The Spread of Ideas

The question of how ideas spread should be pretty central to political theory, you would think, but obviously it is not, because acceptable political theory holds to the holy concept of rational individuals capable of making clear and reasoned decisions, so obviously the spread of ideas is due to the obvious correctness of the ideas spreading like sunshine and enlightening us all (progress.) This is a democratic society after all, and every aspect of politics is based on this premise. Any deviation is fascism quite frankly, and advocacy of slavery. Of course in business and economics this concept is not really in vogue. If this insight was taken into political theory, then you are treating people as slaves, but in business? Well, crickets.

So how do ideas spread? Well there are a number of obvious ways which are covered by Rene Girard’s mimetic process, and which advertisers use regularly, but maybe the better question is not so much how they spread, but how they are generated. Not only political theory, but economics which is subservient to politics, does not really account for the genesis or spread of ideas, because their central actor is faulty.  So we may ask “why has progressivism been so successful?” or “why are plastic toys based on ‘Frozen’ so popular?” and the only official answer that can be produced is some mush based on the idea that individuals have made rational reasoned choices and have come to the conclusion that X is superior to other options. The individual’s preference is holy. Again, we are not slaves!

Yet, we know this preference is controlled and corralled, in markets and in politics. Entire industries are based on it. The current fiasco involving the Republican Party is demonstration of this process being rebelled against in the name of liberalism (the things refreshes itself from the “right.” But this raises the question, where do the corrallers and controllers get their ideas?

Taking this into account, here is a contentious conclusion which I have pointed to previously which is inherent in Bertrand de Jouvenel’s ‘On Power’ , and that is that Power creates the environment in which ideas are selected. The system of governance – secure or insecure- dictates which ideas ultimately succeed, and, as such, these ideas are not cultivated in a rational manner, but are made inevitable by the logic of the roles of the actors within the system.

A monarch in a position of weak power, or other power actors in a similar situation, will favour ideas and concepts which increase their power and undermine their competitors. This will be a process which those taking part of will become puppets of eventually, though at first this will not be obvious. The monarch and even at times the nobility raised the low in a process of levelling which was noted by Tocqueville long ago, but at this point it was clearly cynical. This process was an indirect war of attrition which was engaged in by conscious design. From John of Gaunt, to the Kings and electors of Northern Europe who harboured and encouraged the protestant agitators, to the “enlightened monarchs” that fostered and encouraged the Enlightenment, the game has been the same, and in line with the logic of their unsecure positions. The failure of the monarchs to control this process any longer led to the revolutions and the current democratic system which can only be seen as a complete systemic failure in this light. The whole thing is on autopilot, with the process of levelling going from being a cynical gambit for power, to being the raison d’etre for the system, and with any deviation from this being punished by replacement of the actors in question.It is a self reinforcing feedback loop of ideology being selected by power, which selects for ideology.

Protestantism and then progressivism is ,therefore, and has been, selected by power in accordance with this process of levelling. Power can impede, or power can fund, and the overall impetus is not the correctness of the idea. Any concept or theory that is on the surface of it clearly insane will thrive if it is of value in this process, and what is of value in this process changes, and always in the same direction eventually – more levelling. This is how you organise a distributed unorganised conspiracy.

A good way to see this process enacted in the “resistance” to the prevailing progressive system, is to look at the development of popular and successful ideas in conservatism and subsequently the alt- right. There is no way you can argue that the adoption of ideas and theories in this area has been a process of unveiling of the correctness of the same ideas and theories. Instead we have a combination and hodgepodge of bizarre ideas which suit the roles of being both functional within the dominate state’s pushed acceptable barriers, and being sufficiently deviant as to offer a means of dissent, no matter how pitiful. Anything sufficiently deviant as to be a threat is closed down easily, and anything not really a sufficient threat is allowed, and that is what is maintained. Simple selection.

