Three Boomers and three Millennials were sitting in a bar…

Sounds like the start of a bad joke, doesn’t it? Well, in a manner of speaking, it is.

A few weeks ago, I was at dinner with some blokes from church. There’s a group of us who meet on the second Thursday of every month to chew the fat, escape wives for a few hours, and do what men of good standing do when they’re at leisure – enjoy a meal and a drink, and the company of likeminded fellows. A robust blend of banter and betterment – solving the world’s problems while making fun of one another; the blueprint of civilisation.

But likeminded though we are – with a shared Christian faith, broadly conservative views, and common ancestral roots – we are yet a diverse group…

About halfway through dinner, the conversation turned to institutional corruption, initially in the context of the historical sexual abuse claims against the Church but then prompting one of my two Millennial peers to raise the UK Muslim rape gang scandal, the vast institutional coverup, and the possibility that the same malignance may be incubating here in Australia.

Immediately the atmosphere at the table shifted – awkward silence, searching looks, perfunctory mumblings. The three Boomers – all educated, professional men; a lawyer, an engineer and an art installer – either had no idea what David was talking about or did not want to know.

Dave waited politely, if somewhat archly, for a response as the seconds slouched on by. There was a grunt of scepticism from the more liberal of the three and then, as if on cue, they pivoted into such vapid inanity that it was as though Dave, Josh and I had suddenly found ourselves in the company of three teenaged girls.

We exchanged a look across the sexagenarian tittering and said nothing further because an understanding had passed between us – the slightest of eye rolls, and of sad, ironic smiles.

We didn’t roll our eyes because they disagreed, but because we realised disagreement was impossible.

The question of whether there was graphite on the roof was redundant – because RBMK reactors don’t explode.

The conceptual framework of our Boomer companions, still redolent with the far-off drone of Sunday lawnmowers and the faint phthalic scent of a new station wagon, precluded even the possibility that such a thing could occur. Our silent consensus acknowledged a macro reality in contemporary politics – that persuasion itself lacks utility across certain gulfs, and while the popular conception is that of left versus right, increasingly, an equally meaningful divide is the generational one:

The people whose identities were formed inside the post-war liberal consensus versus those who have concluded that the consensus has failed.

This divide maps almost perfectly onto age, with the fence-line running somewhere along the 45-50 mark where we see a very mixed bag of younger Gen Xers, becoming more like their Boomer forerunners as they approach 60. North of this point you’ll find plenty of nominal red pills, but increasingly few willing or able to acknowledge darker structural truths.

South of 40, the landscape changes dramatically with most young adults, regardless of political persuasion, united in scepticism of the liberal world order by dint of their shared economic disenfranchisement and rejection of traditional media – and while it is only the young right who can correctly identify the worst manifestations of the globalist machine vis-à-vis the Muslim rape gangs and demographic replacement in general, on both sides the gloves are off and the radicalisation is accelerating.

This thesis does not reject the importance of the left-right divide which is very real in practical cultural and electoral terms (even though it does nothing to explain the ideology of our ruling elites) but examines instead a dichotomy that is more immediately consequential.

Nor are we here to crap on the Boomers and let’s be clear: we love our Boomers. Many of us have Boomer parents, family, friends, colleagues, mentors and, in this case, even readers. The intent is not to denigrate, merely identify a phenomenon that renders the Boomers uniquely different from the generations who came before and certainly from those who have thus far descended from them.

Why are the Boomers different? And what explains the obtuse reaction that Dave, Josh and I witnessed at our dinner? It is not that Boomers are stupid, quite the opposite in fact. They’re better educated than any generation in history, they’re intelligent, successful, and worldly. But they possess something younger generations don’t: a totalising psychological investment in the existing order.

Was ever a generation so richly rewarded by its own epoch? Their entire lives validate it – their careers, their homes, their pensions… They literally became millionaires because of it. Whether they care to admit it or not, the Boomers of the flourishing post-war middle class owe not only their wealth and status but their very identities to the liberal world order that worked so spectacularly for them – which makes rejecting it almost impossible.

The system isn’t merely something they defend; it is something they are.

