The biggest obstacle to Americans organizing in their own interests is right-wing ideology, both “mainstream” but also the so-called “dissidents” who are not actually dissidents at all – they exist precisely to keep right-leaning Americans on the Conservative Inc. plantation by giving them a false alternative that leads nowhere.

Let’s use an example from the past so we won’t trigger everyone’s knee jerk taboos.

I’m a fan, but sometimes I think, poor E. Michael Jones. Every time he gives an interview, his Catholic interviewer will ask him, “is the reason the Church has so many problems right now because there is a secret faction of Freemasons among the clergy?”

You can almost hear EMJ’s eyes rolling in the back of his head as he drunkenly sputters into the phone, “no, no, the Freemasons may have been a big deal in the 18th century but they don’t matter anymore!”

It is just built into the post-18th century Catholic mythology; it’s a part of the world view of “traditional” Catholics. At one point, the Freemasons really did pose a serious threat to the Church; there really were Freemasons behind the republican movement. “Freedom of religion” really was promoted by Freemasonry.

I knew a Freemason once. He was a small, independent businessman and when he first set up shop in town, he was told quite bluntly, “you’ll never stay in business unless you join.” So, he did. As he was long retired, he told me about some of the rituals, one of which was “going into the grave” – and he, too, rolled his eyes when describing it. He thought it was the corniest thing ever. He just did it because membership in the club was necessary, otherwise, you would be discriminated against and you wouldn’t even know why.

Part of the ritual of Freemasonry, which was picked up by Mormons and has direct equivalents in the Italian Mafia and pretty much all street gangs, is the “blood oath.” More or less, “if you ever cross your brothers you will be killed.”

How seriously the Freemasons ever took this oath is up for debate. It seems probable it was taken somewhat seriously in the early days, since the 20th century, in America, Mason lodges like the Shriners don’t take it seriously at all. In America, you can probably make an important before/after distinction in 1820.

The [Anti-Masonic] party was founded in the aftermath of the disappearance of William Morgan, a former Mason who had ultimately become a prominent critic of the Masonic organization. Many believed that the Masons had murdered Morgan for speaking out against Masonry and subsequently many churches and other groups condemned Masonry. As many Masons were prominent businessmen and politicians, the backlash against the Masons was also a form of anti-elitism. The Anti-Masons purported that Masons posed a threat to American republicanism by secretly trying to take control of the government.

It is important to note that if Morgan really was murdered for turning against his “brothers” it caused such a scandal that it spawned an entire political party and a huge backlash by churches and other civic society institutions. It does not appear as if this was the straw that broke the camel’s back – it appears people were shocked at the idea that Freemasons really took the “blood oath” literally as opposed to “spiritually” or “symbolically.”

About a decade ago, a British study was released about attitudes toward Freemasonry. Most Brits seemed to believe it was a “conspiracy” by middle class police officers, barristers, and businessmen that, at worst, did things like “fix each other’s traffic tickets.” Indeed, contemporary Freemason sites say, “you can’t use the ‘Call of Distress’ and expect a judge to let you off, even if he is a brother!”

Maybe they are lying. Maybe at one time they could, but the Lodge no longer gets that level of loyalty.

Consider this article from The American Sun, The Disappearing Americans. Detailing a trend of urban and suburban Americans fleeing to more rural areas, “normal folks who have a sinking feeling of something terrible coming in the horizon,” the author makes this point:

As for people who scoff and ask these people exiting general society why they don’t organize, the answer is simple. It’s either too late, or too early for that depending on your timeframe. Any attempt to formally organize with the old rules now causes attention from a vastly more powerful and hostile opponent, and things are too stable right now in the regime to risk creating attention on oneself.

It should be pointed out that in the early era of Freemasonry, it was at least as dangerous to organize against the prevailing powers, at least in areas where the Catholic Church was the prevailing power, and republicanism was a direct threat to the Monarchies, as it is now. Back then, the punishment was beheading or burning at the stake, depending on which Estate was punishing you.

The relevance for today: Freemasons are forbidden from discussing politics or religion in Lodge meetings and official Masonic events. It is a social club and no more. It seeks no political power nor religious reform – officially, and even unofficially in a certain sense. But nevertheless, such an organization, while drawing no public scrutiny can nevertheless wield significant power, economic and otherwise. Even as a minority.

In business, when a father promotes his son, we call that nepotism. If a Mormon promotes another Mormon, we call that religious discrimination. When the boss promotes his favorite employee, we call that favoritism. Perhaps nepotism is the easiest to perceive and forbid; favoritism the hardest. To the boss and the employee he is promoting, it’s based on nothing more than merit, the employee passed over claims it is favoritism. Since the boss decides who is meritorious and who is not, how can it be “proven” either way?

Is favoritism a “conspiracy theory?” Or is it just “natural human behavior?” Note that Wokeness now claims that “merit” itself is a “White Supremacist Construct.”

