Carroll Quigley And Globalism

To actually understand liberalism, the good and the bad, it makes sense to read one of the most important 20th century liberals, Carroll Quigley. After reading about Quigley’s infamy in right-wing conspiracy theories since I was a teenager, I finally found a copy of Tragedy and Hope in a used bookstore and spent nearly a year reading it.

Quigley was a genius and a man of profound insight. Before I was banned by the ADL, I had a great conversation with another Quigley fan who explained how Quigley showed that military technology decides governmental structure.

When knights were the cutting edge of military technology, castles were the best defense, and Europe was composed of small states. Defensive beat offense. When gunpowder happened, empires could form because castle defenses couldn’t stand up to cannon fire.

Rifles made mass infantry the cutting edge and Napolean had a mass army. Because the infantryman was the cutting edge military technology, democracy – which basically meant infantrymen were the government – was the governing structure.

World War I changed everything. Tanks, airplanes and high technology made infantry with their rifles second class. Thus, democracy itself was no longer the governing structure. In fact, blacks and women were given the vote at precisely the time that high-tech mass media made voting obsolete. I mean, sure, you could vote, but the mass media told you who to vote for, so it really made no difference. Vote A or B, doesn’t matter.

The real power was high tech, and high technology is controlled by the elite – the smartest, most educated, richest elites. No one else matters.

Liberalism was a system that evolved in conjunction with the industrial revolution. The industrial revolution made planned economies obsolete, so liberalism evolved as a decentralized system with markets as a regulator. It worked extremely well, as far as it went. It also worked particularly well for the British Empire and the Anglo diaspora because islands and far-off locales like USA/Canada/Australia/NZ need shipping and trade.

Quigley explains that the winners of World War II, “the West,” with the Russians as junior partners, desperately wanted to prevent a nuclear world war III, so they got together to plan a “New World Order” based on globalism, internationalism, and anti-nationalism. They leveraged the already existing structure of the British Empire, on which the sun never set, let’s not forget. Communism was just another part of this – does anyone remember that Chairman Mao was educated by the Chinese branch of Yale University? I bet you didn’t know that.

Quigley said that these globalists wanted secrecy, but Quigley disagreed and said they should be public about what they were doing because what they were doing was right and good for humanity as a whole and they could afford to be frank with the public.

“Liberalism” as such really is nothing more than the network of central banks that regulate societies via money. Money is how people cooperate. Whoever controls the money controls society. Whoever controls the central banks control the subsidiary banks who own the mass electronic media. Whoever controls the mass electronic media controls the masses.

It’s hilarious when right-wingers talk about their guns and “the coming civil war.” Ask them one question: who are you going to shoot? They can’t answer. The fact is they will shoot whoever the media tells them to shoot and whoever the bankers pay them to shoot.

High technology rules, whoever controls the high technology controls the world. In fact, old fashioned central banking itself is becoming somewhat obsolete. Now there’s bitcoin, or FaceBook currency, or just points in a video game (which can be transferred into “real” money.)

Right wingers always fight the last war. Conservative libertarians are fighting for classical liberalism against FDR globalism just as FDR globalism has given way to modern high-tech. Traditionalists are even more retrograde than right-wingers, they are fighting Lincoln still, which is hilarious. And neo-reactionaries are even more ludicrous than that, they are still fighting the Reformation and mass literacy.

What did they do when the “Alt Right” started communicating via high-tech? Simple: they banned everyone from social media. What do they do when pro-whites start raising money? Simple: they close down their bank accounts and ban them from Paypal.

It’s all, 100%, about social organization and technology. Everything else is a distraction.

Where in the world is Ghislaine Maxwell?

Is Jeffrey Epstein’s Boss Ghislaine Maxwell Helping Mossad Run Pedophile Rings for Prince Andrew and the Ruling Elite?

Short answer? Yes.