What’s tragically perverse is the resounding naïveté – a fact I was recently reminded of while reading the late great Sam Neill’s autobiography during which, for no apparent reason, he abruptly interrupts his easy-going nostalgic rhapsody to rail against vaccine sceptics! Proclaiming with the self-assured lay expertise that only Boomers can proffer, that vaccines have saved millions of lives!

This may be true. It may also be true that they’ve taken millions of lives. But try telling that to a Boomer.

More generally speaking though – these folk (present readers nominally excluded) still get their news and opinion from the BBC, Fox, Sky, The Guardian and The Spectator. This is a problem. Left or right leaning, these legacy media outlets are all organs of the same institutional ecosystem – they spend all day performatively arguing with one another while quietly agreeing on the boundaries of acceptable thought.

It is in fact this institutional gatekeeping and not, as many Boomers would have it, a virtuous externality of their own enlightenment that underpins the paradigm of sensible centrism – a badge they wear with unflinching pride: The received wisdom that ultimate virtue is to be found in compromise; that taking an absolute position on anything is the first step toward National Socialism; that everyone’s opinion matters; that we should find common ground with our political enemies – or even that the concept of a political enemy in and of itself is a dangerous and outdated anachronism.

Such fantasy can only be fostered in a sanitised public square where discourse is self-policing and disagreement is minimal.

Topics like vaccine injuries; the Israel lobby’s influence on Western warmaking; the resulting mass migration and terrorism; the glaring failure of multiculturalism; the gelding of society through feminism; the cancer of neoliberalism itself… and of course the Muslim rape gangs…

These aren’t controversial because the evidence is lacking. They’re controversial because acknowledging them requires admitting the post-war settlement failed.

Subscribe now

It would be more satisfying, if not easier, to label the Boomers as villains but the truth is less sensational. They’re not villains – they’re tragic. Imagine spending eighty years believing your generation built the freest, richest and most humane civilisation ever only to discover the foundations were rotten.

In a few short decades of rapid liberalisation and smug excess the Boomers have all but destroyed the civilisation that took our ancestors millennia to build up and while we may offer the nominal concession that they know not what they do, the blame must rest on the shoulders of our so-called Boomer conservatives (what many of them blearily refer to as ‘centre-right’). At least the aging left has an excuse for their moronic myopia. They’re the earnest libs of the 1960s – in their minds they’re still doing sit-ins and freedom rides, and this kind of larping maps neatly onto modern progressivism.

The ‘conservative’ Boomers aren’t conserving anything other than the institutions that perpetuate the post-war order. The fact that these institutions were infiltrated by Marxists decades ago is less important to them than the edifice itself and so they assemble flimsy pastiches such as GB News, Tucker Carlson, and the ARC Conference to impart a sense of opposition but ultimately the cordon remains secure because the most privileged generation in history is also the most hubristic. They are too high on their own supply to embrace the collapse of identity necessary for true political revival. Real enlightenment now, after a lifetime of drinking the Kool-Aide, is just too painful and our beloved Boomers, left and right, will march happily into their graves gaslighting themselves all the way down: “We created the great liberal society. The experiment was a success. We are the most benevolent humans in history”. And they will leave us to clean up the mess.

None of this would matter if it were just the opinions of the Boomers in question. They don’t get it? Big deal – the future belongs to the youth anyway.

But this is only partly true. The Boomers hold something much more decisive than collective political delusion. They hold the power.

Baby Boomers control roughly 55% of all Western household wealth and hold an iron-clad 70% share of top institutional and political power. At only 20% of the population this inordinate weighting makes the Boomers in this moment perhaps the most powerful demographic bloc in history.

And this moment happens to be a civilisational inflection point.

There is a rapidly narrowing window of perhaps as little as five years to forestall the worst excesses of the liberal world order and its decimation of Western identity over the past fifty years. As white Christians become minorities in their own countries, and globalist governments consolidate control via the replacement populations, policing remaining dissent with AI-powered social credit systems, the possibility of meaningful electoral reform will dip below the horizon.

We have a moment – right now, in the next couple of cycles – to weaponize what remains of ‘democracy’ against the system that has all but crushed it while wearing its carcass like a skinsuit. This is possible, but it requires the great wealth and institutional sway of the Boomers – specifically, the Boomer ‘conservatives’.

