Continued from Introduction: Part 1 and Part 2…

This section argues that only those who are low status can think freely because those with high status are constrained by their social circles and fear of losing wealth and status. The establishment requires those who imbibe its messages not just to accept their framing but to actively play-act it out to others. Because the public is dumb, they can only pay attention to one “meta-narrative” of establishment lies at a time. These meta-narratives, which follow one after the other in an unending stream, are used to further establishment objectives at the expense of the public.

HOW IS INFORMATION DISSEMINATED, AND WHY IS IT BELIEVED?

“We’ll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false.” – William J. Casey, Director of the CIA from 1981-1987 in a confirmed quote

The United States has a sophisticated propaganda apparatus which offers multiple streams of approved information to the public. These include the mainstream media, cultural outlets such as Netflix /Hulu/Disney+, movies and television (whose shows are called “programming” for a reason), official government organs (FBI, CIA, the DOJ, the CDC, etc.), properly credentialed “experts”, and through government mandated educational materials from preschool to university.  

Disfavored information from non-official sources is smeared by the establishment with vitriolic terms to convey its low, unapproved status — “fake news”, “conspiracy theories”, and other Pavlovian trigger labels. These labels convey an implied threat to people’s social status, which is very important to most people to protect.  The threat is: “If you listen to and believe alternative streams of information you risk losing your job, your source of income, and you may be ostracized by your friends and family.”  As a result, most people rationally shut down their minds to unofficial information sources.  They need to make a living and survive in society; why risk one’s livelihood for so little gain?  The risk-reward ratio is skewed. This is assuming that non-official information is even possible to receive; in the past establishment-disapproved authors were unpublishable, dissident figures were thrown in prison or murdered (such as former Nuremberg prosecutor Frances Parker Yockey) or in recent times many social media figures have been banned, shadow-banned, have had their websites removed for wrong-think, or one may even be criminally prosecuted (see Douglass Mackey).

A good rule of thumb is that the more status a person has, the more sensitive they are to the dangers of being labeled low status, which could risk their careers and preferred place in society.  Using the amount of education as a proxy, consider the over-conformity of doctors, lawyers, and other working professionals to government propaganda.  Why would these people risk losing their jobs, with degrees costing hundreds of thousands of dollars plus years of training, with many carrying enormous debt loads, for listening to disapproved views?  It would be ridiculous.  The safe course of action for well educated individuals is to consume only officially mandated information within the narrow (and ever narrowing) range of acceptable public discourse, called the Overton Window.

The corollary is that the less status a person has in society, the more free they are to speak their minds, to not be conditioned, and to have independent thought.  A relatively debt-free high-school educated truck driver is not likely to lose his job when he speaks his mind, and even if he did, without a politicized licensing board looking over his shoulders he would likely be able to find another quickly.

Consider your Pavlovian emotional, instinctual response to the phrase “black men are more violent than white men on average.”  If you are properly conditioned/educated by western society, your emotional reaction will likely be immediate and overwhelming: “No, they’re not!” “I need to end this conversation.” Even though the evidence behind this argument is extremely strong with extensive FBI crime statistics over decades (American black men commit 8x the rate of murders as whites, for example), to speak of it is verboten; this is an argument outside the Overton window; it is dangerous; it cannot be said in public without social ostracism.  Most people will not engage on the merits of such an issue either publicly or, to a lesser extent, privately as well (even though these self-styled “anti-racists” almost always live in white neighborhoods, shy away from black neighborhoods, and want to send their children to “good schools”, a euphemism for mostly white schools: they practice what Lawrence Auster called unprincipled, hypocritical exceptions in their own lives, virtue signaling while avoiding personal costs). See the below Twitter thread for more details:

Or consider another example: what is your emotional response to the phrase “democracy”?  If you are properly conditioned by the media, government, and schooling, then it likely makes you think of wonderful, shiny things: equality, justice, apple pie, white picket fences, flag waving, freedom.  It is considered an intrinsic good, it cannot be questioned, we must spread “democracy” worldwide to give this wonderful virtue to everyone!

But this response is also Pavlovian. Democracy is only good insofar as it is a vehicle to increase the quality of life for its citizens.  If democracy ceases to increase their quality of life, should it still be considered “good”? 

As the range of acceptable discourse narrows and the range of disallowed discourse increases, the gulf between those who accept officially mandated information, and those who have grown to distrust officially mandated information has widened. One may gingerly, with great trepidation, cross the first informational threshold of disallowed thought/belief in their lives, quivering and sweating, realizing that the official dogma on a particular topic is full of lies; then perhaps the second topic, and the third, the fourth and the fifth, each one easier to accept than the last.  Eventually the skeptic may reach a place where he looks back into the distance and, if he squints, he can see where he started, where the vast majority still are, and the question becomes how does he communicate with them? 

If this gulf grows wide enough, one may see and feel their interactions with most people as containing an unbridgeable gap, a chasm filled with alien beliefs about life and values, too far apart to bridge by mere conversation.  Sure, one can engage on child rearing and the latest Netflix shows and what the latest so-and-so is up to in their lives but such conversations are shallow and lack a real sense of connection that people need in their lives.  As Oscar Wilde said, “A bore is someone who deprives you of solitude without providing you with company.” To bring up topics with “normies” outside of the currently-allowed, presently-socially-acceptable, ever-narrowing band of discussion is to risk being perceived as odd or unpopular; and as one brings up a disallowed topic, one can instantaneously see their eyes flash with:

1. “this is an unacceptable thought”;
2. “if I listen to this my social status be at risk, which is unacceptable” (a remnant of human history where, in small hunter-gatherer societies, to be cast out of the group into the wilderness alone was akin to death); therefore
3. “I need to bow out of this conversation as quickly as possible so my social status is not eroded.”

---

IT IS NOT ENOUGH TO BE SILENT, ONE MUST PERFORM

Adding to this problem is that the imbibers of official propaganda are strongly encouraged to evangelize that dogma onto others. The American system of so-called “democracy” demands active participation on behalf of its citizens, even though the average citizen has no power outside of a single vote once every two years and little knowledge of issues outside of what they’ve been told by the media and approved experts.  The media saturates the airwaves with propaganda and the populace absorbs it; the highly educated adopt the approved “high status” positions as their own and then perform for their family and friends as if their opinions mattered. 

We can see this in countless examples, from COVID hysteria to Roe abortion hysteria to Ukraine hysteria and Black Lives Matter hysteria to anti-Trump hysteria to gay pride hysteria (everyone with rainbows on their faces on social media).  It was not enough to believe that Trump was “racist” and “sexist” and “the next coming of Hitler”; it had to be publicly stated on all of one’s social media; it had to be talked about with family and friends incessantly and with an urgency and dramatic sense of impending doom unless one DOES SOMETHING (does what?  Be hysterical to anyone who would listen, I guess).  Same with gay marriage.  To not be passionately pro gay marriage on social media, and to not have discussed it relentlessly, meant that one was, at best, an unenthusiastic supporter of such policies and hence on some level a low status enemy.  

This process allows the powerless citizenry to assuage their feelings of powerlessness by aligning themselves with the system’s authority and wielding it against others.  As Aldous Huxley said, “The surest way to work up a crusade in favor of some good cause is to promise people they will have a chance of maltreating someone. To be able to destroy with good conscience, to be able to behave badly and call your bad behavior ‘righteous indignation’ — this is the height of psychological luxury, the most delicious of moral treats.”

We can contrast this American governance style with a model that does not rely on the play-acting of its citizens to maintain its power: post-Soviet Russia.  Russia’s relationship with its population is alien to the western perspective.  While it has television and government stations and pushes a party line and has elections, generally the attitude of Putin and other leaders is that the government has the power, Russian civilians have no power and citizens are not privy to official deliberations, decisions or even basic explanations; just do what the government tells you to do – stick to your job, mind your own business and avoid taking political positions.  Just do what you’re told. See here and here and here if you want further details on this.  

Comparing these systems, the post-Soviet Russian perspective is more honest and proper because in both systems the average citizen has essentially no power, but in the former the expectation is that one must play-act as if they do. Unfortunately, many confused, pitiful people actually believe the official propaganda, getting angry or hysterical over their performance, to an astute observer’s dismay.

