This post examines how elites control influencers, ensuring they follow approved narratives or face consequences. It discusses examples like Andrew Tate, Tucker Carlson, and Joe Rogan, and how movements such as the Tea Party and Occupy Wall Street were co-opted or suppressed. The central idea is that elites manage the influence of various groups by regulating their reach, ensuring they align with the desired narrative direction.

This is a continuation of my previous post, which analyzed how societal influencers in the Cold War were widely controlled by the elites, particularly through the Congress for Cultural Freedom. Here, we will explore how such control has been updated to apply to opinion leadership via social media influencers in the internet era.

Under the two-step flow of communication, most people form their opinions under the influence of opinion leaders, who in turn are influenced by the mass media zeitgeist and by their funding – if one wants to be highlighted on social media, one must tow the party line or face consequences. Let’s start with some stories.

• In mid/late 2022, at the height of their popularity due to dominating the TikTok platform, criminal charges were brought against Andrew and Tristan Tate, sons of a CIA agent, in Romania. Romania had no interest in prosecuting them but assented due to international pressure. After some sort of deal was reached behind the scenes, in February 2025 the Tate brothers were allowed to leave the country to America, where they promptly traveled to Florida. Andrew Tate then recklessly commented on the unusual Jewish influence in America, which he noted would get him in trouble. Immediately afterwards the Florida Attorney General opened up an investigation against him.
• In 2016 Breitbart.com was one of the deciding factors that allowed Trump to win the election. Its populist influence was enormous and Steve Bannon deserves credit for it. After the election Bannon was sidelined from the administration and Breitbart, under poor leadership and advertising boycotts, faded into obscurity. Per a Harvard study, below is the network map based on Twitter media sharing from May 1, 2015 – November 7, 2016 with nodes sized by number of Twitter shares, showing how dominant Breitbart was (much more than Fox) through the election:In January 2017 the site recorded approximately 17.3 million unique visits. By June 2019, however, this number had dropped by 72% to 4.9 million. More recently, in January 2024, Breitbart’s traffic was reported to have fallen by 87% compared to January 2020. The collapse of the public’s interest in the website is massive, and the advertising boycott organized by leftists – later applied with mixed results to Musk’s Twitter – didn’t help either. The Mercers would beg Bannon to come back if reach and power was their intent, but ratings are not the primary goal – pushing West Coast Straussian Zionism is.
• After Trump’s surprise win the Daily Mail editor, who was seen as too Trump-friendly and too pro-Brexit, was forced to resign in 2018. He had been editor of the newspaper for 26 years.
• The highly influential Twitter user Rickey Vaughn / Douglass Mackey was criminally charged for shitposting and silenced.
• In 2019 Matt Drudge secretly sold his website to elite interests who started posting far-leftist content, ultimately tanking the readership (via here and here). Skinsuiting existing organizations (i.e. taking them over with radically different ideologies from what the organization was founded on while not informing the public so they can be screwed over) is a common elite tactic.1
• In 2022 Joe Rogan, who had the largest podcast on the internet, started interviewing politically incorrect subjects, people who were against the COVID vaccine and other elite-disapproved topics. There was an intense media campaign launched against him and Rogan publicly apologized, quietly deleted the controversial episodes from his archives and thereafter stuck to boring and basic interviews, resulting in a much tamer and less engaging experience.
• In 2020 CIA asset Tucker Carlson, who had the most popular show on television for politics, was abruptly terminated and has not found, whether due to his own decision or otherwise, another network to host him. He continues to do interviews but he is much less influential to a much smaller audience than before.
• In 2024 Alex Jones had a billion dollar judgment leveled against him for his exercising freedom of speech; his website was seized and he got divorced. After a brief period of silence he emerged with a brand new look and started desperately shilling pro-Trump talking points in a panicked frenzy:Geopolitics & EmpireMar 4, 2025I marvel at the Pied Piper this guy has become. Really. Kudos. He had me fooled for a while. 🍻1084320
• The Tea Party movement, Occupy Wall Street, the Alt-Right movement and the 2023-2024 Palestine protests on university campuses were all undermined into irrelevance when they gained too much in popularity.
  • The Tea Party movement was co-opted by politicians such as Mitch McConnell and organizations like the Koch brothers. They provided funding, organizational support, and media backing to their opponents, either within the party or without – they would rather Democrats win than Tea Party members. This ultimately diluted its broader appeal and made it more aligned with the Republican Party.
  • Occupy Wall Street was fragmented, making it hard to sustain momentum. Elites responded by framing the movement as chaotic or ineffective in mainstream media, while law enforcement agencies were used to break up encampments and protests. The lack of a unified agenda, combined with the negative media portrayal and forceful physical suppression led to its eventual decline, as did the media’s pivot to divide-and-conquer tactics with the Great Awokening.
  • The elites crushed the alt-right movement in 2017 through a combination of media vilification, social media censorship, legal actions, and public disavowals by mainstream political figures. After the events in Charlottesville where white nationalist groups clashed with counter-protesters, the media painted the alt-right as a dangerous and extremist movement. This intense media scrutiny led to widespread condemnation, with many mainstream conservative figures distanced themselves from the movement.Simultaneously, social media platforms like Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube began aggressively deplatforming key alt-right figures, removing their ability to spread their messages. Legal actions such as lawsuits and financial restrictions (e.g., payment processors cutting ties with alt-right groups) further weakened the movement. These actions, coupled with pressure from corporate donors and political figures, fragmented and marginalized the alt-right, effectively neutering its influence and ability to organize. The following is a sample of how an “alternative influence network” was mapped by elites, which made them easy to decapitate and destroy, from here:
• In 2023-2024, elites undermined pro-Palestine protests on university campuses through a combination of media campaigns, legal measures, and administrative pressure. Mainstream media framed the protests as anti-semitic, delegitimizing the movement, while university administrations faced pressure from donors and political figures to restrict or condemn such actions. Campuses enacted policies that limited protests or disciplined students involved, and legal actions were used to deter activism. Additionally, pro-Palestinian student leaders were sometimes forced under pressure to moderate their stances, weakening the broader movement. These tactics collectively suppressed and fragmented the protests.

---

The Connecting Factor

The connecting factor between these movements and figures that I see – which is circumstantial and based on pattern recognition – is that our elites have a fantastic understanding both of social networks as well as network effects. They understand that a population is made up of widely disparate perspectives based on certain underlying personality factors, and so they allow select influencers to dominate each of their particular spaces, many of which contradict and hate each other – but each and every mainstream influencer is controlled either by funding, algorithm manipulation (who is highlighted or who is not), or, if any group “breaks out” and gets out of line, they can be reigned in through a combination of intimidation, lawfare, censorship, or worse.

For example, Zerohedge covers economic-focused pessimists who distrust the system. Tate covers relationship-focused young men looking for a father figure, as does mentally ill crybaby Jordan Peterson. Russell Brand covers drug addicted ex-liberal Gen-Xers. Tucker Carlson covers middle-aged and older economic and slightly racial populists. Rogan covered millennial moderate-right types. Logan Paul has some audience overlap but from a dumber, more athletic, more social media angle. Alex Jones covered conspiratorial-minded political types. Mike Benz covers those who want to get lost in the weeds of government corruption. Breitbart under Bannon covered a big-tent populist type. Fuentes covered young Christian racists. Gab covered older Christian dissidents. Drudge covered independent internet-minded news junkies who wanted breaking stories, etc. Musk covers tech bro cultists. There was a whole crew dedicated to the Russian/Ukraine war for awhile.2 Each of these influencers covered a specific niche based upon the specific underlying personality profile of the target audience. The left have all these figures, too, although I don’t follow any of them. Per Wired, the following is a visual guide toward the size of influencers for both the right and the left leading up to the 2024 election:

The specific information disseminated varies significantly between each group, resulting in echo chambers where each one lives in a separate reality from others. The acceleration of echo chambers is discussed in this research article, this one and by John Carter here, and our elites have carefully studied the “alt-right pipeline” and algorithmic radicalization in order to better control it. Still, there is some overlap as these factions loosely ally into larger factions within the umbrella of the “right” and “left”. For example, as Erik Wikström points out Musk/Rogan/Trump have allied in order to increase their faction’s power via pushing an ascendant technocracy:

It’s an ecosystem where different species have evolved mutually beneficial relationships:

• Trump gives Musk access to U.S. government power (like appointing him to run DOGE where Musk now has his hands deep in the Treasury).
• Musk gives Trump money and tech clout (helping pump his campaign, his meme-coin and helping him normalize a unique brand of techno-fascism).
• Rogan gives them both a microphone where nothing is ever questioned (making sure their garbage spreads unfiltered to millions of listeners).

Tree of Woe sees the result of these alliances as the start of a new age, an approach I am skeptical of. Rather, it is shaping up to be a descent into neoliberal feudal technocrat hell, discussed here.

---

The Perks

Influencers backed by the elites will receive various perks; they may be boosted on social media, receive lots of bot account follows, receive payments for services rendered, they may be able to network with larger accounts and bigger players and to parlay their platform to bigger opportunities. Various pro-Trump substackers feeding into the current ruling elite Zionist/skinsuited populism, led by the West Coast Straussian movement previously discussed here, have too small of an audience to receive big benefits, but they key into larger networks especially on Twitter who boost them and perhaps they’re invited to in-real-life network and speaking events. Rumble is another platform where a controlled right-wing network is developed (it received investments from venture capitalists Peter Thiel, Vivek Ramaswamy and JD Vance in May 2021). The emergence of new popular influencers may be the result of grassroots efforts but is often related to a existing establishment asset given prominence and appearing out of nowhere, such as Lex Fridman, Richard Hanania, Andrew Huberman, Ben Shapiro, or the latest, the hilariously astroturfed Brilyn Hollyhand, which just feels like an elite joke on the masses.

---

Reaching Higher Levels

To reach a higher level of influence it seems that the elites require blackmail material over an individual (Epstein played a role in this, but it also involves the Mossad, CIA, NSA and FBI), whether that just means economic blackmail from corruption or otherwise – anyone past a certain point of influence or power is controlled. Lenin allegedly said, “When the people need a leader, one will be provided for them” (although attribution for this quote is unclear). Under normal times a controlled influencer is expected to build up trust in their audience until they are told to cash in that trust in order to screw over their followers on behalf of the elites. Tucker Carlson did this during the 2020 election fraud when he was told to keep silent and he did, Nick Fuentes did on 1/6 when he told his followers to storm the capital building and then disowned them, Alex Jones as we are seeing now with his flip-flopping into a paid, sweating shill, Andrew Torba apparently deliberately destroyed Gab functionality to ghettoize the site, Zerohedge by calling for a crash every year since 2008 and now pivoting to endless Trump cheerleading, etc.

