Black Lives Matter in Retrospect. Is the State setting up BIPOC peoples by scapegoating BLM as crime rates “rise” to re-install a harsher police state? The Master Slave Game. And how White Reactionaries are alleging BLM is a grift by conflating the realities of a movement with the humanist cause and principle to push white supremacist talking points.  By Quinton Mitchell ©

Table of Contents

  1. Points
  2. Hypothesis and Main Theory
  3. The Issue of Dialectics
  4. Viewing BLM as an Object and Aesthetic
In this still images courtesy of National Public Radio (NPR) television station WBFO and taken by Mike Desmond, a 75-year-old protester bleeds from his ear after being shoved by Buffalo, New York, police, on June 4, 2020, after Buffalos curfew went into effect, according to media reports. – The protester was reported to be in stable but serious condition at a local hospital, according to NPR WBFO on June 5. (Photo by Mike Desmond / WBFO NPR / AFP) / RESTRICTED TO EDITORIAL USE – MANDATORY CREDIT “AFP PHOTO / WBFO NPR / Mike DESMOND” – NO MARKETING – NO ADVERTISING CAMPAIGNS – DISTRIBUTED AS A SERVICE TO CLIENTS (Photo by MIKE DESMOND/WBFO NPR /AFP via Getty Images)

Quick Summary: When looking back at BLM we must make distinction between the movement and the principle/cause, while also not blowing out of proportion all the realities of the movement, i.e., letting bad actors overshadow those with noble intentions.

The movement of BLM was a reaction to police but as an object it seems to be currently being set-up (scapegoated), or even partially having been set up from its inception, by the bipartisan power apparatus, to make people crawl back to a more weaponized and technologically integrated police state, and in American fashion scapegoat black people, i.e., retain the traditional value of “blackness” as “other” and “problematic”. In many ways Black Lives Matters was the best thing for the Justice Department under William Barr considering he could increase police power by hiding behind the racial dialectics of the country, and it was good for both political parties – already co-opted by corporate power – to re-solidify race in the United States, but also advance racial progress simultaneously, because progression is a notion of Darwinism, so progression naturally is used as a metric for gauging success but this progression is done with tension.

As crime rates arose due to the dereliction of duty by many officers who didn’t want to reform, rather instead falling into the Blue Lives Matter reactionary movement (which is at an intersection with All Lives Matter, which is really just a cover for White Lives Matters) and the reopening of society during the COVID lockdowns (more people outside means more crime), 1) people would crawl back to state power where police have received more power, more updated weapons, military surplus from the still standing National Defense Authorization Act provisions, tracking technology, etc., 2) to re-solidify white supremacy via reactionary politics who would shame minorities with a “See, I told you so” sort of cynicism playing into America’s racial dialectics, 3) have the state do figurative reforms to farm voters by holding their hopes over them just to let them down because of manufactured “bipartisan bickering” instead of doing transformative reforms, 4) to undermine the Biden Presidency by taking a way an aspect of his campaign promise to disenchant liberal voters wanting reform, even though Biden-Harris is a proponent of the “law and order” system and seem to only use progressives in a pragmatic ways to simply keep the “tent camp” coalition of the Left intact, but 4) on a bright side, the cause/principle of BLM was important and had a lasting beneficial effect as far as advancing our worldview when viewing race, expanding peoples’ minds to the realities of systemic racism (Good Ole Boy networks, double-standards in sentencing, etc.), humanizing the existences of marginalized groups, not shying away from our history, and viewing power more in-depth.  Yet, the movement wasn’t bad, there were just some bad actors in it, and the movement was essential in tandem with the cause and principle in challenging state power and forcing at least a conversation about reform (that we’re still waiting on from the state).

Disclaimer:

Black Lives Matters was a complicated but important movement in the United States of America and even across the globe. While the US Congress stalls or even disregards actual police reform, the BLM movement did advance the conversation about how we see race relations, and it exposed the often-disregarded interactions that people of color face when dealing with a system that is predominately held by a white power structure, etc. I must put the disclaimer in this paper to subvert claims by white reactionaries that this is “anti-white”.

I grew up in mostly white environments, and they were 90-95% great environments. Very fond memories with white friends or friends of any race where was there was no race (playing video games, watching wrestling, playing tackle football in fields, riding bikes, talking about girls, etc.), yet being older, especially after the entrance of Black Lives Matters into the national conversation, I noticed a sense of ennui or remorse in white America, maybe it was part guilt in feeling that things weren’t truly as good as we all thought they were (assuming the election of one person of half-black descent, not even descended from black American slavery, in Barack Obama, could somehow correct four hundred years of supremacy), or in many cases it was a reaction, a sort of negative envious feeling that white America’s grievances weren’t being met, etc. It’s complicated.

I get it, but I must state that this paper isn’t anti-white even though I will be talking about white supremacy, so if you are white and reading this, don’t see it as an attack (that’s what the white reactionary wants), but rather me trying to help you understand, because frankly, the way that many reacted to Black Lives Matters means that many white people, same as black people, still inhabit a dialectical worldview when coming to race, i.e., a simple matter of black and white consciousness, when really there’s a higher level, but to get that level we have to address the notion of white supremacy, the construction of racial aesthetics, and the extensions of supremacy not matter how innocuous they may seem (such as police power).

As a black person who was raised in white America mostly, conscious of myself as a black person within it, I understand how many white people “tense up” when hearing for example a de-colonialist anti-supremacist worldview by some people of color. Most white people are totally fine, but simply don’t like thinking that things are bad, or for some those others have a sort of advantage because that defies the concept of “merit”. It triggers a sense of defensiveness which therefore leads to fighting, pettiness, cynicism, etc. See me as your friend. You’re interpreter. In many ways I find extreme black nationalism to be problematic, although I understand the energy of it because it’s really from a people trying to reconstruct their identity or attach to their roots which the West or America didn’t take too seriously (they’re trying to feel good about themselves instead of seeming themselves as ugly caricatures created by a system that doesn’t value them or their contributions), for example, we learn about Rome, Ancient China, but we never learn about African history before slavery (and sadly this by design). But I am pragmatically on the Left because I feel the Left will help us all, and I am not a fan of political conservatives because that are a barrier for reconciliation, for progress, and for helping us get to a better day.  

I. Points:

  1. Black Lives Matter and Defund the Police was never anti-police but was about police reform, but since police don’t want to be reformed, but also white supremacy co-opts police with their “law and order” claims, the Right Wing intentionally tried to kill the public from understanding the real intention. The Right Wing’s intention was to remove nuance and context, however, the Left set itself up for that by using “wedge term” tactics. For example, Defund the Police, sure had more bite to it, which was essential because the Left doesn’t have much power, yet, Defund the Police easily could have been called “Progressive Policing”. Sure, the Right Wing would have resisted anyways such as alleging that “progressive” means weak, but at least the Left would have had more sway in the optics war. The Left sometimes forgets that optics do matter because the passion for reform takes precedence, which is understandable, but still for the Left to succeed it needs to understand this, i.e., you aren’t “selling out” if you simply market yourself in a way that the opposition can’t use against you.
  2. A lot of white reactionaries allege that “more white people get killed by police”, but since they don’t do anything about this…what are they really saying about themselves? So, it’s OK to violently react to immigrants based on fears of ‘racial replacement’ for example, but they won’t reform police who allegedly kill more…white people? They will even allege that people don’t protest when white people get killed by police which is false, such as when Kristiana Coignard was killed (where white, black, and Latino people protested the Longview PD) or when Al Sharpton (allegedly a “race baiter” per the Right Wing) spoke at the eulogy for white Arkansas teen, Hunter Brittain. So, white reactionaries in theory are willing to be attacked by a system just if that system overwhelmingly deals with other groups who are smaller in number, power, wealth, etc.? Sounds like fascism to me. White reactionaries who bring up these or similar talking points, might also be failing to admit that the system doesn’t want to show white deaths by police not because society doesn’t care about white people (quite the opposite, aka, they hold the most wealth), but if white people were to see themselves being killed by cops, they might reform the system. The system doesn’t want that.
  3. In many ways Black Lives Matters if it was able to succeed in getting police reform would have “evaporated upward” or “trickled upwards” and benefited white people because you can argue that minority communities being smaller suffer from the system more densely, meaning minority communities are examples of what goes on in the larger communities but in a more dense/extreme manner, meaning that improving the lives of minorities would actually benefit the lives of the majority.
  4. White Society, at least certain segments of it, has more money, meaning they have more influence, so since policing is political, e.g., people vote for Sheriff’s, judges, DAs, etc., white communities have more sway over the law because those they put into power want to appease them more so, and many cases are living in the communities they police, thus becoming incorporated into a localized “good ole boy network”. In many of these communities the children of police are hanging out with the children of those who effectively run that’s communities’ society (the Chambers of Commerce, country clubs, PTA meetings, etc). This is at odds with minority communities, where the police often don’t live there, don’t see the people as the same, don’t participate in the community, and are subject to larger populations meaning they disregard nuance and to hedge their safety take on a more forceful demeanor, etc. A suburban doctor with three kids as more sway than a person of color or immigrants without money, even as far as having the time to complain or fight cases with private legal help as opposed to public defenders. Certain law officials are more likely to see themselves in those they police or try, e.g., white police policing middle to upper class whites, i.e., “you remind me of myself, so I’ll give you warning” or it’s “kids being kids”, or “I’d hate to ruin your future”.
  5. All Lives Matters had no ideology. It was an innocuous movement simply meant to be a rebuttal to Black Lives Matters. All Lives Matters and Blue Lives Matter was simply a “passive aggressive, aggressive” reactionary movement to Black Lives Matter created to shroud white racial insecurities by hiding behind a high horse position that they value all lives, when in essence they don’t consider All Lives Matters offered no unifying movement that sought to reform the system for “all lives”. Did you see any protest by All Lives Matters to bring all peoples together to reform police? Further, Blue Lives Matter was explicitly a racial movement, though hiding behind the fact that First Responder’s lives to matter already and there being people of color within policing, and you can tell this was the case, because Blue Lives Matters could have created reconciliation with Black Lives Matters which would help improve the work safety of police. Rather, Blue Lives Matter stayed silent, double down on their position, took criticism as a negative and not a positive to improve policing, and by them doing all this they helped to unite police further with whiteness in the United States, which is dangerous, similarly to how the Right Wing tries to appropriate things which should be apolitical such as the military.
  6. Many white reactionaries use statistics when convenient, but then disregard others when necessary if it defeats their agenda. If white reactionaries are willing to believe that black people are inherently criminal at face value due to statistics, then why don’t they accept statistics on matters such as…. Climate Change or Wealth disparity, especially with climate change being based on a natural observation of the world, rather being based on sociology, i.e., a study of people? They’re selective on purpose.
  7. Further, white reactionaries when talking against the Black Lives Matter movement and alleged the inherit criminality of black people or other minority groups, they always fail to provide context, such as the simple question of “what is a crime?”. If you’re in a community that’s more heavily policed and restricted, you are more likely to commit a crime even if a petty offense, i.e., you’re visible, but minorities are even visible in not heavily policed places with fewer police. It’s no different than if you’re at the front of the class you’re more likely to get sent to detention for talking than someone whispering in the back. For example, there are racist laws such as black or Latino people can’t even be in groups in public in certain parts of town or on corners, e.g., some communities there are restrictions on large gatherings or even wearing certain colors. So, if you have a highly policed, monitored, and restricted group then of course crime rates would be higher, because what is really a “crime”. Kurt Reinhold was killed for jaywalking in California, a civil crime that happens every minute in the United States of America. Then there’s also the matter of self-defense within these communities. Self-defense as a concept is fine within “white society”, i.e., stand your ground laws or gun rights, but if a black person happens to use self-defense in a dangerous situation such as being robbed or attacked, then he or she can be simply labeled a criminal and not be given the “patriotic aesthetics” given to a white person.