We of the younger generations – many Millennials but increasingly the Zoomers – can identify the systemic failures but lack the leverage to fix them on our own. The Boomers are still flying the aircraft. We may have mastered the navigational instruments but wouldn’t have the first clue even how to engage the landing gear, and if the pilots die at the controls, then, to paraphrase The Big Lebowski, the god-damned plane will crash into the mountain.

Imagine if the Boomers recognised this reality today, before it’s too late… It would not require a mass generational awakening, just a critical mass of right-leaning millionaires. Nick Fuentes is fond of saying that the left has all the billionaires and, with the notable exception of Elon Musk, this is largely accurate. Fuentes encourages the young men who follow him to reinfiltrate the captured system – create tech startups, get law degrees, jobs on Wall Street, internships in the Republican Party. “You wanna know what you can do to help?” he says. “Become a billionaire.” And he’s not wrong. Moreover, at this late hour, that’s probably what it’s going to take.

But a more realistic deliverance would have been an awakening among the millionaire class – that sprawling network of inherited ease and anxious privilege that stretches from the cliffside glass of Northern Sydney to the converted barns of the home counties, from the limestone apartments of the 16th arrondissement to the manicured lawns of Fairfield County.

If the Boomers had become red-pilled at the same rate as the youngsters, this might have been possible – had they been onboard for Trump-1, seen through the COVID scam and gotten based on the Israel issue back in 2023, there might have been a chance. Instead, they’ve nibbled at the pill, cautiously, prissily, and with the ponderous pedantry of their pedigree – imbibing just enough to accurately explain the concept of ‘woke’ but, like the patient who quits his antibiotic course at the first sign of improvement, falling dangerously short of complete recovery.

And so, Fuentes may be right. It may now be up to us, unless the Boomers can have a road-to-Damascus moment during their twilight swansong. They still possess enough wealth and influence to redirect history, but the more likely tragedy is that they’ll die believing the great liberal experiment succeeded.

Their wealth will disperse. Governments will tax much of it, and the balance will dilute away amongst their Millennial beneficiaries – a far less homogeneous and cohesive demographic. Many will simply piss it away on frivolity, others will use it to pay off debt – but across the West, much of the Boomers’ wealth will be absorbed back into the system which itself, freshly unencumbered by an independently wealthy middle class, will accelerate its consolidation of power.

And thus, the opportunity disappears.

Our monthly dinner is approaching again – in fact, it’s our one-year anniversary. Twelve times now we’ve gathered on the second Thursday of the month to do what men of good standing do when they’re not at work – solving the world’s problems while making fun of one another.

But in accordance with the self-governing principles of our polite society, the banter is only ever trivial. Certainly Dave, Josh and I will not revisit the awkward silence of last month’s dinner. We have chuckled about it amongst ourselves of course – but we love and respect our Boomers and moreover, we recognise that persuasion is pointless, and so we’ll spare them the discomfort.

Here’s the thing though: we’re not actually laughing at them – we’re simply watching history with a sad, quiet smile.

They’ll be gone soon.

Then the real work begins.

Subscribe now

Modern politics no longer resembles civic participation so much as compulsive behaviour – a hapless indulgence of the same learned habit in the perennial hope of a different outcome despite decades of accumulated evidence to the contrary.

We of the West have been faithfully yanking on the lever of ‘democracy’ our entire lives – blue one cycle, red the next, then back to blue again – feverishly awaiting that perfect alignment of policy and personality; the political jackpot that will finally correct the wayward course of the great, drifting ship of state.

The maritime metaphor is apt here because so many indeed view the direction as rudderless and without competent crew and captain. This two-dimensional, Hanlon’s Razor view of politics is the default operating system of the credulous Boomers and expounds the otherwise inexplicable endurance of the two-party system into the 21^st Century – the idea that we simply haven’t found the right assembly of political agents yet and, eventually, one iteration will get it right.