With the dominant ideologies, it is a little more complicated, but not that much more complicated. To get anywhere near power you have to be advocating leveling. Once in power of any sort, you have to continue advocating leveling. You stop advocating leveling, then you get overtaken. This does not mean the actors cynically engage in this process in an act of fraud, they actually believe this is a good thing to do. Governance is about helping after all, and people take their cues on what to believe from superiors, and from their education. You may find the odd actors who are somewhat self-aware, but less than would be indicated by liberal/ libertarianism’s conception of humans. Humans mimic, humans take cues from their social superiors, and humans are not anything like the liberal myth which is spread perversely because of its very value to the political power system of unsecure power.

In this sense then, the State is absolute, in that what is allowed, and is not allowed is ultimately at the discretion of the State. The idea that the State could be entirely neutral is a fallacy. This makes culture and ideas a negative imprint of Power, it is what is allowed and not allowed by the necessity of the State’s level of security. A secure State (a secure central Power) will have different, and less onerous demands on its order, and an unsecure one engages in all sorts of bizarre behavior by necessity, whilst a State pretending it is self-effacing is a dangerous psychotic beast. Unfortunately the self-effacing State is what is advocated for by all, in the most stupid way possible – conflict and/or utopian anarchism.


RF – Dugin Mind Meld


Here ->

Modernity and liberalim = Satanism in the theology of the west.

Fascism and Communism = attempts to react against liberalism’s slow death march in the name of nation and class.

Liberalism will destroy everything, and cannot create. Modernity is done. It is pure destruction.

Dugin’s only problem is he can’t explain why it happened. Moldbug did based on De Jouvenel.

Dugin Gets it to a Point…

Really fascinating reading from Dugin:

Ideologically, the problem is liberalism which is imposed on Europe and the rest of humanity by the Anglo-Saxon world as the only unique and official ideology. Liberalism affirms only the individual identity and prohibits any kind of collective or organic identities. Thus, step by step, liberalism refuses religion, nation, gender, and belongingness in general in order to set the individual completely free from any kind of holism.


The final step in the development of liberalism will be the negation of the human identity as a collective one at all. Thus, trans-humanism will be welcomed as part of the liberal agenda for tomorrow.  cough, cough.

Then he gets it even more:

We need to combat liberalism, refuse it, and deconstruct it entirely. At the same time, we need to do so not in the name of just class (as in Marxism) or in the name of the nation or race (as in fascism)

and then even more:


Economically, the problem is in financial capitalism pretending to have overcome the sector of productive industry in favor of stock market technology. Such capitalism is monopolistic and creates bubbles instead of developing economic infrastructure. Such an economy is based on financial speculation (of the G. Soros type) and clings to the illusion of infinite growth. This contradicts reality. The middle class is not growing any more and the growth of financial markets does not correspond to the growth of the actual productive sector. Giving all the attention to financial institutions and promoting the outsourcing of the productive sector to third world countries over the course of globalization is the way to the abyss. The first waves of the crisis have already passed, but new waves will be here soon. The economic collapse of the southern European countries like Greece and, in the near future Italy and Spain, is just the tip of the iceberg of an immense catastrophe. European unity is based on the full acceptance of this logic of financial capitalism. Yet now only Germany struggles to keep the economy in touch with industrial realities, refusing to embark on the train into nothingness. This is the reason for the anti-German hysterics in Europe and the US. The German economy may be the last productive economy, while the others are already virtual economies.

Infinite growth is but a liberal illusion. The fall of the middle class is the harsh reality at hand. The way out of this is a complete revision of the myths of financial capitalism.

The only thing he doesn’t get is the structural nature of this in the form of unsecured and divided “sovereign” structures.