II. Hypothesis and Main Theory:

Black Lives Matters was an important movement that was needed to advance the racial conversation beyond the pre-existing co-opted MLK “safe space” which was used in many ways to hide the nexus between state and private interests power (neoliberalism and supremacy), and expose the racial realities of BIPOC peoples, but BLM was also a way to “re-solidify” white supremacy, since people would naturally conflate the realities of individual actors within the Black Lives Matters movement with the overarching and important humanist principle and cause that BIPOC lives do matter, by providing a means (excuse) for white supremacist to push White Panic politics, and reactionary “reverse racism” allegations.

Further, BLM in retrospect when viewed as an object that was used by the state to reassert state-control through the “master slave mentality”, by making the general populace “crawl back to police” since people would see police (and allegedly their means of using violence as being essential for fixing the many problems of America, ironically created by the system itself) as essential, particularly as the rising crime rates that occurred as the COVID-19 lockdowns eased up, manifested themselves.

The system was able to scapegoat BLM as being a destructive force and reassert the authority and need for police.

Regarding the Master Slave analogy, the “master” uses violence against his slaves (dividing the slaves already so they see themselves not as a common class), the “slaves” revolt and find freedom, but the master hopes that the slaves “crawl back” to the master, even though the master is responsible for the material and political conditions that caused the slave to come back, for example crime that is influenced by wealth disparity, lack of economic opportunity, gentrification largely funded by the Central Bank’s artificial monetary policy making it easier for developers to find financing to create expensive housing for profit (or for them to borrow against their artificially bloated assets for money), reductions in social investments while increases in sectors such as defense, the fact monopolies exists which hurts small businesses, the power of corporations who give “opportunity” via employment, yet underpay knowing that unemployment is high so people are disposable but suction the majority of the profits out of the community via elaborate tax-loopholes (such as the Delaware Corporation loophole) while diverting the tax burden innocuously to the state/local governments to fund things such as infrastructure, education, charities, etc.  

BLM wasn’t “anti-police”, but it was about “police reform”, yet, in some cases by some individuals it was “anti-police”, similarly to how you have “grifters” but you also have true-believers, thus all these varying intentions created a muddled disunified position that was able to be used against reformists by the Political Right since they don’t care about the distinctions within the Left but are explicitly against it overall.

The Left Wing unlike the Political Right (which is monolithic/homogenous/authoritarian) is an umbrella camp including left-leaning liberals (let’s call them “inclusive tolerant capitalists” with varying sympathies on welfare), Leftists (further subdivided between Socialists, Marxists, anarchists, etc.), so “Leftist” seeming movements, even though Leftist don’t necessarily own the “causes or principles” they are fighting for always (e.g., that BIPOC lives matters), find themselves infighting over the direction of the cause and principle.

What the Left can learn from BLM, especially as White Panic politics arise is that there needs to be reconciliation of Left leaning ideologies, but then a reconciliation between Leftist and Left Liberal ideologies.

This tendency of ideological infighting, where Marxists see Left leaning liberals as “not down enough” or in reverse, Left Leaning liberals see Marxists as “too extreme”, needs to be reconciled to create a mutual position, meaning that American Leftism has no real choice of being a Reformist and pragmatic movement rather than a Revolutionary Movement. Yet, the basis for the reconciliation should be since Marx in many ways was right. Left Leaning liberals in many ways throw the Left under the bus but not being brave enough to even admit that Marx’s analysis was correct in many ways, even if they disagree with his means or his outcomes.

The Left in a way fell for the “trap” of the system’s “reverse psychological and dialectics game”, but it was because the Left who lacks the money and state power has to use bold statements (such as Defund the Police) or rally calls to make up for the detriment of power against the state, yet these bold statements tough powerful can actually lead to the destruction of the cause both internally and externally, and in many ways endanger those the cause was meant to protect. For example, I as a black man must deal with the reactionaries to Black Lives Matters, since I exist in the real world, not the world of ideas, but I support the statement of Black Lives Matters. In a way BLM was a tool of dialectics to continue America’s dialectical animus when viewing race, but BLM was also an important and noble movement as far as aesthetics, value, and intention.

III. The Issue of Dialectics

When it comes to dialectics, the system cannot advance without supporting what it wishes to reform. Thesis, Antithesis, Synthesis, Repeat. Thesis, Antithesis, Synthesis, Repeat, etc., etc. But the United States’ penchant for dialectics is a rudimentary framework but is fundamental to American thought, e.g., America was largely founded on an ‘either/or” mentality being that it was a European colony seeing others as “others” (e.g., uncivilized savages vs civilized peoples, or whiteness versus everything else).

Dialectics is used to reinstall state power such by “re-solidifying” the majority racial class whom by proxy defend the state since their “origin story”, “value” (mostly through vicarious living, i.e., poor whites benefit by proxy from the value of elite whites) or “identity” are based on the system, but dialectics are also used to “evolve” the consciousness of America at the same time. Think of it all as a method of hedging the bets in the portfolio, e.g., you need some gold in the portfolio to hedge the equities but each one counteracts each other. It’s all about keeping the same animus of power intact, while still evolving the national consciousness.

The philosophical underpinnings of the United States could be simply summed up as manifesting itself as Pragmatic (do whatever works), hidden under romantic ideals pushed through a sort of religiosity such as on concepts like inalienable rights of citizens, property rights, etc., but it also applies dialectics to cover up the realities of the situation, with that being the Unites States is a pyramidal structure.

Pragmatic dialectics as a tool of liberalism creates a bipolarization of the body politic and the people and since the USA is a modernist experiment, it also applies the “scientific method” and Darwinian concept of evolution (while ironically promoting religion that defies evolutionary concepts) thus resulting in the “zoological stratification of groups”, and the fetishization of races, etc., who are organized and controlled through a managerial (business) viewpoint.

Essentially, the United States uses “do whatever it takes to the job done, i.e., act first, think later” pragmatics to run a society that’s stratified and controlled using racial, sexual, and political dialectics for the benefit and sustaining of an idealistic Enlightenment liberal order that is based on an interpretation of property rights where property rights manifested itself as a society dominated by corporations owned by a few, yet, the USA too as a modernist experiment applies a harsh scientific viewpoint when determining its success, so the system uses dialectics as a tool for progression, but these application of dialectics requires a sot of Darwinian pain or tension within the “landscape” or “environment”. The United States uses idealism in one hand but then harsh realism in another, same as it uses Analytics in one hand (such an obsession with data) but also stratifies society into identities and classifications which by default triggers existentialism as the individual attempts to see a higher purpose within the chaos of the marketplace. The United States is a controlled chaos operation, pragmatically mixing any idea that serves its purpose and creates competitive advantages, that seeks only to sustain the liberal tradition of property rights which is just another word for business rights, i.e., corporate rights, and applies a “psycho-sexual-racial” stratification, cleverly balancing supremacy with progressive liberation, and applies a managerial culture on the working classes so they can never see the animus of the system, i.e., they become compartmentalized within an economic, political, and social bureaucracy, they identity with their role or job title in society rather than their true selves, and in many ways people of the working class attach their very identity to the system so objectively analyzing the system triggers a sort of existential crisis “fail safe measure”. In many ways the USA is simply a newer version of feudalism, where lords basically gave serfs no other option but to live on their land and work it in exchange for protection, but in the USA the serfs have free movement and instead of God the replacement is the “God ordained” marketplace and this notion of freedom, but the freedom doesn’t really exists because the economic underpinnings of America creates disparity and there’s no economic alternative to freely live in within the system, i.e., leaving the system means destitution similar if a serf left his fief he’d be destitute. Freedom as we see it, i.e., this religious devotion to freedom, i.e., the ability to be selfish for the sake of it because an ambiguous deity ordains so, is really just a means of giving the lower classes a cheap sense of power, when in fact the actual powerful benefit from the actual freedom. Freedom is just and important, but in many ways is just a drug sold by elites so they actually remain free, i.e., unregulated, and the serfs remain separated and competing, i.e.,free. Yet, a liberal system based on a harsh view of property rights which benefits the business classes, such as corporations, more so than the individual expressing their freedom, always results in disparity, that circumvents democracy, e.g., people with more money dictate democracy and thus it’s not a democracy, and even if the USA is a Republic, a republic is simply a form of democracy where the people vote people to make decisions for them. The seedling of all this comes from America’s inception in which the colonial bourgeoisie (the Founders, the gentry class, the merchant class) used the colonial proletariat to win a Revolution, i.e., a hostile takeover, of the colonial corporation, i.e, the 13 colonies, but the colonial bourgeoisie as the merchant class framed the revolution as a being about personal freedom when in fact the energy of the Revolution channeled a worker’s strike of the masses against owners (the colonial investors back in the United Kingdom). The American Revolution’s narrative was co-opted from inception by the business class, whom despite thinking they were “cool kid hipster philosophers” ended up just being successors of a feudalistic tradition by way of the business sector.