As we move down the generations we encounter growing scepticism – from the cheerful cynicism of Gen-X, to the ironic fatalism of the Millennials, to the bitter distrust of the Zoomers, and indeed the mould is beginning to crack with the ascendancy of third position parties like Restore Britain and One Nation in Australia – yet across these paradigms the operating principle of the body politic remains that some form of human organisation not yet attempted will ultimately provide stability and prosperity.

Every election is framed as salvation or apocalypse – just one more spin; one more time around the track to pin down that perfect result. It’ll be different this time, you’ll see.

The merry-go-round of Western liberal democracy is a reality TV show where people are less voting for representation than seeking emotional relief through bloodsport politics.

The anger and frustration are palpable. So, why are people angry?

Quite obviously they are fed up with the worsening trend across every quality-of-life metric:

• Housing affordability

• Cost of living

• Crime

• Cultural degeneration

• Employment, etc

But moreover, they are sick of being lied to. They can see the corruption and want to punish their derelict leaders – and they think that the way to punish them is to elect different leaders. There is some immediate truth in this – for instance, Nick Fuentes is encouraging his followers to vote Democrat in the midterm elections explicitly to punish the GOP for its profligate betrayals and render Trump a lame duck for the remainder of his term. There is some short-term utility in this tactic, but as Fuentes stipulates, only if a “dark horse” candidate emerges at the head of a new movement to commandeer the apparatus of a weakened Republican Party at the next presidential election (in much the same way as Trump himself did in 2016). We will return to this notion.

The secular West likes to think of itself as ‘democratic’ – literally, a system of government where power is vested in the people – and yet while the modern secular mind balks at the rank corruption of its rulers, it cannot conceive of a world without them; a world in which power is indeed vested in the people.

Voters can identify the need for massive reform but remain constrained by the tenets of a system explicitly designed to withstand reform, and this is common across demographics and political blocs: Whether it is Western leftists embracing Communist China, Boomer conservatives clamouring for foreign wars and heavy-handed statism at home, libertarians still seeking “good rulers”, or even populists and dissidents yearning for cleaner elites – the people awaken to corruption yet cannot imagine life beyond centralised authority.

This is a glass ceiling – the prisoner can visualise the freedom that lies beyond but whenever he starts ascending, he butts his head against the invisible barrier of his own limited frame and falls back into dependence.

There is another behaviour that follows this pattern: Addiction.

Let us examine the remarkable parallels:

Parallel 1 – Externalisation

The addict seeks external relief – alcohol, cocaine, opiates, gambling, pornography, social media, sugar… the list goes on. The input itself is not important – all trigger a dopamine response and provide a powerful but temporary shortcut to satisfaction and wellbeing.

The secular political man seeks external salvation through a charismatic or compelling leader; through the team sport effect of party politics – safety in numbers; through the reassuring permanence of institutions and the finality of an all-powerful state.

Parallel 2 – Temporary Relief

The dopamine loop of addiction is well known but worth quickly mapping:

1. Emotional Dysregulation: Underlying anxiety, emptiness, fear, instability, and resentment. The person feels unsafe and powerless; spiritually unmoored and internally agitated.

2. Anticipation / Seeking: The addict fixates on the thing that promises relief. This stage often produces obsession or fantasy, emotional investment and ritualistic attention. Importantly, dopamine spikes hardest here, before the reward.

3. Consumption / Relief: The addict imbibes his chosen stimulus and feels soothed. The relief is only a Band-Aid – not true healing, merely a temporary reduction of anxiety, momentary certainty and emotional sedation.

4. Crash / Withdrawal: The relief fades and reality returns, but importantly tolerance also develops. The person now feels emptier, angrier, more anxious and dependant than they were before.

5. Rationalisation / Externalisation: Instead of confronting the deeper issue the addict shifts blame outward, new explanations emerge and a new fix is proposed. This protects and entrenches the cycle.

6. Repeat: The addict’s dependency deepens, his agency weakens, and the cycle gathers momentum and magnitude.

We can cleanly map the same dopamine loop onto politics:

1. Emotional Dysregulation: Modern secular life produces atomisation, anxiety, economic insecurity, spiritual emptiness and social fragmentation. People feel powerless, frightened and morally disorientated.