In the economic version of the Wright Island Model, you can mathematically prove how a minority can come to economically dominate the majority. A member of the majority will not discriminate against the minority and will do business with, buy from, sell to, hire and fire, a member of the majority and a member of the minority equally.

But the minority will favor another member of the minority and actively discriminate against members of the majority. Over time, the minority will come to dominate.

Frankly, this is exactly how Freemasons could come to economically and socially dominate a majority population. It’s hardly a surprise that, back in the days of the Anti-Masonic party, “many Masons were prominent businessmen and politicians.”

When I was young, in the back of our Church they had copies of the “Christian Yellow Pages” which listed local businesses that were run by Christians, “according to Christian principles.” The appearance of this publication caused a scandal in the local newspapers, which ran more than a few articles calling this “discrimination.” Of course, all social groups had such publications, it only became “discrimination” when Christians did it. It was, of course, illegal to have a “White Yellow Pages” but “Support Black Businesses” was a common and uncontroversial slogan.

Once there was a “White Nationalist” who ran a blog by the name of “Guy White.” He had two main issues; first, hating Black people and calling them “N-words” and second, denouncing “Nazis” who were “anti-semitic.” He explained that it was acceptable for white people to discriminate against black people, but it was wrong for “Gentiles” to discriminate against “Jews” because the foundational principle of society was the majority never discriminating against the minority while allowing the minority to discriminate against the majority.

To call it “special pleading” and “hypocrisy” is to understate it. It’s actually chutzpah. “Guy White” eventually took down his blog and disappeared, perhaps to rebrand as a Neo-Reactionary, which was a trend getting popular at the time.

The term “black balling” comes from a Masonic practice. When a man applies for membership to a Lodge, the brothers put a marble into a box – a form of secret ballot. It takes only one black marble – a veto – to refuse to accept the man as a member.

So consider a Lodge that has 100 members. 95 members are straight, five members are gay. The 95 straight members do not know who the five gay members are, as they are closeted. Any proposed member who is known to be a “homophobe” by any of the five gay men can be “blackballed.” If the gay men blackballed any man who was straight, the club would either never grow or come to be a gays-only club. But “homophobes” can be kept out of the club quite discreetly, without any of the 95 straight members even being aware of the dynamic at play.

You can use a religious analogy. If you have a Mason lodge that consists of 45 Presbyterians, 45 Methodists, and ten Mormons, the Mormons can discreetly black ball any Baptists from membership, Baptists being the most anti-Mormon of the Protestant denominations.

Freemasons will say they are not a “secret society” but a “society with secrets.” Part of the practice of Masonry is secret handshakes and signals that can be used to identify a stranger as a fellow Mason from another lodge. So not only, using the principle of Fraternity, can Masons actively favor fellow Masons in the normal course of life and business, they can actively favor Masons from different lodges they don’t know personally, and can discriminate against non-Masons who don’t know they are a Mason, nor could ever suspect they are being discriminated against by Masons.

Indeed, if anyone were to say, “the Masons are discriminating against me because I’m not a Mason” everyone will laugh and accuse him of being a “conspiracy theorist!”

This very low tech system really does exist, and had significant social and political power for nearly 200 years, and in many ways came to dominate certain societies in the 18th century.

Spandrell of Bloody Shovel has formulated the concept of Biological Leninism.

The genius of Leninism was in building a ruling class from scratch and making it cohesive by explicitly choosing people from low-status groups, ensuring they would be loyal to the party given they had much to lose. It worked so well it was the marvel of the intellectual classes of the whole world for a hundred years.

Meanwhile, what was the West doing? The West, that diehard enemy of worldwide Communism, led by the United States. What has been the American response to Leninism? Look around you. Read Vox. Put on TV. Ok, that’s enough. Who is high status in the West today? Women. Homosexuals. Transexuals. Muslims. Blacks. There’s even movements propping up disabled and fat people. What Progressivism is running is hyper Leninism. Biological Leninism.

Of course, the terms “People of Color” and “women and minorities” represent a similar strategy. “People of Color” includes everyone except for white people. While in America, white people are a former majority that are still by far the largest plurality, if you unite all non-whites in America, plus enough white women, you can have a majority – a Coalition of Minorities that can outvote the majority.

The Democratic party is indeed a Coalition of Minorities using the strategies of “People of Color,” “women and minorities,” and “biological Leninism” and “blackballing” their perceived enemies, “straight white men with leadership material and a lack of wokeness” to exert power over traditional Americans.

The Dissident Right will have you believe that no contemporary faction in America could ever use any of these strategies on purpose, in a planned, conscious way – the Masonic “secret” membership that favor each other and discriminates against non-members, the “blackball” veto strategy that keeps certain factions who are a threat to a particular minority from joining the club, the “People of Color” – “everyone but whites” strategy, the “women and minorities” strategy, and the “coalition of minorities” strategy.

The Dissident Right instead expects you to believe that white people just “hate themselves” due to feeling “guilty” because they believe in “equality.”

To suggest otherwise is an “anti-semitic conspiracy theory” for some reason. I can’t imagine why.