In many ways the United States is “controlled chaos”, which is hallmark of it, yet also a detriment because those who control the apparatus of this “controlled chaos” have bias, agendas, etc., which is to hide the pyramidal reality of reality.

The United States is flux of Enlightenment philosophies (Continental, Analytics, pragmatism, postmodernism, religion, realism, idealism, evolutionary science/scientism, and business), all blended pragmatically into a system, e.g., The Third Way, that seems orderly but is also existential, where the “existential” isn’t necessarily natural, but in many ways crafted so people in an ‘ontological abyss’ crawl back to a system of power that subjugates them albeit the state or the marketplace (such as through advertising, material fetishism, binge eating to cope for mental health issues). It’s a sort of disciplinarian parent to child mentality. Sure, the child gets gifts, may live in a nice home, but the state (not the state of the Left, but the state as is in the United States), also employs psychological games, physical punishment, etc.

But it is my belief that this game of dialectics is the goal of the system. It’s not profound to throw out terms such as ‘divide and conquer’ but in many ways that’s what race relations is when dealing with neo-liberalism, capitalism, voting demography, marketing, etc. Yet, what’s more sinister about state power (which doesn’t mean Democrat, but the state apparatus behind both parties) is that it even co-opts claims such as mine about ‘divide and conquer’ to make it seem like their reforms aren’t about that, but they always ends being that, such as neo-liberal power co-opting Leftist notions such as de-colonial self-determinism to simply “re-solidify race” in America for various reasons such as those mentioned in the sentence before this. Basically, America runs off dialectics. Either/Or. Ying/Yang. It tries to subvert progress by making progress seems like a win-lose rather than a win-win. There is something about this system that is the equivalency to ‘cuckholding’, i.e., playing with deep routed psychological fears and bartering groups against each other.

But why? A unified proletariat, i.e., a unified “class consciousness” particularly that of the working-poor all the way to the upper-middle class would pose a risk to the “owner class”, i.e., the corporate boards, majority shareholders, conglomerates, etc. A unifying vision of America isn’t necessarily the goal of America unless such unity feeds into capitalist power (for example, desegregation, though noble ethically, was applied more so for pragmatic purposes since it was better for the markets, e.g., interstate commerce, consumerism, etc., and similarly desegregation gave the USA a military advantage which thus feeds back to capitalist operations and hegemony), but even if so it can’t help but to promote a segregationist view point, regardless if its from the political-right or the political-left.

 It wants to have people fighting, but then give figurative improvements, that don’t change much (because it’s not profitable to do so) and re-solidify demography.

The “re-solidification of demography” thus feeds into the political system, which at this point is co-opted by special interests, meaning democracy in many ways is a guise. Keeping the rouse up.

Even though the political right is effectively controlled by the “power apparatus” since they are always creating apologetics for the system such as conflating personal liberty with the liberty of corporate personhood (thus obstructing regulation on corporations), the political-left too in many ways has been co-opted by “the system” largely by way of the center-left of the traditional Democratic powerbase, yet as far as grassroots non-state movements or intellectuals they still rally against the system for noble intentions.

That’s the goal of white reactionaries. They don’t want the light pointed at the system.

Black Lives Matter forced a harder analysis of race relations away from the concept of “racial blindness” or “can we all get along”, because in many ways this MLK (who was a Christian Leftist of the Protestant and English speaking tradition) aesthetic of racial blindness was merely co-opted by the system so we wouldn’t reveal that systemic racism is a real thing, and the system weaponized this high horse position by making it seem that people speaking against racial biases were performing “reverse racism” or being agitators affecting the delicate balance of racial blindness in the context of neo-liberalism, i.e., the racial blindness concept through honorable was merely co-opted into order to continue a neo-liberal system that exploits people.

Technological innovations (cellphones) helped to reveal the truth of policing in the United States regardless of race, but this innovation in conjunction with BLM helped to reveal the daily aggressions that many people of color experience, no matter how blunt or passive, for example the revelation of Karens. Karens aren’t new thing, but rather we can see how crazy they can get, and how their behavior brings unneeded trauma, fear, and even death to people of color. Imagine all the months, years, decades, centuries that Karens have operated in getting people killed, arrested, kicked out of school, etc.

Yet, like any movement there is a good side and a bad side. For all I know BLM for inception was a grift, but even if it were, it doesn’t mean those attached to it were grifters and it certainly doesn’t mean that the principle of Black Lives Matters was bad.

IV. Viewing BLM as an Object and Aesthetic

We must create distinction between the movement (object) and the cause/principle (the value, intention, and aesthetic).

We can distill the aesthetics and value of the Black Lives Matter into two or three things.

1) The Movement and 2) the principle/the cause.

The Movement represents that actual business and organizational structure of the Black Lives Matter movement, i.e., the birthplace or headquarters of the movement, i.e., the heads of the movement who dealt with the financial gains and ideological underpinnings. Yet the movement isn’t linear or concrete. You have the “hive mind” of the movement, but then you have the various chapters or franchises of the movement, whom may very well not be involved in the actual “business dealings” of the headquarters, e.g., a local chapter in your community who simply wants to provide education, advance the conversation, do community projects, etc. So, yes, there was corruption in the movement, but then also not.

You will always have grifters in any movement. For example, just imagine how many opportunists bought wholesale T-Shirts when Donald Trump won or when Blue Lives Matters came (another problematic reactionary movement hiding behind a high-horse position) and profited of these movements.

To call BLM a “grift” in its entirety is nothing more that white supremacy hidden behind speakers, bloggers, or podcasters who reference one source of statistics (such as stats on black crime, often lacking support analysis such as history, economic conditions, wealth disparity, etc.) while hiding other sets of statistics such as levels of criminality or corruption within US police agencies.

Then we have the principle/the cause, which is simply “black lives matter”, i.e., black lives have as much value as white lives (the majority) especially when dealing with law enforcement considering the movement was a response to police brutality regardless of if there were bad actors in the “movement” (the business side).

Just because the physical movement of BLM had issues, doesn’t mean their issues took away from the “cause” or “principle” that the lives of people of color have equal value thus are entitled to equal treatment by the law.

The goal of conservatives and white reactionary types is to conflate the movement of BLM, which is subjective due to the diversity of human nature (good, bad, noble, greedy, etc.), with the principle and cause of BLM, but then hide behind high-horse positions such as saving lives of first responders or racial equality (that most everyone can already agree with) via movements like All or Blue Lives Matters, when it really, it’s just a passive way of expressing racism for many, shrouding racial insecurities, projecting a sense of racial grievance in that they don’t feel “loved” or “as sympathized with”, and/or reasserting unchecked state power on violence. It’s fascism. Straw man arguments, white panic politics, state power, and supremacy hidden behind a worship of state regalia, mythos, origin stories, propaganda, etc.

If we were to make an analogy, conservatives treated Black Lives Matters like a woman who files a rape complaint but people end up saying “she deserved it”, “she shouldn’t have been wearing that”, “she was asking for it”, etc.

Conservatives seems to push this biased objectivist (meta-narrative) ideology, which defies the nature of chaos and diversity that’s natural to the freedom they allegedly claim to love, i.e., conservatives use this sort of “religious worship” of principles but that totally negates the complex nuances, intersections, realities, diversities, etc., of life.

Thus, it’s a problematic position even though the quest for objectivity is fine, conservative ideology is problematic because it’s the equivalent of them appearing to shake hands and break truces with one hand but behind their backs they are crossing their fingers with that gesture being symbolic of hiding an attention, i.e., a supremacist system of ideology.  

It’s funny that people say Socialism for example sounds good on paper but doesn’t work, when really one can easily turn this around on conservatives and say the same things. Sure, freedom sounds good on paper, but freedom as an “object” or “thing” or expression can be twisted and appropriated to shroud state power by hiding behind the majority group of a country.

It’s no different than people attacking Colin Kaepernick when he took a knee, which he didn’t broadcast himself, but rather someone videotaped him doing it and shared it with the public. Conservatives were able to pick up on this and use the American Flag and anthem as a shield to be racist, even though you had others who were genuinely disappointed at his move, yet these people too didn’t even call out the fact that there were “passive aggressive racist” in their midst, thus these “noble patriotic” types further muddled the conversation and for what? Emotions to a state symbol?

But white supremacist “vloggers” like American Justice Warrior alleging that BLM was nothing more than a grift, they can play into idea that the Democrats, progressives, Socialist, Social Democrats, etc., are using race merely for a Marxist agenda or to conduct “white replacement”. The goal of conservatives is to stitch things together without context and then dump them into broad categories such as “Marxism” (which they misrepresent all the type by using “straw man argument”, i.e., using the most extreme examples, and without context, i.e., the West was hostile to socialist nations) so they can demonize it and accelerate “White Panic” politics, thus justifying a harsher clamp down on minorities or movements which seek reform. They just want their egos coddled. They don’t like diversity because it hurts their manhood.

Many of these white reactionaries (Karens included) were set up for failure because the system always elevated their egos so high, having lived vicariously through white status symbols to latch on their values (para-social relationships), but when others were included, it’s like a child screaming against sharing and destroys his or her room.

They even go further by alleging that All Lives Matters wasn’t a reactionary movement to Black Lives Matter when in fact it was.

Why would I say that? Did you ever see All Lives Matters making a splash to call out police brutality on “all lives”? No. Did they really mobilize the masses under a stance of racial unity to challenge state power under a “Power to the People” mantra? No. It was just a way to play the “reverse racism” card and considering Donald Trump was elected while ALM came about is further proof. He was elected in part on white panic politics, and Trump knew that, hence his idiotic statements paying into this “reverse racism” card.

Even if many who sympathized with the All-Lives Matter motto weren’t racist (you had many people of color sympathizing with it), it doesn’t mean that the All-Lives Matter movement wasn’t a passive aggressive white reactionary movement. All Lives Matters co-opted the high-horse position of “racial blindness” and “unity” to hide the white reactionary elements of it, so it could turn around and justify clamping down harder on a minority community. Reverse psychology and mind games. Seriously, in many rebuttals to Black Lives Matter I’ve seen ranging from people such as Candace Owens of Blexit or closeted white supremacists such as American Justice Warrior, they fail to provide any objectivity. They never criticized the clear and visible/broadcasted examples of police brutality, planting drug evidence on suspects, proven sexual assaults by police officers, etc.