---

THE CRAFTING OF META-NARRATIVES

The active participation and performance by American citizens in society is a fickle thing; it’s attention span is short, having been eviscerated by social media, quick-cut television and film, and from being pulled in too many directions.  There is only so much time someone can stay hysterical about allowing gay marriage or wearing a pussyhat or frightened about the dangers of COVID before getting bored and moving on.  But if the masses are not being led from panic to panic, keeping them in a heightened state of adrenaline and fear, then they might start questioning narratives and going off in unapproved directions.  Thus, the establishment has the media push long-term stories called “meta-narratives”, crafted in conjunction with governmental and transnational agencies, lasting anywhere from multiple months to a year or longer, one after the other to further their agendas.  Each meta-narrative involves various sub-narratives and contingencies ready to morph into the next meta-narrative if the politics of the moment require it.  That way the public’s attention will be manipulated into officially approved directions even as other important events are occurring and de-emphasized or unreported.

The public’s energy can best be harnessed by concentrating it on a singular point of focus like that of a big, dumb animal, so only one meta-narrative runs at any particular time.  When a meta-narrative is running, there are an endless number of media stories on it, often using circular reporting where unnamed sources are quoted and rumors build off each other. It will be among the top stories day in and day out.  The narrative will be made simple for the public to follow.  Action items will be issued by the media for the public’s active participation on both sides, pro and con.  Approved public figures will be highlighted and personalized so the public knows who they are.  The coverage will be wall-to-wall and simple mantras repeated per the propaganda rule “if you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it”.  Because the meta-narrative is false, once it has served its political purpose the media adroitly pivot to the next one, leaving no time for reflection or understanding that the public was fooled because that could lead to unpleasant consequences for the perpetrators.  It is rare for the establishment to confirm that a meta-narrative scam the public fell for is false; the most recent one that comes to mind is the Iraq war WMD deception.

A rare peak into the media’s narrative collusion processes was the brief reporting on the 2007 private google groups forum JournoList where 400 liberal journalists and academics colluded on media talking points and synchronized arguments for maximum political effect.  Fred Barnes, executive editor of The Weekly Standard, discussed JournoList, stating, “… hundreds of journalists have gotten together, on an online listserv called JournoList, to promote liberalism and liberal politicians at the expense of traditional journalism.” JournoList ultimately closed down due to unwanted public scrutiny and many of its members joined an offshoot called Cabalist until it too was revealed and then shut down.  Whatever unreported follow-up of Journalist and Calabist continues to exist, though, as the media continues to parrot not just the same talking points, but even the same phrases in order to generate a hypnotic effect:  

Ben Rhodes, Deputy National Security Advisor for Strategic Communications and Speechwriting under Obama, gave a rare look into the process of creating media echo chambers, bragging about how adept the administration was in building a circular reporting echo chamber to increase support for the 2007 Iranian nuclear deal: 

“We created an echo chamber. They were saying things that validated what we had given them to say,” he admitted in the Times interview when asked about the plethora of “experts” praising the deal in the press. The Times article, which will appear in the paper’s Sunday magazine, notes Rhodes, who has a writing degree from NYU, was skilled as a “storyteller.” “He is adept at constructing overarching plotlines with heroes and villains, their conflicts supported by flurries of carefully chosen adjectives, quotations and leaks from named and unnamed senior officials,” reporter David Samuels writes. “He is the master shaper and retailer of Obama’s foreign-policy narratives.” 

Asked about his misleading version of the deal, Rhodes said, “In the absence of rational discourse, we are going to discourse the [expletive] out of this. “We had test drives to know who was going to be able to carry our message effectively, and how to use outside groups like [the anti-nuke group] Ploughshares, the Iran Project and whomever else. So we knew the tactics that worked. We drove them crazy,” he said of Republicans and others who opposed the deal, including Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

Rhodes bashed the media for not properly reporting on foreign affairs and revealed how he fed information to reporters such as Jeffrey Goldberg of The Atlantic, a respected “Beltway insider,” as the Times called him. “All these newspapers used to have foreign bureaus,” he said. “Now they don’t. They call us to explain to them what’s happening in Moscow and Cairo. “Most of the outlets are reporting on world events from Washington. The average reporter we talk to is 27 years old, and their only reporting experience consists of being around political campaigns. That’s a sea change. They literally know nothing.” Rhodes’ assistant, Ned Price, gave an example of how they would shape the news by feeding a narrative to their “compadres” in the press corps and letting it echo across social media. “I’ll give them some color,” Price said, “and the next thing I know, lots of these guys are in the dot-com publishing space, and have huge Twitter followings, and they’ll be putting this message out on their own.”

This strategy is routinely used by those in government to build and promote false narratives; most are just not as egotistical as Rhodes in demanding public credit and revealing methods.

Reliance on “conspiracy theories” is unnecessary for this argument.  According to the Swiss Propaganda Research group, 63-90% of geopolitical coverage in nine leading European newspapers relied on just three global news agencies for reporting – the American Associated Press (AP), the quasi-governmental French Agence France-Presse (AFP), and the British agency Reuters.  These newspapers had no investigative research on their own, and their commentary was almost always in favor of the US/NATO position (82% positive, 2% negative coverage), while the agency stories were not checked by the newspapers for any propaganda. The power deriving from such a concentration of narrative sourcing is obvious.

---

IDENTIFICATION OF THE MOST RECENT META-NARRATIVES

As of 2023, the most recent meta-narratives pushed by the media for political gain have been: 

• 2017-2018: “Trump is a Russian stooge!”  The media reported on this with wall-to-wall coverage and over-the-top hysteria for two years.1  Every Trump administration figure was personalized and profiled in depth and their every action and statement held aggressively under a microscope. This is a common Saul Alinksi “Rules for Radicals” tactic.2  This narrative led into…
• 2018: “Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh is a rapist!” An attempt to prevent the ideological balance of the court from shifting toward Republicans.3  Leading into…
• 2019: “Get him out!  Get him out!”  Trump’s first impeachment on the basis of Trump attempting to look into Biden’s questionable Ukrainian dealings.4  This led into…
• 2020-2021: “Global pandemic!” Two years of media hysteria over COVID with an intensity rivaling the worst of the Trump-is-a-Russia-stooge meta-narrative.5  Leading into…
• 2021: “Insurrection!”  Trump’s second impeachment because he spoke at the 1/6 election protest where FBI informants instigated disturbances, capitol police opened doors to let attendees into the capitol and the only death was a Trump supporter.6   Leading into…
• 2022: “Putin is evil!” Russia/Ukraine war and major inflation. If you want details on this, see here.  Leading into…

Each of these meta-narratives were pushed so aggressively and uniformly by the media that they distracted the public’s attention away from other stories.  People felt that each update in the unfolding of the current meta-narrative was vitally important, that to turn away for even a second could mean missing out on critical information that might personally impact them.  Other issues occurring at the time such the wide open southern border with millions of entering illegals, endless monetary theft by the Federal Reserve and the major banks, the lack of job opportunities for Americans, stagnant wages, spying by the NSA and social media companies, the sabotage of food production facilities and farms causing massive degradation in the food supply (currently quietly underway; over 100 facilities were burned between 2020 to June 2022 with a major uptick in 2022); using 87,000 new armed IRS agents to shakedown middle America; and gradual erosion the 1st Amendment via “Hate Speech” exceptions7 were swept aside in the dramatic push for the meta-narrative and ignored.  All anyone could talk about was the current hysteria.  And that’s why it is so powerful.

---

FUTURE META-NARRATIVE CONTINGENCIES ARE QUEUED-UP DEPENDING ON NEED

The establishment has many meta-narrative contingencies queued up depending on political need.  These include but are not limited to:

1. Cyber Polygon, which involves preparation for a cyber attack on key U.S. infrastructure, to be blamed on Russia but instigated by globohomo itself;
2. Restarting COVID hysteria, with Monkeypox used as a test;
3. Escalating the Russia/Ukraine war where even nuclear war is a possibility (the establishment leaders can hide in well stocked bunkers);
4. Steps toward North/South America integration via U.S. military intervention in Mexico;
5. War with Iran, or China over Taiwan;
6. Prosecuting Trump and more of his followers for 1/6, with the government prepared for the possibility of civil unrest which would give them an excuse to crack down;
7. Triggering a currency crisis caused by loss of faith in the banking system, the popping of the sovereign debt bubble and/or the end of the petrodollar system which would impoverish the west via hyperinflation; or
8. Ushering in tyrannical central bank digital currencies (CBDCs), perhaps initially in the form of welfare for desperate masses.

To help determine which meta-narrative to utilize next the establishment uses computer simulations, polling8 and artificial intelligence and attempts, in part, to pick issues that create a “shatter effect” among the right. A shatter effect results from applying pressure to right-wing wedge issues, creating intra-right infighting which squanders much of their limited energy.  For instance, Steve Sailer and other human biodiversity (HBD) believers became hysterical over COVID and demanded immediate and extreme government intervention.  This put them at odds with those who were anti-vaccine and anti-shutdown.  The Ukraine war set elements of the pro-Ukraine and pro-Russia right against each other.  The anti-abortion Supreme Court ruling set the religious right up against the secular right.  One can expect future meta-narratives to continue taking into account the benefits of shatter effects with the goal of helping the establishment achieve its desired dialectical synthesis, discussed below.