If an influencer gets too big without pre-approval (like Tate was getting because of Tiktok, or Rogan with his incredibly influential podcast), or if the influencer starts focusing on disapproved topics (such as Current Thing criticism, or COVID denial during the height of the hysteria), then the rug will be pulled out from under them. Charlie Kirk may have been assassinated because he was starting to go off the reservation, and as Rurik Skywalker states it is a jarring reminder to everyone else to stay in line – or else. Alternatively, influencers may be artificially boosted if they are part of the approved coalition, such as the Zionist pro-Trump voices today. Regarding cancellation for disapproved topics, a couple that come to mind include Kanye West (close to bankrupted while his Tavistock-educated Zionist handler Harley Pasternak (who “trained” i.e. managed Lady Gaga, Rihanna, Halle Berry, Katy Perry, Megan Fox, Robert Downey Jr., Robert Pattinson and others) threatened to institutionalize him and take away his children in a text exchange Kanye posted3), Andrew Anglin (banned and driven off the internet after a brief period of rising and mainstreaming popularity in 2017), and Owen Benjamin (banned for breaching red lines of allowed comedy). I could also discuss Michael Jackson (sued into oblivion after “They Don’t Care About Us”), Nick Cannon (discussed Jewish power briefly, issued a groveling and sustained apology4), and Kyrie Irving (same, apologized and shut up). The elites sometimes accept apologies depending on the kind of offense, how much it has been repeated, and how much the elites need the figure, but they never forget. Historically Kennedy, Nixon and the Shah of Iran also come to mind, with negative outcomes for each.

---

Escalating tactics

As discussed elsewhere, the elites have a series of escalating tactics they use to force influencers back in line. These tactics include (1) the violator of the lines receives 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. Most influencers intuit the rules without being told explicitly by higher ups because the incentive structure is in place – jump through the right hoops and become boosted by the system, algorithms, phantom audiences, media attention, reviews and commentary from other influencers – and if you can’t figure out the carrot and stick incentive structure, you languish in obscurity. See this Note and this follow up by the great Ian Smith on this point. Twitter, for example, has adopted the ADL’s tactics of deboosting disfavored content, which is a more sophisticated technique versus banning it (the lighter the touch and the more sophisticated the technique the more it is adopted over time; crude tools are typically disfavored).5 Because dissidents are not allowed to organize, any dissident leaning organization will be subverted and skinsuited or otherwise destroyed – 4Chan, has been an Israeli honeypot as hackers revealed, per Robin Westenra. Telegram was subverted when it’s owner was arrested in France, only let go when he gave the elites whatever they wanted from the platform. There is no escape from it, and Substack will not be an exception.

This is all in line with the Eustace Mullins quote, whereby the upper elites controlling society can determine which of these disparate groups win and which ones lose simply by adjusting the size and influence of the group by impacting their funding and reach:

[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.

---

But Why Are Influencers So Important?

As discussed in a Note, the reason why our elites focus so much on curating and maintaining control over influencers is because such a tiny, tiny, oh so tiny number of people actually think for themselves. Almost everyone either gets their knowledge directly from the media or, alternatively, through an influencer that they trust, adhering to rigid ideological and thought guardrails:

One of the curious things about this reality is the difficulty of understanding and judging scope. For example, maybe there’s a hundred like-minded English language dissident writers out there, if I’m being generous and taking into account my very limited vantage point of the writers out there. From what I see it’s actually much smaller than a hundred. Political commentators are almost universally grifters surfing the wave of the Current Thing.

Yet there are billions of English speakers out there. Shouldn’t this scene – shouldn’t any of these ultra niche scenes? – be far bigger than they are? After all, the Current Thing seems to be a defining feature of this age, everyone talks about it and thinks about it and is animated by it. Yet that’s where it ends for almost everyone, pigs forcefed at the trough of shill marionetted influencers and media.

As Rurik explains about the nature of authority in the context of the Russia/Ukraine war, but which applies just as much to any topic on which authority is relied upon,

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.

---

Conclusions

The desired takeaway here is to help you understand how these influencers come to be well known and how they maintain their following – they have to adhere to rigid ideological guardrails and certain topics and they can’t criticize the Current Thing (unless it’s in pre-approved form as the dialectical reaction, like “COVID came from Wuhan lab leak” and “take Ivermectin”), and if they play by the rules their influence is artificially boosted by the media and illicit funding at the expense of actual dissidents. This applies as much to the far-left like Noam Chomsky as it does to the far-right like Joseph McCarthy or the John Birch Society. If a big influencer is taken out or comes under intense media pressure, ask if they’ve grown too big and/or if they’ve said anything disapproved by the elites. As Lenin stated, “The best way to control our opposition is to lead it ourselves”.

Think about which influencers you follow, what category or categories it falls under and why and how it relates to your own psychological profile – there is no way around this, we are all biased with our own presuppositions in our own way. Relying on influencers is, after all, an energy saver; they curate large amounts of information so normal people don’t have to. The best we can do is be aware of it and try to intellectually engage with our own weaknesses. My Substack, for example, appeals to philosophically pessimist political doomers with an interest in Jungian psychology and gnosticism. As far as categories go, maybe this too fills a (very small) niche that somehow benefits the elites – blackpilling as demotivating for political action – although I would like to think that I am targeting the underlying precepts that govern the elite superstructure of our society, i.e. Rothschild central bank parasitism overlying Christian-derived egalitarian ratchet effect – and encourage the reader to think for themselves and come to their own conclusion, not to rely on me (as you will be disappointed putting your faith in anyone but God and the Self within).

I hope you found this helpful in your own journey. Once one understands the structure of the modern world, how official narratives are disseminated, the tactics that the spooks use to keep the masses divided and controlled (acting under orders ultimately from the central bank owners), and how the size of each group is controlled by its funding to predetermine which message and group will “win”, then the flimsiness of each new Current Thing narrative becomes almost a joke, bread and circus propaganda to entertain and titillate obese (with metabolic syndrome), bored lemmings who are too scared, brainwashed, cowardly and/or lazy to accept the scary responsibility of crafting one’s worldview without blindly following others (this is Dostoevsky’s point in The Grand Inquisitor). Following the Current Thing has basically replaced religion in this secular materialist age. As AMRX Mark II states, “The ‘magic trick’ of the Regime is not North Korea-style totalitarianism. We are allowed to complain. We won’t be arrested, much less gulaged. But only certain complaints get amplified. While others are only read by a small number on platforms like [Substack]. Algorithms have stifled freedom of reach” – and subsequently, freedom of thought. The Current Thing helps us forget our fear of the void, steeped in ubiquitous nihilism as we all are, and I will cover this further in the future.

Lastly, one may note that human influencers are are being phased out in favor of elite-controlled artificial intelligence influencers. As Michael Ginsburg explains, the use of AI to influence and shape public opinion is becoming more effective and persuasive, to the point where a recent study shows it is 6x more effective at persuasion than online experts on Reddit’s Change My View forum:

https://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/Ir4jUM0kpn4?rel=0&autoplay=0&showinfo=0&enablejsapi=0

The way forward that I see is only possibly through an internally directed process of listening to one’s intuition and Self via individuation – because the Self is infinite and shifts under observation like Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle, and therefore cannot ultimately be controlled either by us or by the upper elites, while an externally derived process will always be manipulatable.

Thanks for reading.

Subscribe:
Email delivery remains on Substack for now.

---

1 It also happened on a much larger scale to the Catholic Church after World War 2 and the later sex abuse scandals, as an example; Project Veritas ripped away from James O’Keafe and the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society taken away from Paul Watson also quickly come to mind.

2 As Rurik Skywalker argues here, starting at 1:00:47, giving the Ukraine war as an example:

This idea of this grand chess game that Putin is playing to checkmate the globalists, you would never come to that conclusion if it wern’t for a multibillion dollar media industry complex matrix system that was dedicated to telling you that day in and day out and constantly referencing itself, it’s self referential, so Pepe [Escobar] will say something and [Alexander] Mercouris will say something and all the other bloggers will get their queue from them and then RT will say something and Ritter will say something and they’ll all comment on what the other said and it’ll become a self-referential circle jerk and once you’re in that thing, once you’ve taken the plunge into that cesspit whirlpool of bullshit, you’re constantly being pinged back from pole to pole as they’re referencing each other. It’s like you’re in a seminary and all the theologians are referencing other theologians it gives off the impression of intellectual activity what it is is just a self-referential circle jerk, no one’s questioning core assumptions, no one’s field testing any of their ideas, they’re just referencing one another, they’re just doing this ironic thing and it becomes a sub-culture…

3

4 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.

5 Musk outsourced Twitter content moderation to the ADL. “This isn’t that hard. Freedom of speech doesn’t mean freedom of reach” per Jonathan Greenblatt, CEO of the ADL on April 5, 2022; “New Twitter policy is freedom of speech, but not freedom of reach” echoed Elon Musk November 18, 2022. On April 17, 2023 it became Twitter’s new content policy.

This post explores the covert influence of the CIA through the Congress for Cultural Freedom during the Cold War, which secretly funded writers, philosophers, and artists to promote anti-communist but left-leaning egalitarian ideals while subtly manipulating cultural narratives. The discussion critiques the elite’s role in shaping global power structures, media, and culture, suggesting that modern intellectuals and artists continue to be compromised by financial elites, perpetuating a system that stifles true intellectual independence.

“The first task of any ruling group is to keep itself in power.” – CIA founding member Miles Copeland

Welcome back. In this post I’d like to explore the transition from nation to empire, which necessitates a societal shift from allegiance based on shared blood ties to one based on ideology. This is required because it allows multi-ethnic and tribal groups to operate under the same governing umbrella. We can see this rule manifest with (1) Rome, which fought the Social War (91-87 BC) in the lead-up to empire and later Christianity came to serve as an empire-wide ideological “glue”; (2) the British empire, which highlighted the benefits of colonialism to natives including civilizing missions, liberalism, and free-market capitalism, (3) the French Revolution and subsequent Napoleonic era where the idea of universal republicanism and citizenship replaced monarchical blood ties; (4) the Ottoman Empire, which transitioned from a system based on kinship and tribal affiliation to a bureaucratic, imperial system emphasizing Islam and loyalty to the Sultan, and (5) the USSR, while nominally influenced by ethnic ties among Slavic (really semitic) peoples but increasingly defined itself by the ideology of Marxism-Leninism, uniting disparate peoples under a communist banner rather than kinship.

Rurik Skywalker correctly dislikes ideologies in general, seeing them as clever bait-and-switches to allow minority groups to rule over majority kin-based nations, but this is the price to be paid for empire, which seems to manifest both to fill power vacuums as well from a nation’s increasing ambition and greed.