That’s all you really need to know about these anti-BLM movements mostly. They are simply using reverse psychology to further demonize minorities who speak up against state brutality by making them appear to be inherently criminal, spoiled, entitled at their expense, etc., and they hide behind high-horse positions that most people even on the Left agree with such as “law and order”, “all lives matter”, etc.

A theory on how to fix the Student Loan Situation or the Debt Burden without direct-taxes. The Federal Reserve: What the elites, banks, corporations, and stock market don’t want us to think about by Quinton Mitchell

I could be wrong but a guy can dream or theorize.

Print money. Force banks to credit it into peoples accounts. People will pay down their debt or blow that money buying things or invest in themselves. Or, print money and directly pay the student loan companies. The Treasury and IRS on the preceding year’s tax return will have a section where people declare their actual debts, and then the Treasury calculates their “credit” based on debt-to-income ratio, the Cost of Living Adjustments for the area they live, number of dependents, and even special perks such as veteran, disabled veterans, etc., statuses. Everyone will pay higher prices over time through inflation, collectively. For an ad hoc analogy, would you rather pay 2.25 for a simple candy bar and be debt free now, or still be debt ridden and pay for a candy bar that’s around the same price today at 1.99? Whenever an “old timer” uses that “back in my day” analogy, what they don’t mention is they do notice the price increase, sure, but the relative price of everything went up, so they don’t really notice.

Whenever the Democrat candidates talk about free education or cancelling student loan debt, I’m down for that, but the issue is they’re talking about taxation and new entitlement programs. This is fine and general polling suggests that people are for this, but wants and reality, especially regarding our still massive lobbying industry is the issue. Sure, we can definitely pay for these, such as for example, by cutting and capping the Defense Budget, yet, the Military Industrial Complex is an ecosystem, not explicitly a few major prime contractors. The M.I.C. is small businesses, medium businesses, independent contractors, suppliers, the works. From uniforms made in a factory in Vermont, to IT services, to food vendors at every cafeteria on every base for enlisted troops, to barbers, office supplies, extension campuses of universities that provide education to troops, major construction firms and their smaller subs, all the apartments and houses near bases, etc. As far as the pricing structure of college as is, it was largely the government that helped drive up prices by subsidizing it, but also pure waste and greed by administrators, not to mention poor inefficiencies in how colleges operate, such as having small private expensive schools not merging into comprehensive university systems and/or running efficient endowment portfolios. Not to mention the fact that private business gets an easy ride when it comes to labor since they have no overhead in the game. Candidates are forced by hiring criteria to go to school, just to complete in a competitive global, yes, global economy. Unlike the Mike Rowe psy-op, not everyone can simply got trade skills, and I have a theory (jokingly) is that the reason why people have some many tattoos, is because so many people didn’t go to college and because tattoo artists, or we have so many “funky” hairdos is because everyone is a hair stylist (these are cool professions – not hating). Lowering hiring criteria by companies; merging smaller schools; increasing the quality of a high school diplomas so it’s an equivalent to an associates degree, etc., would help. YET… we have a trillion dollars of existing student loans with no bailout protection. We can either 1) Tax the rich or 2) Print Money and charge everyone inflation – the rich included – over time.

Regardless, this bailout of the people, a peoples’ QE (Quantitative Easing) already should’ve happened, because if the US economy ever hits recession again (with some saying we’re beyond the 9 year average, so we’re due), then the Federal Reserve won’t have many tools to use (despite, negative interest rates as is the case in the EU, and/or, continuing to hold onto Treasury bonds), and of course big business will get bailed out (it’s basically in the US Auto Industry’s soul to do this). The people will get boned, still pay taxes, still pay inflation, conservatives will blame immigrants, liberals will blame rich people, but everyone will suffer from increased unemployment (all in a nation Since banks will see a loss as people pay off credit card, auto loan, mortgages, student loans, medical loans, etc., the banks can be recouped by a future interest rate hike and/or higher taxes on the rich and corporations, i.e., the banks make money eventually, but the “Free Money” theory would help clean the slate so we can all move forward. Banks might lose out on long term low interest loans, but they’ll gain in the future from higher interest long rate loans, but the slate will be clear for the people, and a higher interest rates improves savings (you get more interest on personal deposits).

The Austrian, Jeffersonian, Rand or Ron or Ren or Stimpy whatever Paul crowd, is right but wrong on the Fed (I don’ that hate Ron Paul). Yes, it is weird. However, if it truly worked for the people it would be great. If the government charter’s the bank, then don’t revoke it, just make them help actual Americans. The problem is that it serves as a private bank for elite industrialist and banks, with people coming in last – just happy to have a job in an economy with built in business-cycle busts from inevitable declines in aggregate demand and consumption, that we justify as being “natural forces”.

My mind is a little fuzzy on the schematics of how it all works, but the general ideas is what I’m aiming for. To get to the point, the Federal Reserve has been pumping billions upon billions into the financial system while the general public goes on about their daily lives… Dancing With the Stars, Netflix show-binges, drooling over Instagram models, and countless hours to letting Joe Rogan keep us entertained. I believe we’re currently in QE4 or Quantitative Easing Round Four, meaning that since the 2008 Financial Crisis causing the Great Recession, that the Federal Reserve and US Treasury have infused billions upon billions of dollars into the Financial System and thus the Corporate and Wall Street Sector.

The general public got none of that directly. Can the people get at least one round of direct QE to themselves and directly into their own pockets? Quantitative Easing is a monetary management policy by the Fed that came during the Recession under Ben Bernanke. The Fed bought large volumes of potentially worthless bonds from the Treasury when the floor fell out from under us as the Subprime Mortgage bubble busted, and by holding those bonds, they vouched for the US economy, but used their “tool set” of “knob adjustments” to help, such as lowering the benchmark interest rate, adjusting reserve requirements, etc. This helped with to help stimulate growth in an anemic economy and there wasn’t much Obama really could do but act cool and entertain or inspire us in bits as the economy recovered. Taxes were already low. The Fed was involved… We were in a bad spot. Trump got the good end of it as the economy was rebounding upward in the last years of Obama, but Trump injected adrenaline and cocaine directly into the heart. The Fed and Treasury bailed out the economy and the elites and nothing came of it…no major arrests, and slap on the wrist fines. The sad truth is…the rich wanted the economy to tank, the same way Black Friday shoppers hope they can go crazy at a liquidation sale.

To add insult to injury, relating to my reference of QE4 is that the Fed pumped in billions to help the financial system. According to McCormick and Harris (2019), ” In its first direct injection of cash to the banking sector since the financial crisis, it laid out as much as $75 billion a day in temporary cash over four days to quell the funding crunch and push the effective fed funds rate down. In what are known as overnight system repos, the Fed lent cash to primary dealers against Treasury securities or other collateral. ” Further, McCormick and Harris (2019), adds, “In the week of Sept. 16, a lot of cash flowed out of the repo pipes just as more securities were flowing in — meaning that suddenly there wasn’t enough cash for those who needed it. That mismatch drove overnight repo rates to 10% on Sept. 17, from about 2% the week before. More alarming for the Fed was the way volatility in the repo market pushed the effective federal funds rate to 2.30%, above the 2.25% upper limit of the Fed’s target range — just as the Fed was preparing to drop that ceiling to 2%. “

The banks can get billions of dollars pumped into their reserves or portfolios, but that “created money”, is being charged to the general public over time through inflation, then…why can the Federal Reserve, give the public their own round of Quantitative Easing? Seriously, the Federal Reserve could pump money into the banks, force the banks to credit that money into people’s accounts, and people could pay down their debt, but pay “inflation tax” over time as prices gradually increase as the supply of dollars balances out with the aggregate demand of the overall economy. Essentially, we’ll pay inflation gradually over time, and with the public paying down debt, with their actual earnings from their labor, they will use that money to stimulate the overall economy through consumerism and consumption.

This is how the Financial System works in my head. I call it the “Financial Trinity”. The Treasury issues IOUs, i.e., bonds, notes, bills, coupons, etc., but then sells them to the public, with the majority going to average citizens, mutual funds, foreign banks or foreign national trusts (such as the Japanese Pension program), corporations, etc. Yet, the Federal Reserve buys the vast majority of these IOUs which it holds on its portfolio. The Federal Reserve holds this debt as collateral to vouch for the government, but also more importantly to vouch for the dollar. By holding this collateral the Federal Reserve triggers the mints (though people say the “Fed doesn’t print money”) to print cash, drive them to banks, deposit them in vaults, then those dollars are lent at interest rates to the general public, and the bank takes their cut. Banks then put a level of reserves with the Fed as collateral and banks and/or the Fed often make special interest rate loans between themselves in the overnight lending window and commercial paper or repo markets. When bonds mature, the Treasury pays its bond holders (largely from tax revenues taxed from the overall economy which is linked to the banking system), but remember, the largest one is the Federal Reserve. It’s a cycle.

(1) Treasury issues IOUs (2) Federal Reserve “buys” those and holds them as collateral (3) Mints print money and that money goes to banks (4) banks lend out the money, collect interests, and people use money in the productive economy. Banks also have a special market or “repo” market (think pawn shop as stated by McCormick & Harris, 2019) when they borrow money to meet payroll, etc. (5) Treasury collects taxes and then as bonds mature they pay bond holders, with one of the largest being the Federal Reserve, and the Fed can either hold on to those bonds or they let them expire from their portfolio. Inflation occurs as the volume of supply of dollars adjust to the demand for those dollars. “Dollars” don’t simply disappear, but since they’re accounted for, if there’s an excess their value absorbs into prices and prices rise over time. Dollars in a fiat based or Keynesian system serves as a stimulus, away from fixed assets like gold which tend to be horded by gold-holders, but that stimulus has to be used correctly and rarely does the actual cash get directly infused into the peoples’ pockets. It goes to banks who lend that cash out to high-dollar real estate projects, which is one reason why real-estate is so vital to the economy (jobs, mortgages, people double-dipping on their mortgages, middle men doing paperwork, appraisers, realtors, property taxes which typically goes to funding school systems, etc).