Once you see and understand the concept of meta-narratives it becomes impossible to unsee.  The more people become aware of how it works the fewer people will fall for it, which will ultimately make meta-narratives weaker and give time back to those poor individuals passionately but powerlessly acting out their Two Minutes Hate.

With that said, the rollout of each new meta-narrative, designed for shock and awe, is always disconcerting and unpleasant even for the most hardened dissident. 

---

HEGELIAN DIALECTICS IN META-NARRATIVES

When a meta-narrative is being established, its creators spend considerable time not just on the official government approved pro-meta-narrative position, but also on the official government approved anti-meta-narrative position.  It is the energy created by this dialectic — where citizens are given two binary “choices” and allowed to debate between these artificial choices, ignoring any other options — that gives the meta-narrative the energy to transform society and lead to a pre-approved “solution”.  

In such a dialectic, the media frames their articles with a pro vs. con approach, trotting out various officially designated “experts” to provide details and framing necessary for a controlled debate.  This two-sided choice triggers primal instincts in humans where through evolution we are used to picking a tribe and going to war against another tribe. It’s the same instincts used for picking and cheering on sports teams.  Nuance and subtlety are discarded; root for your team and shut up or you’ll be considered an enemy sympathizer.  Goering commented on this general concept:

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

An example of a small false dialectic was the trial of Kyle Rittenhouse.  On one side was the pro-conviction, pro-BLM position against the anti-conviction, pro-self defense position.  Each screamed at and debated each other while a third position was basically ignored — that BLM was simply a front group of the United States government acting out rioting orders by its FBI handlers for political goals, see here, here and here for details. The true objectives were to portray Trump as weak on crime, to destroy small businesses already ravaged by COVID, and to strike fear in the hearts of citizens trying to defend themselves using firearms with the threat of criminal prosecution.  The stakes for the public were relatively minor.  Regardless of Rittenhouse’s defense verdict, the synthesis was a modest decline in the ability and willingness for gun owners to defend themselves from criminals.

Another small dialectic was the death of George Floyd.  The trial was about whether Derek Chauvin and three other police officers on scene should go to prison for causing his death, but the synthesis of the trial and conviction was that cops nationwide would become less likely to police or even patrol in black neighborhoods.  The facts of the case were irrelevant as the media hysteria led the way; the toxicology report showed Floyd had a lethal dose of fentanyl in his system, he was on methamphetamine, had COVID, Chauvin was using an approved Minneapolis PD technique (and he was only 5’9” tall and thin), and, per the coroner, Floyd had extreme heart disease and no neck trauma.  He was also a felon and arrested for robbing a woman in front of her toddler but none of that mattered.  He is now hailed as a saint.

A large false dialectic was the COVID-19 pandemic, where the positions pushed by the media were: (1) COVID is a deadly pandemic, it’s origins are unknown, people sick with it should take Remdesivir and be placed on breathing machines if they are really sick, and we must lockdown society without economic impact studies in order to save the population, vs. (2) COVID is a deadly pandemic, its origins were Chinese biolabs, sick people should take HCQ and everyone should shelter and stay at home, but maybe total shutdowns aren’t totally necessary.  Dissenting voices to this dialectic were banned from social media, squelched, and threatened with job loss and/or actually fired. An alternative position was a belief that COVID-19 was a difficult-to-differentiate flu equivalent with equivalent mortality rates, and it would not have been noticed without the media hype.9  Evidence for this position includes a John Hopkins analysis (later yanked for political reasons) stating total mortality was flat in 2020, also confirmed by Stanford research that was later banned; the incidence of flu in 2020 was zero; and there’s a question over whether PCR tests can even detect COVID-19 vs general cold/flu.10  The stakes for this dialectic were high and the enormous energy generated created a powerful synthesis: the ushering in of forced vaccinations and COVID vaccine passports (later placed on hold), with residual resentment for China in case the establishment decides to later treat them as an enemy (beginning in 2023).

Another dialectic involved being team pro-Trump vs team anti-Trump during his presidency as opposed to judging the man on his performance issue by issue.  Too many people blindly chose a team and rooted for it like a sports match, ignoring the failings of their “side” because to recognize such failings during a tribal war would mean to weaken one’s team.11 The synthesis of the Trump movement and the hysterical anti-Trump reaction led to globohomo tyrannically cracking down on American citizens: 

Historically, a major false dialectic was the Vietnam war, where one had to either be “pro war” or “anti war”.  A third perspective – the perspective of Robert Welch of the John Birch society – was that our military rules of engagement were limiting to the point of incapacity and that we should either dramatically relax them in order to win or otherwise withdrawal if we wouldn’t fight properly.  His analysis is worth reading here.  This rational perspective was ignored by the establishment.  The ultimate synthesis of this dialectic was the withdrawal from Vietnam after a tremendous loss of blood and treasure, including thousands of POWs ignominiously left behind, and a collapse in the public’s willingness to fight communism by direct U.S. military means. This was a major win for globalist, pro-communist sympathizers in the U.S.

Lastly, see the 1966 Cloward-Piven strategy where two prominent academics famously conspired to generate a national crisis in order to usher in a predetermined outcome drastically expanding the size of government.

….

In Part 2 and Part 3, we will look at whether regular citizens have any power in American democracy, how media serves as a brainwashing tool via framing devices, the role of so-called experts and institutions in keeping citizens pacified, a critique of modern education, and a discussion of the “NPC” meme.

---

1 Trump was never expected to become president; the establishment brushed his candidacy off as a joke who would wreck the Republican Party with his brash, racist tactics and then lose handily.  This is why the media gave him extensive coverage and why Bill Clinton encouraged him to run.  He trailed by 3-6 points in almost every pre-election poll, to the point Hillary took off significant amounts of campaigning to relax and she failed to campaign in critical swing states. 

Trump won, barely, by 107,000 votes across 3 states. Even he was surprised by his victory and possibly horrified.  The reaction from the establishment to his surprising victory was over-the-top, nonstop hysteria, which continued without pause for the length of his presidency.  The leaked Peter Strzok/Lisa Page texts showed the typical elite perspective: “I want to believe the path you threw out for consideration in Andy’s office that there’s no way he gets elected – but I’m afraid we can’t take that risk. It’s like an insurance policy in the unlikely event you die before you’re 40” and, in one particular message when Page asked if Trump would ever become president, Strzok reportedly replied, “No. No he won’t. We’ll stop it.”   James Comey hit on this point as well in his book: “It is entirely possible that, because I was making decisions in an environment where Hillary Clinton was sure to be the next president, my concern about making her an illegitimate president by concealing the restarted investigation bore greater weight than it would have if the election appeared closer or if Donald Trump were ahead in all polls. But I don’t know.” 

The Russia Collusion and impeachment narratives was meant as a stopgap measure to prevent Trump from implementing any of his agenda and from rooting out any of the corruption in D.C.  During the impeachment Colonel Vindman, appearing in full military uniform, had the approval of the pro-establishment Joint Chiefs of Staff for his performance, who were furious at Trump for advancing an anti-war agenda.

2 Alinski was Obama’s inspiration; he incidentally dedicated his book to Lucifer. The exact dedication quote from Rules for Radicals: “Lest we forget at least an over the shoulder acknowledgment to the very first radical: from all our legends, mythology and history (and who is to know where mythology leaves off and history begins – or which is which), the very first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom – Lucifer.” 

3 “Brett Kavanaugh is a rapist!” was an attempt to subvert a new Republican on the Supreme Court who would tip the court’s balance of power, conducted by known liberal operatives and CIA assets – Christine Blasey Ford’s handlers were intelligence agents.   One of the oddest subplots of this narrative was Ford’s home possessing two front doors which, she claimed, was due to the trauma from the incident – although she really used the second front door to illegally rent out part of her house to tenants or airbnb guests.

4 Trump’s first impeachment over Biden’s corruption was later proven conclusively by emails and documents found on Hunter Biden’s laptop — “10 for the big guy”. Also see Biden’s on-air confession where he stated, “”If the prosecutor’s not fired you’re not getting the money [$1 billion]. Well son of a bitch, he got fired, and they put in place someone who was solid at the time.”

5 The “Global Pandemic” COVID narrative provided political cover for instituting nationwide Democrat-favoring vote by mail  and ballot harvesting measures, which would assist in pushing through an unenthusiastic Joe Biden against an incumbent Trump cruising to re-election on a strong economy.  Additionally, the narrative advanced the Great Reset agenda via instituting mandatory vaccine passports, along with creating opportunities for theft of much of the $11+ trillion printed for the “emergency” by bankers, politicians and their allies.