We can also see this process play out in the United States, which transitioned from a European-derived Protestant nation to an empire after World War 2 with a new ideology centered around free market capitalism and elite-controlled false “democracy”.1 This ideology allowed the American empire to spread beyond its borders as it sought to establish global hegemony. Its power was centered in the Rothschild owners of the Federal Reserve and Bank of England, previously discussed here, which conquered the United States in 1913.2 By controlling the nation’s money supply, the central bank owners bought up independent media outlets they didn’t already control and molded public opinion toward it’s own interests, bailed out their allies whenever banking crises arose (while offloading the bailout onto the public in the form of inflation), and funded the security state such as the CIA and FBI to crush those people and entities antithetical to their interests.3

This brings me to the book The Cultural Cold War (1999) by British journalist and historian Frances Stonor Saunders, which was recommended by Max V. Carp. The book delves into how the CIA spent enormous amounts of taxpayer dollars without any checks or balances in order to oppose the Soviet Union’s communist propaganda in the aftermath of World War 2. I’m going to discuss some of the details that stood out to me, but I will say upfront that I disliked this book (although I still appreciate the recommendation). The reason I dislike it is that it serves as a limited hangout: it provides lots of information about how the CIA pushed free market capitalism and “democracy” to win over the hearts and minds of the undecided throughout the world, but it’s largely an itinerary of who created what organization, how they received funding from either the CIA or the Ford or Rockefeller foundations, and who was connected to other organizations in order to push this ideology. While technically true, it completely misses the forest for the trees4; both the United States and the Soviet Union were controlled by the central bank owners, and the latter created this conflict as an excuse to drive up debt to unlimited levels.5 Without such a superpower conflict it would not have been possible to justify unlimited defense spending or to forcibly integrate the world into the neoliberal order:

These central bank owners printed unlimited funds out of thin air and pushed capitalist and communist ideologies for their future long-term gain, where their ultimate goal was and is to transition to a One World Government with permanent worldwide neoliberal feudalism, a period we are transitioning into now. Saunders’ book is focused on a specific downstream aspect of this process while obfuscating the bigger picture, much as the “counter-elites” today are promoted and funded to push civic nationalist culture-war issues and ignore the higher levels of control.

Because of this dissimulation and smokescreen those reading this book will be hopelessly confused, it conveys no predictive power for the future, and therefore the establishment was eager to promote the book: reviews included The New York Times, Arthur Schlesinger Jr., Monthly Review, The Nation, The American Spectator, National Interest, Edward Said and The Guardian. This is a major red flag: if the establishment doesn’t like a book they don’t write reviews about it; they either refuse to cover it at all or they have it banned from publication. That was a signal that this book was a limited hangout. Indeed, the author has a major establishment background, common establishment characteristics6 and a bizarre physiognomy (note the short, mannish haircut and the horrible art behind her). Before buying a book it is best to check the reviews; if they are from establishment outlets then you’re almost certainly going to be reading dreck made to confuse proles. The year of publication is also important as it will generally reflect both the cultural milieu and obey the limitations of the Overton Window.

As such I really can’t recommend this book. I thought about putting it down early once I understood the nature of the content, but unfortunately I found a number of the details of the story interesting and so I kept reading it.7 Someone with a high level understanding of how the world works may derive benefit from reading it, but my belief is that anyone without such an understanding will walk away from it more confused than they were when they began.

With all this said, let’s delve into some of the details of the CIA’s operations to sway hearts and minds that stood out to me.

---

The post-World War 2 environment

World War 2 cannot be properly understood without discerning the strategies of the international financial elites, who plotted to build up Germany and then viciously destroy it. Guido Preparata has the best and most insightful book on this topic, Conjuring Hitler, which is a must read and which I discussed here. The modern era simply cannot be understood properly without this backdrop understanding. Basically, the backstory is this: internationally-minded Jewish financiers started the Bank of England in 1694 which allowed them to print money out of thin air and lend it at interest to the government; they and their allies (Rothschilds, Warburgs, Schiffs, Goldman, Lazard, Meyer, Sachs, Lehman, Kuhn, Loeb, Morgenthau, Rubenstein etc.) then captured the United States in 1913 with the creation of the Federal Reserve and captured Russia when they overthrew and murdered the Tsar and his family in 1918. They also controlled Germany post-World War 1 by installing Hjalmar Schacht, a protege and disciple of Montagu Norman, who was the head of the Bank of England, who Schacht fed confidential industrial production figures to so that Norman and his backers would feel comfortable setting in motion World War 2. Modern wars are industrial wars, and what became the Allies would outproduce the Axis in every industrial category by a 4:1 to a 10:1 ratio; Norman knew these figures and therefore the war was over before it began. But to get to the war’s start required a flexibility and flipping of alliances (i.e. see the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact), including America’s, utilizing the media to rapidly shift public opinion:

[Nicolas Nobokov, Secretary General of the Congress for Cultural Freedom, wrote] The bulk of American public opinion had switched twice in three years in its feelings toward Russia. First it was against – after the partition of Poland and the “fiendish” Finnish war. Stalin in newspaper cartoons looked like a nasty mixture of a wolf and a bear. Then, as abruptly, opinion was for Russia: after the Nazi invasion of Russia in 1941. Stalin was suddenly beautified, represented as a knight in armour defending the Kremlin against a horde of Teutons, or reproduced from Margaret Bourke-White’s slenderized and idolized profile photographs. And then, in 1943, the pro-Russian feeling was enhanced by Stalingrad.

After the war the international financial elites set up dueling rival superpowers who would “compete” with each other (but work together behind the scenes) in order to effectuate worldwide centralization, modernization, and massive debt increase goals. As one example (not repeated in Saunders’ book), 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 and other such foundations spends vast amounts of money to promote division in America, polarizing it on the basis of race, gender, sexual orientation, and has backed many revolutionary groups in the U.S. engaged in riots and other criminal offenses. These upper elite plans were made on a generational or longer level and not on the timeframe of a month, a year, or a decade.

Therefore after World War 2 what was needed was an about-face to turn the allied Soviet Union into the next controlled pseudo-enemy, before working to undermine that setup toward One World government. The about-face worked as follows:

To overlook the role of the British government in manufacturing a cosy image of Stalin during the wartime alliance is to ignore one of the crucial truths of the Cold War: the alliance between the free world and Russia against the Nazis was the moment at which history itself seemed to connive in the illusion that Communism was politically decent. The problem facing the British government after the Second World War was how to set about dismantling the untruths it had systematically constructed or defended in the previously years. ‘During the war, we had built up this man, though we knew he was terrible, because he was an ally,’ explained Adam Watson, a junior diplomat recruited to the IRD as its second-in-command. ‘Now the question as, “How do we get rid of the Good Old Uncle Joe myth built up during the war?”’ Many British intellectuals and writers had worked for the government in its propaganda departments during the war: now they were being called upon to disabuse the British public of those lies they had worked so inventively to protect.

After the war Europe was broke, destroyed; it would be rebuilt with superpower funding and controlled with new narrative propaganda. As high-ranking CIA official Tom Braden late stated, “We’ve got to remember that when we’re speaking of those years that Europe was broke. If there was a dime to be had anywhere it was probably in some criminal organization. There wasn’t any money. So they naturally looked to the United States for money.” Yet United States control would ultimately result in intellectual and moral corruption and cowardice, much as Rome’s final defeat of it’s long-time enemy Carthage gave way to decadence and greed per Sallust (previously covered here).

---

The winner flush with money

“We couldn’t spend it all. I remember once meeting with Wisner and the comptroller. My God, I said, how can we spend that? There were no limits, and nobody had to account for it. It was amazing.” – Gilbert Greenway, CIA agent

After the war the elites resurrected a communist boogeyman for the capitalist West to oppose through NSC 68, a 1950 National Security Counsel policy paper, which called for direct opposing the Soviet Union instead of detente or containment. It demanded uniformity of thought and action and led to a quadrupling of the psychological budget within two years. This opposition would be via both hard and soft power: hard power through nuclear bomb development, ICBMs, sponsoring overthrows and revolutions and the space race, while soft power would be pursued via the CIA, formally established in 1947, which would fund cultural institutions through shell corporations using plausible deniability in order to promote movies, books, music, art, publications, poetry, historians (such as George F. Kennan, Arthur Schlesinger, Robert Conquest and Hannah Arendt), scientists, critics and other cultural media to highlight the “open” Western “decentralized” societal values compared to the “rigid” values of a totalitarian, centralized Stalinism. Domestically God was promoted as a counterpoint to communist atheism – “one nation under God” was added to the Pledge of Allegiance in 1954 – and the CIA worked hand-in-hand with the movie studios to promote films with approved messaging. In Europe one of the biggest avenues for promoting CIA messaging was the Congress for Cultural Freedom (established 1950) which was headed by CIA agent (with a Jewish background) Michael Josselson, and another was Allen Dulles’s National Committee for a Free Europe, which was funded and controlled by the CIA with various private philanthropic interests (Henry Ford II, Francis Spellman, C.D. Jackson, John C. Hughes, Junkie Fleischmann, Arthur Schlesinger, Cecil B. DeMille, Dwight D. Eisenhower, etc.) serving as fronts. Dulles understood that the success of the Cold War depended on “it’s ability to appear independent from government, to seem to represent the spontaneous convictions of freedom loving individuals.” The CIA also heavily invested in foundations: in 1976, a Select Committee appointment to investigate US intelligence activities reported on the CIA’s penetration of the foundation field by the mid-1960s: during 1963-6, of the 700 grants over $10,000 given by 164 foundations, at least 108 involved partial or complete CIA funding. More importantly, CIA funding was involved in nearly half the grants made by these 164 foundations in the field of international activities during the same period. The Ford, Rockefeller and Carnegie foundations were considered the best kind of funding, with billions upon billions of dollars of funding.

The Congress for Cultural Freedom was well-funded by American taxpayers during a time when Europe was financially devastated. In other words, it was the only option for those who weren’t aligned with the Soviets but still wanted to engage in cultural activities and get paid for it – after all, a man has to eat. As Donald Jameson explained:

The main concern for most scholars and writers really is how you get paid for doing what you want to do. I think that, by and large, they would take money from whatever source they could get it. And so it was that the Congress and other similar organizations – both East and West – were looked upon as sort of large teats from which anybody could take a swig if they needed it and then go off and do their thing. That is one of the main reasons, really I think, for the success of the Congress: it made it possible to be a sensitive intellectual and eat. And the only other people who did that really were the Communists.

There were other perks, too. According to Jason Epstein, “When visiting intellectuals came to New York, they were invited to great parties; there was very expensive food all around, and servants, and God knows what else, far more than these intellectuals themselves could have afforded. Who wouldn’t like to be in such a situation where you’re politically correct and at the same time well compensated for the position you’ve taken? And this was the occasion for the corruption that followed.” This is reminiscent of the “counter-elite” parties hosted by Peter Thiel, Curtis Yarvin and their ilk in New York City in recent years and elsewhere for approved intellectuals in their orbits.