One major issue is that corporations take out large low-interest loans either directly or by borrowing against their market equity, i.e., their stock. They hold that cheap credit cash on their books, and some use tricky double-accounting methods to classify that debt as an asset, or they use that cheap credit for capital upgrades to facilities, buying assets such as real-estate or land (which can go underwater if real-estate prices goes down), CEO compensation packages, capital for mergers & acquisitions, etc. The stock market in part is doing so good, not entirely because of fundamentals such as steady quarterly earnings, but rather the stocks are bloats from abundant cheap credit made by the Fed and used by opportunistic corporations. It’s honestly a good thing we have somewhat low rates… 2%-3% as a benchmark rate because the market is uncertain regarding Trump’s trade tariff deadlines. The more uncertainty in the market, the more investors start digging into books to see if businesses are truly vital as they claim to be, not to mention, increased prices through supply-chains which can result in decreased earnings.

Some corporations are clever and efficient at playing this “live off your credit card” “faking it to you make it” game, but others are “zombie companies”, which are companies that should’ve failed, have been bought out or liquidated, but keep swiping their credit card to stay open. Corporations go even further by issuing their own bonds, i.e., corporate bonds, but by being so over-leveraged they ranks as junk bonds. I’m sure the stock market is “healthy” but a lot of it seems like credit based bloated stocks, mixed with the upward bidding wars of floor trading, and even algorithmic “nano-second” buying, selling, and shorting such as done by Jim Simmons with his theory of quantitative investing through his hedge-fund Renaissance Technologies.

I call the idea the Free Cash Theory. I see why not. It should only happen every couple of decades, if not at the beginning of each century, or at least when wealth disparity and ownership of the means of the production (Marxist accusations in 5…4…3…2..) gets out of control. If the Fed can afford 75 Billion for four days straight, or whatever the amount actually came out to, the fact that the Fed has been subsidizing Wall Street with cheap credit to bloat stock prices and drive speculation, simply means they can afford to help the people. With real balls or ovaries of steel from Congressional leadership and the White House, and act of humanity by the Fed, then we can truly help to wipe the slate clean for average Americans and move into the future. It’s not too late to save 3rd Way Democratic Capitalism, but the system needs to turned upside down to benefit an era of small-to-medium businesses, families, entrepreneurs, inventors, farmers, etc.

Sources:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/the-repo-markets-a-mess-whats-the-repo-market/2019/12/10/ed4488ae-1b58-11ea-977a-15a6710ed6da_story.html

(The Chaos Magick War) Trump, Russia, Dugin, Ethno-nationalism, Brexit…. Is this Starship Troopers by Robert Heinlein? Russo-Anglo-American Alliance. Where Occult, Technology, and Geopolitics meets.

Imagine mixing fascism, communism or socialism, libertarians, the military complex, corporatism, globalism, feminism, multiculturalism, trans-humanism and technocracy together and the RAND Corporation doing the interior decor for a new global order but in a very fashionable IKEA, Southern California Military Complex, Disney Epcot futurist way…. We oddly, get the world designed by Paul Verhoeven in Starship Troopers (1997).

Disclaimer: I’m proud to be an American but I also don’t hate Russia. I’m sure from a Russian military perspective that they’re simply in a struggle for self-preservation against Western NATO encroachment. However, I would like to see peace between the United States and Russia, however, I find the current ideology coming from the MAGA Administration and Putin’s push towards a hard Orthodoxy as unfortunate. There’s a way to cooperate, agree to disagree, negotiate, but we don’t need a resurgence of any type of hard nationalism, nor do we need an alliance if this notion of hard nationalism is on the table. In an alternative history, the US and Russia would’ve done things differently and Russia could’ve been included more in consensus-making and planning, but due to the lack of this happening, being both the fault of the Western establishment and also the die-hard holdovers from the USSR, this didn’t happen. I do think that peace is possible; however, from what I’m seeing underneath the ideology of Trump’s MAGA and that of Dugin’s effects on the Kremlin, whatever alliance that was planned doesn’t seem like something conducive to world peace, or at least a respect of a common humanity.

Section I:

Quotes from Starship Troopers by Robert Heinlein (1959)

Just imagine, right… in this MAGA times we live. All the drama on TV, the news, Russia, talk show comedians, Mueller investigation, soft Brexit, hard Brexit, etc…. Hold Russia, Brexit and Trump in your brain for a while and now read these quotes from Starship Troopers by Robert Heinlein.

“Major Reid, our instructor, was a blind man with a disconcerting habit of looking straight at you and calling you by name. We were reviewing events after the war between the Russo-Anglo-American Alliance and the Chinese Hegemony, 1987 and following. But this was the day that we heard the news of the destruction of San Francisco and the San Joaquin Valley; I thought he would give us a pep talk. After all, even a civilian ought to be able to figure it out now – the Bugs or us. Fight or die” (p.177) *** Side Note: Very interesting because in real-life this is the hub of Silicon Valley, which is effectively more or equally powerful than the Pentagon as far as data-collection. In essence, Silicon Valley is the DC of the West Coast, since DOD (Department of Defense) seed money helped subsidize many of the early companies. One such company, was the Trans-International Computer Investment Corporation, where a Mr. Otto Von Bolschwing was Vice President. Mr. Bolschwing as a former Nazi who later worked with the Central Intelligence Agency and Germany’s Gehlen Organization – a precursor to the modern German Federal Intelligence Service. Yet this side note is minor to the obvious statement regarding Russia, USA, and the UK ***

“Major Reid didn’t mention San Francisco. He had one of us apes summarize the negotiated Treaty of New Delhi, discuss how it ignored prisoners of war…and, by implication, dropped the subject forever; the armistice became a stalemate and prisoners stayed where they were – on one side; on the other side they were turned loose, and, during the Disorders, made their way home – or not if they didn’t want to.” (p. 177)

“Major Reid’s victim summed up the unreleased prisoners: survivors of the two divisions of British paratroopers, some thousands of civilians, captured mostly in Japan, the Philippines, and Russia and sentenced for “political” crimes.” (p. 177)

“Besides that, there were many other military prisoners,” Major Reid’s victim went on, “captured during and before the war – there were rumors that some had been captured in an earlier war and never released. The total of unreleased prisoners was never known. The best estimates place the number around sixty-five thousand” (p. 177)

“How did the present political organization evolve out of the Disorders? and what is its moral justification” (p. 179)

“However, nobody can describe accurately how the Federation came about; it just grew” (p. 179)

“With national government in collapse at the end of the XXth century, something had to fill the vacuum, and in many cases it was returned veterans. They had lost a war, most of them had no jobs, many were sore as could be over the terms of the Treaty of New Delhi, especially the P.O.W. foul-up – and they knew how to fight. But it wasn’t revolution; it was more like what happened in Russia in 1917 – the system collapsed; somebody else moved in” (p. 179)

“The first known case, in Aberdeen, Scotland, was typical. Some veterans got together as vigilantes to stop rioting and looting, hanged a few people (including two veterans) and decided not to let anyone but veterans on their committee. Just arbitrary at first – they trusted each other a bit, the didn’t trust anyone else. What started as an emergency measure became constitutional practice…in a generation or two” (p. 179)

“Probably those Scottish veterans, since they were finding it necessary to hang some veterans, decided that, if they had to do this, they weren’t going to let any “bleedin’, profiteering, black-market, double-time-for-overtime, army dodging, unprintable” civilians have any say about it. (p. 179-180)

“In many cases civilians are much more intelligent. That was the sliver of justification underlying the attempted coup d’etat just before the Treaty of New Delhi, the so-called ‘Revolt of the Scientists’: let the intelligent elite run things and you’ll have utopia. It fell flat on its foolish face of course. Because the pursuit of science, despite its social benefits, is itself not a social virtue; its practitioners can be men so self-centered as to be lacking in social-responsibility.” (p. 180)

Such as alliance with Russia, objectively speaking seems fine, but the real issue is the anti-humanist perception coming from Putin and Trump, but particularly Putin’s grip on power and the ideology that seems to have informed Putin coming from Aleksandr’s Dugin’s National Bolshevik Party. There’s also this underlying sense of Kremlin that they are the “Third Rome” – robbed from their proper place in history and thus willing to use force to firmly supplant themselves at the top of the world stage. There doesn’t seem to be enough personal rights or freedom of speech in Russia to justify a bond, yet, people to people, I have no issue with Russian people. From the surface it might sound fine, but in real life we have to understand that Russia is close with China, and also less known with Israel. So the reality actually seems something more akin to the speculation done by Orson Scott Card in Ender’s Shadow and Shadow of the Hegomon speaking to the theoretical Second Warsaw Pact and Sino-Russian Alliance — which, thus reflects the real-life Belt & Road Initiative, or, New Silk Road Project.

Interesting article about the US Soviet Exchange at the Esalen Institute: https://www.atlasobscura.com/articles/how-a-famed-new-age-retreat-center-helped-end-the-cold-war

The article by Sarah Laskow can be found at https://www.atlasobscura.com/articles/how-a-famed-new-age-retreat-center-helped-end-the-cold-war

*** Side Notes: The Revolt of the Scientists is supposed to be a jab at liberalism, or rather, liberalism in the leftist sense. The Scientists who are essentially the Technocratic elites and Ivy Tower Intelligentsia tried to create a type of Huxley (as in Aldous and Julian Huxley) Fabian Socialist society, but it failed and then the veterans swept in to create a civilian-or-citizen meritocracy. I’m not advocating this. Actually, on Instagram, as a veteran, I saw a post by other military men and they were supporting such as system. I commented to one guy – a young Hurrah trooper – and said, “Are you sure that be such a good idea?”. He commented that Sargon of Akkad had posted a video and he liked it. I watched the video and it was good at first in his analysis of Plato’s Republic, and how Constitution of liberal democracies have to protected by those willing to die for it, yet, at the end he took a far-right biased turn.