Libertarianism as Attempted Middle Weaponisation

Rothbard’s essay ‘What is right –wing populism’ is very interesting in that it demonstrates an understanding the high-low mechanism of De Jouvenel, yet maintains a hard core liberal interpretation in which self interest is the key guide for the motivation of the behavior of the constituent parts. Rothbard states it as clearly as he possibly could:

The reality of the current system is that it constitutes an unholy alliance of “corporate liberal” Big Business and media elites, who, through big government, have privileged and caused to rise up a parasitic Underclass, who, among them all, are looting and oppressing the bulk of the middle and working classes in America. Therefore, the proper strategy of libertarians and paleos is a strategy of “right-wing populism,” that is: to expose and denounce this unholy alliance, and to call for getting this preppie-underclass-liberal media alliance off the backs of the rest of us: the middle and working classes.

Which is preceded by the following:

The basic right-wing populist insight is that we live in a statist country and a statist world dominated by a ruling elite, consisting of a coalition of Big Government, Big Business, and various influential special interest groups. More specifically, the old America of individual liberty, private property, and minimal government has been replaced by a coalition of politicians and bureaucrats allied with, and even dominated by, powerful corporate and Old Money financial elites (e.g., the Rockefellers, the Trilateralists); and the New Class of technocrats and intellectuals, including Ivy League academics and media elites, who constitute the opinion-moulding class in society.

This is all correct to a point, but in all of it there is an assumption regarding the elite that they are cynical and manipulative, and that the presence of “powerful corporate and Old Money financial elites” is a symptom of their parasitism. Reading what they wrote and looking at what they did, this is completely wrong, and De Jouvenel realised this, and Moldbug realised this. Rothbard’s seeking of an alliance with every ‘middle’ he could finds makes total sense in relation to the De Jouvenelian analysis, but it is a libertarian response, it is the promotion of anarchy and the rejection of the state, and it is doomed to disaster as Moldbug notes in one of his best posts:

The true rulers of our country are the professors, the journalists, the mandarins. Any feeble twitch of resistance from the continent squirming in their talons is promptly magnified, through these exquisitely sensitive and powerful information organs, into the most hideous and awful oppression.

If the high is utterly, utterly all powerful, then weaponising the middle in conflict has one outcome –you are going to get diversified, multiculturalised and toleranced. The only solution is to take side with the State on different terms. Where De jouvenel, Rothbard and middle weaponisers go left, the reactionary goes… forward (there is no right in a reactionary society, just as there is no left – it’s over.)

The only solution is a reset, and a clean out of the whole thing, it needs shutting down as orderly as possible and a new sovereign structure which is “responsible to no one but God or the Devil” needs to be set up. The structure is run by a:

a dictator – a single man or woman, who wields absolute and undivided authority. And is not afraid to use it. Of course, our dictator must be prudent. Here is our shortening of the way to prudent government: a prudent dictator. Some things are just simple.

After antiquity, the towering figure in classical political thought is Machiavelli. So don’t take it from me. Take it from the Discourses on Livy:
But we must take it as a rule to which there are very few if any exceptions, that no commonwealth or kingdom ever has salutary institutions given it from the first or has its institutions recast in an entirely new mould, unless by a single person. On the contrary, it must be from one man that it receives its institutions at first, and upon one man that all similar reconstruction must depend. For this reason the wise founder of a commonwealth who seeks to benefit not himself only, or the line of his descendants, but his State and country, must endeavour to acquire an absolute and undivided authority.

Ie, if you want to reboot, you need a dictator. Do Californians want a New California? Then they need to get it together, strap on a pair of balls and hire themselves a dictator.

Or if you cling to our modern professors, ponder the oxymoron of phronetic social science. As I suspect Professor Flyvbjerg is aware, there is one fast path to phronesis (ie, prudence): a phronetic dictator. Certainly few phronetic committees, processes, “sciences,” etc, are known to history. Thus we might describe dictatorship as the auteur theory of government.”

That man Aristotle keeps appearing. Also, as an aside, prudence does not mean libertarianism and free trade:

Fourth, you’ll note that libertarianism is a sort of formula for government. To the orthodox believer, whatever the question, free trade is always the answer. I will buy “generally,” but I will not buy “always.” Prudence does conflict with libertarianism, and prudence must win.