2. Anticipation / Political Seeking: The election cycle begins – the citizen seizes emotionally on wedge issues and fixates on the candidate, movement or ideology, and experiences the catharsis of ‘political awakening’. This produces hope, outrage, obsession, and tribal energy. This is the dopamine spike – not the election itself, but the anticipation.

3. Consumption / Emotional Relief: Election victory… political ‘change’… ‘historic’ moment. The voter feels empowered: temporary vindication, safety, righteousness and an emotional release that says, ‘Now things will change’.

4. Crash / Withdrawal: Reality reasserts itself, problems persist, corruption remains, and anxiety returns. This is where the MAGA movement is currently and – as we are seeing in real time – now comes cynicism, rage, betrayal, paranoia, schism and in-fighting, and emotional exhaustion.

5. Rationalisation / New Political Fix: Instead of questioning the nature of centralised power in a moral vacuum and our dependence on unaccountable rulers the citizen concludes: wrong leader, wrong party, wrong ideology, not enough state power and the solution becomes: another hit.

6. Repeat: The cycle resumes, usually with stronger emotional intensity. The citizen becomes more dependent, more tribal, less sovereign, less psychologically stable.

In this loop, the state does not merely govern materially, it becomes an emotional regulation mechanism. Politics becomes therapy, identity, ritual, moral validation and anxiety management.

And because this form of politics cannot heal the underlying spiritual fracture, the cycle never resolves. This is not only similar to the dopamine loop of substance addiction, it is exactly the same.

Parallel 3 – Escalating Dependency

Addiction always escalates – and so does statism. Even a cursory inspection of Western governments over the past century immediately reveals an uninterrupted increase in:

• bureaucracy

• surveillance

• regulation

• management

• intervention

And yet, with all this state ‘protection’, the anxiety of the citizenry steadily worsens.

Parallel 4 – Loss of Agency

Addicts progressively surrender their autonomy. This can happen at varying speeds – sometimes over decades with things like alcohol or gambling, or mere weeks with powerful drugs like crack cocaine, but in most cases, they begin with their personal agency intact and end up enslaved to their fix.

In the same way, citizens of the West have for the past several decades incrementally outsourced their morality, responsibility, security, meaning, and community to secular institutions – political, technological and cultural.

Subscribe now

The great lie of secularism is that it emancipates us from superstition, falsehood and coercive top-down control; and wielding as a cudgel that other great gift of the Enlightenment – scientism – the secular world has all but beaten God out of our collective memory.

But it is the removal of transcendent authority that creates the very vacuum into which rushes a tyranny far blacker than even the worst moments in religious history.

Humans cannot live without meaning and moral structure and despite insistent liberal fiction to the contrary we are lost without hierarchy and ultimate authority. If God is removed, something inevitably replaces Him and in secular modernity the state, underwritten by ‘The Science’, has become the substitute god.

Never has there been greater superstition than in the desperate tribal allegiances of 21^st Century politics; never has falsehood abounded as in the scaffolding of lies and half truths that undergird the two-party system; and never has mankind been so subject to authoritarian control… and so utterly dependant on it.

This condition – this addiction – is entirely the byproduct secularism.

Consider if you will: an entity that is ever-present and all-seeing, that not only codifies right and wrong but assures retribution for transgression, salvation through ritual compliance, and belonging through congregational worship. The agents of this entity lecture and hector you daily with sermons defining both heresy and morality – and the people shape their identities around these catechisms and socially enforce their tenets.

We have just described a religion. We have also just described the modern state.

The enduring edifice of state with its permanent bureaucracy, its quadrennial electoral liturgy, and its attendant organs of influence (media, NGOs, entertainment, education, finance…) is so embedded in our daily lives that we only notice when it grossly overreaches, and even then, only fleetingly, as so pervasive is its scope that even the perverse and absurd are quickly normalised: look only to the mystical sacrament of COVID face-masking.

Ask the average middle class voter from whence religious zealotry emanates in their society and you will likely be told one of two things depending on their nominal party affiliation. The ‘left’ will activate their Netflix programming and draw on decades of gaudy Bible Belt pastiche to inform you that Christians are the ones. The ‘right’ will click into Fox News mode and answer in unison: radical Islam.