6 The “Insurrection” second impeachment for a FBI and Capitol Police staged unarmed “coup attempt” where no one other than a Trump supporter died was pushed to sweep aside complaints about extensive election irregularities, to label half of America as extremists, and to punish any right wing American who has the temerity to protest in person against election theft.

7 As Thomas Sowell said, “Freedom is unlikely to be lost all at once or openly, it is far more likely eroded away bit by bit amid glittering promises and expressions of noble ideals. Thus hard-earned freedoms for which many have fought and died have now been bought and sold for words or money, or both.” 

As Michael Malice said, “The claim ‘hate speech is not free speech’ implies ‘free’ is a type of speech, as opposed to how speech is treated in a free society.”

And as George Washington said, “If freedom of speech is taken away, then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter.”

8 Polling is used either for information gathering purposes or to manipulate public opinion. Polling hacks the human herd-instinct to make politicians or issues appear more or less popular than they actually are.

9 Over 80,000 died from the 2017 U.S. flu season, for example.

10 To the extent there was an increase in total mortality in 2020, it is unclear to what extent it can simply be blamed on regular hospital operations, including surgeries, being suspended during the first year of the “pandemic”. Increases in mortality post-2020 (i.e. when COVID was already circling for a year) can be attributed to the untested, experimental, dangerous mRNA vaccines.

11 This same dynamic occurred when pro-globalist Giorgia Meloni became Italian Prime Minister, where American conservatives rallied behind her despite her then-known anti-populist bias, which was then born out on the ground when Muslim migrants to Italy tripled.  See here, here, and here.

Continued from Part 1…

This section looks at how people think, how perspectives differ on a generational level, and the ethical theories that will be used for the rest of this essay.

WHAT IS THE NATURE OF PEOPLE’S INNER EXPERIENCES?

Before criticizing the masses for failing to investigate and organize societal trends in their own minds, let’s first ask if the masses have frequent inner thoughts.  The concept is strange, but the answer may be less than one would expect according to a 2007 University of Nevada Department of Psychology study on college students.  Per the study, regarding the frequency of common phenomena of inner experience (inner speech, inner seeing (aka images), unsymbolized thinking, feeling, and sensory awareness), the frequency of common phenomena of inner experience is low, with 13-30% of participants not experiencing a specific form of inner experience during the study at all:

If this study is accurate, many people may lack specific types of inner experience, and the overall frequency of some types of inner experience may be surprisingly low. Perhaps the low frequency of inner speech (17% not experiencing it at all, and the overall frequency being 26%) explains the nature of extraverts, or why many women verbalize what they feel to those around them as a running commentary. Regarding unsymbolized thinking, defined as “thinking a particular, definite thought without the awareness of that thought’s being conveyed in words, images, or any other symbols”, the overall frequency was only 22% with 30% of participants not experiencing it at all. A lack of frequent unsymbolized thinking may explain why so many people live paycheck-to-paycheck with no ability to plan for expenses.  The premium for car insurance isn’t an event that’s planned for, it’s just something that happens; if a person has the money great, if not they’ll deal with it when the bill comes in.  It’s why people living on food stamps eat steak, buy expensive hardbacks and then run out of money before the month ends.  The idea that the person will need to eat at the end of the month just like they did last month doesn’t cross their minds.

If this explanation for the general population’s behavior is accurate, the ramifications are disquieting.  If many individuals do not experience specific types of thinking at all (such as unsymbolized thinking), what would that say about the nature of democracy (one person one vote) or about standardized education? What would that say about the Western outlook, which believes that everyone is inherently equal except societal racism/ sexism/other -isms and -phobias holding people back?

---

THE CALCIFICATION OF ONE’S WORLDVIEW WITH AGE

Not only do many people seem to lack frequent unsymbolized thoughts, but most people’s beliefs calcifies as they age: they become no longer open to new ideas, perspectives or experiences which could stimulate changes in younger people’s belief system.  Science shows that aging individuals adopt and rigidify the beliefs they learned as children or adolescents while society evolves and changes with the next generation.  An example of this is J.K. Rowling’s transsexual position: she grew up in an era when being pro-homosexuality was taboo but hip and exciting but transsexualism was off-bounds; society moved on to make transsexualism the taboo but hip and exciting thing, leaving her behind. Or consider Matt Stone and Trey Parker of South Park fame, whose 90’s libertarian irreverence locked into place, unable to adjust to changing circumstances and they’ve been irrelevant for well over a decade.

This happens in every generation.1 People’s worldview become less sophisticated and more about instinctive reaction to base nature and emotional feelings as they age, and it’s happened with the boomer generation in charge of America today.  For transparency, the following criticism is not meant to absolve younger generations of their culpability about the state of society (and they are also criticized toward the end of this section), but merely to describe how rigid mental calcification affects society. 

The boomers were a generation where, growing up, they were coddled by the “Greatest Generation” and experienced no external challenges.  Times were good and post-World War 2 America was on the ascendency.  The boomers took advantage of this time of plenty and prosperity and adopted a superficial bootstrap mentality (“You can make it on your own, just work harder!”), a blind belief in formal education (“Just go to college, then you’ll get a great job!”), an extreme belief in “individual rights” and casual drug use and sex (“Peace and love, brother!”), a declining religiousness and a singular focus on making money at the expense of society.   College was cheap, health care was cheap, housing was cheap, raising children was cheap, opportunities were unlimited, and interest rates were decreasing for an uninterrupted 40 years starting in the 1980s which in turn increased asset prices in an almost straight line (as there is a direct inverse correlation between asset values and interest rates):

The mentality created from growing up in idle times of prosperity created the seeds of decadence and decay which would later manifest.  The boomer’s fixed worldview of prosperity resulted in a selfish, entitled, self-absorbed, naively idealistic, short-sighted generation, and they decided to drastically increase government spending so they could enjoy life and retirement at the expense of future generations. As Carl Schmitt argues, when times are good nobody likes a pessimistic naysayer.2  Sticking with this bootstrap mentality, white boomer parents cast out their children at eighteen with no financial support in stark contrast to the Jewish, Indian, Asian and Muslim American populations who continued to support their children indefinitely and which therefore gave them a massive leg up on historic white Christian Americans.  

These selfish boomers are the people who lead the nation now, a country swimming in debt, illegal immigration, degeneracy, tense racial relations and a host of other seemingly unsolvable problems, and their objective seems to be to kick the can down the road until they die off then let others deal with it — “oh well, it won’t be my problem anymore, it’s yours”.  Some cultural signs of a stagnant, decaying society include endless forgettable movie reboots and Marvel movies (“capeshit”), dull music with auto-tuned beats and no memorable hits in a decade, politically correct video games, replacing statues with woke versions, and awful, decadent architecture and art3 (such as “Piss Christ”).4

Bruce Gibney makes a similar argument in his book “A Generation of Sociopaths”.  He argues: 

“[In 1978] the gross debt-to-GDP ratio was about 35 percent. It’s roughly 103 percent now — and it keeps rising. The boomers inherited a rich, dynamic country and have gradually bankrupted it. They habitually cut their own taxes and borrow money without any concern for future burdens. They’ve spent virtually all our money and assets on themselves and in the process have left a financial disaster for their children. We used to have the finest infrastructure in the world. The American Society of Civil Engineers thinks there’s something like a $4 trillion deficit in infrastructure in deferred maintenance. It’s crumbling, and the boomers have allowed it to crumble. Our public education system has steadily degraded as well, forcing middle-class students to bury themselves in debt in order to get a college education….[the boomers instituted] a massive push for privatized gain and socialized risk for big banks and financial institutions. This has really been the dominant boomer economic theory, and it’s poisoned what’s left of our public institutions…. 

I think the major factor is that the boomers grew up in a time of uninterrupted prosperity. And so they simply took it for granted. They assumed the economy would just grow three percent a year forever and that wages would go up every year and that there would always be a good job for everyone who wanted it. This was a fantasy and the result of a spoiled generation assuming things would be easy and that no sacrifices would have to be made in order to preserve prosperity for future generations.  On an abstract level, I think the worst thing they’ve done is destroy a sense of social solidarity, a sense of commitment to fellow citizens. That ethos is gone and it’s been replaced by a cult of individualism. It’s hard to overstate how damaging this is. On a concrete level, their policies of under-investment and debt accumulation have made it very hard to deal with our most serious challenges going forward.”