Although the Congress’s CIA funding was initially concealed, it eventually became an open secret that all involved later denied, despite knowing the truth. As Melvin Lasky said, “Well, who’s gonna give the money? The little old lady wearing sneakers from Deduke, Iowa? Will she give you a million dollars? Well, I mean, pipe dreams! Where will the money come from?”

The Congress aimed to target and promote former communist leftists (the “non-communist left”) while largely ignoring or disparaging the right:

The department realized the usefulness of accommodating those people and institutions who, in the tradition of left-wing politics, broadly perceived themselves to be in opposition to the centre of power. The purpose of such accommodation was twofold: first, to acquire a proximity to ‘progressive’ groups in order to monitor their activities; secondly, to dilute the impact of these groups by achieving influence from within, or by drawing its members into a parallel – and subtly less radical – forum.

Later, figures like James Burnham would lament that focusing on the non-communist left was a mistake – but by then, it was far too late.

---

Prominent cultural figures feeding at the trough

Among those who came to Berlin in June 1950 to the founding conference were the following writers, philosophers, critics and historians: Franz Borkenau, Karl Jaspers (who declared “Truth also needs propaganda”), John Dewey, Ignazio Silone, Jacques Maritain, James Burnham, Hugh Trevor-Roper (who, to his credit, realized that the Congress’s lavish funding could only have been funded by America and thought that the East/West dialectics was disingenuous), Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., Bertrand Russell, Ernst Reuter, Raymond Aron, A. J. Ayer, Benedetto Croce, Arthur Koestler, Richard Löwenthal, Melvin J. Lasky, Tennessee Williams, Irving Brown, Sidney Hook, “godfather of neoconservatism” Irving Kristol (founder of Encounter magazine, which was published by Fredric Warburg (who also published Orwell) and sponsored by Victor Rothschild; Kristol was also father of the odious neo-con Bill Kristol), and Nicolas Nabokov. At its height, the CCF had offices in 35 countries, employed dozens of personnel, and published over twenty prestigious magazines. According to Nabokov, “No one before had to tried to mobilize intellectuals and artists on a worldwide scale in order to fight an ideological war against oppressors of the mind, or to defend what one called by the hackneyed term ‘our cultural heritage’….To lead a rational, ice-cold, determinedly intellectual war against Stalinism without falling into the easy Manichean trap of phony righteousness seemed essential to me, especially at a time when in America that ideological war was getting histrionically hysterical and crusaderishly paranoiac.” He was referring to McCarthyism which, as a right-wing populist backlash against communism, the secretive and elitist globalist Congress (and CIA) secretly opposed.

In 1952, for example, the Congress sponsored a festival featuring works or appearances by Igor Stravinsky, Leontyne Price, Aaron Copland, Samuel Barber, the New York City Ballet, the Boston Symphony Orchestra, the Museum of Modern Art in New York, James T. Farrell, W.H. Auden, Gertrude Stein, Virgil Thomson, Allen Tate, and Glenway Westcott. Also on the programme were Jean Cocteau, Claude Debussy, William Walton, Laurence Olivier, Benjamin Britten, the Vienna Opera, Covent Garden Opera, the Balanchine troupe, Czeslaw Milosz, Ignazio Silone, Denis de Rougemont, Andre Malraux, Salvador de Madariaga, and Guido Piovene. Over the next thirty days there were performances by a hundred symphonies, concertos, operas and ballets by over seventy twentieth-century composers. The scale of funding was massive.

Meanwhile, Julian Huxley, Mircea Eliade, Andre Malraux, Guido Piovene, Herbert Read, Allen Tate, Lionel Trilling, Robert Penn Warren, W.H. Auden, Thornton Wilder, Jayaprakash Narayan were just some of the names grading the pages of magazines created by or affiliated with the Congress. Later Saul Bellow, J.D. Salinger, Truman Capote and Shirley Ann Grau would also be promoted. The writer William S. Burroughs – whose dreadful Naked Lunch I reviewed here – was reportedly a CIA agent tasked with corrupting youth. His contemporaries Jack Kerouac and Allen Ginsberg were given similar assignments.

Artists were not exempt from this process. Far-leftist Jackson Pollock, a key beneficiary, owed his success to the CIA, major foundations, and the Rockefeller-funded Museum of Modern Art. He fit the ideal profile for marketing modern art as a means of drawing leftists away from traditional communist art. As fellow-artist Budd Hopkins stated, “If you conceive of [the great American painter], first of all, he had to be a real American, not a transplanted European. And he should have the big macho American virtues – he should be rough-and-tumble American – taciturn, ideally – and if he is a cowboy, so much the better. Certainly not an easterner, not someone who went to Harvard. He shouldn’t be influenced by the Europeans so much as he should be influenced by our own – the Mexicans and American Indians, and so on. He should come out of the native soil, not out of Picasso and Matisse. And he should be allowed the great American vice, the Hemingway vice of being a drunk.” Pollack had never ridden a horse and had left Wyoming as a young child, but no one disbelieved the image created. Georgia O’Keefe also benefitted from this process, as did Diego Rivera and Mark Rothko.

Patronage, in CIA agent Tom Braden’s terms, “carried with it a duty to instruct, to educate people to accept not what they want, or think they want, but what they ought to have. ‘You have always to battle your own ignoramuses, or, to put it more politely, people who just don’t understand.’” But abstract expressionism was objectively terrible. “It was like the emperor’s clothes,” said Jason Epstein. “You parade it down the street and you say, ‘This is great art,’ and the people along the parade route will agree with you. Who’s going to stand up to Clem Greenberg and later to the Rockefellers who were buying it for their bank lobbies and say, ‘This stuff is terrible?’” Shoving the hideous art into the face of the masses and fooling them into thinking they actually liked or appreciated it fed our elites’ God complex, that they could distort and control reality. This trend has continued to this day with stuff like a taped banana selling for $6.2 million (there is also a large tax dodge and/or money laundering component to this) while beautiful art from 100+ years ago sells for maybe 3,000 Euro. The art world is all about who you know and connections, not beauty or aesthetic value.

When the truth of the Congress’s funding source eventually came out in 1966, most of the craven individuals associated with the project pathetically tried to deny knowledge of the funding, publicly humiliated that they were whores jumping for dollars. They scurried and dissimulated their lies like rats. True art is dangerous, anti-establishment and cannot be subject to elite funding; see ARX-Han’s Incel if you want an decent example of actual unsponsored modern art. The pursuit of power and money inherently has a corrupting influence to it; it requires adherence to certain red lines of thought (much as our current counter-elites are subject to), it requires compromises of principles and attitudes, and this cannot be avoided no matter how sensitive one is to it. It is inherent in participation of the process. Jason Epstein explained,

It was not a matter of buying off and subverting individual writers and scholars, but of setting up an arbitrary and factitious system of values by which academic personnel were advanced, magazine editors appointed, and scholars subsidized and published, not necessarily on their merits – though these were sometimes considerable – but because of their allegiance….What most irritated us was that the government seemed to be running an underground gravy train whose first-class compartments were not always occupied by first-class passengers: the CIA and the Ford Foundation, among other agencies, had set up and were financing and apparatus of intellectuals selected for their correct cold-war positions, as an alternative to what one might call a free intellectual market where ideology was presumed to count for less than individual talent and achievement, and where doubts about establishment orthodoxies were taken to be the beginning of all inquiry…It had at last become clear how bad a bargain the intellectuals had made, that it could never have been in the interest of art or literature, of serious speculation of any kind, or even of humanity itself, for them to serve the will of any nation.”

As CIA agent Tom Braden said, “Power was the first thing that went wrong with the CIA. There was too much of it, and it was too easy to bring to bear.” At the same time, he also wrote “Truth was reserved for the inside. To the outsider, CIA men learned to lie, to lie consciously and deliberately without the slightest tinge of the guilt that most men feel when they tell a deliberate lie.” And as Deputy Inspector General Edgar Applewhite later stated, “We were not the least inhibited by the fact that the CIA had no internal security role in the United States.” This is reminiscent of the 51 intelligence “experts” who falsely claimed that the Hunter Biden laptop story was false right before the 2020 election. Ernst Junger correctly stated when he was 100 years old, “The sociological definition of elite is already an indication of the corruption of the concept. A warning, for me, to no longer trust even the elites, but now only the great loners.”

---

Conclusion

Eustace Mullins has a great statement about the nature of our upper elites which is relevant for this discussion. He wrote that the central bank owners

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

This quote is so apt because it succinctly explains the nature of the Cold War: as a false dialectic used by the upper elites to effectuate unstated longer-term ends toward increased control over mankind. Saunders completely misses the bigger picture in her book, and because of that anyone reading it (unless they already have a firm understanding of the structure of the modern world) is going to be hopelessly confused. And I think this was intentional on her part. She spends a lot of time referencing the Ford Foundation, for example, but she never discusses it’s goals or objectives, despite the importance of the Dodd investigation and Gaither quote above – because her goal is not to illuminate the structure of the world, but to obscure it.

Now, The Cultural Cold War did shine a light on the lightweight, compromised, power-hungry, hypocritical intellectuals who upheld rigid ideological lines from higher-ups, serving as hacks for money and status – indeed, they were ultra sensitive to their self-conception as being distinct from the unwashed masses (a very common urban vs. rural historical pattern) and they conspired with their masters to destroy the Western nations under ideological gobblygook. Perhaps this was inevitable – power has a mind of it’s own, it abhors a vacuum, it was time by historical standards for Britain to pass the baton of empire to America, and perhaps Rene Guenon’s conception of the Kali Yuga is in play (i.e. for the world to become more materialist and secular until it can no longer do so, after which a new era will begin, covered previously here and here). With that said, I don’t cheer for America’s march toward imperial excess driven by flimsy and misguided ideologies. This path has led to the destruction of both historic Western populations and is now accelerating toward much darker outcomes.

Lastly, remember that the CIA has never learned its lessons. Its members have never been punished for their illegal activity, they have gotten away with everything they do scot free, they were up to their eyeballs in pushing the COVID fraud and the Ukraine war scam and staying in Afghanistan for twenty years to rape the U.S. taxpayer to the cryptocurrency scam. They stymied Trump’s presidency from 2017-2020, overthrew him in an illegal coup, and then worked with the Biden administration to bus in twenty million illegals in the past four years alone before fully skin-suiting Trump, who was facing life imprisonment and bankruptcy under false charges, and he now does whatever he is told. Not to mention older CIA stuff like killing JFK. The people involved and this organization are deeply nefarious, and the CIA should be disbanded, although it is deeply and possibly irreversibly entrenched in the existing order.8 Meanwhile, one may note that the publicly promoted individuals who are nominally against these people – Tucker Carlson, Andrew Tate – are themselves children of CIA officials, while Musk9 and Thiel are deeply entangled with the national security apparatus. See this Note and this follow up by the great Ian Smith, previously covered here, on how our current crop of influencers remain as controlled as they’ve always been. And the platforms themselves are no different, as we can see with 4chan, with Twitter10, and with Telegram. I’ll cover the current crop of compromised “influencers” in a future post because only the medium has changed; the underlying strategy of marionetted puppets dancing on strings to keep the public entertained and titillated remains exactly the same.

