest measure of punishment at the hands of the proletariat.  Every punishment.”32

Indeed, the central bank owners retained control over even the top Soviet leaders.  Because of the struggle for power which developed between Stalin and Trotsky, the Rockefellers intervened in October 1926 and backed Stalin, ousting Trotsky.  Years later, they would again intervene when the Kremlin was racked by disagreements; David Rockefeller may have fired Khrushchev during a trip there.33 John D. Rockefeller instructed his press agent to promote communism in the U.S. and to spark a public relations drive which culminated in 1933 with the U.S. recognition of Soviet Russia.  In 1927 Standard Oil of New Jersey built a refinery in Russia after having been promised 50% of the Caucasus oil production.  The Standard Oil operation was directed by its Rothschild bankers, maintaining close supervision of the “Rockefeller” fortune.  In 1935 Stalin expropriated many foreign investments in Russia but the Standard Oil properties were not touched.  The Five Year Plans (1928-32, 1933-37, and 1938-42) were all financed by the international banking houses.34  

According to Gary Allen, “In the Bolshevik Revolution we have some of the world’s richest and most powerful men financing a movement which claims its true existence is based on the concept of stripping of their wealth men like the Rothschilds, Rockefellers, Schiffs, Warburgs, Morgans, Harrimans, and Milners.  But obviously these men have no fear of international communism.  It is only logical to assume if they financed it and do not fear it, it must be because they control it.  Can there be any other explanation that makes sense?  Remember that for over 150 years it has been standard operating procedure of the Rothschilds and their allies to control both sides of every conflict.  You must have an ‘enemy’ if you are going to collect from the King.  The East-West balance-of-power politics is used as one of the main excuses for the socialization of America.  Although it was not their main purpose, by nationalization of Russia the Insiders bought themselves an enormous piece of real estate, complete with mineral rights, for somewhere between $30 and $40 million.”35

It appears that no country remains outside of this privately owned central bank deathgrip today other than potentially heavily-demonized North Korea.  Two other holdouts, Libya and Iraq, were brutally crushed by the establishment under various pretexts in the last 20 years.  The publicly available information on world central bank ownership is deliberately opaque, never investigated (there has never been an audit of the U.S. Federal Reserve, which is insane) but they ultimately trace their origins through various intermediaries and shell companies to the Rothschild and Warburg families and their allies (the continued Rothschild/Rockefeller alliance was confirmed publicly as recently as 2012).  This control is either via direct or indirect ownership where, for purposes of public consumption and public relations, many central banks are nominally publicly owned but, via various methods, intermediaries and loopholes are still ultimately owned by these families (such as the Bank of England which nominally nationalized in 1946 but still remains under Rothschild control; the bank is not wholly subject to public or parliamentary scrutiny36). 

For a brief history of the central bank owners’ role in European wars and their vicious destruction of any nation that attempted to establish a publicly owned central bank, see Appendix A.

---

THE DIALECTIC OF MATERIALISM: THE WORLD AS POWER AND THE WORLD AS REALITY

When Karl Marx wrote The Communist Manifesto, the fifth plank read: “Centralization of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly.”  Lenin later said that the establishment of a central bank was ninety percent of communizing a country.37

With the core activity of the central bank owners being the usurious theft of the population’s wealth via printing money out of thin air, lending it at interest to the government and then enticing the government to maximize their spending (especially via war against countries with publicly owned central banks) in order to maximize interest payments, the goal of this small group of individuals is deeply antithetical to the dreams, goals and aspirations of the vast majority of the world.  The Rothschilds and their allies despise the populations that they rule over as well as fear them, for if the public ever wakes up to the structure of modern society they could be overthrown and stripped of their wealth in a heartbeat.

According to Eustace Mullins, “the central bank owners adopted the Hegelian dialectic, the dialectic of materialism, which regards the World as Power, and the World as Reality.  It denies all other powers and all other realities.  It functions on the principle of thesis, antithesis and a synthesis…Thus the World Order organizes and finances Jewish groups; it then organizes and finances anti-Jewish groups; it organizes Communist groups; it then organizes and finances anti-Communist groups.  It is not necessary for the Order to throw these groups against each other; they seek each other out like heat-seeking missiles and try to destroy each other.  By controlling the size and resources of each group, the World Order can always predetermine the outcome.  In this technique, members of the World Order are often identified with one side or the other.  John Foster Dulles arranged financing for Hitler, but he was never a Nazi.  David Rockefeller may be cheered in Moscow, but he is not a Communist…a distinguishing trait of a member of the World Order, although it may not be admitted, is that he does not believe in anything but the World Order.  Another distinguishing trait is his absolute contempt for anyone who actually believes in the tenets of Communism, Zionism, Christianity, or any national, religious or fraternal group…If you are a sincere Christian, Zionist or Moslem, the World Order regards you as a moron unworthy of respect.  You can and will be used, but you will never be respected.”38

To clarify on this point further, to take a group of people that do not believe in an afterlife, do not believe in God’s judgment after death, that believe life is purely a matter of who dominates who and therefore one needs to do everything possible to dominate others less they become prey themselves, this group is going to be much more incentivized than others, it will act with a much greater sense of urgency, it will be willing to perform morally dubious actions that others would blanch at, and because of these factors it is therefore generally going to outcompete, at least in this physical realm, those who hold themselves to higher moral and ethical standards and those that believe in God’s judgment and an afterlife.

While it is the destiny for humanity to be ruled by a small, ambitious minority, whether it be kings or an upper class nobility, the difference between them as our rulers versus the central bank owning rulers as our rulers is twofold: first, a king or nobility is ultimately responsible for their decisions to the public, whereas the central bank owners constantly hide in the shadows, immune from responsibility, with intermediary paid actors in political roles suffering the consequences of the policies advanced on their behalf.  Second, kings were not motivated to punish and destroy their own populations; they were generally motivated by a sense of noblesse oblige, whereas the core activity of the Rothschilds and their allies is fundamentally parasitic and filled with noblesse malice, seeking to divide and conquer their own populations and weaken them so they won’t be able to resist perpetual debt slavery.  

***

If this is some sort of “grand conspiracy” why don’t more people know about it? How do the central bank owners keep the public from discovering their strategies? How do they coordinate, and how do they prevent leaks? This is where we turn to next.