Good times inevitably carry the seeds of its ultimate demise within it, bringing to mind a G. Michael Hopf quote: “Hard times create strong men. Strong men create good times. Good times create weak men. And, weak men create hard times.”  The boomer “good times” mentality rapidly brought about “weak men” in the Millennial and Generation Z generations, whose stuck-in-perpetual-adolescence mentality is also having disastrous effects.

---

MILLENNIAL AND YOUNGER GENERATIONS ARE STUCK IN PERPETUAL ADOLESCENCE

Millennials and Generation Z are stuck in a sort of perpetual adolescence deep into their 30s and 40s.  The reasons for this are many and include a combination of poor real-world experience and ubiquitous college degrees, having entitled boomer parents unable to impart life lessons with genuine wisdom, incessant media propaganda encouraging pleasure seeking and short-term planning, an over-the-top political correctness preventing practical thinking, weak personality traits (such as being spoiled, entitled, lazy, sensitive, and feminine), a lack of considered perspective which could have been learned from history, philosophy or religion; a failure to procreate (“having kids is hard, I’d rather just enjoy life”), a lack of skills necessary to repair and maintain complicated societal infrastructure, being significantly more homosexual and transsexual than prior generations which have historically been associated with decadence; utilizing smartphones as a crutch while avoiding interacting with the analog world, ever-shrinking work opportunities because America is a “service based economy” (i.e. domestic manufacturing jobs shipped to China so you can buy cheap plastic at Walmart, leaving most people with paper-shuffling, low value-add jobs5) and vastly increased education and housing costs.  While significantly more formally educated than prior generations, it’s unclear what the Millennials and Generation Z have actually gained from such education, and it may have actually been detrimental – the well established correlation between more schooling and having fewer children has held strong.  

If American standards of living are rapidly declining while decadence is skyrocketing, how can these younger generations even begin to think about reforming the system when they are stuck in a mental haze of perpetual adolescence?  One blogger discusses this point in detail:

I am one of the oldest millennials. Something terrifying is happening to us. We are dying while we are still children….

The oldest of us are rapidly closing in on 40. We are the least married, least fecund generation in history. Really, only 30% of people under 40 are married! Big-brained thinkers blame economic conditions, largely because big-brained thinkers go through years of training to ensure they don’t see what is right in front of their faces….

My entire life, the only message I got from school, or church, college, and the media was that every decision I made, from what degree to pursue, to where I lived, to whether to marry, was with the goal of having a maximally pleasurable life. True, as someone raised in a conservative church, I was warned against fornication and substance abuse, but these were framed in terms of interfering with the good life. In the 1990s, there was no difference between Christians and non-Christians in that general outlook. Both Christian and non-Christians were equally horrified at the notion that a bright young woman might not end up “maximizing her potential,” which meant putting 40 hours a week into a cubicle. Both warned her against getting married too young, because marriage could cut short a promising career. Evangelicals, for their part, indulged in a pious fiction that the unmarried 25-year-olds in the church were all virgins, but still, everyone agreed that the proper way to treat the world is as your playground. 

Any kind of social responsibility or context to our choice-making was completely absent from what our boomer elders told us. What is the social purpose of marriage? Conservative boomers couldn’t say. They appealed to “tradition” without understanding why it existed, to a Biblical literalism that was as mindless as it was quaint, in a world where their own self-indulgent concept of marriage had led to record-smashing divorce rates in the 1970s and 80s, and my generation growing up with every weekend alternating between parents. The boomer had already set up the foundation of marriage as an exercise in self-indulgence; gay marriage came as the consequence. If marriage has a social purpose, to channel and direct human sexuality in a way that promotes social cohesion and provides for a man’s progeny, then gay marriage is nonsense….

It’s sad to watch my generation collapse into nihilism and fear as our bodies begin the process of dying. The men become bugmen, living to consume, filling shelf after shelf with toys their adult brains can’t find amusement in, because they know of nothing else to do. The women are in a panic, desperately trying to hold onto their evaporating youth, trying to prove to themselves that a woman can be just as sexy and alluring at 35 as she could at 23. There’s a lot of rage at the Boomers, but it’s aimless and uninformed….

Boomers have a perpetual teenage mentality that their parents never understood, and they raised us to be the eternal teenagers they didn’t get to be. When you’re 17, the idea of just buying cool stuff, having consequence-free sex, and binge-consuming media for the rest of your life sounds fantastic. You do not understand that when you are 40, you will not want that any more. There are tons of guys my age and younger who wear Star Wars T-shirts, collect Marvel [toys], and have gotten vasectomies, and they have no idea why they’re so miserable. There are women my age who just broke up with another live-in boyfriend of three years and have no children. So here we are, and we’re falling apart. 

Our parents instilled in us a totalizing selfishness that they never got to indulge, assuring us that marriage and family “would just come” when “the time is right.” As far as they were concerned, that’s just what happens. Except it “just happened” to them because of all the social capital of previous generations that was still there for them, which they razed to the ground. Now my generation is absolutely miserable because we’re reaching that age where your brain shifts modes from “consume and copulate” to “prepare your offspring for adulthood,” and we don’t understand that’s what is actually happening. Women of my generation have been told their entire lives that loneliness is a psychological disorder, that children are parasites, and that exhausting yourself for 40 hours a week at work is the meaning of life. It turns out that continuing to live as though you were a teenager does not in fact bequeath eternal youth. “Age is just a number” is the most insidious of all Boomer proverbs. 

For my generation, there is not really a path back out. All the social institutions of this country have been detonated in the quest for money and self, or via the hysterical condemnation of every kind of organic social relation as “sexist” or “racist.” In the cities, nobody knows anybody. Professional associations and social clubs are borderline nonexistent. Nobody knows or cares about anyone, and nobody knows how to start. It’s so sick and twisted that my generation uses the word “community” to refer to people who buy the same consumer products, like going to see a movie means you’re part of the “Star Wars community.” Even churches have been consolidated into massive theme parks where anonymous masses of people go to be entertained; centuries-old congregations have shuttered as the people moved to the megaplex. Brain-dead “conservative” pundits can only worry our declining birth rate in terms of funding entitlements or GDP; hardly anyone will come right out and say a society with low fertility is fundamentally sick and disordered. 

Millennials need to accept that the values inculcated in us were a load of horse crap. I don’t see that happening, as we’re mostly are upset that we can’t live the idyllic lives of self-indulgence the Boomers promised us. Even suggesting that divorce should be harder, marriage should be younger, and women were built to be mothers, not office drones, causes the average Millennial to dissolve into hysterical outrage. We’re the generation that thinks having a country is racist and the most important thing about space exploration is making sure hijab-clad Muslims are a part of it. So we’re probably not going to snap out of it. We’ll be buried in Batman coffins, surrounded by our Xbox games. Maybe whoever buries us will finally discard the morality of the Boomers.

What a nightmare.

---

THE CHOICE OF VALUES

We’ve established that the gulf between what most people want and what they receive from society is a wide chasm, amplified by unthinking thought patterns and generational attitudes poorly adapted to the modern world.  But by what standard are we to judge these trends?  

There are three main ethical theories that attempt to justify moral rules and principles: deontological ethics, virtue ethics and consequentialism.  Briefly stated:

• Deontological ethics focus on the rightness or wrongness of actions from a duty, rule or obligation based perspective (such as religious believers whose actions derive from the requirements of the religion without focusing on the real-world consequences, for they believe they will be judged by God in the afterlife).
• Virtue ethics focus on the development of the individual’s character and understanding of the virtues that make up good character. This theory holds that a good and moral person will naturally act in the right way, and that this is the best way to determine right and wrong. Virtue ethics places importance on understanding the virtues, such as courage, justice, and wisdom, that make up a good character.
• Consequentialism focuses on means-end testing to maximize the value(s) chosen by the person conducting the analysis.  These values can either be hedonistic utilitarianism (trying to maximize overall wellbeing of society) or preference utilitarianism (emphasizing certain subjective values and seeking objectives which maximize those values; for example, a desire for mankind to advance technologically, or a desire for humanity to get close to Promethean perfection, or a desire to protect/preserve nature, etc).  Under utilitarianism, objective truths about our material​ universe do exist but objective values​ do not exist for human beings due to our imperfect minds. The closest we can get is to listen to our intuition, the voice of morality inside ourselves about which values are most important and then seek to achieve them.

Having a discussion about the state of society without settling on the ethical method being employed results in people arguing past each other, making it harder to achieve agreement.

Because most of the provided analysis is descriptive about the nature of society as opposed to prescriptive, the hope is that this essay may appeal to those under any of these ethical theories. The method employed attempts to formulate a descriptive framework for human nature and society judged by its predictive value, derived recursively under a time-consuming trial and error process. It attempts to discern the perennial laws governing material reality and human nature until it’s explanatory power synchs up as closely with current and future events as possible.