Like most Starship Trooper’s analysis, such as that of Sargon of Akaad or Roger Ager, it’s largely coming from right-wing-esque, “classical liberal”, white male perspective (which is not a crime, i.e., I’m not racist to anyone), but Sargon specifically argues it from a type of Darwinist support for classical liberalism. Or, it’s coming from a surface-level analysis of the film without really comparing it to what’s going on now, and if so, it’s largely a criticism of gender-equality, diversity or multiculturalism, etc. For example, the demographic shift of increased numbers of Hispanics in the United States, largely due to free-trade and globalism, which is fine, I can admit is oddly represented in a passive way in the film-adaptation by Paul Verhoeven . Also, the film touches upon odd “trans-human” elements such as remote-viewing through the character of Carl Jenkins (portrayed by the actor, Neil Patrick Harris), which was actually studied in real life, and – yes, it is kooky, by the Department of Defense in the USA, the Soviet Union, and at Princeton University’s PEAR Lab (Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research Lab) which received funding from Laurence Rockefeller. I personally believe that Paul Verhoeven (director) and Edward Neumeier (screenplay writer) were showing examples of the kooky real-life esoteric studies done in the World War 2 such as that of Nazi SS, Thule Society, and Ahnenerbe, but later in the Cold War by the Soviet Union and USA. Yet, the main theme that most pick up from the film is the false-flag attack on Buenos Aires (real-life home to Juan Peron – a noted Nazi collaborator). The film opens with a shot of a “lunar missile system” that destroys asteroids supposedly sent by Earth’s enemies, The Arachnids. Yet, Buenos Aires is possibly attacked by that same system to justify war. In real-life, how many US wars started from supposed attacks on ships or whatever? The majority.

In the analysis by Rob Ager of Collative Learning, and the separate one done by Sargon of Akaad, but more so Sargon, since Ager seems objective in his film analysis, there is a type of Jordan B. Peterson plea for classical liberalism and hierarchies. A very amoral survival-of-the-fit through unfettered capitalism viewpoint, but dolled up with imagery of Classical Greek nude statues insinuating a perfection of within the Western logos. A very “Proud Boy”, The West is the Best mentality. As a kid, growing up a military-brat, when I saw the film in 1997, I was blown away. A total power-fantasy of warfare, teamwork, race wasn’t an issue, even the women were badass, and we all united under a common enemy. Yet, I didn’t see the brilliance of Paul Verhoeven satire as kid.

Verhoeven’s film was a satirical criticism on militarism. He also takes a nod to the Americanization of the Latin America, by having “whitewashed” actors play the roles of the Hispanic-named main leads (yes, I know there are white Hispanics), but by choosing Beverly Hills 90210 type actors, it helped to show the beauty and physical standards promulgated by US media. However, Vehoeven’s depiction of a globalist-fascist world, with basis in Latin America, actually represents the real-life right-wing regimes of Latin America of the Cold War which were supported by the CIA, Washington, and Neoconservatives (such as Milton Friedman’s Chicago Boys creating the economy for Augusto Pinochet).

The Latin American Euro-centric fascism shown in Verhoeven’s film pays homage to real-life fascism of the Cold War era in nations such as Argentina, Chile, Paraguay, and Brazil. These places were known havens for Nazi war-criminals via Ratlines (escape routes) in real-life operations such as Operation Odessa. Nazi war criminals were able to hide among the German and Italian populations of Latin America whom had immigrated to the continent in the 1800s. The process of admitting Nazi War-Criminals was accepted by the Cold-War Right-Wing CIA-backed dictators such as Augusto Pinochet of Chile, Juan Peron on Argentina, Emilio Garrastazu Medici of Italian descent and Augusto Rademaker of German descent in Brazil, and Alredo Stroessner of German descent of Paraguay. Criminals such as Adolf Eichmann, Josef Mengle, and Croatian Nazi Ante Pavelic were all in Latin America.

If you add Jair Bolsonaro of Brazil with his right-wing politics to that of this MAGA, Brexit, Dugin Putin Russia idea, then it does seem to loosely relate to the Heinlein’s book and Verhoeven’s film.

To shed historical light on Latin America during the Cold War, according to Schemo (2006), “… General Stroessner won American help in establishing his secret police and hopes that his dictatorship would give way to democracy faded before a string of elections in which he faced token or no opposition and that were generally considered to be fraudulent.” (para. #). Further, Schemo (2006) stated, “Under General Stroessner, Paraguay’s security forces became so efficient at intimidating potential opposition figures that eventually fear itself — fear of arrest, torture, exile and murder — became one of his prime levers for staying in power. The country became a haven for Nazis on the run, with new passports and visas sold for a price. Among those it sheltered was Josef Mengele, the “Angel of Death” who selected victims for the gas chambers at Auschwitz and conducted medical experiments on humans.” 

Lastly, Schemo (2006) stated, “But General Stroessner surprised the political pundits and held on through seven successive elections marked by rigged voting. In time he became the prototype for a new crop of South American dictators friendly to American interests. Backed by the United States, military rulers later seized power in Brazil, Chile, Argentina, Uruguay and Bolivia. Security forces in these countries worked closely together, formalizing their cooperation in a joint intelligence plan called Operation Condor.”.   

*** This part is really me summarizing some notes I had that I wish to put in one central spot *** The actual Johnny Rico in the novel by Heinlein is actually Filipino, which in real-life was actually an American territory and housed the real-life Luzon Air Force Base. It’s a loose connection, but in the section below, George Hodel (the suspected Black Dahlia Murderer) who was into the Southern California Occult and Art scene, married a Filipino woman (oddly similar to the Las Vegas Shooter – who had a pilot’s license, arsenal of guns, and wired money to the Philippines – human trafficking?) but also supposedly worked for the United Nations Relief and Rehabilitation Administration in China after WW2. If true, this links loosely to the fact that the CIA was actually in China during the later days to the end of WW2 in China, during the confusing times of the Flying Tigers, Mao Zedung, Shang Kai-Shek, and the formation of Taiwan by the nationalist who opposed the US-backed Communist. Yes, evidence is showing that the CIA backed Mao Zedung. Why? It is possibly because of the heroin trade networks leading from central Asia. The British had previously had a monopoly on the Chinese Opium Trade (Boxer Rebellion, Opium Wars), but early American merchants did as well. The Americans would later inherit the Opium Trade Networks from the British in Central Asia and in Southeast Asia (Indochina) from the French during the Vietnam War.

The British Empire had set up in what is now Hong Kong but also owned British India. British India (modern day India and Pakistan) was not far from Afghanistan. “In 1883, William Watts McNair, a British surveyor on leave, explored the area disguised as a hakim. He reported on the journey later that year to the Royal Geographic Society “. The area of Kafiristan and Nuristan was creepily called the “Land of Light” or “Land of Illumination” and what is this area known for? Opium. The British Empire had a strong Masonic network. Masonry offered a type of fraternal organization which linked businessmen, military officers, settlers, etc. Such as a network from an Occult perspective were essential and relates back to the Elizabethan-era magus, John Dee, whom was a practitioner of alchemy (common at the time), adviser to Queen Elizabeth, and coined the term “British Empire”. Wherever Masonry was in the nineteenth-century there was also the notion of Manifest Destiny and colonialism typically pushed on a type of racial supremacy and entitlement, which as can see in the United States on its westward march to the Pacific Ocean, but also in the English-proper Commonwealth of South Africa, as typified by Cecil Rhodes (a Freemason) of DeBeer Diamonds with financial backing from the London branch of the Rothschild Banking Dynasty and South Africa (where Rhodesia and Rhodes Scholarship gets their namesake), but also within Rupyard Kipling’s magical stories based in India. Kipling himself was also a Mason and India would serve as a base for the vast opium fields of Afghanistan.

Two of the Americans families involved in Chinese trade, during the era after the Revolutionary War, often called the Era of Good Feelings, during and slightly after the War of 1812, were the Russell family and Forbes family of the Old China Trade Networks, based in China but managed, or, incorporated in Massachusetts with links to the Port of Salem. John Forbes Kerry, yes, the former Secretary of State, is from this family, a descendant of John Murray Forbes ( February 23, 1813 – October 12, 1898). It’s well-known already that Samuel Russell, the founder of Chinese trade company, Russell & Co., was the cousin to William Huntingdon Russell, the founder of Skull and Bones at Yale. Far later, around the time of WW2, John Birch, a missionary recruited by Lt. General Jimmy Doolite, because of his ability to speak Mandarin Chinese, would become a symbol of America’s supposed radical anti-Communism of the Cold War. John Birch was later killed by Communist forces at a check point for refusing to turn over his firearm, and the neoconservative movement (which actually has Communist origins itself) created the John Birch Society, yet there is proof that Mao Zedung was actually linked to Yale’s Chinese missions. Later on The Rockefeller expressed a liking of Mao’s China.

Section II(A)

Where Technology, Trans-humanism, Occult, Corporations, Military, Hollywood, Liberalism and Conservatism Meet…

This section in is in part inspired by what I call the Dyer Thesis, of Jay Dyer of Jay’s Analysis. I’m not a subscriber to his site but I do enjoy his videos but I don’t personally care for the right-wing Alex Jones vibe I get. I’m simply there for the information. Yet, as far as summarizing books, I do respect him in this right and he does seem to have a level of humanism in mind when he’s reading books relating to the control aspects of Globalism and Corporatism.

If I had to explain the Dyer Thesis, he’s explaining the Occult based ideology underneath both the general idea of Democracy as seen through the Masonic “Illuminus Revolutions” (the rise of banking houses after usury laws were abolished, the rise of merchant classes over the aristocracy, The French Revolution and The American Revolution), and how Occult esoteric thought under the Enlightenment went to inspire concepts such as a Darwinism and Newtonian Atomism, which once put together turns everything into “malleable soulless base material” which can be evolved through an alchemical process, most notably our version of “magic”, which is the Scientific Method. Darwinism and Atomism essentially reduced the human aspect of a spirit or soul and turned everything in materialism and this led to the atheistic nihilistic movements under Totalitarian Communism, Fascism, and the Liberal Capitalist Democracy. The thesis even goes further by explaining that this Occult, Darwinian, Newton Atomist view to reality is essentially the basis of The Complexes we see. Such as the relationship between corporations, military, science without a sense of humanity, RAND Corporation quantification, seeing people as “bots” in cubes, game theory, but also our notions of Trans-humanism. Trans-humanism is both technological in nature but also Occultic in nature since it’s about merging things and transcending to a type of new age.