The intended purpose of this post, ultimately, is the political blackpill: to recognize that no one in the mainstream represents your interests, and that those who seem to serve as distractions or ritual sacrifices to maintain the illusion of choice. This world is ruled by the demiurge, and acceptance of the political blackpill is the first step on the spiritual path. No one is coming to save you: to live is to be endlessly crucified between the opposites. From that realization arises the only real question: how can one pursue an individuated life toward wholeness, and thereby – without design or expectation – radiate subtle influence on the world around us? Because the ultimate gravity of belief rests not with influencers or external figures, but with the Self within – if we can only realize it.

Thanks for reading.

Subscribe:
Email delivery remains on Substack for now.

---

1 False because in a “democracy” the oligarchs who control the organs of mass media control the population.

2 When 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 90% of communizing a country.

3 The reasons why the Rothschilds and other moneylenders won are a combination of (1) Europe giving Jews the exclusive right to money lend during the Middle Ages, previously discussed here, and (2) because Christianity as an ideology is deeply rooted in noahidism and the egalitarian ratchet effect, where gentiles adopt Yahweh as their God and grants privileges to Jews that it doesn’t grant to any other religion, preventing it from being effectively opposed. This is a point Adam Green regularly makes.

4 Much as counter-elite apparatchik Mike Benz does now with his OCD intricate analysis of the modern censorship apparatus. The subtext to Benz’s work is that reform of the system is both possible and desirable, and he obfuscates to the nature of the problem by referring to it as a “blob” (just as Yarvin falsely calls it the “Cathedral”). However, the denotation of this Substack is that reform is not possible and that deeper fundamental change cannot occur without (1) a wider public understanding of the actual structure of this globalized system, which Benz obfuscates and (2) without a transvaluation of values away from ratcheting egalitarianism, both of which are antithetical to the system as it exists.

5 Which was hidden for a number of decades with declining debt/GDP ratios as the U.S. economy grew as a superpower post-war. When economic times are good and lasts for decades no one likes a naysayer; how many people care the effects it will have two or three generations down the road?

6 Per Orwell 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.” And per MacDonald, discussed here, “Anti-restrictionist attitudes [re: immigration] were held by the vast majority of the organized Jewish community—‘the entire body of religious opinion and lay opinion within the Jewish group, religiously speaking, from the extreme right and extreme left,’ in the words of Judge Simon Rifkind who testified in Congress representing a long list of national and local Jewish groups in 1948.”

7 Hating a book either for its content or its style but deriving enough benefit in reading it is the hardest position for a reader to be in; after all, if a book is written poorly, has a bad message and one derives no benefit from it it’s easy to stop reading it and discard it. Whether to continue reading or to discard it involves a balancing of factors, as discussed with Joshua Derrick in the comments here.

8 Much like its precursor, the Praetorian Guard, which only dissolved after being militarily defeated by a force with an entirely different metaphysics.

9 One may note that Musk shut down the Twitter files investigation as a limited hangout once he purchased the platform in order to protect the credibility of the CIA and FBI, as discussed here. For more on Musk’s nefarious background see here.

10 Musk outsourced Twitter content moderation to the ADL. “This isn’t that hard. Freedom of speech doesn’t mean freedom of reach” per Jonathan Greenblatt, CEO of the ADL on April 5, 2022; “New Twitter policy is freedom of speech, but not freedom of reach” echoed Elon Musk November 18, 2022. On April 17, 2023 it became Twitter’s new content policy.

Western civilization now finds itself torn between two seemingly unstoppable forces: the egalitarian ratchet effect, which drives Western society’s core value to its logical extreme, and Zionist institutional dominance, which tightens its grip on political, cultural, and financial levers of power even as public opinion turns against it. This essay asks: which force will ultimately prevail – or is there a deeper synthesis at work, one that reframes the conflict entirely?

Welcome back.

I’ve hit on the topic of Jewish/gentile relations in multiple past posts, including this post about the complicated relationship between the Jewish people and the central bank owners, this post about potential origin of Christianity as a revenge strategy for the destruction of the Second Temple, and this post on the Zionist influence within both Republican and Democrat administrations. These post are always popular – “the Jews make news” as the idiom goes, where the public is deeply interested in Jews and Judaism, either attracted to or repulsed by the Chosen (or former Chosen) people – but rarely indifferent. It’s been awhile but this topic has become pregnant again within me and feels ready again to give birth to something; let’s see how it plays out.

Here, I want to directly address the question: who will win out between the egalitarian ratchet effect and Zionist institutional control?

Let me explain what I mean by this. The egalitarian ratchet effect is a concept I have covered previously here and here, but basically the argument is that a society’s core values double down on itself over time until the society collapses, its values are transvalued, or it is conquered from without. The core belief of Western civilization is egalitarianism, which stems ultimately from spiritual egalitarianism in Christianity. I covered the original transvaluation of values in this post. What we are seeing in Gaza today deeply offends the moral sensibilities of the West as Israel ethnically cleanses the territory resulting in at least 65,000 dead (but the body counters are also dead so the toll might be double or triple that, or more). Anti-semitism in the West is spiking, and spiking quickly and strongly. At the same time, Zionist power in America has never been stronger – its domination over American politics is so obvious and in-your-face that it can no longer be denied even among mainstream “moderates”, laws are quickly being passed favoring censorship and anti-free speech, the university system is being purged of anti-Zionism (by expelling pro-Palestinian non-citizens, threatening to strip citizens of citizenship, withdrawing federal grant money, etc.), litigation against the non-compliant is being ramped up (juiced by almost a billion dollars of settlements between the Trump administration and large law firms requiring them to offer pro-bono assistance in these efforts), while Israel is rapidly destroying all of its enemies in the Middle East (Syria, Hezbollah, Hamas, Yemen, Iran, etc.), covered previously here and here.

So this begs the question: which of these energies is going to win? I was on the fence for a long time on this question, studying it from many different angles, but I have solidified what I think will happen. But before we discuss this, let me try to steelman both mainstream sides first. To clarify at the outset, (1) I am not intending to frame my argument in an ethnic or religious manner, but I have to discuss the energies I am seeing from these perspectives first before I can get to my own, (2) by ‘Zionist institutional dominance,’ I mean the disproportionate influence of a small elite leveraging Zionist ideology and institutional power for their own benefit, not the broader Jewish population, who are often as unaware of these dynamics as gentiles (which we will discuss further); and (3) my goal is not merely accusation, but to understand the ultimate purpose driving this overwhelmingly dominant institutional power, because genuine moral opposition requires inhabiting the opposing perspective’s strongest frame with as much insight as one can muster.

Okay, lets begin.

---

The Case for the Egalitarian Ratchet Effect Winning

The case for the egalitarian ratchet effect is rooted in trends going back thousands of years. Under Christianity everyone was and is considered to be spiritually equal so long as one believed in Christ. This was deeply popular to the lower classes in Roman times, to the women, the children, the slaves, the undesirable, because they would be considered equal to or superior to the Emperor based on their belief alone. This idea was ultimately rooted in a Platonic belief in divine reason. Let’s break this down a bit:

Plato’s interpretation of Logos, which had an enormous impact on Christianity and formed a cornerstone of the religion, made it clear that reason was associated with divinity. Blogger Brett Andersen explains, quoting theologan William Inge: “Platonism is part of the vital structure of Christian theology….[If people would read Plotinus, who worked to reconcile Platonism with Scripture] they would understand better the real continuity between the old culture and the new religion, and they might realize the utter impossibility of excising Platonism from Christianity without tearing Christianity to pieces.” Tom Holland writes that in Christianity “every human being had been made equally by God and endowed by him with the same spark of reason.” Andersen continues:

“That “spark of reason” was intimately tied up with notions of moral equality. The connection of ideas goes something like this, in the form of a syllogism:

If divine soul = reasoning capacity

And moral equality = equality of souls

Then moral equality = equality of reasoning capacity”

Therefore, following this logic to its natural conclusion, the belief becomes everyone has equal inherent reasoning capacity except for the -isms and -phobias holding back equality: racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, etc. It wasn’t a large jump for Unitarians to drop their belief in God to become tabula rasa blank-slatists.

These egalitarian energies were held in check to an extent by hierarchical guardrails within the Catholic church, but those began to falter with the advent of the printing press and the rise of Protestantism which democratized belief – why rely on the priests’ interpretation of the text when you could read it yourself? Arising from these energies came democracy (one man one vote), liberation of the slaves, women’s liberation and rights, the civil rights movement, homosexual rights, transsexual rights, Islamic rights, etc – all of this, to me, stems from that initial belief in egalitarianism. And it is a blind and totalitarian belief.1

But Jews have been an uneasy exception to this setup. Disproportionately dominant in finance, in law, in government, in the media and in universities today, they have carved out a liminal space where the Holocaust serves as a shield against accusations of concentrated power and control, where such criticism inevitably leads to accusations of anti-semitism – how could a group exercise such a powerful role if millions were killed eighty years ago? Do you not see the slippery slope where such accusations have a slippery slope leading right back to the gas chambers? Do you want to see women and children murdered? Are you a monster? Etc. In other words, this group was carved out as a victim exception against the attacks on white privilege, even though in prior decades Jews had downplayed their differences from whites and focused on outward assimilation in order to ascend within the existent Protestant hierarchy. The privilege chart looks something like this:

These arguments were tailored to boomers and older generations, along with evangelical Christians, who remain quite strongly pro-Israel and pro-Jewish today per opinion research. And why not? The economy in prior decades was the best in human history, there was endless consumption to go around, it was pretty easy to buy a house and support a family – most people don’t want to focus in detail, autistically, on politics, they wanted to live their lives and enjoy, and the cost of such belief was pretty easy to push off into the future and externalize. The egalitarian arguments seem to be particularly designed toward white gentile populations in mind – blacks, hispanics, Indians, and other groups are not quite as affected by such arguments, while the white percentage of the U.S. population (and the world population) is rapidly declining.