So when actor Kevin Spacey was in trouble he put out a bizarre video, played in his character from House of Cards, that if you read between the lines was an open threat to Prince Andrew over the Jeffrey Epstein thing. Spacey is a known close associate of Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell who had flown on “Lolita Express” several times and has even been to “Pedophile Island,” Little St. James.

Spacey signals by flash a coffee cup that he got on a visit to Buckingham Palace, and even says, “I got away with what I did do, no way I’m going down for what I didn’t do.”

Well, a month or so later the man accusing Spacey in a court of law killed himself.

A friend of Ghislaine Maxwell sent a picture of her posing with a book about the death of CIA agents to the media, who ran it, pretending it was taken by a passerby that recognized her at a burger joint in LA. In reality, her photographer friend took the photo and seems to have photoshopped it. But nevermind, the media played along, as they are, after all, “fake news.”

Maxwell then reviewed the book on Amazon. So, “the death of CIA agents” is you know, a signal. She is signalling that she is untouchable, that if she goes down she – meaning, Mossad – is going to take down a bunch of people too.

Is the silence of the American mainstream media fascinating? How disciplined they are. Despite the massive public interest in this story, the Washington Post, the New York Times, ABC, CBS, NBC, FOX, they only touch this story with a ten foot pole and when they do they typically try to muddy the waters.

Have they ever said the word “Mossad?”

Colin Liddell, The "Affirmative Right" & Feminism

I don’t get it, Colin Liddell is a public figure, but he won’t spend the ten dollars a month to get a real website. His reliance on Alphabet/Google and Disqus is literally a technical obstacle to anyone trying to comment anonymously or even pseudo-anonymously.

This isn’t some intransigent “technical geek” thing like Richard Stallman. It’s literally impossible to comment on Colin Liddell’s Affirmative Right blog because they – by “they” we mean Alphabet/Google and Disqus – won’t allow it without doxing yourself and becoming a target of Antifa.

Is that a feature or a bug? Liddell can decide for himself. In the meantime …

This is probably true, as far as it goes, but it betrays a pretty big misunderstanding of America, especially post 9/11.

First, the “dissident right” – like all “right-wing” movements, doesn’t understand women. You have to start with the understanding that girls and young women are terrified of childbirth. Which they should be, because childbirth is extremely dangerous. It’s only in the last 100 years that infant mortality and death during pregnancy and childbirth has dropped significantly.

Since right-wingers never listen to women, they don’t understand how scary childbirth is, and when women talk about birth control “liberating” them from their reproductive systems, right-wingers just react with knee-jerk moralism, like they always do.

Second, right-wingers, wedded as they are to a simplistic, child-like, moralistic misunderstanding of economics, haven’t seemed to figure out that American women can’t find good husbands – even if they wanted to, which they don’t particularly. Since the 1970s, and ramping up tremendously since 9/11, the American elite – and the not-so-American elite, if you get my drift – have completely gelded American men financially and economically. The story has been told a million times but right-wingers don’t want to face up to it because they were ignorant cheerleaders for this since Ronald Reagan and continue to be, with their grade-school, Sunday-school level moralisms about “working hard” and “welfare.”

Women can’t find good husbands that can actually take care of them and support them as stay-at-home-mothers, because virtually no men outside of the first and maybe second tier professionals can afford that anymore.

Third, the smartest right-wingers will talk about “culture” and the like and book-smart but street-dumb “neo-reactionary” dorks like will talk about “status-seeking” as a primary human motivation, but never, ever, seem to notice that since the invention of radio, and the mass electronic media in general, status no longer comes from a real, organic community and family, but is completely, 100% mediated by that same mass electronic media.

Only very, very recently has the “dissident right” noticed the effect of social media on women, one supposes because girls spending all their time posting selfies and counting “likes” was too hard to ignore. Only the very, very few rightists, like F. Roger Devlin, ever noticed that mass media has had an effect on sexual relations going back to the silent cinema era, where farm girls all of a sudden were exposed to an image of Errol Flynn, literally the most handsome and sexually arousing man most of them had ever seen in their lives, instantly making their actual prospective partners look rather “beta” in comparison.