Yet, Jay Dyer’s main focus, which is good I mind you, is mainly on the West and the USA but history proves that also Russian ideology was involved in these “evolutionary” “alchemy” “transcendence” movements. Particularly, the Russian Cosmism movement. I find it suspicious that for such a smart, well-read person that he never touches the “Russia card” with equal impartial analysis, and I suspect it is largely because he converted to Orthodoxy so his bias is naturally more anti-Western Russian, and with him being admittedly associated with Rand Paul and being a follower of Alex Jones, he is naturally suspicious of the left. It’s hard to believe someone entirely when they push this “it’s all rigged” idea, notably by summarizing books such as Tragedy and Hope by Carroll Quigley, but now all of sudden start choosing sides, particularly a side that for an American…isn’t American, and is of a regime that has shown aggression (even if in some cases there is some basis out of self-defense). *** Note: I have no ill-will towards the Russian people. This isn’t about people on the streets or everyday people/families, but people in power, and we have to be equal in our assessments of power no matter where it comes from ***

Terms and Keywords: The Occult, Esoteric, Gnosticism, Hermeticism, Neoplatonism, Rosicrucian, Theosophy, Kabbalah… Psychological Warfare, Lifestyle cults… Kabbalah, Zionism, Israel, The Fourth Temple Movement, Chabad. Alchemy, Darwinist Evolution, Materialism, Masonic Libertarian and Marxism of French Revolution Girondins and Jacobins; the Masonic Schism between the United Lodge of England with the York and Scottish Rites (more Girondin; merchant oriented) versus the Grand Orient Lodge de France (more Jacobin; Marxist oriented). Democratic Revolutions funded by Internationalist Banking Houses.

Heinlein was associated with Occultism by way of Jack Parson’s, the legendary Occult Rocketry Pioneer who was canonized by NASA, who also had connections to Aleister Crowley. There seems to have been a large active Occult movement leading from Santa Monica (home to RAND Corpration) to the Tuscan-like mountains surrounding the LA City basin. A mixture of artists such as Man Ray, Occultists, Satanists, scientists, military personnel, actors, and, even magicians such as Harry Houdini.

Parson’s himself has contact with Werner von Braun, but also, the lesser known Russian Cosmist, Konstantin Tsiolkovsky.

So as we can see, there is a intellectual connection between West and East regarding technology but also through esoteric elements. Considering that Chaos Magick or Sex Magick were in part built from esoteric Jewish thought such as Kabbalah, which arose in the Renaissance alongside Christian and Islamic occultism or Neoplatonic ideas, we can objectively stand back and see the Russian-Jewish community, American, but also Israeli links. There’s obvious yet ambiguous connections between what we see as the Cultural-Left & Right; the Neoconservative Military Machine; Occultism, Technology, and Futurism/Transhumanism.

The agenda seems to be the goal of bringing upon self-directed evolution by using notions such as alchemy as an analogy but in certain circles this is literal, to bring upon alchemical change, or evolution, by creating chaos between dialectics (an explosion), only to merge those dialectics, weed out the weak, and the rebuild a new order and new paradigm. So science, trans-humanism, and automation as an analogy are borderline modern manifestations of “magic”. There’s the possibility that there’s people in these fields who do have actual Occultist esoteric viewpoints, sometimes equated to Satanic since that view is libertarian in nature, where science or social-change are effectively “ritual” and elites, as apex predators within human nature, are entitled to advance the species. Also, from a communication pragmatic perspective, Occultism, Theosophy & Esoteric thought, is essentially a part of the basis for psychological warfare since there is a concept of the illusory, hypnotic, trace-like rites-of-passage, but in a hard propaganda psy-op campaign, contingencies span the spectrum of (1) controlling and managing conspiracy-theory culture to lead people down specific paths of thought (2) disinformation (3) deconstruction of linear reality, such as alternative history, for example think “racial superiority origin stories”, or even Ancient Alien theories [Interesting Fact: Jonathan Young of History Channel’s, Ancient Aliens series, is an alumni of the Defense Information School at Fort Meade, MD, but also the curator of the Joseph Campbell Archives, where Joseph Campbell was associated with the Esalen Institute – later site for the US Soviet Exchange Program], but also (4) memes, even though most are harmless – yet, they serve the purpose of visual communication and reinforcement of ideas.

An interesting fact is that the concept of the meme, which can be used in psychological warfare, was first coined by Darwin evolution proponent, Richard Dawkins, but the basis of these ideas were created in the times of Charles Darwin and T.H. Huxley (grandfather of Julian Huxley, the early proponent of Trans-humanism, and Aldous Huxley, the author Brave New World). Since Darwin’s theory of evolution is based in a chemical mutation and adaptation viewpoint, and memes are in essence linguistic or communication manifestations or catalysts of the process of evolution, then it can be said that performing “alchemy” on the body and through linguistics/psychology, one can actually self-direct evolve a given species. A catalyst for starting the chemical process of evolution within the linguistic sphere can be done with alchemy-like ideas such as postmodernism. Postmodernism as far as communication and linguistics goes, deals with ideas of “simulation and simulacrum”, or the inability of distinguish between original and what is replicated, but also the recycling of ideas and promulgation of ideas often through mediums such as Mass Communication. Further, postmodernism it related to the process of Deconstruction, which breaks down objects – including history, thus a meme as far as its effects within the evolutionary process can be used to break-down notions to reinsert new ones and then replicated and recycle those notions through mass dissemination. Memes effectively “chemical breakdown” preconceive notions, in order to reinsert new ones, and thus prep the mind for an actual physical transition. The art of memetics can be viewed in a practical-pragmatic sense but also from an Occult “wizardry” alchemy viewpoint.

Section II (B)

Robert Heinlein was an interesting guy and I’m not so sure if it were in a good way.

Treat the following as notes, tropes, bullet-points, and then think about it…. It’s really me working out pathways in my mind and if you read it, I think it will reveal a level of interconnection that most wouldn’t even think about.

Robert Heinlein – Universal Basic Income, i.e., Social Credit, Upton Sinclair Socialism + Right Wing Libertarian ; Jack Parson; L. Ron Hubbard; La Manana Literary Society; Isaac Asimov; Arthur C. Clarke; Libertarians, Marxists, Dialectics; The Occult – Aleister Crowley & Thelema [a heroin addict, and known child-abuser]; George Hodel (suspected Black Dahlia Murderer; medical skills; well-connected; known for sex parties, and was accused in a public trial of using his daughter at such parties but later acquitted. ; friend to absurdist artist Man Ray who had the art piece “The Minotaur” which mimicked the Black Dahlia Murder; George Hodel associated with actors such as John Huston, who oddly played an incestuous millionaire in Roman Polanski’s Chinatown, and Huston’s real-life daughter, Anjelica Huston, was interviewed by police during Roman Polanski’s statutory rape case, before he fled to France. Polanski’s wife was the famous Sharon Tate, who was killed by Mason Family, in a murder equally as infamous in the public’s mind to that of the Black Dahlia Murder — both done on the grounds of a type of “ritual” ); Hollywood; Jet Propulsion Laboratory of Parsons – NASA, US Department of Defense; RAND Corporation; Hans Speier of RANDS’s Social Science Division; Albert Wohlstetter of RAND Corporation (proponent of Systems Theory & Game Theory) – associated with City College of New York where he was a part of a splinter group of Trotsky splinter group called the League for a Revolutionary Splinter Party – linked to CCNY, Columbia, and University of Chicago.

University of Chicago received early funding from the Rockefeller Family; Neo-conservatism is a synthesis of Trotsky & Internationalism mixed with Right-Wing Conservatism of force and will. This synthesis of Trotsky Marxism with Conservatism as seen through Corporations leads to an Empirical quantitative elite bourgeoisie class; University of Chicago was associated with the Neoconservative Movement relating to people such as Milton Friedman, Leo Strauss; Henry Kissinger, Barry Goldwater, and Roy Cohn (all Jewish conservatives who aligned with traditional Republicanism in order to stitch Zionism as a fundamental part of US foreign policy). Roy Cohn was Donald Trump’s personal lawyer and enforcer who got his start in the McCarthy Era which also dealt the Red Scare – Communist witch hunts – in Hollywood which is where a young Ronald Reagan got his start; Eisenhower-Nixon-Reagan all associated with Bohemian Grove near San Francisco.

San Francisco the home of San Quentin Federal Prison (connections of the rise of the Aryan Brotherhood), the Black Panthers (eventually infiltrated by the government), LSD usage (Multi-disciplinary Association of Psychedelic Drugs, or, MAPS, received funding from the Rockefeller Foundation), early Silicon Valley (Laurence Rockefeller of Venrock Capital gave early angel-investing to Intel and Apple), Philip K. Dick’s fiction, Esalen Institute (later site of the US Soviet Exchange Programs), Stanford Prison Experiments, and the Palo Alto School or “Invisible College” knowing for communication-linguistics studies and psychoanalysis associated with the Mental Research Institute; Santa Monica, CA; Laurel Canyon, CA; Lookout Mountain Air Force Station & early 60s Counter-Culture Bands; Jim Morrison’s dad, George Morrison, was the Admiral during the Gulf of Tonkin incident which led the US into Vietnam War; Vietnam War, Secret War in Cambodia & Laos, French Connection Heroin and later CIA entrance into the Heroin Game with US Army Special Forces associated with General John K. Singlaub; Singlaub’s association with the John Birch Society and the right-wing intelligence network, Western Goals Foundation which was implicated during the Iran-Contra Scandal.

Section III: Personal Observations. It’s rigged. The Far-Left and Far-Right are both Dialectics. However, I stand with liberalism because I care about humanism (pro-feminism, pro-diversity, pro-LGBTQ, pro-free speech, pro-peace).

There’s really two underlying thesis to my thoughts on where the world is going, or how it looked like it was going. One deals with a revelation I’ve been having regarding the odd connections between technocracy, the Occult, and Darwinism, but the other relates to something slightly less theoretical but more palpable. The the other being Trump MAGA, Brexit, and Putin’s Russia. However, as time goes on, and with more clarity, I will argue my case about how these two thoughts are actually mutually exclusive, one in the same.