The dictator:

is a dictator, not a clerk. She is responsible to the Foundation, to her own conscience, and to no one else’s rules or regulations. This is the whole point of sovereignty.

The dictator as such while not immune to elemental forces, is not beneath the economy to which the charge of elemental force is ascribed by libertarians and liberals. And, as Moldbug even spells out, the idea of the CEO and sov corp is primarily a case of metaphor:

Note that we could use a euphemism. We could say that California needs a “CEO,” or that it should be “run like a startup,” or that it should report to a “single plenary administrator.” All of these would mean exactly the same thing. But this is where you get into creepy, because you’re sugaring the pill. A dictator is a dictator. You have to just suck it up and take the punch. California needs a dictator – a prudent, responsible dictator, of course.

Having achieved the creation of a dictatorship (sorry CEO sov corp…) the allowance of liberty can be made because the high (the dictatorship) is not in any way in conflict with society. The battle is over, there is no right and left in the system:

But freedom is not a function of “rights.” (It is certainly not a function of your political power.) It is a function of your actual personal independence. Similarly, privacy (which is a form of freedom) is a function of your actual personal security. If the Dictator will not tell you what to do, if she will not snoop into your desk drawer or your car or your computer, in what sense is it an injury to you that she could tell you what to do, she could snoop? Isn’t your skin a little thin?

Thus we see the paradox of the Dictatorship: freedom achieved through authority. This is a paradox quite alien to Anglo-American political thought, but well-known in the East. “Confucius compares a virtuous prince to the North Pole in which he finds himself: he does not move, and everything turns around him.” Our Dictator is of course that virtuous prince – or princess.

This simple principle of wu wei is the instinctive spirit behind libertarianism. Once we understand it as the pinnacle of the sovereign’s pyramid of needs, we can see the easy but fatal mistake the libertarian makes.

Quite simply, (policy) libertarians mistake disorder for freedom. They believe it is possible to make government smaller, and achieve wu wei, by weakening and dividing sovereign authority.

While this is in some senses true – disorder can certainly be quite a liberating experience – it never lasts. In the short term there can be such a thing as benign anarchy, but in the long term never. And since power is easy to divide, but hard to unify, the long-term result is always more duplication, less unity of authority and responsibility, and a bigger, nastier government. Thus the attempt to quash the monstrous Megatherions is the exact food on which they thrive.


The Financial Ends of Sov Corp

Moldbug in using the idea of sov corp and the premise of financial profit and capital accumulation as an overall purpose for the State took his political theory into an area which has been closed off by liberalism. This can of worms works along the lines of the following simple premise: I (or any agent within an order) act in relation to agent B, but both of our actions have to be orientated to the profitability of the sov corp. There are therefore at least three loci in this: agent A, agent B and the sovereign organisation. The number of agents may go on indefinitely, but the one constant is the sovereign organisation. This opens up into a realm of political thinking which is alien to modernity.

Once this avenue of thinking is opened up, then you enter into rejection of liberalism, rejection of economics above all else, rejection of self governance and individual sovereignty, rejection of universalism and rejection of relativism etc.

Moldbug reached this through the prism of Austrian economics, which lends some credence to Barghest’s claims here that economics is a avenue through which communication can occur (though I have serious reservation about vast tracts of that post.) But is this usage of finance as a stand in for the ultimate purpose of the State sufficient? It certainly helps to lead one towards the acceptance of the need for a State with a direction, as can be seen here, here and here but it is limited, and is not compelling for libertarians. The retaining of liberal anthropology allows for them to remain in fantasy land, and then regression to utopian free trade-ism.

So, is the profit motive of the sov corp a sufficient organizing principle within which the actions of those who make up the order of the sov corp can have coherence? I do not think it is at all, but making the leap to rejecting the liberal concept of the State as a self effacing safe zone provider for “enlightened self interest,” makes this initial thought process invaluable. All actions as noted by Aristotle long ago, are subsumed by the political, the Enlightenment rejection of this has been an unmitigated disaster.