Right-wingers still have yet to figure out that the status-granting mass media, controlled by – er, “liberals” of course – absolutely denigrates family life except for the most privileged upper-upper middle class which barely exists in America since 9/11.

To top it all off, right-wing men still haven’t figured out how mass electronic media affected them and how that also contributed to destroying our once reasonably balanced sexual-natalist culture and transformed it into the dysgenic nightmare of today.

Right-wingers refuse to acknowledge: a) the technical issues and b) the ethnic agenda of those who have controlled the mass electronic media since nearly the very beginning. You know, “liberals.”

Until that changes, the right-wingers will continue to lose. In fact, it may be time to just drop the “right-wing” ideological fanaticism altogether and deal with pragmatic solutions.

Neo-Reaction Is Neo-Conservatism Rebranded For Libertarian "Gentiles"

Having reread the first three months of Mencius Moldbug’s “Unqualified Reservations” blog, which started in April of 2007, it’s become more and more obvious that Neo-Reaction is simply Bush-era Neo-Conservatism rebranded to appeal to what was, at the time, a growing anti-neo-conservative movement in the Right.

The neo-conservatism of the Bush era had become discredited. The Iraq war, a wildly successful Israeli project, had destroyed Iraq (as was intended) and American sentiment had turned firmly anti-war.

Increasingly, the white libertarian movement, centered around and Ron Paul, openly defied neo-conservatism and turned isolationist. The Israel lobby was increasingly under public scrutiny, thanks to the new popularity of the internet which provided a mass platform able to break the mass media monopoly. You know, the, er, “liberal” media.

So, Mencius Moldbug starts his free Google blog. Within four days he is being linked by mainstream media neo-conservatives.

Curtis Yarvin’s chutzpuh is pretty amazing too. Early on he trashed Matthew Yglesias for taking paid writing gigs for a “normal” publication, bloviating about how, in the age of free blogs, anyone getting paid to write for someone else was a shill.

Now, of course, Curtis Yarvin is writing for the Claremont Institute, a neo-conservative arm of “the Cathedral” started at Claremont McKenna College. Founded by students of Harry V. Jaffa. Jaffa was close friends with William F. Buckley (of course.)

Jaffa spent his career promoting the “ideals of the Declaration of Independence” especially the idea that “all men are created equal.”

Part of Yarvin’s gimmick is that the “libs” are all “Progressive Idealists” which is just a secular form of Calvinism.

But Yarvin’s supposedly profound takedown of “Idealism” – and his note that “democracy” is considered “good” while “political” is considered bad – is just first year rhetoric. It’s literally high school debate level stuff.

All of Yarvin’s breakdown of “Idealism” can be summarized by the wiki article:

A glittering generality (also called glowing generality) is an emotionally appealing phrase so closely associated with highly valued concepts and beliefs that it carries conviction without supporting information or reason. Such highly valued concepts attract general approval and acclaim. Their appeal is to emotions such as love of country and home, and desire for peace, freedom, glory, and honor. They ask for approval without examination of the reason. They are typically used by politicians and propagandists.

Yes. “Democracy” is the glittering generality, and “political” is the opposite. I can’t recall the clever phrase for “opposite of a glittering generality” – perhaps a “lusterless locution?”

Moldbug’s gimmick was to convince his fans that his analysis of progressive claptrap of the kind spewed out by the professors at Harvard was an actual, substantive ideology as opposed to self-serving rhetoric. And that these neo-Calvinists at Harvard really believed in “democracy” as “the will of the people” as opposed to electioneering via mass media as a means of manufacturing consent.