---

1 The Rockefellers even donated the site on which the U.N. headquarter building is built.

2 i.e.:

3 Quigley, Tragedy and Hope, 324.

4 Ibid.

5 See Niall Ferguson, The Ascent of Money: A Financial History of the World: “There was a good reason why Venetian merchants had to come to the Jewish ghetto if they wanted to borrow money.  For Christians, lending money at interest was a sin.  Usurers, people who lent money at interest, had been excommunicated by the Third Lateran Council in 1179.  Even arguing that usury was not a sin had been condemned as heresy by the Council of Vienna in 1311-12.  Christian usurers had to make restitution to the Church before they could be buried on hallowed ground.  They were especially detested by the Franciscan and Dominican orders, founded in 1206 and 1216 (just after the publication of Fibonacci’s Liber Abaci).  The power of this taboo should not be underestimated, though it had certainly weakened by Shakespeare’s time.

Jews, too, were not supposed to lend at interest.  But there was a convenient get-out clause in the Old Testament book of Deuteronomy: ‘Unto a stranger thou mayest lend upon usury; but unto thy brother thou shalt not lend upon usury.’ In other words, a Jew might legitimately lend to a Christian, though not to another Jew.  The price of doing so was social exclusion.”

6 Stephen Mitford Goodson, A History fo Central Banking and the Enslavement of Mankind, 24. This is a very important book by a South African central banker with impeccable establishment credentials (and a descendant of the Mitford sisters). He was allegedly murdered by globohomo for writing it. It can be read in its entirety here.

7 Goodson, 32.  See letter from Oliver Cromwell to Ebernezer Pratt.

8 Goodson, 48.

9 Goodson, 25.

10 Goodson, 37-40.

11 In 1953, Congress established the Reece Committee to investigate tax-free foundations.  For what was probably the first and last time, the central bank owners came under official scrutiny.  The Committee’s findings stated: “In the international field, foundations, and an interlock among some of them and certain intermediary organizations, have exercised a strong effect upon our foreign policy and upon public education in things international.  This has been accomplished by vast propaganda, by supplying executives and advisers to government and by controlling much research in this area through the power of the purse.  The net result of these combined efforts has been to promote “internationalism” in a particular sense – a form directed toward “world government” and a derogation of American “nationalism.”  James Perloff, The Shadow of Power, 105.

12 The British mindset as a nimble sea-power, adept at diplomacy and treacherous double-dealing which earned them the nickname “Perfidious Albions”, has made them natural allies of globalist banking families, both of whom sought to keep the European continent divided and weak.  Protestantism in general removes the hierarchy which had helped keep external influence out of the Catholic Church, at least to an extent, and at least partially explains why Protestant Oliver Cromwell was very pro-Jewish; he invited Jews back to England after their expulsion by (nominally) Catholic Edward I 350 years earlier.

An occasionally bumpy alliance but one that thereafter has lasted for hundreds of years.  

This dynamic has continued into the present era.  Halford Mackinder’s 1904 Heartland Theory posited control of Europe as belonging either to a land power (Germany) or a sea power (England). Mackinder provided a warning to England that continent-sized powers with a strong industrial base, large populations, and national resources could dominate world politics—not those that ruled the seas.  One can see such tension also in Rome vs. Carthage.  This served as a contrast to Alfred Thayer Mahan‘s highly influential 1890 argument in The Influence of Sea Power Upon History, 1660-1783, that island states such as England or the United States could prevail in the world through sea power.

The thesis of the 2005 book Conjuring Hitler: How Britain and America Made the Third Reich by Guido Giacomo Preparata furthers this argument, explaining that Britain and globalist banking families deliberately funded and supported the Bolsheviks in Russia to create an anti-western European ideology, and deliberately funded and supported Hitler in Germany to create an anti-Slavic ideology, so that they would destroy each other and allow England to control the continent, after arranging a similar dynamic in World War 1.  To England, the worst nightmare would have been a German/Russian alliance to control the continent which would have relegated England to a secondary power.  This also explains why England (and the U.S.) have worked so hard to dynamite deepening German/Russian ties by blowing up the Nordstream 2 pipeline in the present.

13 Goodson, 44.

14 Goodson, 55.

15 Allen, 32.

16 Eustace Mullins, The World Order: Our Secret Rulers, 25.

17 As a side note, slavery ending was a direct result of the industrial revolution decreasing the need for coerced manual labor, so to assign retrospective moral judgments for ending what was really a result of technological innovation is to miss the point (this is not a comment on the extent of brutality of such coercive measures.  To the extent industrial society ever fails, one can hardly doubt that slavery would quickly return). 

Also, a critical insight is that slavery never really ended, it simply shifted from (a) direct coercion with threat of physical punishment applied to one class of people to (b) indirect coercion with threat of imprisonment, applied to the entire taxpayer base whose tax burden is many times worse than those paying taxes to the British in 1776.

18 Napoleon relied on Rothschild loans for his Waterloo attempt, but not before that.

19 Andrew Jackson killed the second Rothschild central bank after a long and very difficult drawn out fight.  Before his death he was asked what he regarded as his greatest achievement, and he replied without hesitation: “I killed the bank.” Later when the Federal Reserve was established (the third central bank), they ultimately put his face on the $20 bill as a “screw you, we won”, because it was everything he was against, where it remains to this day.

20 Allen, 37.

21 Is globohomo congressman and conniving liar Adam Schiff a descendant of Jacob Schiff? Public records are scant on this point.

22 Mullins, 148.

23 Goodson, 104.

24 He is quoted as saying, “I am a most unhappy man. I have unwittingly ruined my country. A great industrial nation is controlled by its system of credit. Our system of credit is concentrated. The growth of the nation, therefore, and all our activities are in the hands of a few men. We have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated governments in the civilized world. No longer a government by free opinion, no longer a government by conviction and the vote of the majority, but a government by the opinion and duress of a small group of dominant men”, although part of this quote is disputed.