Rejection of this thought process leads to a regression to libertarianism and all of the errors of liberalism. Acceptance of this process leads to necessary rejection of vast tracts of liberalism which clearly make no sense, and leads us into exotic areas in which true progress in political theory can move forward.

MacIntyre has been following this process of thought from the angle of ethics, noting that relativism and universalism are concepts which make sense only from the concept of the Enlightenment project to base ethics and morality on grounds which are not based on specific political structures, and without reference to a reality to which the success, or failure of traditions such as liberalism et al can be measured. For example, whilst different tradition may approach the issue of womens place in an order in differing ways, they can be judged against each other by how they succeed in their claims by their own logic. Has  liberalism achieved its claims? if no, then this sets off an epistemology crisis for that tradition, and justifies its alteration or rejection for another tradition.

As I quoted in this post, this is an Aristotlean (and Thomistic) position, in which the actions of those in orders are only comprehensible in relation to their ends, and these ends are only comprehensible in relation to the greater ends these serve. Remove the ultimate end of the State, and you have an equation which keeps pumping out an error message.

Predictive Value of Following Cultural Infrastructure Funding

Any political theory is only as good as its predictive value, and if the iron law of rebellious tools is of value, it should provide robust predictions.

If you could transport back in time to the Civil Rights Era with no knowledge but the iron law, then you could predict the utter failure of resistance. Simply monitor the direction of the foundations and elite donors and you have a predictive theory.

All things being equal, this should still hold, with only the question of lag being a variable, which should provide an answer to Jim’s question ->

The records are online ->

Etc, etc

There is a giant torrent of money here, and where it is being directed should predict cultural developments that persist in the future.


Confirmation of the Iron Law

Trump’s rally being subject to political violence as a means to close them down, and the clear angst demonstrated by the elite at the support he is drawing on reveal two things 1) Trump is an enigma and 2) Moldbugs analysis is broadly correct.

Starting with point one, it has to be asked – what is Trump thinking? Despite the pressing cynicism occasioned by politicians who have been churned out by the political parties of the West, it has to be borne in mind as De Jouvenel teaches, that people move towards positions of power out a complex mix of motivations, one of which absolutely consists of a desire to do good. What is he up to, and what is his game plan?

As for the second point, the breaking up of the rally was not done directly by government. The police did not close them down, they were not subject to official censure, but instead non-government actors “spontaneously” arranged themselves and caused the closure of the rally. Now, given previous posts, let us see what links these protesters had to the power system. This article is a useful source of information at a pinch, the general sense of exhilaration at the blatant transgression of any sense of decency is clear from the article as well, it is a really good read. For example:

organizers who planned to disrupt the event from inside had designated multiple rallying points around the venue to avoid arousing suspicion of authorities with large congregations. Some met at the Papa John’s, others at the Quad.

As activists slipped into the lines, they were told to blend in with the crowd and act natural.”

If your complaint against this is that it is against the spirit of the rules, then you might be a cuckservative.

As for the groups involved, the article cites the following groups: Black Student Union, Fearless and Undocumented as well as insinuating the involvement of the same groups involved in protesting the McDonald shooting, which will primarily be the Black Lives Matter Group.

Black Lives Matter is clearly funded up the wazoo by everyone from Soros to Google, as is, which is, you guessed it, funded by the big boys. It is a piss poor rerun of the Civil Rights Era. The liberal Democracy Alliance is nothing new, nor very innovative, but it does put a serious hole in the bow of the constitutionalism ship. If the constitution and general rules stop the elite doing what they want directly, then they will pool their wealth outside of the official structures and then fund attacks upon the blocks. Good luck with blockchaining a defence against that.