In other words, Harvard isn’t run by self-serving and self-interested, er, “non-Calvinists” using base level propaganda, but is instead run by self-deluded post-Christian fanatics hardly different than their witch-burning great-grandparents.

I mean, George Orwell said it better in “Politics and the English Language” – a great piece I read literally in 12th grade.

The words democracy, socialism, freedom, patriotic, realistic, justice have each of them several different meanings which cannot be reconciled with one another. In the case of a word like democracy, not only is there no agreed definition, but the attempt to make one is resisted from all sides. It is almost universally felt that when we call a country democratic we are praising it: consequently the defenders of every kind of regime claim that it is a democracy, and fear that they might have to stop using that word if it were tied down to any one meaning. Words of this kind are often used in a consciously dishonest way. That is, the person who uses them has his own private definition, but allows his hearer to think he means something quite different. Statements like “Marshal Pétain was a true patriot,” “The Soviet press is the freest in the world,” “The Catholic Church is opposed to persecution,” are almost always made with intent to deceive. Other words used in variable meanings, in most cases more or less dishonestly, are: class, totalitarian, liberal, reactionary, equality.

It’s interesting too, that in one of Moldbug’s famous “thought experiments” he lays out his ideals of “neo-cameralism” in an essay devoted to “what to do with Iraq.” It just so happens to coincide pretty directly with the Yinon plan.

Of course, the immediate smear is going to be that I’m somehow accusing Yarvin of directly working for PNAC or something. Of course not. It’s just that Yarvin – a Zionist and a self-identified Ashkenazi – intellectually swims in that same milieu.

In fact, Yarvin’s famous “Plan for Iraq” is not altogether different that what Noam Chomsky proposed as his “ideal” anarcho-syndicalist utopia. Which just so happens to also be extremely compatible with the Yinon plan

Imagine that, Chomsky and Yarvin being so intellectually compatible, at least in their plans for the, er, non-Ashkenazi people. After all, it’s dangerous for “Gentiles” to have a nation-state with closed borders geographically bigger than Israel.

Ten years on, with some hindsight, it’s pretty obvious what Yarvin’s “neo-reaction” was, just like it’s obvious what Noam Chomsky was.

The pattern reminds one so much of the classic TOO essay, “Why Mahler? Norman Lebrecht and the Construction of Jewish Genius.” You can observe the pattern on Moldbug’s original blog, in the career of Noam Chomsky, and in the recreation of Gustav Mahler from “a relatively minor figure in the history of classical music at mid-Twentieth Century, into the cultural icon of today.”

Gustav Mahler, Noam Chomsky, and Curtis Yarvin are talented, but otherwise forgettable, figures that are circled by Jewish commenters and writers who constantly declare their “genius.”

Sadly, you can see this in action quite recently at, where Colin Lidel, for some reason, decided to publish the mediocre Israeli hasbarist “UtterContempt” and got rewarded by a half-dozen Jewish commenters declaring how “brilliant” he is.

Most of us would never had perceived their “genius” unless a bunch of Jews – posing as a random assortment of disinterested observers – explained it to us.

It’s just the fallacy of an appeal to popularity, at its base. This particular group is particularly good at it, because they are highly ethnocentric and well organized.

Mencius Moldbug Gets Triggered By Matthew Yglesias: May 29, 2007

You just have to remember the time. It’s 2007. Bush and the neo-conservatives that controlled him have been utterly discredited by the disaster of the Iraq War. (Well, a disaster for Iraq, and the USA. A great victory for Israel.)

Anti-war voices like Ron Paul and are increasingly pointing out the obvious culprit: “neo-conservatism” and its Israeli and Jewish promoters. Ron Paul and are even more concerned with ending the wars than restoring a gold standard.

Mearsheimer and Walt have just released their paper, “The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy” and Pentagon employee Larry Franklin has been accused of “leaking” classified material to AIPAC’s Steve Rosen and Keith Weissman.

This is the context in which Curtis Yarvin started his famous blog and his “neo-reactionary” NRx movement.