25 Mullins, 253.

26 Mullins, 68.

27 Goodson 97-101.

28 Perloff, 39-40.

29 Ibid.

30 Perloff, 43.

31 Mullins, 92-93.

32 Goodson, 83-87

33 Allen, chapter 6: ““Indicative of this was a strange event which occurred in October of 1964. David Rockefeller, president of the Chase Manhattan Bank and chairman of the board of the Council on Foreign Relations, took a vacation in the Soviet Union. This is a peculiar place for the world’s greatest “imperialist” to take his vacation since much of Communist propaganda deals with taking all of David’s wealth away from him and distributing it to “the people.” A few days after Rockefeller ended his “vacation” in the Kremlin, Nikita Khrushchev was recalled from a vacation at a Black Sea resort to learn that he had been fired. How strange! As far as the world knew, Khrushchev was the absolute dictator of the Soviet government and, more important, head of the Communist Party which runs the USSR. Who has the power to fire the man who was supposedly the absolute dictator? Did David Rockefeller journey to the Soviet Union to fire an employee? Obviously the position of premier in the Soviet Union is a figurehead with the true power residing elsewhere. Perhaps in New York.”

34 Mullins, 97.

35 Allen, 59.

36 Goodson, 45.

37 Allen, 33.

38 Mullins, 297-298.

Continued from Part 5…

This part examines possible theories of naturalistic explanations for the West’s decline, arguing that each proposed theory contains substantial flaws. It then explains that the establishment’s reaction to Trump unexpectedly winning the 2016 election and the worldwide coordinated response to COVID in 2020 as “mask off” moments that revealed the actual inner-workings of our elite’s system of control to those paying close attention.

WHY IS SOCIETY ON A MASSIVELY DOWNWARD TRAJECTORY?  A REVIEW OF COMPETING THEORIES

We have established that the quality of life for Westerners has been rapidly declining, that bureaucratic institutions make problems worse and that the establishment has many tools to prevent the population from effectuating change.  The next question is why is this happening?  Are there natural processes involved or are there deliberate actors with specific goals?  Before presenting a comprehensive theory in Section 4, let us review other possible explanations.

---

Is the decline of the west part of an organic Spenglerian cycle?

Traditional models of history utilize either a Whig history-as-progress approach or a linear Eurocentric model of cause-and-effect, the latter of which is expressed as follows:

On the other hand, Oswald Spengler argued that civilizations rise and fall naturally like the birth and death of an organism, and he wrote an influential book on the subject, The Decline of the West.  For Spengler – later echoed by others such as John Glubb1 – civilizations experience an early phase, an adolescent phase, a climax, a budding, and then disintegration known as civilizational winter. 

In 1918 Spengler believed western civilization had already entered civilizational winter.  He predicted:

The 20th century has and will continue to be…a period of imperialism and annihilation wars. Science will stop reaching certainties (although technology continues to accelerate…). The people reject common goals. Art is reduced to fashion, and innovation as a concept is cheapened and trivialized.  Between the 21st and 23rd centuries, Caesarism [will rise] again in the continuation of ‘civilizational winter’. The politics of brute force returns to break the stranglehold of money…it seems that tribal strength surges and ‘impersonal’ institutions decay. Weak ties and complex bureaucracies (fueled by “money”) are severed in favor of strong ties and absolutism (fueled by “blood”). Nuance and the essence of the high culture decays gently into the dirt.

If Spengler is correct and we are in for two more centuries of civilizational winter as part of a broader cycle, we would expect to see the rise of populism, failing institutions, increased chaos, and the rise of strongmen who could battle the entrenched bureaucracy.  One can see the start of such trends with Brexit, Trump, Bolsonaro, Viktor Orban, and Putin.  A counter to this argument, though, is that these strongmen are losing re-elections (Trump, Bolsonaro), they are weak on the world stage (Orban), and/or continuing massive cooperation with globohomo (Putin2).  It looks like this system, highly reliant on technology for ever increasing control, is rapidly advancing instead of buckling before populist politicians. If so, it would disprove Spengler’s thesis, although it remains to be seen if these trends continue.

Furthermore, to be explained in Section 4, the transnational elites are rapidly implementing technologies that will give them a historically unprecedented level of control over their citizens, technology that will enable them to micromanage billions of people on an individual basis using a combination of programmable CBDC technology and aggressive, woke AI.  If this vision is realized it’s hard to envision this as simply the winter phase of a civilizational cycle — it could look more like the deaths of multiple civilizations all at once.

Many other countries including Russia are resesarching and adopting CBDCs since the above 2020 analysis.

---

Is the decline of the west due to a human version of the Calhoun experiments?

In John Calhoun’s 1962 experiments four pairs of mice were introduced into a utopian environment.  There was no shortage of food or water or nesting materials, no predators, with the only limit being limited space.  The population grew rapidly and reached 620 by day 315, after which the population growth starting decreasing rapidly.  Day 600 was the last surviving birth bringing the total population to 2,200 mice, even though the experiment setup allowed for as many as 3,840 mice in terms of nesting space.  The period between day 315 and day 600 saw a breakdown in social structure and in normal social behavior.  Among the aberrations in behavior were the following: expulsion of young before weaning was complete, wounding of young, increase in homosexual behavior, inability of dominant males to maintain the defense of their territory and mating partners, increasing anger in both non-dominant males who didn’t mate and females who couldn’t nurse or raise pups properly, and the rise of “beautiful ones”, mice who didn’t do anything eat and groom and sleep.  After day 600 the population declined toward extinction where females ceased to reproduce and male counterparts withdrew completely – they ate, drank, slept and groomed themselves, all solitary pursuits.  The conclusions from the experiment were that when all available space is taken and all social roles filled, competition and the stresses experienced by the individuals will result in a total breakdown in complex social behaviors, ultimately resulting in the demise of the population.

The question then arises: is the breakdown in society and western civilization is experiencing simply a world-scale human version of the Calhoun experiments?  Like the phrase, “Hard times create strong men, strong men create good times, good times create weak men, and weak men create hard times”, perhaps human society has simply been in a period of prosperity for such a long time that it has removed Darwinian selection mechanisms and the killer instincts that keep people sharp, motivated and productive. 

The problem with this theory is that the breakdowns being experienced are not random — if they were then societal breakdowns would be experienced in multiple directions. However, these societal breakdowns all flow in one direction: toward the destruction of white Christians and the weakening of resistance to the transnational elites and toward centralizing wealth and power in the hands of a few, as described below and in Section 4. 

---

Is the decline of the west simply related to the advancement of technology?