Because economic times are now bleak – inflation is high, jobs are scarce, social trust is at an all-time low, public and private debts are at all-time highs, people can’t afford to buy a home or to have a middle class lifestyle – people are increasingly dissatisfied at the current setup and they are looking for someone to blame, and as the system becomes increasingly incoherent, the ideological enforcement software downloaded by osmosis through media and institutions is failing – it still works on many, but its Current Thing cultural spell is weakening, suffering from diminishing returns.

So when one combines the egalitarian ratchet effect, how the white/Jewish distinction along the lines of Holocaust victimization does not appeal to the non-whites who are an ever-increasing percentage of the population, worsening economic times, and the horrors of the current Gaza war, the data is reflecting that each younger generation is more pro-Palestine, more anti-Israel, and more anti-semitic than the ones prior to it. Boomers are wildly pro-Israel and pro-Jewish, but each younger generation ratchets toward the inverse of that per Pew, a trend which is only intensifying:

And Israel favorability is collapsing through the West, per Wikileaks:

This is perhaps why various Western countries are now recognizing Palestine, such as France. We can also see this with liberal security state astroturfed mutants like David Hogg jumping on the anti-Israel train, or Charlie Kirk was looking at doing on the right (his alleged last letter to Netanyahu, published by the NY Post, discusses with alarm how Israel is getting crushed in the information war) along with Candace Owens and 5’5” homosexual Nick Fuentes jumping at the bit. There seems to be an emerging groundswell consensus forming that Israel is wielding disproportionate influence in America and the West and that its actions in Gaza are beyond the pale, regardless of the increases in censorship. , for example, believes that such censorship is bound to fail.

It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to project these trends out a little bit where the old boomers die off, each new generation is more anti-Israel and anti-semitic than the last, and even if the institutions are controlled by Zionists the egalitarian ratchet effect will overcome the Jewish/Israel exception to it and swamp it, ending the Israel project entirely (which requires U.S. support for its existence), while anti-semitism itself continues to increase throughout the West.

Let’s imagine, for the sake of steel-manning the argument made here, what it would look like for the egalitarian ratchet to prevail. Israel’s ethnic project would fail – both in Gaza (as the starvation narrative even takes hold within Israel itself) and across the Levant. The world, unified in moral condemnation, would break the spell of Zionist immunity, unraveling AIPAC’s domination not just in Washington but across the institutional West. Jewish exceptionalism would no longer be shielded by the trauma-mirror of the Holocaust but confronted openly as incompatible with universal equality. Anti-semitism, instead of being weaponized for dialectical ingathering (to be discussed), would become a genuine force of reckoning. Indeed, we do see inklings of this with the continued focus on Jeffrey Epstein (a joint Mossad operative/asset working in conjunction with the CIA) and how the egalitarian ratchet effect has curiously crushed high level Jews including Harvey Weinstein with Me Too. And yet, even if this happened the egalitarian ratchet effect would still be faltering: the particularisms of Indian caste-centrism and Islamic religiosity would also have to dissolve or convert, and one sees little to no evidence of that occurring; Indian immigration into the U.S. via H1B is only ramping up. Such a convergence feels less like a possible future and more like a fantasy, one the system has no mythic architecture to sustain.

---

The Case for Zionist Institutional Control Winning

The case for Zionist institutional control winning is that such forces control every lever of power in the United States (and arguably throughout the West) – this includes the media, finance, universities, government, the Federal Reserve (via the Rothschilds), and they are doubling down as seen with ratcheting anti-free speech laws and the Oracle-controlled purchase of TikTok, which is where much of the pro-Palestinian energy was focused. Strongly Zionist Larry Ellison is on record stating “Citizens will be on their best behavior because we are constantly recording and reporting everything that’s going on.” Right after the purchase finalized the platform immediately begun censorship efforts. How can the pro-egalitarian cause sustain itself, move forward, if it is starved of funding, influence, and platform? An element of free speech is currently allowed on Twitter, but how long will that last? (Musk himself is a globohomo stooge who regularly kisses the ring – he does not have much power). In the battle between bottom-up energy and top-down energy, I wouldn’t be betting on bottom-up energy winning so long as the top-down energy is aggressive and confident, which they are – look at Palantir which is leveraging information in order to destroy the establishment’s enemies, look at AI where the public-facing version is far less advanced than the tools our elites have to game out their strategies, etc. These technologies can be used to smother or destroy emerging threats long before they become a real threat, they can keep the public confused with endless Current Thing propaganda, they control all the mainstream influencers and can direct them at will, they can muddy the waters on facts and figures, creating a haze of disinformation that becomes impossible to untangle (such as the Charlie Kirk assassination), etc.

We can look to see how the Trump administration is fully dominated by Zionists, but so was the Biden administration as I discussed previously here – there is no meaningful choice given to the public on this issue through voting or otherwise. One could look at Israel’s power moves as desperately trying to get ahead of the egalitarian increases before the boomers die off, hence their rush and scramble now, but their actions may just as easily be seen as one of confidence – because they now face no opposition on an institutional basis, they feel they can move forward aggressively and confidentially without any fear of institutional pushback. We can see this with:

1. ubiquitous AIPAC dominance within Congress,
2. the West has been race-mixed to the point ethnicity is no longer a Schelling point for action,
3. the idea of a decentralized internet has ended and all electronic communications are centralized and controlled,
4. elections post-2020 are now perceived as untrustworthy by tens of millions, with permanent vote-by-mail, ballot harvesting and centralized tabulation systems raising deep doubts about legitimacy,
5. every institution of power is and has been controlled for many decades (media, universities, entertainment, Congress, the presidency, the Federal Reserve, the spy agencies (FBI, CIA, NSA), etc.,
6. the population of the West has been dumbed down, pumped full of endless propaganda and crippled into obesity and low fertility rates, and
7. the elites are sprinting toward the digital panopticon (woke AI scanning everyone’s internet activity + CBDCs will cut out the noncompliant from society).

There is nothing they don’t control, and the population will put up with anything – from the 2020 election to years of lockdowns, middle America was tested and despite their firearms and frontier self-image, proved far easier to manipulate than many expected.

This is further embodied in the rise of Curtis Yarvin and Bronze Age Pervert’s perspectives, where the former calls for a technocratic dictatorship and the latter focuses on Nietzschian will-to-power and homosexual mannerbund (his pro-Israel position is usually understated and couched in symbolism per his Straussian background), as well as sociopaths like Alex Karp of Palantir and Yuval Harari, the advisor to WEF former-head Klaus Schwab.

One can trace the inception of these trends historically – when Christianity began its ascent it banned and destroyed all religions other than Judaism. Nietzsche’s argument was that Christianity was crafted as a form of Noahidism – get the gentiles to accept the egregore of Yahweh, not worship idols, put Jews at the center of their worldview – and that traditional “Jews killed Christ” anti-semitism benefits Judaism by forcing believers to remain a separate and distinct people from the masses. The Catholic Church giving a lending monopoly to Jews, including and especially the Rothschilds, in this context is seen merely as an extension of the power and prestige that Christianity gives to the (formerly) Chosen – and under this perspective, the entire West was set up for this power-handing-over process from the beginning.

The argument here, then, is that the increased in-your-face outright domination by Zionists is that they no longer need to rely on a false couched egalitarianism, they can let the mask drop and push for full supremicism without fear of blowback. Soft power – always the cheaper and more elegant method of control – has become either unnecessary or too slow, and the regime is increasingly resorting to blunt hard power as they sprint toward their final objectives.

---

My Perspective / the Synthesis

My perspective synthesizes these two perspectives, but some background is required. First, I distinguish between the upper elites – who are mostly Jewish such as the Rothschilds, Warburgs, Schiffs, etc. but include others like the Rockefellers and the British monarchy – and the Jewish masses themselves. The way it works, which I discussed in detail here, is that the upper elites use the Jewish masses as a bulwark against the masses getting angry over the upper elite financial theft through ownership of the world central banks. If the masses start getting angry, the upper elites unleash some propaganda about how the masses are increasingly anti-semitic, the Jewish people get terrified and howl out in fear, and then the Jews and the gentile masses clash. The average Jewish person has no understanding of how the world is structured or the upper layers; he is as clueless as everyone else, he just lives in constant fear of the gentiles, hammered in via stories like the Exodus story, the Holocaust and Haman. This is the same rationale for why the upper elites focus so strongly on divide and conquer tactics – back in earlier centuries they would enact balance of powers in European countries, create wedges like Taiwan/Japan/South Korea vs. China, or India vs. Pakistan/China, or Eastern Europe vs. Western Europe during the Cold War, or even trying to put nukes in Cuba vs. U.S. leading up to the Cuban Missile Crisis, or on a population level between the masses on the basis of race, gender, sexual orientation, religion, etc. The upper elites exacerbate these group differences (which do exist naturally, but they are intentionally manipulated and harnessed) so that they can decide winners and losers by directing the amount of funding and media attention they receive from above, which Eustace Mullins so eloquently stated.2

We can see this both in World War 2, where the Jewish masses were allowed to be oppressed for higher level gain (discussed here), or more recently with the forced COVID lockdowns and forced heart attack jabs, where Israel along with Australia were the two most locked down and forced vaccinated countries on the planet:

Now, I do believe that the upper elites are held together by a certain ideological makeup. Yes, they want to stay in power and yes, they want to increase their power, and yes, one has to undergo massive trials and offer blackmail material, really dark stuff, to reach the higher levels – but this is not enough. There must be a deeper level, a religious level that justifies their need to dominate regardless of the cost – the opposite of the Christian “do unto others as you would have them do unto you” – which spins their actions into a positive light. They must have this because the worst thing for them would be for upper elites to splinter factionally, and also because everyone wants to think they’re the good guy of the story, no one wants to think they’re evil or nefarious, so they need a metaphysical glue to hold the cabal together (the word “cabal” derives from the term Kabbalism). And my belief is that certain strains of Talmudism/Kabbalah/Chabad (as minority interpretations within broader Jewish thought) provide these energies – because it becomes about “repairing the world” by doing the word of Yahweh, subjugating the masses as Noahides and destroying non-belivers so that the End Times prophecies may be fulfilled. If one buys into this scheme, then doing whatever has to be done to effectuate those prophecies is fulfilling God’s will – sure, it massively benefits oneself and justifies ones position in power, to behave immorally, which is precisely why such an ideology would be seized upon, but the “God’s will” justification is the glue that keeps the whole enterprise together and focused on eschatological objectives.