After extensive analysis there will be some moral judgments applied, primarily based on the Golden Rule (“do unto others as you would have them do unto you”). There will also be an interpretation offered of where Western society’s core values originate that may upset those with a deontological outlook.

---

ONE MUST UNDERSTAND THE PRESENT IN ORDER TO UNDERSTAND THE PAST

How does one even begin to develop a predictive framework to analyze human nature and society?  Carl Sagan famously said, “You have to know the past to understand the present.”  It’s a nice quote and certainly true in some respects, but Sagan got the cause and effect mostly backwards.  It is difficult understand the past until you understand the present; to discern in real time, by observing the people you know in your own life how they choose what to believe, who they listen to and who they ignore, and why; seeing the ways news propagates and how narratives evolve, and whether they are believed or not and why; what people are taught in school and what is left out of their education, with various strains of thought forbidden; and the various assumptions, incentives and demands people receive that impacts their work, their mating choices, their lives. As Orwell wrote in 1984, “Those who control the present control the past, and those who control the past control the future.”

How can one attempt to properly understand the past, whether and to what extent historical narratives are true, what information is being conveyed by who and for what purpose, without first developing the discernment necessary to separate fact from fiction in the present?  It is exceedingly difficult.  With careful observance one may learn how false stories are generated today; how these stories are pushed by authority figures to further their own power and control; how these narratives are taught to the masses via media, entertainment and schooling, who absorb these official dogmas and uncritically teach it to their own children, who then perpetuate the cycle.  A judicious individual can take these lessons on propaganda and misinformation and then apply them to what we know of history.

If one focuses on the present, observes and comes to understand people’s motivations and then applies those lessons to the past, a more accurate understanding of the world can be ascertained.  This is where we turn to next.

---

1 See Edward J. Watts, The Final Pagan Generation, 7: “The work of scholars such as Glen Elder has shown that, in the modern world, social and economic conditions experienced during childhood.  People who grew up at different times and under different conditions often do not understand the same event in the same way because their life experiences have conditioned them to react to certain stimuli and ignore others. Their different worldviews are not shaped by any one dramatic day. They instead reflect the slow process of learning to live in the world in which they were born. We know intuitively that older and younger people now share neither the same concerns nor the same reactions to events, but we often forget that this generation gap existed in antiquity as well. Obscuring or ignoring generational differences, then, prevents us from seeing shape people’s behaviors for the rest of their lives, the full implication of historical events.”

2 “Without wanting to decide the question of the nature of man one may say in general that as long as man is well off or willing to put up with things, he prefers the illusion of an undisturbed calm and does not endure pessimists. The political adversaries of a clear political theory will, therefore, easily refute political phenomena and truths in the name of some autonomous discipline as amoral, uneconomical, unscientific and above all else declare this- a devilry worthy of being combated.” ― Carl Schmitt, The Concept of the Political 

3 The Turner Prize exemplifies the decline.  Joseph William Mallard Turner was a British landscape artist who made beautiful, romantic paintings.  A prize was made in his honor, which degenerated into the worst of filth.  Per Robert Conquest in Reflections on a Ravaged Century, p. 210: “It is already some years since the Tate gave the Turner Prize to half a mother cow with half a calf, cut horizontally, in a glass case. (A friend phoned the Tate to tell them that the supposed mother was in fact a heifer – and a good sign was that the unfortunate Tate people laughed heartily.). And all this defended by the typically mind-scrubbed ex-financier in charge, Lord Palumbo, on the grounds that Turner, too, was rejected in his time…Later Turner Prizes, some less “transgressive” than others, show a similar taste – the latest being smeared with elephant dung.”

4 But this trend is nothing new.  “We can assert with some confidence that our own period is one of decline; that the standards of culture are lower than they were fifty years ago; and that the evidences of this decline are visible in every department of human activity. I see no reason why the decay of culture should not proceed much further, and why we may not even anticipate a period, of some duration, of which it is possible to say that it will have no culture” – T. S. Eliot, 1948

5 Most office workers only “work” a couple of hours a day, staring at their iPhone for sports and politics updates the rest of it.  As an example of this, Elon Musk fired 80% of Twitter employees with no discernible loss in site quality.  But the whole economy is like this and has been like this for a very long time.  As Henry Adams wrote in 1910, “The whole fabric of society will go to wrack if we really lay hands of reform on our rotten institutions.”  Then he added, “From top to bottom the whole system is a fraud, all of us know it, laborers and capitalists alike, and all of us are consenting parties to it.”

Continued from the Preface…

This section looks at the bourgeoisie, secular, materialist aspirations of the Western masses and concludes that their lifestyles have been eroded massively over the past decades.

WHAT DO MOST PEOPLE WANT IN LIFE?

The general outline is the same everywhere.  Most people, regardless of background, want to get married and have a family.  They want to have a fulfilling career and make a positive impact on those around them.  They want to own a home in a safe area with a sense of community.  They want to have health insurance. They want a legacy they can pass onto their children, both morally and financially.  They want to be able to send their kids to good, safe, clean schools and afford college that will prepare them for life.  They want time for their hobbies, whether it is fishing, hiking, travel, reading, sports, etc.  They would love to have the option of a one-working-spouse household.  They want to feel like they are part of a community of like-minded people, with similar backgrounds and similar beliefs, and that their input matters and they are appreciated.  They want to feel and be healthy.  They want to be able to retire one day.  They want to have trustworthy experts who can answer questions and offer guidance in their lives.  They want to feel like their interests are being properly represented in government.  They want some connection to God.  

Most people especially want to feel that they are improving their situation in life, that their status – i.e. their standing in their communities, the amount of money they make and the impact they have – increases over time with the efforts they put in.  To increase one’s status makes one happy; it increases one’s mating prospects and treatment by society while to decrease one’s status makes one feel depressed, that they are going in a bad direction.  People inevitably take for granted their current status; they compare themselves to people on the “next rung up”, not those on rungs below them or far above them.  See the Dunbar number where humans naturally maintain a maximum of ~150 relationships.  

As a corollary, most people want to avoid ideas and influences which society perceives as low status. Being a recipient of “wrong-think” increases the odds of losing social status – of alienating friends and acquaintances, of risking one’s job and standing in their community – which could cause that person a great deal of emotional and psychological pain. 

Because status is relative, there is a never-ending, zero-sum struggle against others regardless of society’s overall quality of life – there will always be a similar mate pool and social hierarchy to compete for.  This is Nietzsche’s will to power, where in Beyond Good and Evil he states, “Even the body within which individuals treat each other as equals … will have to be an incarnate will to power, it will strive to grow, spread, seize, become predominant – not from any morality or immorality but because it is living and because life simply is will to power.” 

---

COMPARED TO WHAT PEOPLE WANT, WHAT DO WE ACTUALLY HAVE IN SOCIETY TODAY?

Today sixty percent of Americans live paycheck-to-paycheck with significant amounts of credit card, student loan debt, and mortgage loans and car loans (if they’re lucky enough to own a house and car).  According to Social Security statistics, in 2018 33% of Americans earned less than $20,000 per year, 46% less than $30,000, 58% less than $40,000 and 67% less than $50,000.  Two working parent households are required in order to try to pay basic expenses.  Per a UBS report 44% of consumers don’t make enough to cover their bills.  

The labor force participation rate for men declined from 87% in 1948 to 69% in 2012.  Rates of housing and family formation have fallen enormously,  divorce rates have skyrocketed (with pair-bond-challenged women initiating 80% of divorces given legal outcomes substantially favoring them) while children from shattered homes have much worse average life outcomes. People go to work in unstable 9-5 job with no pension and little if any retirement benefits and then lie down on the couch and watch Netflix and porn (or perform on OnlyFans) until bed.  To the extent most people can retire it is only via social security, Medicare and Medicaid, systems that are bankrupt Ponzi schemes, and then when they get too old their children put them into old age homes where they gracelessly expire, neglected and covered in bed sores.

It’s worse for younger people.  Most Millennials have been priced out of home ownership and they both have children later in life and have smaller families than prior generations.  If they attended college they graduated with an average of $25-30,000 student loan debt and then had difficulty finding jobs because degree inflation has made college degrees useless (which in turn is causing an increasing number of youth to forego college entirely). The education system revolves around teaching the young to hate their past and genders, encouraging young boys to become girls and for young girls to become boys. Society is highly feminized with masculine behaviors banned — pranks (forbidden), childhood fights (forbidden), bullying antisocial elements (forbidden), and endless litigation tying the hands of educators.  