In Industrial Society and It’s Future Ted Kaczynski argues that the rapid advancement of technology has destabilized society, inflicted severe damage on the natural world and led to enormous human suffering.  He states that humans have something called a “power process” where people need goals whose attainment requires effort and one must have a reasonable rate of success in attaining those goals.  If a goal comes too easy or a goal is impossible to achieve an individual will not be satisfied.  The goal also needs to be meaningful, i.e. to contribute to the attainment of food, water, shelter, clothing, etc.  Unfortunately in industrial society only minimum effort is necessary to satisfy one’s physical needs, and other needs, such as the need for security, are close to impossible to obtain (“We live in a world in which relatively few people – maybe 500 or 1,000 – make the important decisions” said Philip B. Heymann of Harvard Law School, quoted by Anthony Lewis, New York Times, April 21, 1995), so people focus instead on what Kaczynski called surrogate activities with their time.  Surrogate activities are hobbies which are not as meaningful or fulfilling as independently satisfying real needs.  The lack of fulfillment of the power process according to Kaczynski has been a main contribution to the mental illness that plagues society, along with excessive population density, isolation of man from nature, rapidity of social change and the breakdown of natural small-scale communities such as the extended family, the village or the tribe.3

According to Kaczynski, there have been numerous advancements in technology which strengthen the industrial system, but only at a high cost in individual freedom and autonomy: any changes designed to protect freedom from technology would be contrary to fundamental long-term trends moving in the opposite direction.  Technology as we know it follows a well-worn path: when it’s new it promises greater freedom for its users, but when the technology is perfected the freedom turns out to be an illusion; it disappears and the hard reality sets in, that the technological advancement is purely for increased governmental control and decreased freedoms, and it’s here to stay.  One can see this with social media, with the internet in general, and with crypto and upcoming CBDCs which will be used to track and control all human actions.  Even something as innocuous as the interstate travel system ultimately furthered the atomization of society by encouraging families to live across the country from each other and drastically increasing commute times to work.  This isn’t even considering the moral corruption that technology causes — the ease of killing scores of people with the push of a button, the ease of massive financial theft, or the scale and impersonality of the industrialized meat production system which is worse than anything imagined in a horror film.  Technology is poison.

Kaczynski argues that the system must regulate human behavior closely in order to function (quoting at length):

The system HAS TO force people to behave in ways that are increasingly remote from the natural pattern of human behavior. For example, the system needs scientists, mathematicians and engineers. It can’t function without them. So heavy pressure is put on children to excel in these fields. It isn’t natural for an adolescent human being to spend the bulk of his time sitting at a desk absorbed in study. A normal adolescent wants to spend his time in active contact with the real world. Among primitive peoples the things that children are trained to do tend to be in reasonable harmony with natural human impulses. Among the American Indians, for example, boys were trained in active outdoor pursuits — just the sort of thing that boys like. But in our society children are pushed into studying technical subjects, which most do grudgingly.

Because of the constant pressure that the system exerts to modify human behavior, there is a gradual increase in the number of people who cannot or will not adjust to society’s requirements: welfare leeches, youth gang members, cultists, anti-government rebels, radical environmentalist saboteurs, dropouts and resisters of various kinds.

In any technologically advanced society the individual’s fate must depend on decisions that he personally cannot influence to any great extent. A technological society cannot be broken down into small, autonomous communities, because production depends on the cooperation of very large numbers of people and machines. Such a society MUST be highly organized and decisions HAVE TO be made that affect very large numbers of people. When a decision affects, say, a million people, then each of the affected individuals has, on the average, only a one-millionth share in making the decision. What usually happens in practice is that decisions are made by public officials or corporation executives, or by technical specialists, but even when the public votes on a decision the number of voters ordinarily is too large for the vote of any one individual to be significant. Thus most individuals are unable to influence the major decisions that affect their lives. There is no conceivable way to remedy this in a technologically advanced society. The system tries to “solve” this problem by using propaganda to make people WANT the decisions that have been made for them, but even if this “solution” were completely successful in making people feel better, it would be demeaning. 

Conservatives and some others advocate more “local autonomy.” Local communities once did have autonomy, but such autonomy becomes less and less possible as local communities become more enmeshed with and dependent on large-scale systems like public utilities, computer networks, highway systems, the mass communications media, the modern health care system. Also operating against autonomy is the fact that technology applied in one location often affects people at other locations far away. Thus pesticide or chemical use near a creek may contaminate the water supply hundreds of miles downstream, and the greenhouse effect affects the whole world. 

The system does not and cannot exist to satisfy human needs. Instead, it is human behavior that has to be modified to fit the needs of the system. This has nothing to do with the political or social ideology that may pretend to guide the technological system. It is not the fault of capitalism and it is not the fault of socialism. It is the fault of technology, because the system is guided not by ideology but by technical necessity. Of course the system does satisfy many human needs, but generally speaking it does this only to the extend that it is to the advantage of the system to do it. It is the needs of the system that are paramount, not those of the human being. For example, the system provides people with food because the system couldn’t function if everyone starved; it attends to people’s psychological needs whenever it can CONVENIENTLY do so, because it couldn’t function if too many people became depressed or rebellious. But the system, for good, solid, practical reasons, must exert constant pressure on people to mold their behavior to the needs of the system. Too much waste accumulating? The government, the media, the educational system, environmentalists, everyone inundates us with a mass of propaganda about recycling. Need more technical personnel? A chorus of voices exhorts kids to study science. No one stops to ask whether it is inhumane to force adolescents to spend the bulk of their time studying subjects most of them hate. When skilled workers are put out of a job by technical advances and have to undergo “retraining,” no one asks whether it is humiliating for them to be pushed around in this way. It is simply taken for granted that everyone must bow to technical necessity. and for good reason: If human needs were put before technical necessity there would be economic problems, unemployment, shortages or worse. The concept of “mental health” in our society is defined by the extent to which an individual behaves in accord with the needs of the system and does so without showing signs of stress.4

Industrial society has taken on a mind of its own.  The needs of the system will take precedent and result in tyranny, forcing extreme population modification in order to meet its requirements:

Whereas formerly the limits of human endurance have imposed limits on the development of societies, industrial-technological society will be able to pass those limits by modifying human beings, whether by psychological methods or biological methods or both. In the future, social systems will not be adjusted to suit the needs of human beings. Instead, human being will be adjusted to suit the needs of the system.