So three articles after praising him, Curtis Yarvin – Nom de Zionist “Mencius Moldbug” – gets triggered. Hard. By a throw-away piece of anti-Republican, anti-Bush tripe from Matthew Yglesias.

The best lies are mostly true; it’s the poison core at the center that kills you. So most of what Moldbug writes is true. Yglesias is status-signaling. The Democrats have re-taken Congress, Bush-era neo-conservatism is on the way out, and Yglesias knows he can throw shade at “white Christians” – but not Ashkenazi Zionist Jews.

Moldbug correctly points out Yglesias’s bullshit, the idea that the government is run by the American version of British aristocrats callously driving over the poor. It’s “What’s the Matter With Kansas” all over again – these stupid white rednecks keep voting “against their own interests” and if they voted for Democrats, they’d get all those great welfare state programs if they just gave up their guns and Bibles.

The Central Fiction of the Democrats is that none of this is true. Actually, we are still living in the British Empire, under the rule of Queen-Empress Victoria, but of course a hundred years later. Prancing lords and ladies, cardinals and their catamites, sneer at us as they slide past in their Porsches, crushing the poor under their great alloy wheels. In some obscure way the British ruling class has managed to merge with the Nazis, perhaps through one of the Mitford girls …

A great take down of Yglesias’ nonsense lie that Bush Republicanism is “the efforts of a political ideology designed to further entrench the privileges of the country’s wealthy elite and its white Christian majority and somehow do so in the name of anti-elitism.”

But then Yarvin just can’t help himself. Yglesias is praising a Hollywood movie, but even noticing a Hollywood movie is just too dangerous, and Yarvin-cum-Moldbug lets the cat out of the bag:

they have been joined by the Jews, who have actually become Nazis themselves and are also engaging in their usual criminal behavior of running global financial corporations and making terrible, terrible films that appeal to the lower-classes.

Wait … what? Yglesias was trashing “white Christians” and praising Hollywood. Yet for some reason Curtis Yarvin hears an “anti-semitic dog whistle” loud and clear!

I mean, Curtis Yarvin of all people, you would think, when some clueless white person says “George Soros is a globalist,” would be the last to cry out “anti-semitic dog whistle! Joooooooos!”

Yet here it is, no less than Mencius Moldbug reading his lines straight from Joseph Goebbels: “he suddenly shrinks back: ‘I’ve been found out!'”

But Yarvin has a process. It’s not the Jews, Kevin MacDonald is “absurd,” it’s actually the Roundheads.

These bastards are the Roundheads, the Puritans, whatever you want to call them, and after their defeat of the last Cavaliers (to be clear, the Slave Power was no picnic either), they have reigned unchallenged in North America. And no less outside it—indeed, more. The beliefs held at Harvard, not those at West Point and certainly not at VMI, are the complacent belches of today’s global transnational governing class.

Because, of course, Harvard University, in 2007, was a hotbed of neo-Calvinism who took their Progressive Idealism totally seriously, which is why BDS just “never seemed to catch on” there, despite the best efforts of what Curtis Yarvin calls “the international liberal Protestant conspiracy” … to defame the Jews.

I mean, really, you can’t make this shit up.

Not at all ironically, Matthew Yglesias, just three years later, would be attacked on all fronts as an “anti-semite” for colorfully describing Goldman Sachs as “a great vampire squid wrapped around the face of humanity, relentlessly jamming its blood funnel into anything that smells like money” in the wake of the financial crash and the Wall Street bailouts.

But Curtis Yarvin aka Mencius Moldbug should get the credit, he sniffed out “anti-semitism” in Matthew Yglesias three years before anyone else did.

I mean, just look at Matthew Yglesias. Doesn’t he just look like a Nazi-Puritan-WASP? I bet his grandfather kept Curtis Yarvin’s grandfather out of the golf club!