These End Times prophecies are basically as follows, although the specific order is unclear and debated:

1. The ingathering of the Jewish diaspora back to Israel.
   1. Per Chabad: “One of the most important aspects of the Redemption is the promise of the ingathering of the exiles from the Diaspora, with all Jews settling in their tribal portion of the Holy Land. We are assured that no Jew will be left behind—including the Ten “Lost Tribes.””
2. Greater Israel will be effectuated.
   1. There are sources about division of Israel among tribes, settlement of the land, etc. Chabad and Jewish tradition expect land restoration (tribal portions), although idea of “Greater Israel” as a political entity covering all claims as sometimes used today is more modern / interpretive than clearly in Talmudic prophecy.
3. The world will turn on Israel and launch a war against it.
   1. Per Chabad: “The prophet Ezekiel describes a climactic war, the Battle of Gog and Magog, that will occur prior to the arrival of the Moshiach. This topic is shrouded in mystery: we are uncertain as to the identity of Gog and Magog, whether Gog and Magog are the names of nations or individuals, whether this battle will be a physical or spiritual battle, and even whether it has already occurred or not.” However, a common interpretation is that Gog and Magog refer to a final war between East and West. Furthermore, prophecies about “nations will come up against Zion” (e.g., in Isaiah, Zechariah), and later rabbinic/apocalyptic literature like Sefer Zerubbabel speak of Armilus (a messianic adversary).
4. Israel will triumph.
   1. Implied in many prophetic texts and in the other predictions.
5. The Messiah will be proclaimed.
   1. Per Chabad: “Moshiach will usher in an era of peace and prosperity which will benefit all of mankind. The prophets depicts the Messianic Era as a miraculous one, and the Midrash and Talmud are replete with statements regarding fantastic miracles that will be commonplace during the Messianic Era.”
6. The Third Temple will be rebuilt.
   1. Per here: “In his Mishneh Torah the Rambam also says Messiah will build the Temple. Rambam is right again, according to Tenakh: Messiah is the true Temple builder.” And per Chabad: “The Holy Temple, which was destroyed by the Romans, will be rebuilt in Jerusalem, becoming the central focus of all humanity – as Isaiah says, “My home will be considered a ‘House of Prayer’ for all the nations.””
7. The world will worship the Jewish Messiah.
   1. Per Chabad: “The Messianic Era will be one of tremendous prosperity – ”delicacies will be commonplace like dust.” That will leave humankind with ample free time – and all the nations of the world will be preoccupied with one pursuit: the study of G‑d and the Torah. Moshiach will reveal profound hitherto unknown dimensions of the Torah. The Midrash goes as far as to say that “the Torah which we study in this world is naught in comparison to the Torah of Moshiach.””
8. Rule in perpetuity.
   1. Many sources expect a Messianic era of perpetual peace, resurrection, and never-ending service / worship of God. For example, many prayers and eschatological sources expect that Temple worship, study of Torah, and peace will endure. But “rule in perpetuity” in temporal/geopolitical detail is more symbolic than literal in many texts.

We can already see the sprint toward effectuating Greater Israel, and we see interesting signs like the Red Heffer being sacrificed (a precursor to the rebuild of the Third Temple). My argument, then, is this: the upper elites know of rising anti-semitism and both allow and encourage it (through, in part, their lackey Musk allowing some degree of freedom of speech on Twitter, and it also neatly explains why Kash Patel – a skinsuited crosseyed puppet whose girlfriend has been alleged to be his Mossad handler – has apparently ended FBI/ADL cooperation). To argue that the upper elites are stupid, or that they don’t have a high-order uncensored AI directing their strategy sessions toward long-term goals, violates a proper understanding of the cold blooded ruthlessness and long-term planning that these people operate from. They are doing it because they want to effectuate an eventual ingathering of the Jewish diaspora back to Israel in accordance with End Times prophecies; increased anti-semitism caused in part by the Gaza war works in furtherance of these goals. They want the world to turn on Israel and then to be undermine/destroyed (easy to do given the upper elites control the economies of the West and all institutional power; crashing their economies would be trivial to accomplish, much like they crashed the U.S. economy in 1929). They can use woke AI plus CBDC to assign social credit scores and enforce them, a digital Mark of the Beast. And then they can rule publicly, in perpetuity, telling the masses it is the fulfillment of divine prophecy – and Jew, Christians and Muslims are all psychically primed for such an outcome because they have made Yahweh their egregore of worship. makes a similar but crude polemical argument in this Note, identifying ordinary Jews as largely expendable pawns in an elite-driven process, though he obscures this insight with broad group-based accusations and imprecise language, and his final points are quite speculative.3 Also see here.

There are other material reasons why the upper elites view a mass decrease in consumption (except for themselves) enforced via the digital panopticon as necessary for their survival, such as the upcoming neo-Malthusian end of cheap oil and a return to tribal politics.4 This outcome is also in accordance with the shift from the Age of Pisces to the Age of Aquarius, which I have covered at various points but will cover again shortly. I hope that this technological beast system fails, but I don’t think it will until it fully manifests in a collective horror inversely mirroring that of Christ, because Pisces begins with Christ and ends with the anti-Christ. The Age of Aquarius, with its emphasis on individual consciousness, aligns with Jung’s individuation process, where personal connection to the Self may assist in countering elite-driven collectivist narratives, but it is not here yet.5

I hope you can see how society’s rising anti-semitism may be funneled dialectically toward an extremely long-term and well-planned goal, the effectuation of which is almost complete. I don’t know how much of this is fated astrologically versus sinisterly planned, but my belief is that the Self within each of us in an infinite and uncontrollable thing, and if the system fails eventually it will be because we tap into the Self and connect with it through Jung’s individuation process, which is one of the positive possibilities offered within the Age of Aquarius – that instead of institutions such as the Church bearing the connection to God, it requires each of us individually to experience and have that connection ourselves – that it not just Christ who was crucified, but all of us are crucified through the endless navigation of opposite energies – and through that connection we may in turn have a positive impact on the world around us. This is profoundly anti-egalitarian in the sense that it depends on each individual’s soul development, which is up to each of us to deepen or not as we see fit.6 As Stephan Hoeller wrote in The Gnostic Jung and the Seven Sermons to the Dead:

In his own unique way Jung gave us the answer: “To the constantly reiterated question ‘What can I do?’ I know no other answer except ‘Become what you have always been,’ namely, the wholeness which we have lost in the midst of our civilized, conscious existence, a wholeness which we always were without knowing it.”

Today, just as in the second or third centuries, humanity’s greatest need is that attainment to wholeness or fullness of being which comes to the soul in the form of gnosis. Religious and moral fervor, faith in God or in political ideologies, advocacy of harsh law and rigid order, apocalyptic messianic enthusiasm – not only are these imperfect solutions to our problems, but in reality they are no solutions at all. As long as vast numbers of individuals expect all problems to be solved and all ills to be remedied outside themselves, they will be beset by inhumanity upon inhumanity, holocaust upon holocaust. We are not faced with a problem we can solve, but with a predicament from which we need to extricate ourselves; a predicament of a-gnosis, of a lack of intimate, personal and firsthand knowledge of our authentic nature….Jung spoke of the task of these new gnostics, the contemporary heroes of consciousness when he wrote:

‘The effect on all individuals, which one would like to see realized, may not set in for hundreds of years, for the spiritual transformation of mankind follows the slow tread of the centuries and cannot be hurried or held up by any rational process of reflection, let alone brought to fruition in one generation. What does lie within our reach, however, is the change in individuals who have, or create, an opportunity to influence others of like mind in their circle of acquaintance.I do not mean persuading or preaching – I am thinking, rather, of the well-known fact that anyone who has insight into his own action, and has thus found access to the unconscious, involuntarily exercises an influence on his environment. The deepening and broadening of his consciousness produce the kind of effect which the primitives call “mana.” It is an unintentional influence on the unconscious of others, a sort of unconscious prestige, and its effect lasts only so long as it is not disturbed by conscious intention.’

Thanks for reading.

Subscribe:
Email delivery remains on Substack for now.

---

1 One may note that so-called leftists view the egalitarian ratchet effect from a simple anti-white animus perspective (the oppressor must be humbled, the oppressed must be raised), and they have little to no interest in Islamic immigration into the West being curtailed or forced to assimilate. One may see this dynamic with Rushere Shoniwa here or in posts by Caitlin Johnstone here and here, or the correct counter-perspective by Rurik here. In other words, the inherent contradictions within the egalitarian ratchet effect contain the seeds of its own end no matter which perspective prevails.

2 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.”

3 Although quite speculative, they do line up with a psychological and economic understanding. If the masses are put out of work and rendered “useless eaters” per Yuval Harari, then the use of the masses for elite purposes would likely devolve to something like sexual abuse and medical experimentation. Indeed, one may look at the COVID episode with the untested population-wide forced mRNA “vaccines” as such a medical experimentation to try to supercharge life extension technologies for the elites, and indicative of the underlying upper elite mindset. Under this perspective, such elites would try to harness and use such technologies to eventually become a separate and distinct species from the masses who they so abhor. In Jewish mysticism, Adam Kadmon symbolizes a primordial unity before differentiation; in our age of AI and biotech, the elite’s desire to transcend ordinary humanity functions as a kind of technological Adam Kadmon project – an attempt to recreate themselves as a separate archetype, leaving behind the profane masses.

4 Oil, gas and coal reserves are rapidly falling, energy return on energy invested (EROEI) is falling, and alternative energies are far too expensive and inefficient to continue anywhere close to current levels of consumption. In other words the engine for growth is likely to end, and with it the surpluses necessary to allow something like the egalitarian ratchet effect to continue. Furthermore, the ascent of mass immigration of ultra-clannish Indians and Muslims into the West frays the ability to push egalitarianism further, because these groups will have none of it and Islamic fertility rates are far higher than native birthrates.

5 For clarity: Jung and his work are distinct from the practice of most “Jungian therapists,” who tend to be therapeutic, establishment-friendly, and safe. Jung himself looked down on such tendencies, once quipping: “My grandfather, Carl Gustav Jung, founded a home for mentally retarded children. Now I am founding another one (the Zurich Institute), for mentally retarded adults.” The point, as observes, is similar to the difference between Christ and Christianity: one should not conflate the source with the institution that grew up around it. Nietzsche noted that Christ was “the only true Christian,” and Dostoevsky’s Grand Inquisitor parable dramatizes how quickly Christ’s message was twisted toward institutional power. My criticisms, then, are not directed at Christ — or at Jung — but at how their legacies were almost immediately bent toward bureaucratic or establishment ends.

6 Under Jung’s conception there is no such thing as soul equality the way it is understood in exoteric Christianity (i.e. believe in Christ and be saved) – rather, souls are utterly different depending on the depths of their spiritual development, especially one’s willingness to confront and integrate one’s ugly and nasty unconscious, one’s willingness to sit with pain and uncertainty and contradiction without seeking easy ideological or other copouts. This is not aristocracy, nor theocratic dogma, but something more terrifying and beautiful: an inner hierarchy based on the capacity for descent, self-overcoming, and gnosis.