Generally speaking, technological control over human behavior will probably not be introduced with a totalitarian intention or even through a conscious desire to restrict human freedom. Each new step in the assertion of control over the human mind will be taken as a rational response to a problem that faces society, such as curing alcoholism, reducing the crime rate or inducing young people to study science and engineering. In many cases there will be a humanitarian justification….

Assuming that industrial society survives, it is likely that technology will eventually acquire something approaching complete control over human behavior. It has been established beyond any rational doubt that human thought and behavior have a largely biological basis. As experimenters have demonstrated, feelings such as hunger, pleasure, anger and fear can be turned on and off by electrical stimulation of appropriate parts of the brain. Memories can be destroyed by damaging parts of the brain or they can be brought to the surface by electrical stimulation. Hallucinations can be induced or moods changed by drugs. There may or may not be an immaterial human soul, but if there is one it clearly is less powerful that the biological mechanisms of human behavior. For if that were not the case then researchers would not be able so easily to manipulate human feelings and behavior with drugs and electrical currents….

Will public resistance prevent the introduction of technological control of human behavior? It certainly would if an attempt were made to introduce such control all at once. But since technological control will be introduced through a long sequence of small advances, there will be no rational and effective public resistance.5

Kaczynski’s solution to the problems of increasing technology and decreasing freedom was to hope to inspire a mass movement against technology itself via terrorism.  His attempt was a complete failure.  There was some public discussion about his manifesto, but no societal changes.  As Kaczynski himself acknowledged history is one of ever increasing centralization, ever increasing control and decreasing freedoms.  This increased control gives elites leverage to extort populations for greater wealth centralization at the cost of declining quality of life for the masses.6  It is even becoming questionable to what extent, if any, the system needs the masses at all: increased automation is making more people unproductive, and it is unclear whether the system plans to remove those they call “useless eaters”7 or otherwise pacify them with limits on their consumption.8  

Regardless, Kaczynski’s rebellion against technology was also ideologically incorrect: technology must continue to its natural endpoint because technology provides power advantages over others, so if one country does not maximize its technology on its own, it will be dominated by a neighbor who will, just as western civilization was so thoroughly able to dominate other less advanced societies in the past four hundred years.  Additionally, individuals desperately seek out technology to make their own lives easier; people care about convenience and comfort more than they care about freedom.

Therefore, the line of question of whether the advancement of technology is leading to the decline of the west is an irrelevant one.  Yes, it is at least in part the cause of the declining freedoms that Americans have been suffering under for many generations – but it is not going to end until it reaches its own endpoint, whatever it happens to be. 

---

Is the decline of the west related to a lack of competition post-cold war?

One of the major limitations on the United States’s power was the status of the Soviet Union as a peer competitor.  The Soviet Union argued in various ways to the world that communism reduced inequality and was therefore better than western-styled capitalism.  This argument applied pressure on American elites to keep them from becoming too greedy.  The veracity of the Soviet Union’s claim was looked at in a Polish study between 1892-2015.  The results demonstrated (1) inequality was high in Poland before World War 2, (2) inequality abruptly fell after the introduction of communism in 1947 and stayed at low levels during the whole communist period, and (3) inequality experienced a sharp rise with the return to capitalism in 1989.  In the United States income gains were widely shared in the early postwar decades, but starting in around 1980 inequality started to grow, and after the fall of the Soviet Union inequality grew much faster.    

It seems like the removal of the United States’ competition was a factor in the rise of inequality but, as discussed later, the removal of the U.S. from the Bretton Woods system tying monetary printing to gold reserves was a much larger reason.

---

THE REVELATION OF THE ESTABLISHMENT’S POWER AND CONTROL TO THE PUBLIC

When Donald Trump inadvertently won the presidency in 2016 with a margin of 107,000 votes across 3 states the hidden leaders behind America’s false democracy panicked.  Trump was a clown and a fool in their eyes and Hillary was winning consistently by 3-6 points in almost every pre-election poll; she took significant time off before the general election to relax and failed to campaign in crucial swing states.  

When Trump inexplicably won the hidden owners of the government and the media, panicking, decided on their strategy: oppose Trump at every turn for four years straight, call him the equivalent of a dictator and Hitler, call him a Russian stooge, cause the NPCs to short circuit with endless “Orange Man Bad”, illegally spy on him and his administration, frame and destroy his advisors (Mike Flynn, Paul Manafort (but not Manafort’s pro-globohomo senior partner, Tony Podesta, who avoided charges despite the same underlying actions)), run endless fake “unnamed sources” leak stories which have never stopped, bring out the fake Mueller investigation to tie Trump up even though it found nothing after a year and a half of “investigation”9, create two impeachments against him (one over Biden’s corruption, which was later proven conclusively by emails and documents found on Hunter Biden’s laptop — “10 for the big guy” – and one over an unarmed civil protest where one Trump supporter died).  All of this and a lot more which had to be lived and experienced to really understand it.  

Furthermore, Trump himself was close to the exact opposite of the “reincarnated Hitler” that the media portrayed him as – the gulf between that portrayal and reality was a wide chasm.  Trump was a dumb, bumbling doofus; a fat, lazy boomer who wanted to sit around watching TV for up to 8 hours a day and call into television stations, feud with Joe Scarborough and Mika Brzezinski over petty grievances; to eat fast food and play golf and to tweet mean things with no follow through or action behind it.  He betrayed his supporters at every turn; Charlottesville, 1/6, and plenty of others.  His own campaign staff were blocked from positions in the administration in 2017 after never-Trumper Johnny de Stefano was put in charge of hiring.  Not to mention that his daughter was a converted Jew and his grandchildren were Jewish!

For the whole world to see how this bumbling doofus was treated for four years while he sat back and absorbed it all, doing nothing illegal and nothing unsavory other than using language unbecoming of a president, to see the whole apparatus of the government weaponized against this man and how coordinated it all was — it was an inadvertent gift from a clown to America, perhaps the biggest gift he could have given America short of a successful challenge to globohomo.  America arguably wasn’t ready for such a fundamental change at that moment in time.  History will look back at the Trump presidency as the moment that conclusively revealed the existence of the deep state for all to see, and it can never be put back in the box.  And then the COVID nightmare supercharged the “mask-off” moment when the whole world coordinated in lockstep, unleashing the same lockdowns, required face-masks and then mandatory untested, dangerous, experimental mRNA poisons.