Rereading Mencius Moldbug: Hindsight & Noticing

I’m rereading Mencius Moldbug from the beginning, in chronological order. This afternoon I’ve read from “A Formalist Manifesto” (2007-04-23) and just finished with “Roth, castes, chimps and Rangordnung” (2007-05-10) and yes, I got it right the first time.

I remember the time period quite well, having been an active blog reader/writer in the same general space as Moldbug and his fans. Originially quite friendly, as time went on it became harder and harder to not notice that lurking barely underneath the surface of Moldbug’s – and his fans’ – analysis was a pretty obvious agenda. One shared by one of Moldbug’s early critics, in fact, Scott Alexander at “Slate Star Codex.”

The “right” leaning Moldbug and the “left” leaning Alexander were sort of whispering to their respective audiences. You can summarize it like this: “hey guys, all the genocidal hatred you express towards the …”

Hmm, what’s the word I’m looking for here. Alexander might call this object of genocidal hatred “the red tribe” and Moldbug uses the term “Vaisyas.”

“… hey guys, all the genocidal hatred you express towards the [Red Tribe, Vaisyas] is making us look bad. You’re startling the horses. Technically speaking we’re in charge now. If you keep calling the [Red Tribe, Vaisyas] ‘Nazi-Hitler-KKK’ they might start to get the wrong idea.”

Both Alexander and Moldbug are keen to distance themselves from what Alexander calls “the Blue Tribe” and what Moldbug calls “the Brahmins.” For Alexander, this meant calling creating a brand new category that allows him to position himself into the “reasonable middle.” He’s neither blue tribe nor red tribe. He’s the Grey Tribe. Centering the political axis around youself is pretty much the oldest trick in the book, of course, so anyone to the right of you is an unreasonable extremist, and anyone to the left of you is an unreasonable extremist – and you of course are the sensible middle.

That’s about as interesting as Scott Alexander ever got, and his blog is far too boring to keep up with, unless you are actually interested in long explanations from his commenters about how modern tech-savvy religious orthodox Jews are really quite reasonable and part of the “Grey Tribe” too. Obviously, modern tech-savvy religious orthodox Jews aren’t crazy right wing Nazis, but neither are they those looney-tunes Social Justice Warrior lefties like the liberal Presbyterians supporting BDS, which is, like, WAAAAY out there.

Moldbug is working on the other side of the reuben sandwich. Later on he’s going to explain how very, very much he likes Ron Paul and is totally down with the Vaisyas – hell, he even loves those Optimates with their formal dances and classical music. But you see, voting for Ron Paul won’t do you any good, because democracy doesn’t really exist and the real rulers in America are the civil service and the media.

And the civil service is run by Brahmins and the media is run by … also Brahmins.

So Moldbug eventually gets around to the action item:

What makes a Vaisya a Vaisya is that he or she is a sensible normal person who takes an appropriate and healthy interest in his or her own life. Trying to involve these people in the disaster of democracy, in some sort of attempt to restore a Brahmin-ravaged Optimate culture that can no more be restored than Albigensian Provence or Mughal India, and which in any case was no more perfect than either of these wonderful and deceased societies, strikes me as an enormous mistake. It enrages the Brahmins and it achieves nothing

But Moldbug is reasonable. And Vaisyas are reasonable, if only the Brahmins would give them a chance. Basically, the big problem is that Vaisyas are allowed to meddle in politics and if they have to be allowed to vote it should only be to permanentaly disenfranchise their class:

If Vaisya votes are needed to help abolish our profoundly dysfunctional and moribund system of government according to proper legal procedure, fine. But let them vote once, on a proposition that is unambiguous and final, and prevents them from ever having to concern themselves with the ridiculous high-school absurdity of electoral democracy ever again.

Sort of like how Republicans only oppose illegal immigration but love legal immigrants, for Moldbug the only use for democracy is for the Vaisyas to demolish democracy, which doesn’t work anyway.