This post interprets the recent assassination not primarily as a political turning point but as a symbolic act. Rather than rushing into reactive action or hysteria, it argues that the deeper struggle lies in how symbols are manipulated by elites and metabolized by the collective psyche: in this case, with the intention of funneling public anger to attack the “left” and usher in a Palantir security state, amplified by bots and influencers.

Sigh, I was hoping my recent post on the potential likely motivations behind the Charlie Kirk assassination would calm me down and allow me to move on. As Emil Cioran stated, writing for him was a form of exorcism; by getting it out on the page it allowed him to live life normally, and if he didn’t get it out then life felt oppressive, suffocating. I operate in a very similar manner, yet my feeling didn’t go away after my last post, it remained and haunted me – which means there is more to say on it.

First, a note on how symbols1 become pregnant or charged through blood sacrifice. What I mean by this is a dynamic where an otherwise abstract or “flat” signifier is suddenly infused with weight, destiny, and dread because a life has been publicly poured into it. Blooding is the traditional term of this, but I prefer bloodening.2 Let’s walk through this:

• Blood as ontological adhesive. In archaic societies, ritual sacrifice bound the community to the god or to the mythic order. This is because blood consecrates – it makes an image or totem a living node of power.
• From sign to mandate. Before the Kirk shooting, “grassroots right-populism” was a posture, an aesthetic – boisterous but still porous and diffuse. With his death, it transforms and now bears the aura of martyrdom. Martyrdom transforms political discourse into cult terrain: one cannot speak neutrally because the blood has drawn a circle around the symbol. One becomes either for or against it.
• The state and counter-state both know this. Modern operations (false flag, psyop, or spontaneous) still obey this ancient logic: if you want to lock a current of energy in place, you must spill blood on it. The dead body anchors meaning in a way tweets or speeches cannot.
• Pregnancy of the symbol. After blood is spilled, the symbol is no longer empty. It “gestates”, becoming a vessel for narratives, projections, polarizations. That’s why Kirk’s death cannot remain an isolated incident; it will be re-told as parable, as omen, as mandate.
• Quasi-right-wing populism in particular. This zone is especially prone to sacralization-through-death because it is precarious, diffuse, mocked by elites, not institutionalized. The martyrdom gives it the gravitas it lacked.

So: what we’re watching isn’t just “a tragedy” or “a conspiracy,” but the charging of a symbolic form. Kirk’s blood consecrates a figure of the “everyman-right,” one that will now have to be reckoned with in mythic time, not just electoral time.

Here’s a compact list of charged symbols through blood sacrifice, each case where an event sacralized a symbol and made it difficult to ignore:

• JFK (1963). New Camelot, lost innocence of America. His death turned liberal optimism into tragic myth, even though it was a joint Mossad/CIA operation per and his successor, LBJ, was their puppet. The media is trying to turn Kirk into a JFK-esque figure currently for similar purposes, and his wife is grossly playing into it by crying in front of cameras beside his coffin.
• Archduke Franz Ferdinand (1914). Old world monarchic order collapsing. His assassination consecrated WWI as the “war to end wars.”
• Martin Luther King Jr. (1968). Civil Rights as moral destiny. His death transformed the cause into sacred mandate.
• George Floyd (2020). BLM as global faith. His death turned into ritual image of oppression, mobilizing planetary protest.
• Heather Heyer, Charlottesville (2017). Antifascism consecrated by blood. Her death sealed the “Unite the Right” rally as archetype of evil, although she was obese and probably died of a heart attack. James Fields was panicked and trying to escape from a braying antifa mob which was attacking his car and chasing him.
• Socrates (399 BC). Philosophy as martyrdom to truth. His execution consecrated philosophy as higher than life.
• Jesus (c. 33 AD). Ultimate archetype. The crucifixion as cosmic blood sacrifice charging the symbol of the cross.

All of these took something that could have been politics, debate, or movement and made it myth, ritual, and fate.

Let’s apply this framework to the Kirk case. In my prior post I stated there were four main possibilities I saw regarding the assassin’s motivation: (1) it was a far-leftist culture warrior lone wolf attack, (2) it was a Democrat “deep state” attack to cripple Republican organization abilities, as Kirk was the best in class, (3) it was a preemptive Israeli/Mossad attack because Kirk was slowly turning against his handlers/owners, or (4) it was designed to remove a centrist figure and radicalize liberals vs. conservatives even further.

These possibilities haven’t really been resolved with the arrest of Tyler Robinson. While on the surface it appears he was a far-leftist culture warrior lone wolf attack (#1), there are lots of takes that either he didn’t do it and he’s a patsy ( ’s take, in more depth here), or he was MKUltra’d into doing it, or even that Kirk isn’t even dead (’s take). I am open to the possibilities, but I do not assume that in a population of three hundred and fifty million people there doesn’t exist those who would take an action to put their names in the history books with violence if given the opportunity – people have agency and choice and not everything was planned by our elites (Trump’s 2016 win was unplanned by them, for example, and Luigi Mangione’s actions were real). Robinson’s physiognomy points to instability and aggression, and the latest report is that he was living with his transgender partner (although these reports should generally be discounted as propaganda; a recent report calling him “leftist” was quasi-retracted after the interview subject changed his statement). It is harder to exist in a zone requiring discernment depending on individual circumstances than to have blanket black-and-white rules, and if one does adopt those black-and-white rules, one should consciously discern what developments would have to occur to invalidate one’s thesis.

Regardless, the right wing influencers are leaning very heavily into the culture war stuff, amplified tremendously by bots and algorithms, calling for mass cancellations of liberals, calling for civil war, race war, etc – very similar to the energy after the (alleged) first Trump assassination attempt, where guys like here and here and here (sorry to pick on you, gentlemen) breathlessly debated whether it was proper to mass cancel the left like the left liked to do to the right, and then basically nothing happened and everyone moved on. There’s a lot of pent up anger and frustration not just due to Kirk or the Ukrainian woman killed, but for tens of millions of illegals being brought into the country (requiring a huge infrastructure and organization), the continuous loss of jobs and quality of life, etc, of which the Trump administration talks a big game about fixing but does very little. As the communist playbook states, the idea is to get the masses so desperate for a savior that they will accept whoever it is when it arrives, in whatever form it takes (brought by the instigators that caused the situation in the first place). The situation isn’t at that level yet – people still have food, clothing, shelter, porn, Netflix, iPhones, electricity, heating, gas, cars, computers – but if they lose all those things, like Iraq after Bush’s criminal invasion on behalf of Israel (where bombing infrastructure led to a million deaths), then maybe they’ll get desperate enough for something.

Nothing good would come of any right-wing civil unrest, either. This is because the right is short sighted, entirely reactionary, is nihilistic and rigid regardless of whether it comes from the secular or religious angle – it has no vision as the Kynosargas post I always link to argues, other than a country without foreigners. A vision would be proactive, on the level of metaphysics, self-generating and propelling, etc. Furthermore, the situation is so controlled (the upper elites control every lever of power including and especially that of Trump) that larger actions today aren’t allowed to manifest in this prison colony controlled society unless the upper elites want it – and they would only want it if civil unrest would be used as a scapegoat for a planned crash of the economy (after the upper elite’s theft of tens of trillions of dollars as a mafia bust-out operation), or as an excuse to implement the digital panopticon. “You see, goys, we need massive ICE expansion and raids and arrests and cancellations and a vastly increased Palantir security state for your own safety…”. Anglin, for all his faults, sees this part clearly and correctly – the dialectical us-versus-them tribal energy is so easy to tap into to funnel toward alternate goals. It’s the same playbook they ran on 9/11 – false-flag an attack, institute a much bigger security state. No significant real world action will happen unless it is on their timetable, at their direction, where any and all outcomes have been pregamed and to their benefit (such as how World War 1 and World War 2 were set up ahead of time for Germany’s failure). When the public is manipulated into a false choice or an action, it is always heads they win, tails you lose.

So here, regardless of whoever was behind the Kirk assassination and for what reason, don’t let yourself or your emotions or energy be manipulated dialectically based on a charged symbol to support escalation – those pushing for it (including Yarvin, Musk, Stephen Miller and other major mouthpieces in the Trump administration) are not your friend. Yes, it sucks that Kirk was assassinated, I hope the assassin gets the death penalty if he was behind it, and it’s frustrating that violence always seems to go in one direction; but sorry, the right is in no position currently to push for true, beneficial change – you’ll either lose outright or end up with a “right wing” Zionist Palantir dictator who will throw you in prison. See how easy the Zionist administration used the symbolism of pushing “cracking down on the woke/transgenders” in universities to purge anti-Zionism free speech instead, for example. And it does suck, too, because they have flooded the country with tens of millions of illegals and printed and stolen tens of trillions of dollars which only continues to accelerate, so passivity does feel like a bad option, too – our elites really like to create funneled situation where they win regardless of the outcome.

The work required now is the hard stuff – the work of individuation, of looking at one’s own ugly unconscious and coming to terms with it, to understand the deeper dialectical strategies our elites employ, how symbols are manipulated and for what purpose, and thinking about ways in which one may reinchant via metaphysicical change the secular, atheistic, materialist Hellscape we now inhabit. Action is easy, which one may very well come to regret – thinking and understanding the deeper layers, not falling for traps, changing ourselves to a different register is the hard part, because it requires sitting with uncertainty and pain for an indefinite period – maybe forever – and most people would do anything they could to get out of that pain, even if it means jumping into action antithetical to their longterm interests. By changing ourselves we in turn have an effect on those around us, which may over time, bottom up and organically, have an impact on the world we live in. I don’t mean to write this glibly – “just work on yourself, bro!” – but our upper elites literally control every institution of power, they own every major influencer on all sides, they have their malevolent woke AI scanning all electronic communications, so whatever their controlled media highlight is always going to be used against your interests.

Thanks for reading.

Subscribe:
Email delivery remains on Substack for now.

---

1 A symbol is a sign, object, or event that carries meaning beyond its literal form, often because it evokes shared ideas, emotions, or archetypes. Its key features are: (1) polyvalence, where it can be interpreted in multiple ways depending on perspective, culture, or context; (2) condensation of meaning, where complex ideas, feelings, or narratives are compressed into a single image, word, or gesture; (3) evocative power – it can inspire action, emotion, or reflection, often resonating at a psychological or cultural level; and (4) connection to larger patterns, where a symbol usually taps into myths, archetypes, or collective consciousness, giving it weight beyond the immediate.

2 “Blooding” is the more traditional term and contains an archaic, ritual resonance. It comes from ritual or hunting language: to “blood” someone is to mark them with blood as initiation. Here it suggests a rite of passage for the symbol, an event where it’s consecrated or made powerful through sacrifice. “Bloodening” is more neologistic; it suggests not just a marking but a process of saturation – the symbol being soaked or swollen with blood. It’s jarring, destabilizing, and emphasizes the grotesque modern spectacle of it.