On the social front everyone is atomized and social networks are shattered.  People have few close friendships.  Parents and grown children live halfway across the country from each other and see each other a couple times a year.  There are no communities; except for a couple of religious outliers (religious Muslims, religious Jews and the Amish; Catholic fertility rates are basically at replacement and declining and Mormon fertility rates are also declining) all others have are gutted.  The right of free association has been banned in America for decades; see Supreme Court cases Shelley v. Kraemer (1948), Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. United States (1964), Katzenbach v. McClung (1964), and Daniel v. Paul (1969).  The southern border is wide open and many millions of illegals stream into the country each year with the approval of the US government, driving down wages, dividing communities and providing votes from a swelling underclass for the establishment. 

Crime rates are massive and underreported, then manipulated further downwards.  Even with these tactics the U.S. incarceration rate is by far the highest in the world.  Trash and broken roads litter the streets as aggressive, drug addicted panhandlers lie down next to multi-million dollar high-rises.  Neighbors distrust each other and the government spies on everything you do or read online. Citizens who defend themselves against violent criminals go to prison or lose their rights while arrested violent criminals are immediately released on their own recognizance without bail (a term called “anarcho-tyranny”).  Speak your mind about these things and you will be banned from social media, lose your job, frivolously sued (causing stress and legal bills even if you eventually win) and in various western countries now such as the U.K. face imprisonment for having the temerity to share those beliefs publicly.1 

Strange chemicals in the water supply are ubiquitous, especially estrogen and SSRIs; most restaurant food is drenched in dangerous industrialized seed oils; micro-plastics have leached into everything including significant amounts in the human body, testosterone levels have dropped dramatically in a generation and obesity rates have skyrocketed.  Average IQs have dropped by an astonishing 14 points over the past 100 years.  5G cell towers, which may have unknown long-term ill effects on health are everywhere and help the government spy on its population. People are glued to their smartphones which have simultaneously destroyed attention spans, atomized people from in-person interactions and, despite the unlimited amount of information online, people are less intelligent than ever. 

The gulf between rich and poor widens year after year.  The top 1% now own 32.1% of the nation’s wealth, the top 0.1% own 22% of the country’s wealth and the top 0.01% own 11% of the country’s wealth.  The value of the dollar has been inflated away into nothing, having lost 99% of its value in 100 years.  The national debt stands at $31+ trillion with at least $11 trillion dollars printed out of thin air in 2020-2021 alone: $6 trillion of treasuries and mortgage bonds purchased and $5 trillion in CARES Act funds.  

Belief in God is at an all-time low and depression is at an all-time high.  The majority white population is demonized via relentless media and entertainment propaganda, racially discriminatory employment and education practices, while the most deviant elements of society are actively promoted (i.e. homosexuality and transsexualism).  There is a marked lack of representation for white Americans in society and government.  For example, despite making up 2% of the population almost the entirety of Biden’s cabinet is either Jewish, married with Jewish spouses (Kamala), or their children have Jewish spouses (all of Biden’s children). Obama, despite being elected on a “hope and change” platform, had his entire cabinet chosen by global bank Citigroup. Social media companies, cracking down on freedom of speech, are run by recently arrived H1B Indian immigrants with no respect for the American Bill of Rights or Constitution (to preempt a common counter-argument, while they are officially non-governmental corporations, the government tells them who to ban and censor). Whites are dramatically underrepresented in college admissions.  Due to these and other discriminatory policies the white percentage of the American population has dropped from 90% to 60% in 50 years.  There are similar but not as extreme trends in Canada, the United Kingdom, France, Germany, and the rest of western Europe.  It is a slow rolling but historically breathtakingly fast white, western civilizational suicide. Those who point any of this out are called racist and sexist, de-personed and made to feel like an outcast.

Meanwhile the US military industrial complex gets involved in endless wars for the purpose of fleecing the public with obscenely overpriced military hardware and a bottomless hole of graft, while projecting coercive hard power with ~800 military bases in over 70 countries. It is unclear who is in charge; it’s not the president (Joe Biden has dementia and regularly flubs reading simple cue cards, and Trump battled the entrenched bureaucracy for four years to no effect) and it’s not any one specific governmental agency, so who is it?  Many foreign governments view the United States as “agreement incapable” because there is no one clearly in charge, and even recently signed agreements are tossed out and ignored.   

Whatever the case may be, the officials pushing these policies have stripped American citizens of their rights, dignities, and quality of life while enriching and empowering a small number of corporations and individuals who financially benefit.  The combined effects of these policies is akin to a kind of Hell on Earth.  These officials then export these policies worldwide to force a handover of every country’s sovereignty to globalized elites for exploitation.  They do this by riling up a country’s underclass (whether it be women, ethnic minorities, or homosexuals) via deceptively “do-gooder” NGOs or otherwise overthrowing their rulers directly.  This process is defined as “globohomo”, i.e. the combination of globalization plus homogenization, or alternatively the combination of globalization plus homosexuality.   

All of these issues are consistently getting worse.  Is there no limit to this depravity and degradation?  The gulf between what people want and what they get from government has not been greater in living memory.

---

HOW DO PEOPLE RESPOND WHEN YOU TALK TO THEM ABOUT THESE ISSUES?

Based on a lot of anecdotal observation if you bring up these issues with most people and solicit feedback, it appear they become hesitant, unsure of how to respond.  They seem to search in their heads for canned media lines they can repeat but come up short.  Their ability to independently ponder, assess and organize political, social, and economic trends affecting their lives seems to be weak. Food prices are skyrocketing?  Housing prices are increasing?  Education and health care are unaffordable?  How can one explain these things?  Blame a nebulous “inflation”?  Blame “Russia and Putin”?  Blame “right wing religious fanatics” for opposing… abortion?  Blame the “economic damage” caused by COVID, or by COVID vaccine deniers?  Blame congressional “dysfunction”?  Blame “political divisiveness”?  Blame Trump’s “unpresidential demeanor” and “racism” (“Orange Man Bad”)?  None of these explanations feel to normal people to be quite satisfactory, so it seems that they try not to think about it, are silent and either try to busy themselves with their personal lives, distractions like sports/television, or otherwise numb themselves with drugs and alcohol.  Cast adrift in a stormy sea; waiting for a sign of calm to magically return.

To independently think about societal trends and link them requires a certain skillset: interest in politics, the ability to make inferences between seemingly disconnected issues; the ability to form hypothesis about common causes; the willingness to observe events and see if results fit into the hypothesis and if not to adjust one’s worldview until they become more predictable; the ability to reason independently of authority figures; the willingness to be comfortable with doubt/uncertainty for long periods of time; the ability to resist group pressure.  It requires basically being autistic, anti-authoritative and politics focused, something most people are not.

In the next section we will look at how people think, how perspectives differ on a generational level, and the ethical theories that will be used for the rest of this essay.

Continue for Part 2…

---

1 “Political correctness is communist propaganda writ small. In my study of communist societies, I came to the conclusion that the purpose of communist propaganda was not to persuade or convince, not to inform, but to humiliate; and therefore, the less it corresponded to reality the better. When people are forced to remain silent when they are being told the most obvious lies, or even worse when they are forced to repeat the lies themselves, they lose once and for all their sense of probity. To assent to obvious lies is in some small way to become evil oneself. One’s standing to resist anything is thus eroded, and even destroyed. A society of emasculated liars is easy to control. I think if you examine political correctness, it has the same effect and is intended to.” – Theodore Dalrymple

“The prolonged absence of any free exchange of information within a country opens up a gulf of incomprehension between whole groups of the population, between millions and millions.  We simply cease to be a single people, for we speak, indeed, different languages.”
 – Alexander Solzhnetizyn, The Gulag Archipelago

“Give me the liberty to know, to utter, and to argue freely according to conscience, above all liberties.” – John Milton

“Again, the devil took him up on an exceedingly high mountain, and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their glory. And he said to him, “All these things I will give you if you will fall down and worship me.” – Matthew 4:8-9

This world has a sickness to it.  Bad people prosper and good people suffer.  The basic incentive structures of reality is predatory and malevolent: all life survives by consuming other life; even something as simple as a plant is alive and struggles for survival.  Reproductive fitness favors those who dominate others via cunning and strength, stealing resources using force or trickery.  This can take many forms, but in the modern era it typically involves elites utilizing psychological manipulation via media, government, or education.  As Donald Hoffman argues in The Case Against Reality: Why Evolution Hid the Truth From Our Eyes, humans are evolved to maximize their reproductive chances which has little to do with the pursuit of truth; indeed, focusing on truth lowers these chances.  Or as Thomas Ligotti concludes in The Conspiracy Against the Human Race, “If truth is what you seek, then the examined life will only take you on a long ride to the limits of solitude and leave you by the side of the road with your truth and nothing else.”  Lasciate ogne speranza, voi ch’intrate.