Trump will also forever be a symbol of white historic America because of his shocking 2016 election victory, which is why the establishment will always hate him and try to destroy him no matter how much he flails about helplessly post-presidency.

***

This concludes Section 3, “Dissonance to Informational Control in Technological Society.” The next Section, “Goals, Motivations and Strategies of the Owners of Modern Society” argues that a handful of families own the central banks of the world, controlling society via unlimited fiat printing and a sophisticated propaganda and security apparatus.  It then offers a historical and psychological framework for their behavior and investigates their objectives.

---

1 John Glubb, The Fate of Empires and Search for Survival, available here.

2 Putin has a World Economic Forum puppet as the head of the Russian Central Bank, he was onboard with implementing globohomo COVID-19 mask and vaccine mandates and vaccine passports, he is hard at work advancing central bank digital currencies, and his initial rise within Russia was due to his support of the West and his willingness to let them pillage Russia.

3 Kaczynski, 8.

4 Kaczynski, 14.

5 Kaczynski, 20.

6 If we lived in a society that was not purely focused on dialectical materialism and control it is a question to what extent the human race would be able to successfully assert a conscious mastery of technology to serve its ends rather than blindly and recklessly allowing technology to enslave humanity without consideration of the consequences, a concept explored by Carl Schmitt.  But this question remains theoretical.

7 Per World Economic Forum head Klaus Schwab’s chief mentor Yuval Harari:

8 Kaczynski, 26: “On the other hand it is possible that human control over the machines may be retained. In that case the average man may have control over certain private machines of his own, such as his car or his personal computer, but control over large systems of machines will be in the hands of a tiny elite — just as it is today, but with two differences. Due to improved techniques the elite will have greater control over the masses; and because human work will no longer be necessary the masses will be superfluous, a useless burden on the system. If the elite is ruthless they may simply decide to exterminate the mass of humanity. If they are humane they may use propaganda or other psychological or biological techniques to reduce the birth rate until the mass of humanity becomes extinct, leaving the world to the elite. Or, if the elite consists of soft-hearted liberals, they may decide to play the role of good shepherds to the rest of the human race. They will see to it that everyone’s physical needs are satisfied, that all children are raised under psychologically hygienic conditions, that everyone has a wholesome hobby to keep him busy, and that anyone who may become dissatisfied undergoes “treatment” to cure his “problem.” Of course, life will be so purposeless that people will have to be biologically or psychologically engineered either to remove their need for the power process or to make them “sublimate” their drive for power into some harmless hobby. These engineered human beings may be happy in such a society, but they most certainly will not be free. They will have been reduced to the status of domestic animals.”

9 The report concludes that the investigation “did not establish that members of the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities”. 

Continued from Part 4…

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.

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.”

Federal employees are also dramatically overpaid compared to the private sector as shown by federal government vs private sector average wages and average total compensation from 2000-2012.

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 that in the 2016 election Washington D.C. voted 90.86% for Hillary and 4.09% for Trump?

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.

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.

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.

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”.

Continued from Part 3…

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. 

1. 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 fired 1, and more.  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.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. Traitors: Outright traitors such as Trump’s Attorney General Jeff Sessions who betrayed Trump and his base (despite being his earliest Senate supporter) by recusing himself from the Mueller investigation on an extremely weak pretext. The subsequent Mueller investigation found nothing, serving as a witch hunt to paralyze the Trump administration and to cover up the establishment’s illegal spying.  There are strong arguments to be made that Mike Pence, Gary Cohn, and Jared Kushner also qualify.
5. 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).
6. 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.9  South 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.  
7. Attempted murder and intimidation: By creating an intense media environment of hysteria against disfavored individuals, globohomo sets the stage for unhinged individuals to attempt to attack them.  For example, see the three attempted assassinations against Trump in 2016/2017, the attempted murder of Steve Scalise (the New York Times even published details where the Republican baseball game meets, day and times beforehand), harassing Senators at the Capitol over the appointment of Brett Kavanaugh, and limiting/withdrawing police protections for Supreme Court justices at their homes after overturning Roe. The intimidation is very strong.
8. 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. 
9. 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.
10. Dust off old controversial narratives like abortion.  The Supreme Court overturned Roe out of the blue after Republicans were leading heavily in congressional 2022 matchups, leading to decreased support from the general public and much fewer seats picked up.
11. Utilize an enormous number of bots on social media to push government approved narratives.  Elon Musk estimated that Twitter bots may have accounted for up to 50% of Twitter activity before his purchase to which a high level Twitter whistleblower agreed. See also Dead Internet Theory which alleges most of the internet is bot activity.  The below link is clickable:
12. Utilize false, astroturfed, government controlled movements for political ends such as Q (a domestic version of the Soviet’s Operation Trust, used to keep right-wing individuals passive by providing deliberately false hope that someone will save them) and Antifa (used to smash small middle-class businesses nationwide which leaned Republican and were too independent).  Even the John Birch Society, considered an arch-conservative organization, was accused of being a false, astroturfed, government controlled organization by its co-founder Revilo P. Oliver, who had a falling out with founder Robert Welch.
    
    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
13. 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.
14. 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.
15. Crush legitimate grass roots uprisings such as the Tea Party Movement, destroyed by Republican Senate head Mitch McConnell through Machiavellian backroom strategies.
16. 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
17. 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
18. 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 highly compromised as 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: 
19. 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 convincing mentally ill young men to commit terrorist attacks and to frame white Christians.15    According 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.
20. 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?

2 Nick Cannon was fired by ViacomCBS in 2020 for remarks construed as “anti-semitic”. He issued a groveling apology the next day. He was then allowed to resume his career, but with the stipulation that he must do his master’s commands moving forward.   In 2023 Cannon was coerced into hosting Jonathan Greenblatt of the ADL to denounce Kanye West. Cannon must not enjoy being a financial terror victim/hostage, but with so many kids by so many different women, he is in no position to declare independence.

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.

4 Also owned by the Murdochs.

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.”