Later he’ll explain that he just loves Ron Paul and the Vaisyas who vote for him, it won’t do any good because the media will just demonize him before he ever got elected, and even worse if he somehow managed to get elected.

And of course the media is run by Brahmins.

And Brahmins are, of course, lapsed Calvinist Christians who display the wiccaphobic fury of their Puritan progenitors.

Hell, Moldbug even name-drops the Southern Poverty Law Center as an example of how the Brahmins unreasonably hate the Vaisyas. Because the people who run the Southern Poverty Law Center that hate white working and middle class Christians so much is because, um, they are just secularized Puritans.

Moldbug loves to use labels to obscure the obvious. Here is his goal:

My goal is to try, in my own small way, to remind them that they actually are the ruling caste, that their enemies basically no longer exist, that they can come down from their 20th-century insane chimp rage without getting their genitals ripped off and eaten by a lurking band of equally-enraged Optimates.

So, he wants to remind the Brahmins that their enemies, the Optimates are never actually going to pull a 1933 again and, you know, genocide the Brahmins like last time.

The timing isn’t at all coincidental either, nor is Moldbug’s special concern for Ron Paul and his movement. 2007. The Bush administration is ending in disaster. Let’s see, was a major internet blog, aligned with the Ron Paul (and Pat Buchanan) factions that pointed to a specific group of people, called not “Brahmins” but “neo-conservatives,” that were responsible for Bush’s war in Iraq.

Interestingly too, Moldbug started his blog precisely one month after Mearsheimer and Walt’s The Israel Lobby paper was first make publically available. Mearsheimer and Walt had originally been hired by The Atlantic to write the paper, way back in 2002, but when the management of The Atlantic realized the full extent of what Mearsheimer and Walt were proposing, they dropped it like a hot potato.

Within four days of starting his blog, Andrew Sullivan linked it, bringing in a massive audience for a brand new, no-name, pseudonymous writer on a free account. It’s no mark against Moldbug’s obvious intelligence and writerly skill to call that an amazing stroke of luck.

Many intelligent and skilled bloggers toil away for years before getting any mainstream attention, if they get any at all. But Moldbug hit the big time within for days of registering his Google account, by someone as high profile as Andrew Sullivan, no less.

Over the next few months, roughly from May of 2007, Moldbug is going to explain his idea that “the Cathedral” – the “Brahmin caste” and their institutions- are motivated by their post-Christian ideology, specifically their post-Calvinist ideology, to show contempt for the Vaisya caste, and that it’s this post-Calvinism that drives groups like the Southern Poverty Law Center to viciously smear Vaisyas as “Hitler-Nazi-KKKs.”

You see, the Brahmins – or as Scott Alexander calls them, “the Blue Tribe” – (think, WASP liberals) – are just like the witch-burning Puritans of old – who genocided the Indians, which is why we can’t have Thanksgiving anymore, ironically, as the “Blue Tribe” and the “Brahmins” now assert in the pages of such post-Calvinist publications like the New York Times and The Atlantic.

I mean, there is a case to be made. The Atlantic was undoubtedly once the magazine for respectable New England liberalism. The year before Moldbug started his blog, The Atlantic, moved from Boston to Washington DC, and hired progressive Brahmins like Jeffrey Goldberg – surely influenced by his post-Puritan neo-Calvinism, and the man who gave Moldbug his first big break, the impeccably White Anglo-Saxon post-Protestant neo-Calvinist progressive Andrew Sullivan.

I’m sure I have some facts here confused. Perhaps my time line is off. Perhaps I’m simply not smart enough to understand someone as clearly intelligent as Moldbug.

So I think I’ll keep reading, and keep digging, so hopefully I can understand the mysterious rise of this new movement “neo-reaction” that has become so controversial its leading proponents have been censored from all major media platforms and are relegated to the backwaters of the internet like The American Mind a “publication of the Claremont Institute.”