Trump’s affinity with Russia and his business dealings with Russian nationals or nations of ex-Soviet nations particularly those linked to his real-estate interests aboard and those domestic such as Trump SoHo; Vladimir Putin’s remodeling of Russia from a Communist State after the Boris Yeltsin years into an oligarch-driven quasi-fascist state that still retains elements of the collective Communist era but painted over with a marketing scheme of Traditionalism and Orthodoxy (wife-beatings included); Russia’s lebensraum-type geopolitical strategy under Aleksandr Dugin’s Occult-inspired Eurasianism ideology (ominously predicted by Orson Scott Card’s Second Warsaw Pact in Ender’s Shadow); the troubles of the European Union which has been defined by a war-created refugee crisis but strongly the Brexit movement of Great Britain. Trump, Putin, parts of the Brexit movements, and even the rise of Jair Bolsonaro, which are nationalistic. Opportunistic nationalist ideologies, which could very well simply be dialectics prepping for a future explosion. Sure, I have a sliver of nationalism within in me, but I don’t take it as far as exclusion of newcomers, nor do I see race as explicitly linked to culture since one is a biological adaption whereas the other is mental construct of deified behaviors and customs, and I do feel that “hard nationalism and traditionalism”, is really what go us in this situation to begin with. I’m a firm believer the culture does evolve. For example, I can speak of what we consider English-ness, but this concept is actually a modern notion, reinforced with a type of Francis Fukuyama End of History viewpoint where culture as we see it is effectively a museum piece that is spared adaption or evolution, and making for nice tourism videos in our post-capitalist times, but this modern view of what we consider British culture is much different than what existed in the British Isles some two-thousand years ago.

Liberalism has become synonymous with Globalism in right-wing circles, so National Conservatism is their antithesis, but ironically the far-right is often a proponent of classical liberalism, which is obviously, liberal, but simply on the right-liberal perspective. All three players from Trump, Brexit, and Putin are using this to their advantage. Putin has become a symbol for the “underground far-right”, but what they fail to realize is that these people at this higher-level are in cahoots with the people they claim they’re against. It’s a confusing game to follow.

Disclaimer: I am not antisemitic, but if something is going on, we have a right to speak up. I believe Israel has the right to exist and is the homeland of the Jews (same as the Palestinians and Christian communities), but it becomes an uncomfortable conversation when we start seeing proof of Jewish supremacy, or, a type of entitlement to rule over others since they believe they are the Chosen people of God. The following words in this post is not to promote antisemitism, or to say that Jewish Zionism is the only culprit, but analysis or criticism is not antisemitism, though it often argued that way to not get people looking too deep or connecting any dots.

I don’t think the world works as simply as an us versus them, but rather I see the reactionary nature of nationalism as being a “pawn” in a larger conflict. This is arguably similar to how the German people fell for National Socialism, despite an early Hitler getting funding from sources which would later destroy Germany and carve it up between West and East. It didn’t come to save you, it came here to be a dialectical component or chemical-agent to do damage even to those who side with hard ethnic based nationalism. Nationalism in itself isn’t bad but it becomes bad when it is taken to its extreme, typically by positing a sense of racial “Blood and Soil” ideologies. From an American standpoint, nationalism is more of an idea that people of various backgrounds can adopt and assimilate into. I say this because while everyday people are enslaved to dialectical positions, doesn’t mean the people in power are. They support right-wing movements from one angle, while supporting left wing in another, or creating the right combination of either when they see fit. The benefit of doing this is that it keeps the people focusing on each other, while they continue to oversee and run a type of top-down elitist centrist mentality. Dialectics is important because by pitting to two sides against each other, the circle of the “Ying Yang” still creeps forward, thus those in power still gain yardage. Do we really think that Putin isn’t doing business with Swiss Banks same as US or UK industrialists? How the world actually runs and how we wish to see it are two different things.

When nationalism arises it is always the refugee, migrant, person of color, or anything seen as “liberal” which gets the blame. When Trump first got elected and even from his comments regarding Russia before he won, it was easy to see an actual conspiracy manifesting itself. It was so in your face, but you were groomed to not see it because of the level of postmodern irony that exists within the larger public sphere, but also the sheer levels of bipolar rhetoric. Everyone on the left wanted it to be true, whereas everyone on the right didn’t want to be true. It is hard to discern the truth in such bipolar situations, yet, facts are facts.

It is fact that Exxon Mobil (one of the successor companies of Standard Oil founded by the Rockefeller Oil Dynasty) with Rexx Tillerson had deep ties to Russia’s oil and natural gas sector with the Putin Regime, going as far as having joint-ventures such as with Russian enterprises such as Rosneft. It is fact that Steve Bannon, despite coming off as Reagan Cold War Era war-hawk Republican, was actively interfering in European politics of the far-right, going so far as trying to establish a type of Julius Evola-like school in a monastery outside of Rome. This far-right movement is geo-politically strategic for Russia considering it helps chip away at alliances such as NATO, opens the door for more European reliance on Russian natural gas, helps them sell their own weapon systems, and it helps spread Russia’s lost influence. I repeat, I don’t hate Russia as far as the idea, its people, its history, culture, etc.

Even, elements of the “echo-chamber” YouTube podcaster universe and MAGA “street teams” are highly involved in this. Lauren Southern, went to Russia to interview Aleksandr Dugin, and later took “cute” selfies with her far-right friend adoring Soviet-Era Ushanka Cossask hats. Lauren is of, or was formerly associated with Rebel Media, which is ironically a Jewish-Canadian ran outlet by a committed Zionist. Rebel Media is owned by Ezra Levant, a Jewish man, who oddly helped pull the far-right activists together at the Chancellorsville Riots.

The theme we start seeing in Russia and MAGA America is high occurrence of Zionists behind the scenes, largely from the Chabad Lubavitch community. I’m sure it’s very well the case in the UK too. From Rebel Media we also get Gavin McInnes, formerly of left-leaning Vice Media Group before it was bought out by Disney, and Mr. McInnes was noted for being influential on the Hipster movement (which does hide a sense of misogyny and has an anachronistic fetishism for less enlightened times), was later picked up by Rebel Media. Even, Alex Jones, who has ties to Joe Rogan with his libertarian-viewpoint and love for trans-humanism, is a noted Zionist, who has had Jim Corsi and Roger Stone on his InfoWars radio-show. He’s also beefed up Trump as a type of Messiah type figure. As funny as it sounds, the Alt-Right, was in part created by Right-Wing Jews in North America who have cultural and ethnic ties to Russia, which is a nation that saw the Alt-Right as a plug into the United States to help support Donald Trump at the polls.

The easiest way to understand the Zionist Jewish influence is to look back to the idea of a Christian Crusader. There’s this image of a blonde haired blue-eyed Teutonic Knight defending the Holy Land. In modern equivalency terms this iconography it is very heavy metal. This is actually a tool beneficial to Zionist because the Crusader mentality does the defending of the Jewish homeland. This explains anomalies within the American and Western mindset relating to conservatism and the historic antisemitism associated with it. Christian, white male, antisemitic, Crusader Knights fighting for the Holy Land, but it actually just ends up supporting radical Zionists, who don’t actually recognize or believe in Jesus Christ. So it’s an odd relationship of two sides that need each other but don’t believe what each other believes. Evangelical Christianity was created in part to link Israel’s destiny to Christianity, so this explains the anomaly of racist conservatives supporting Israel despite the historical precedent of antisemitism in Anglo-Saxon and Germanic thought, best described in events such as the Rhineland Massacres during the First Crusade. They know this base is easily manipulated, particularly by playing with latent racial fear or “replacement” myths.

Lauren Southern going to South Africa to speak on White Farm Murders isn’t her just going there to expose something which hasn’t already been exposed, but it’s propaganda to push a sense of “anti-white paranoia”, which thus feeds back to this MAGA, Zionist, Russian, Brexit strategy of destroying European economic cooperation, NATO, etc. Not once did she try to be objective. It’s not like she showed any of the White, Black, Coloured, Indian, or Chinese South Africans getting along or shopping or drinking beer at bars to rugby or cricket. Her goal was to go there to find one issue without providing any context and to twist that issue into something for a larger, more sinister, propaganda campaign. It’s one thing to show an angry political rally of black Africans, but it is another to not show the historical context which permitted such behavior, largely the brutality of the Apartheid regime and the exploitation of South African gold and diamonds. If you go looking for one thing, one thing is all you will find.

Even, more rational speakers that renounce racism and homophobia such as YouTuber, Styxhexenhammer666, and I enjoy his commentary, but in part, at least as far as perception goes, channels this Occult, “Do What They Whilst” dark-libertarian classical-liberal right-wing dialectic and is full of Trump apologetics – rarely even entertaining that the Trump Administration’s had ties to Russia.

Jay Dyer, whom I have respect for, since he is a well-read intellectual approaching theory from an academic stance regarding analysis, despite my many disagreements with him, is a convert to Orthodoxy who in Alex Jones fashion weaves this perception that all of conspiracies happening are largely because of liberals, in the leftist Marxist sense, though he does balance this by explaining that libertarians are liberals too, but in a classical sense. Mr. Dyer has a strong argument for his beliefs, but he never seems to publicly analyze this own beliefs, or show his real intent. He gives a strong explanation of dialectics and has a strong understand of theology. However, Jay do me is also an apologist for Russia, largely since the verbosity of this works are centered around one element of the “New World Order”, which is the Anglo-American Alliance and Western Catholic Europe. He rarely shows suspicion towards Russia and I suspect this is because he is an…Alex Jones, post-Republican, white male, who feels betrayed by the West, so he’s looking for a spiritual alternative.

There’s no crime in appearing in a Russian Cossack hat (they’re pretty cool), or being into the Occult (if that’s your thing), nor is there any issue with wanting peace with Russia (I’m sure Moscow and other cities are beautiful), but there is a problem with not fairly assessing the situation while also turning any attempt to look deeper or hold Russia equally accountable. Instead any thought deeper into the obvious facts and plausible conspiracy is turned into a type of “Muh, Russia” meme for the infosphere.

The truth is that, Dugin’s Chaos Magick strategy did infiltrate the West and USA, and though it is racist and supremacist, underneath the surface it’s only a mere dialectic in a larger global chess-match. It is merely a piece in a much larger global paradigm shift which can be seen by viewing the historical intersections between technology, occult, hegemony, etc., particularly to the behind-the-scene links between the USA, Israel, Russia, and the UK.

Citations:

Heinlein, R. (1987). Starship troopers. New York: Ace Books.

Schemo, D. J. (2006, August 16). Stroessner, Paraguay’s Enduring Dictator, Dies. Retrieved July 24, 2019, from https://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/16/world/americas/16cnd-stroessner.html