6 In the video he says “Break down the barriers and disregard the police.  The capitol belongs to us now”.  The video is here, so long as it remains online. Then he encouraged his followers to destroy evidence, but he is still not charged.

7 The CIA is on record that they utilize heart attack guns to kill people with heart attacks leaving no trace, what are the odds a prominent government critic died from a heart attack at 43? And then his coroner was murdered under “suspicious circumstances” two months later.

8 James Perloff, The Shadows of Power, page 213:

“The Ultimate Coincidence

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.”

Also, Soviet defector Yuri Bezmenov expressed the opinion that he wouldn’t be surprised if the Soviet Union had shot down Korean Air Lines Flight 007 in order to kill him. 

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. 

10 Perloff, 98.

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.

13 Perloff, 180-181.

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).” 

15 Per 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…”

Continued from Part 2…

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.

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.

Some of the “stick” tactics sociopathic liberals use to pressure corporate types include the following:

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. 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 exclusively from 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. 

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.

2 James Perloff, The Shadows of Power, 44-45.

Continued from Part 1…

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 most women (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.

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.  

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.”

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.

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.

Note 2. There are zero dissident American billionaires; even those billionaires considered the “most right” leaning, i.e. Peter Thiel 13, Elon Musk 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, but it does not mean they have accepted populist values.

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.  

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 is why 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.

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. 

---

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.  

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.”

Fauci also played a big role in the 80s hysteria around AIDS by convincing heterosexual non-drug users to avoid sex while murdering a huge number of AIDS patients with AZT, testing harsh chemotherapy drugs on orphan children and torturing them per RFK Jr., killing at least 85, while sidelining effective drugs.  Fauci recently funded experiments forcing dogs to be eaten alive by infected fleas while pushing the quite deadly Remdesivir during COVID.  

Other examples of sociopathic liberal types include the Biden administration proposing removing penalties for fentanyl trafficking-related offenses despite 104,288 Americans dying from fentanyl in 2021 19, the AMA asking big tech/DoJ to censor and prosecute journalists who question brutal transsexual surgeries, and Canadian officials pushing assisted suicide on children as young as 6.  The liberal sociopaths want their white middle American enemies dead; whatever tactics are required the end, to them, justifies the means.

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:

1. 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);
2. 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
3. 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.

****

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.

---

1 See here, here and here.

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.”

5 See, for example, self-identified “anti-war liberals” doing a complete pivot and supporting the Ukraine war against Russia because the establishment told them to. As of January 2023 only 15% Dem/lean Dem thinks the U.S. is providing “too much” aid while 40% of Republicans do.

6 Per Francis Parker Yockey in Imperium, p. 140:

“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.

9 A TYPOLOGY OF SOCIOPATHIC LIARS

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. 
• Adam Schiff is sociopathic, clever, and utterly amoral in his lying, and one knows that he’s self-aware because he lies about things he thinks are not yet public knowledge.

10 To quote Schopenhauer again:

“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).

20 See the criminal charges against Douglass Mackay aka “Ricky Vaughn”, who was extremely influential during the Trump era, for meme posting. Also see the provisions of the RESTRICT Act, sold to the public as an anti-Chinese spying Tiktok ban but essentially criminalizes free speech on the internet.

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”.

Continued from The Dissemination of Information in Technological Society: Part 3…

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 phenomenon the 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.”

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.

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.

1. 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.

2. Another eye opening incident was the 2006 Duke Lacrosse scandal which the media obsessed about for months, hysterical about a fake gang-rape that never happened. 
3. Another was the 2014 Michael 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:

1. 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.
2. 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
3. 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. 

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.

---

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? 
• Is dark matter even real, or is it nonsense gobbledygook to try to fix irreparably broken formulas? 
• Is oil named “fossil fuels” without having anything to do with fossils and simply to increase oil prices? 
• Are there major problems with the theory of dinosaurs?
• Did polio vaccines really cure polio or was the reduction in polio rates entirely due to the elimination of DDT use in America?4 
• Was the 1918 “Spanish flu” outbreak caused by a misguided – and very experimental – Rockefeller Institute meningitis vaccination program which was initiated at Fort Riley by the US military?
• 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? 
• Why did 7 World Trade Center collapse when it was never hit by a plane on 9/11 (the official story that debris hit the building and burned until it collapsed seems nonsensical on its face) and eyewitnesses heard and saw and heard controlled explosions in the building?  Did Israel have advance knowledge of 9/11? 
• Was Pat Tillman deliberately executed by teammates on orders to prevent him from becoming an anti-war activist? 
• 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 the elites manipulate the weather?6 
• 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. 

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. 

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 only chance 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?

This is where we will turn next in Part 2.

---

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.

4

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.

8 Hitler’s Table Talk, p. 482-483.

Continued from Part 2…

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.

• Americans are the most obese they’ve ever been despite following health expert recommendations with food pyramid, low-fat dietary recommendations. 
• They are sicker than they’ve ever been with allergies, autism, and a host of other diseases at all-time highs, despite the childhood vaccination schedule tripling in the past 40 years (from 23 doses in 1983 to 74 doses in 2016). Data shows if a person takes the full CDC vaccination schedule that person is 10x more likely to be sick and much more likely to get COVID. 
• Overall lifespan is decreasing.  
• 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?

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.  
• Hospital errors are the third leading cause of death in the United States. 
• Surgery for blocked arteries is often unwarranted according to the New York Times. 
• 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.  