The Claremont Institute? With a name like “Claremont” if that isn’t a Boston-Brahmin, post-Puritan neo-Calvinist institution, what else could it possible be?

New York Times' Jessica Silver-Greenberg, Emily Steel, Jacob Bernstein, and David Enrich Aid Alan Dershowitz and Cover Up Public Corruption in the Ghislaine Maxwell-Jeffrey Epstein Human Trafficking Ring

So it looks like someone sent a ringer to the lawyers for the victims of the Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell human trafficking ring with a cover story of having worked for Epstein and having copies of the infamous blackmail tapes.

This story by Jessica Silver-Greenberg, Emily Steel, Jacob Bernstein, and David Enrich of the New York Times is clearly intended to exonerate Alan Dershowitz and to validate his accusations against David Boies.

Descriptions in the later half of the article clearly indicate a strategy by the New York Times “investigators” to force Boies to denounce Pottinger, otherwise be accused of endorsing Pottinger’s ostensible “unethical” behavior.

In the grand scheme of things, none of this should matter. It’s not the job of David Boies nor John Pottinger to bring justice to the victims of Ghislaine Maxwell’s and Jeffrey Epstein’s human trafficking ring. Their job is to make money for their clients and themselves. Whether or not they crossed any ethical lines is irrelevant and meaningless at this level of power anyway. Real power does not care about ethics, nor morality. Ethics are for the middle class.

The responsibility for justice is squarely on the FBI, the Southern District of New York, and Attorney General William Barr – which are reported to have the videotapes from Epstein’s Manhattan residence labelled “[Name] + [Young Name].”

The New York Times has done virtually no reporting on these tapes seized from Epstein’s residence. Instead, the New York Times has aided Alan Dershowitz, Epstein’s former private attorney, in his legal fight against David Boies.

Which shows that the New York Times is not engaged in “journalism” in the public interest, nor in “journalism” in the interests of justice in the Ghislaine Maxwell-Jeffrey Epstein human trafficking ring.

The New York Times is instead engaged in the cover up, by obscuring the legal case, the complicity of Attorney General William Barr, Geoff Berman, the Southern District of New York, and the FBI in the inaction on the legal case and the evidence seized from Jeffrey Epstein’s residence.

The motivations of New York Times “journalists” Jessica Silver-Greenberg, Emily Steel, Jacob Bernstein, and David Enrich can be explained by what they choose to cover, and what they choose not to.

Jessica Silver-Greenberg, Emily Steel, Jacob Bernstein, and David Enrich have chosen to promote the agenda of Alan Dershowitz in his fight against David Boies, while ignoring the public officials that actually have a responsibility to the public.

Jessica Silver-Greenberg, Emily Steel, Jacob Bernstein, and David Enrich have chosen to hint at private conspiracy theories instead of analysis of what is on the public record. And the ethnic agenda at play is also obvious to see, but of course cannot be discussed.

Such is the state of “journalism.”

The story also illustrates the banality of our elites. While it’s impossible to truly understand the positions of David Boies and John Stanley Pottinger by this comically biased New York Times story, it’s not out of the realm of possibility that Boies and Pottinger were outwitted by this “Patrick Kessler” who could very well have simply been a ringer working for Dershowitz and Barak, sent to tantalize these profit-seeking private attorneys with non-existent “evidence” to poison the private case.

Boies is in his 70s, and Pottinger uses “emojis” in his text messages. These two old fogeys couldn’t tell a “hacker” from an actor, nor could they even begin to distinguish an authentic photograph vs. a Photoshop – not even from the pixels.

Such is the decadent, clueless elite that retains power strictly because of the global central-banking cartel and a complicit, compliant media led by “journalists” like the New York Times’ Jessica Silver-Greenberg, Emily Steel, Jacob Bernstein, and David Enrich.

Blog at

Up ↑

Create your website at
Get started