As for Fearless, Undocumented, Centro Sin Fronteras, the Black Student Union, the Muslim Students Association and the rest of the bewildering array of grievance groups, I have zero doubt that a review of their funding will reveal close links to the current political structure in some form or other which will confirm the theory of the iron law of rebellious tool’.

The problem which is not being directly acknowledged in all this, is that in effect, democracy is a civil war in which recourse to resources outside of the institutional conflict mechanisms provides decisive victory if only one side engages in it. This is the essence of the success of the high-low mechanism. Instead of engaging in direct conflict with threats and enemies (divisions of power means making parts of society enemies, this has to be acknowledged) the elite allows, uses, or encourages third parties to attack their enemies.

We can see with liberal democracy over the past 100 or so years, that the progressive elite have brought on a constant array of scum to act as shock troopers against the laws and blocks against them, and have done so by pooling wealth outside of the official structures if needed (foundation money, oligarch money, corporation money.) The conservative trailing group, is always a remnant of whiny losers complaining that the laws are not being adhered to properly whilst trying to engage in dialogue. This is tantamount to admitting defeat to a greater enemy, yet not wanting to end the war. The Alt-right is doing the same thing with its constant whining about free speech, right of assembly and “Muh” democracy.

As far as I can see, there are roughly two serious options – total surrender of all resistance to progressives, which they will not allow at all. The war (democracy,) must be maintained. The other is realization that if you are going to seriously go at the Cathedral, then you better have a plan which acknowledges reality. The first point of reality is that if you make yourself a serious threat, then those fluffy human rights loving progressives will happily let you be torn apart by a pack of feral “protesters” and will hold back protection from the government as they do it. The second point is that if you are relying on the laws of “muh” democracy and the official institutions to act correctly in accordance to fair play, or some other childish notion, then you are going to be destroyed.

The only way to win is to have alternative structures in place which embody a complete separation from the current structures of governance, and embody a completely new endoxa which has resurrected the reactionary thought that was destroyed through military removal and destruction by power due to unsecure governance. This structure will then need the means to defend itself, and meet “dialogue” with a clear and firm response.

Liberty Versus Licence Revisited

The separation of liberty and licence is an extremely useful distinction which sheds light on a number of things which have consistently been plagued by the conflation of liberty and licence. One of the most egregious examples in dialogue linked to Moldbug is the continual promotion of libertarianism as anything other than an objectionable political platform which should be transcended as swiftly as possible through the adoption of an ethical system and a conception of governance and society which is not based on Whig degeneracy and stupidity. There are too many people who mistake sovcorp and the idea of formalism as an attempt to bake licence into the cake.

The liberal concept, of which libertarianism is a derivative, is based on an ethical system which MacIntyre has labeled the ‘goods of effective cooperation’ which ultimately is a system of ethics promoted by the Sophists. This ethical system is very much that promoted by the liberal State, and basically boils down to licence. If there is no single conception of the good, then allowing everyone to pursue their own good is pure licence. You have no overall standard by which to measure the actions and character of those in society, and are therefore unable to make a judgement as to what action can, and should be proscribed. It is no surprise that the terminus of the liberal system is the “forbidden to forbid” advocacy of the modern era.

For an ethical system to have any meaning, it must act within an order in which goods are specifically ordered. This essay has done a fantastic job of analyzing the inherent fraud of a State promoting rejection of the ordering of goods:

The evolution of Liberalism into the ideology of Social Progress proves that this lack of compromise, this refusal to “surrender any portion of its field,” is in fact a characteristic of the state per se. The statement which Gentile presents as normative is in fact positive….The conclusion is simple: the nature of the state is that sovereignty is conserved. Due to its role as the central sovereign power, the state – or rather, the people who make it up – must develop a common set of normative values in order to operate. Because the state cannot brook opposition to its legitimacy to rule, it must therefore promote and inculcate these values in the population. Liberalism’s distinguishing feature – that it imposes no common good on its citizens – is revealed as a sham. Secularism is not neutrality; it is how the state defends the faith of Social Progress against its more mystical competitors.