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:

1. COVID isn’t a concern and air travel from abroad should not be shut down. The media was hysterical over Trump’s “racism” for trying to shut down international air travel; to
2. Hysterical demands for a “two week [nationwide shutdown] to stop the spread”, while conducting unscientific and hasty medical decisions. Examples include purchasing 7,000 ventilators in New York City alone that substantially increased mortality (New York reported as many as 80% of people infected with the virus died after being placed on ventilation!), a frontline treatment of Remdesivir which killed massive amounts of people, pushing hospital monetary incentives to alter “died with COVID” to “died of COVID” to assist in creating public panic, forcing population-wide mask use including of small children despite extensive existing studies and data showing that mask use does not decrease infection rates; to
3. instituting indefinite nationwide lockdowns, despite a lack of economic impact studies; to
4. 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
5. Everyones needs a booster, or multiple (indefinite?) boosters, because the COVID vaccine effectiveness was quite low. The CDC also redefined what a vaccine was from fully preventing against the target illness to merely reducing symptoms (and they encouraged mixing and matching the boosters between manufacturers!), to
6. As the hysteria died down small reports, mostly unreported by the media, of scientific backsliding: that COVID vaccination decreased immune function compared to the unvaccinated, that there have been drastically increased heart attack rates, while overall mortality rates spiked since the vaccine rollouts per insurance mortality tables and remain elevated (or even increase) indefinitely.  A study came out claiming mask use was carcinogenic due to breathing in nanoparticles containing Titanium Dioxide, a group 2B carcinogenic.  Then the CDC apologized for its inconsistent messaging and vowed to conduct a sweeping reorganization to rebuild public trust, which seems exceedingly unlikely; once an organization loses public goodwill it is difficult to regain.  Meanwhile the FDA petitioned a judge to hide underlying data on Pfizer and Modern’s COVID-19 vaccines for 55 years  – oops.   On the other hand, instead of coming out and admitting its errors, the establishment increasingly banned the spread of information counter to official narratives, i.e. California decided to revoke the medical licenses of any doctor who questioned its propaganda, mass media continues to censor on behalf of Pfizer/the establishment (inconsistently), and the CDC added the COVID vaccine to its routine immunization schedule for children. It’s prominently displayed on their website:Thanks, Lord Fauci and the CDC! I, for one, am humbled and grateful that this incredibly poisonous mRNA experimental vaccine with extreme side effects is now being routinely given to children as young as 6 months.

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 was Scientism: 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). 

Faith in public health experts is down markedly since the start of COVID due to its haphazard, sloppy, and highly political response, but sacrificing expert and institutional credibility in order to advance a political agenda was acceptable to the establishment. (Another example of skin-suited science institutions was NASA making “Muslim outreach” their top 2010 goal).

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.

The blogger and born again Christian Roosh has discussed his exhaustion from his lack of trust in experts and having to conduct his own research in every area of life:

“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?”

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 of trust 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

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.”

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.

In the next section, “Dissonance to Informational Control in Technological Society”, we will explore the rise of cognitive dissonance to establishment propaganda and what types of people are more likely to experience it and why.

---

1 A 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.” 

2 Per 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

4 You Gentiles, p. 16-19.

5 According 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.” 

6 Leonard Peikoff, The Ominous Parallels, 132.

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.

Continued from Part 1…

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:

1. Federal elections are determined almost entirely by which party is financed better and which party is the incumbent;
2. The parties, especially the Democrat party, decide on their candidates behind closed doors (the Republicans also try but they’re less competent at it);
3. The FBI regularly involves itself in investigations to help sway elections;
4. The steady flow of illegal immigration ensure a steady flow of new Democrat voters;
5. Election fraud is rampant via voter harvesting and lack of voter ID laws even if one disregards direct ballot stuffing or electronic ballot manipulation1  (although the media bragged about rigging/“fortifying” the 2020 election in Time Magazine led/prepared by Norm Eisen2, and Democrats created an institutionalized vote-by-mail tsar within the postal service); and
6. Courts regularly overrule “democracy” on flimsy pretexts even when voter preference is established via referendum. 

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:
  • In 2017 the Republicans controlled the House, Senate and presidency.  Trump was elected as a protest candidate and he won on a message of immigration restrictionism and trade protectionism.  Despite controlling the presidency and Congress, what did the Republicans accomplish?  They lowered taxes for the ultra rich, failed to reform Obamacare, Congress ignored immigration, and on trade Congress provided a weak, watered down NAFTA reform even as the trade deficit increased significantly from pre-Trump levels.  Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell refused to allow Trump to appoint any recess cabinet members  and House Majority Leader Paul Ryan actively tried to undermine him at every opportunity.  Trump did try a number of executive orders on immigration which the courts stepped in to stop.  They even prevented a simple executive reversal of the DACA program, which was itself a unilateral executive order issued without congressional approval by Obama!  Thanks Mitch.
  • Voting for the other side is no better: Obama ran as a “hope and change” “outsider” candidate after the financial crisis, then turned around and let Citigroup appoint his entire cabinet.  Voters who hoped that the election of the first black President would heal old racial wounds discovered that racial grievances only increased dramatically, while spying on U.S. citizens via the NSA search databases systematically increased.  We remained in Iraq and Afghanistan and started disastrous wars in Syria and Libya.“Hope and change”, an empty campaign slogan which won Obama the Nobel Peace Prize in 2009, resulted in no change and dashed hope.
  • 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, but once 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 blowout where 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.

Other examples of the media’s power to memory-hole disfavored topics include:

• The 2017 Las Vegas shooting massacre (the FBI eventually found “no motive”),
• The Notre Dame cathedral fire (caused by a Muslim but never officially announced for political reasons while Michelle Obama watched the fire from a lavish dinner cruise along the Seine),
• The San Bernardino Muslim attack (where the media focused on the fear of the Muslim community of retaliation, Apple refused to unlock the attacker’s phones and the victims received almost no media coverage),
• The Manchester Arena bombing,
• The Christchurch Manifesto (scrubbed from the internet),
• The 2016 Colbert election special (scrubbed from the internet),
• The 737 MAX crashes,
• The 1970s Weatherman Days of Rage leading to terrorists becoming institutionalized,
• Pink slime being reinstated into food,
• Hillary throwing a seven figure Champaign bottle at the television when she lost with John Podesta telling the crowd to go home without a concession speech,
• The Waukesha Christmas parade massacre,
• The Clinton Foundation filing a $16.8 million loss in 2018 with revenue down 90%+ after losing the 2016 election (is this not powerful circumstantial evidence of pay-for-play?), and
• 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:

1. 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;
2. the deaths from the Tulsa Riot have been grossly exaggerated;
3. 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;
4. the killing of Matthew Shepard was portrayed by the media as a homophobic murder yet the murder had nothing to do with his sexuality;
5. 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;
6. the “Stonewall Inn” raid was targeting the mafia, not homosexuals; and
7. 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.

3 James Perloff, The Shadows of Power, 7-8, 10.

4 Id., 145, 147-148.

5 Id., 170, 172.

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?

7 Gore Vidal, Imperial America, 50.

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. 

10 Per 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?”

11

“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.