The harshness of reality is difficult for most people to accept; a cold, dark, uncaring universe is depressing and may result in suicidal ideation or becoming a sociopath to take advantage of the weak.  Exoteric religion serves as a mollifying force to keep people sedated and compliant, but it also creates the conditions necessary for the “social contract” allowing people to interact without brutal winner-take-all warfare.

Those sensitive to the fundamental nature of reality have it harder than normal people who outsource their critical thinking facilities to society, formal education, sports, entertainment and the media; removing the burden of independent thought understandably makes it easier to get through life. These regular people, derided in dark corners of the internet as “non playable characters” (“NPC”, a video game term) think in narrowly proscribed, rigid lines as dictated by society. Outsourcing their critical thinking turns them effectively into a form of cattle, ripe for exploitation.  A minority feel a pull to understand the world and experience cognitive dissonance regarding society’s rules and norms and, for those thinking more deeply, about the suffering nature of reality itself. Labeled “dissidents”, these free thinkers are unusual, rare, and set apart from the masses of gray, unthinking NPCs that populate the world.

As Oswald Spengler argues in The Decline of the West: “A thinker is a person whose part it is to symbolize time according to his vision and understanding.  He has no choice; he thinks as he has to think.  Truth in the long run is to him the picture of the world which was born at his birth.  It is that which he does not invent but rather discovers within himself.  It is himself over again: his being expressed in words; the meaning of his personality formed into a doctrine which so far as concerns his life is unalterable, because truth and his life are identical.”  For these few, the pursuit is truth is something serving as an objective in and of itself, whether due to ideals, impulse, belief in God or otherwise, without expectation of material or status rewards.

This essay is a tribute to such free thinkers.  It hopes to serve as a primer for younger dissidents who retain a degree of establishment indoctrination as a jump-start toward their future growth. It also attempts to provide an informational compendium for dissidents who are more advanced in their political journeys but who have holes in their knowledge about the structure of the modern world.  The dissident space is fractured; each blogger, tweeter or author focuses on one aspect of the lies society pushes on us, but no one thus far has tied it together into a cohesive structure using political syncretism.  Because one’s political typology is fixed like one’s physiognomy, this essay is not geared toward NPCs, sociopathic globalists or corporatists, who would either not understand or appreciate the arguments made herein.  It is specifically directed at dissidents.  

This essay also serves as a critique of those who have been fooled throughout history (and continue to be fooled) by falling victim to the elite’s propaganda against their own interests, and it also criticizes society’s sociopathic rulers who hide in the shadows, issuing secret orders behind the curtain without the public’s knowledge or consent.  Per J.R.R. Tolkein, “The true equation is ‘democracy’ equals government by world financiers. The main mark of modern governments is that we do not know who governs, de facto any more than de jure. We see the politician and not his backer; still less the backer of the backer; or what is most important of all, the banker of the backer.  Enthroned above all, in a manner without parallel in all past, is the veiled prophet of finance, swaying all men living by a sort of magic, and delivering oracles in a language not understood of the people.”

This cabal of criminal financiers has adopted a dialectic of materialism which views the World as Power and the World as Reality, and they deny all other powers and all other realities.  According to Eustace Mullins, these people have “absolute contempt for anyone who actually believes in the tenets of…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.”  These are the cunning predators who capitalize on society’s trust for profit and control; motivated not by a sense of noblesse oblige which nominated elites of the past, but by noblesse malice – a desire to punish and destroy society – they lack a clear understanding of the consequences of their actions, potentially leading toward ruin of all mankind if current trends continue.

With that said, events are bringing these malevolent figures into the sunlight as never before.  It is the hope that their reveal from behind the curtain may unite dissident groups and the masses of the world with a common goal, joined in a vision of a better future for humanity.

Some of the following discussion about how the world works is uncomfortable, but it is not intended to be ultimately demoralizing.  The presented framework should be judged by its predictive value for future events and how well it illuminates current and past events, based on an attempt to understand the perennial laws that govern material reality and human nature. Meaningful change is only possible in a directed way once a problem is properly understood.   Perhaps even the aggressive, predatory nature of the universe can ultimately be transcended by a humanity which better understands itself and the laws governing the world around it; from there hopefully a more just and Godly world may follow.

Thanks for engaging on this journey.

Continue with Introduction: Part 1…

---

On the Nature and Crafting of Belief in the Elite’s Struggle for Power and Control

Section 0: “Preface”, available here

Section 1, “Introduction”, describes what most people want in life and the disconnect between their hopes/dreams and what they receive.  Part 1 and Part 2

Section 2, “The Dissemination of Information in Technological Society”, looks at how information is created and disseminated and why people choose to believe it. Part 1 , Part 2 , Part 3

Section 3, “Dissonance to Information Control in Technological Society”, explores the rise of cognitive dissonance to establishment propaganda and what types of people are more likely to experience it and why. Part 1 , Part 2 , Part 3 , Part 4 , Part 5 , Part 6

Section 4, “Goals, Motivations and Strategies of the Owners of Modern Society”, argues that a handful of families own the central banks of the world and control society via unlimited fiat monetary printing.  It offers a historical and psychological framework for their behavior and investigates their objectives. Part 1 , Part 2 , Part 3

Section 5, “Deeper Societal Trends Predating the Central Banks”, analyzes the modern and historical relationships between Judaism, Christianity, and Hellenism and contrasts their values and beliefs, and explores how civilizational values are retained from millennia-old conflicts. Part 1 , Part 2

Section 6, “Suggestions and Takeaways”, looks at currently perceived alternatives to our globalized system and offers various conclusions. Part 1 , Part 2

Appendix A provides a brief history of central-bank initiated wars.

Appendix B addresses a caveat to the willpower behind the central bank system by discussing the rise of a perpetuating capitalist matrix.

Hello, and welcome.  This Substack contains a chapter-by-chapter essay entitled “On the Nature and Crafting of Belief in the Elite’s Struggle for Power and Control.” 

The central thesis, stretched among six sections containing well over 1,000 hyperlinked citations and footnotes, is that (1) the private owners of the world’s central banks are attempting to aggregate all wealth in their own hands and turn the world’s population into dirt-poor serfs, or worse; and (2) a hyper-focus on achieving equality dating back to trends from thousands of years ago is resulting in a frightful “leveling down” of anything and anyone superior, flattening the world to the lowest common denominator.  A world where this energy predominates is a world of gray dreariness, no laughter, no excitement, a world of Death, and it is being pursued with the glee and sanctimony of the righteous pursuing a Holy War against their insufficiently equality-focused enemies.  

This process is only warming up with much worse to come, and if these trends continue it will likely result in the complete destruction of western civilization and possibly of humanity itself. 

Various bloggers, tweeters and authors address one or multiple aspects of the problems plaguing modern society, but no one thus far has tied it together into a cohesive structure using political syncretism. This is one such attempt.  The expected future is going to be so terrible for the vast majority of the world’s population that I felt a moral obligation to say something even though it will likely have little effect.

Please start at the Table of Contents for the structure of the essay.  Posts are meant to be read in chronological order, but the core sections are Section 4, “Goals, Motivations and Strategies of the Owners of Modern Society” and Section 5, “Deeper Societal Trends Predating the Central Banks” if you decide to skip ahead.  Sections 1-3 deal with the nature of propaganda, why people believe it and how the technological surveillance state propagates it.

This essay is a living one and may be updated with revised arguments and new links from time to time.  Arguments should be steel-manned, not straw-manned, so feel free to offer any criticism within and I will give an honest look at it.  This will remain free, as the point is not to monetize it but get it out into public square.  I don’t want to be a globohomo slave subject to ever-decreasing quality of life and don’t think you do either.

That being said, there are no political prescriptions offered herein other than the contention that central banks should be publicly owned.  The primary thrust of the essay is an attempt to frame a different way of thinking and looking at the world for the reader.  

Ultimately politics is downstream from belief, and only a Nietzschian transvaluation of values can lead to meaningful change.

I’d like to thank those that provided feedback on the initial draft and those that I have debated with over the years.  This has been an effort which has taken an extended amount of time to write with a lifetime of politically-focused learning and research behind it.  It is dedicated to those few free-thinking, independent dissidents who are victims of the masses of NPC-herd creatures (who are in turn animated by false establishment messaging); and it is also dedicated to those who are too young to decide their own future before society targets them.

– Neoliberal Feudalism

Thomas Cole’s The Course of Empire, fourth painting