This is a point which finds echo in Macintyre as he writes in ‘Whose Justice?, Which Rationality?’:

Thus, to exhibit a particular pattern of emotions and desires, to treat them as appropriate or inappropriate in one type of situation rather than another, is always to reveal a commitment to one set of justifying norms rather than another.

You just cannot have a non-ordering of the goods. The result of the refutation of this logical point is that scum are not only given licence, they are assisted in their emancipation. If licence is promoted, then liberty is gone. Liberty being the freedom of action for the good to do good in line with the ordering to the goods of a civilized and ethical state. This is something Gentile was grasping at imperfectly when he writes in ‘The Doctrine of Fascism’:

And if liberty is to he the attribute of living men and not of abstract dummies invented by individualistic liberalism, then Fascism stands for liberty, and for the only liberty worth having, the liberty of the State and of the individual within the State

Liberalism promotes licence, not liberty, and Gentile did not go far enough on this point. Any promotion or indulgence of licence drives all liberty out. It is just a shame that those within the libertarian tradition who have shown signs of getting to this point have not made this leap.


Zizek Nails It

I don’t normally have common ground with Zizek, but a quote of his regarding Ayn Rand struck a chord with me. I am struggling to locate where I saw it, but the gist of it is found in this abstract:

Rand fits into the line of overconformist’ authors who undermine the ruling ideological edifice by their very excessive identification with it. Her over-orthodoxy was directed at capitalism itself; for Rand, the truly heretic thing today is to embrace the basic premise of capitalism without its sugar-coating

This strikes me as, utterly correct. There are many ways to “rebel” and one of the key ones for liberalism is to rebel for liberalism. This is a parallel rebellion to that noted by Moldbug regarding anti-Americanism . The complaint is America is not being America enough, just as Rand is protesting that America is not being America enough, or rather, capitalists are not being capitalist enough.

Zizek on the subject of Rand has clearly got her number amusingly enough, and this only get worse when a survey of reality is made, which again Zizek does:

One of the weird consequences of the 2008 financial meltdown and the measures taken to counteract it (enormous sums of money to help banks) was the revival of the work of Ayn Rand, the fullest ideological expression of radical “greed is good” capitalism: the sales of her magnum opus Atlas Shrugged exploded. According to some, there are already signs that the scenario described in Atlas Shrugged—the “creative capitalists” themselves going on strike—is now being enacted. Yet this reaction almost totally misreads the situation: most of the gigantic sums of bail-out money went precisely to those deregulated Randian “titans” who failed in their “creative” schemes and in doing so brought about the meltdown. It is not the great creative geniuses who are now helping lazy ordinary people; rather, it is the ordinary taxpayers who are helping the failed “creative geniuses.”

Credit where credit is due, Zizek nailed it. His further observations (from a democratic angle) of the actions of the elite are worth recording:

These elites, the main culprits for the 2008 financial meltdown, now impose themselves as experts, the only ones who can lead us on the painful path of financial recovery, and whose advice should therefore trump parliamentary politics, or, as Mario Monti put it: “Those who govern must not allow themselves to be completely bound by parliamentarians.” What, then, is this higher force whose authority can suspend the decisions of the democratically elected representatives of the people? The answer was provided back in 1998 by Hans Tietmeyer, then governor of the Deutsches Bundesbank, who praised national governments for preferring “the permanent plebiscite of global markets” to the “plebiscite of the ballot box.” Note the democratic rhetoric of this obscene statement: global markets are more democratic than parliamentary elections since the process of voting goes on in them permanently (and is permanently reflected in market fluctuations) and at a global level—not only every four years, and within the confines of a nation-state. The underlying idea is that, freed from this higher control of markets (and experts), parliamentary-democratic decisions are “irresponsible.”

Of course, we can go further than Zizek here, because  unlike Zizek, we don’t care about democracy on this blog. In fact we dismiss it wholesale. As such, our vision of what is going on is not shrouded by bullshit.

Zizek’s (Marxist derived) complaint is based on a false assumption of greed and corruption to con everyone out of democracy. This is categorically not what is, or has, been going on. The Round Table movement and the actions of foundations and the liberal elite have been based not on greed, but on a genuine sense of desire to do good. This whole “markets are everything” is a genuine belief from these Randian titans. They genuinely believe their own bullshit that liberalism and the market is a mystical good taking us to a Civita Dei. That’s the punchline.

The very architects of the Cathedral have been “Randian” heroes. The idea that capital will flee the Cathedral is absurd, as is the idea that the elite will shut up shop and walk – they made this mess and they think it is great.

Look at all the great fortunes that have been made by capitalist ubermensch – it all went to promoting leftism,which it will by default, as leftism is chaos. Even the counter example of Henry Ford is dubious – he did run for senate as a democrat. Just look at the current examples we have as well. Do you think Bill Gates and Zuckerberg are being forced to promote liberalism? really?

The screeching leftist feminists and intersexionalist are not attacking the Randian superheroes, and they will not force them on strike – they are in their pay.


The Iron law of Rebellious Tools and the Illuminati

Not being one to look a gift horse in the mouth, this link I provided on my previous post deserves a second look. It is a exposition of the Illuminati’s New World Order, and specifically concentrates on the role of foundations. The information it provides is excellent, primary, and instructive. It is largely correct (except for the illuminati thing, although the elite do constantly, and boringly like a broken record, bang on about world governance.) This brings to mind Carrol Quigley’s comment in Tragedy and Hope that:

This radical Right fairy tale, which is now an accepted folk myth in many groups in America, pictured the recent history of the United States, in regard to domestic reform and in foreign affairs, as a well-organized plot by extreme Left-wing elements … This myth, like all fables, does in fact have a modicum of truth. There does exist, and has existed for a generation, an international Anglophile network which operates, to some extent, in the way the Radical right believes the Communists act. In fact, this network, which we may identify as the Round Table Groups, has no aversion to cooperating with the Communists, or any other group, and frequently does so.

So, separating the excellent legwork by the author from the faulty frame in which it is set, we have some excellent pieces of modern history. The first of which are the “The Cox and Reece Committees” (1952-55) that are available online. I have been unable to find any flaw or inaccuracy in the information gathered by the author. All the quotes appear genuine and culled from primary sources, such as:

It has been said that the foundations are a power second only to that of the Federal Government itself … Perhaps the Congress should now admit that the foundations have become more powerful, in some areas, at least, than the legislative branch of the Government.


Substantial evidence indicates there is more than a mere close working together among some foundations operating in the international field. There is here, as in the general realm of social sciences, a close interlock.

The Carnegie Corporation, the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, the Rockefeller Foundation and, recently, the Ford Foundation, joined by some others, have commonly cross-financed, to a tune of many millions … organizations concerned with internationalists, among them, the Institute of Pacific Relations, the Foreign Policy Association (which was “virtually a creature of the Carnegie Endowment”), the Council on Foreign Relations, the Royal Institute of International Affairs and others … and that it happened by sheer coincidence stretches credulity.

The author’s identification of McGeorge Bundy as ushering in the Civil Rights Movement also appears correct, especially if we recall the Chicago Tribune article, in which it is reported:

Led by the Ford Foundation under McGeorge Bundy, the white controlled philanthropic foundations have funded some direct action programs that a few years ago they would not consider


Before Bundy, you couldn’t get in at the Ford Foundation to see the time of day,” says Jack Greenberg, head of the legal defence fund.

and who was McGeorge Bundy? His wiki bio tells it all. Pure elite. Yale, Havard, Presidential adviser, CFR, Ford Foundation, Carnegie Corporation…

The rest of the site provides great information on the foundations and the activities of the elite in sponsoring revolution, so a great deal of the research has already been done, it just needs reinterpreting.