Both factions will make these assertions unironically without consideration of their own rich participation in the pageantry of secular statism.

How many self-described atheists faithfully took to their balconies and yards every evening at 7pm in 2020 to bang their pots and pans in clamorous thanksgiving for our fearless frontline healthcare workers while said workers left their stations to choreograph intricate TikTok dance routines?

How often does the secular constituent programmatically chant learned slogans such as: be kind, love is love, trans rights are human rights, black lives matter, no human is illegal, the science is settled, safe and effective, Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon, Israel has a right to defend itself…?

How many martyrs have been burned at the stake of cancel culture, and how many are logjammed in the justice system or languishing in prison for the heresies of wrongthink and ‘hate speech’?

The secular man believes himself emancipated from religion while participating in a more totalising religious structure than his ancestors ever knew.

But the god of state is inevitably a flawed and false deity – for the faith that coalesces around it is conditional and subject to the whims of mortal men whose own self interest ultimately corrupts.

The great promise of the Enlightenment became the great lie of secularism.

True freedom is nothing so prescriptive as to bestow the certainty professed by zealots of liberal democracy and scientism. Existence is uncertain or, to quote an unlikely source, “Life is pain … anyone who says differently is selling something.”1 All the earthly creations of man, from tools to shelter to medicine to political parties, are merely imperfect attempts at alleviating that pain.

True freedom is in the serene embrace of life’s hardship – in acceptance of the challenge, navigation of the perils, and ascension to a higher plane. The great promise of this freedom is the boundless possibility it offers; the catch is that no outcome is guaranteed, and so true freedom is frightening because it is uncertain – because it restores individual responsibility.

And in the same way that the addict fears sobriety because it removes excuses, the secularised consumer citizen fears decentralisation because it threatens his psychological dependence on the paternalistic state and the analgesic of materialism. He fears and rejects true freedom because it brings added accountability – less latitude for the pursuit of pleasure and increased obligation to his community; indeed, show us the modern man who would choose a Tuesday night parish council or neighbourhood watch meeting over his favourite TV show? They do exist but in a paltry minority.

Like the addict, the secular citizen feels the existential void and yearns for escape yet remains trapped. He sees the corruption and compounding failure yet never arrives at freedom.

Instead, he arrives at nationalism, socialism, populism, technocracy, multipolarity, “better government” and always, more government… anything but decentralisation and moral self-government.

In the same way that the addict will try innumerable hacks – beer instead of spirits, nothing before 5pm, sober weeknights, Dry July… anything except the brutal self-reckoning that precedes sobriety – the otherwise intelligent secular man arrives time and again at the clown show of party politics, the very mechanism that produced his angst, because he can no longer imagine authority in any other context than human.

This is the glass ceiling of secular liberal democracy, and it is no accident.

The secular mind has been trained to think horizontally. It looks to governments, experts, institutions, parties and leaders because these are the only forms of authority it still recognises. The possibility that authority might exist above man rather than among men has been systematically excluded from consideration.

The prophets and propagandists of the Liberal World Order have done their work well, but our purpose today is not to further lament our occupation, but rather ponder how we may transcend it – and it should be clear by now even to the credulous Boomers that another spin on the slot machine of party politics will not suffice… at least not without a critical missing element.

In my essay Anarchy Isn’t Chaos I demonstrated how nations grounded in shared spiritual belief – most recently and successfully, Western Christian societies – required less coercive administration than their secular descendants. Why so?

Because Christianity relocates the primary site of governance from the bureaucrat to the conscience.

The secular state governs behaviour coercively from the outside, whereas the Christlike community governs its behaviour voluntarily from the inside.

Likewise, addiction is the external regulation of an internal problem. The addict reaches outward. The secular voter reaches outward. Christianity says, the struggle is inward, which is exactly what neither the addict nor the political junkie wants to hear.

Perhaps this is why Christianity has become so difficult for modern people to consider as a foundation for political organisation. It offers no new ruler, no new bureaucracy, no new programme, no new system to impose upon others. Instead, it directs the individual back toward conscience, responsibility and self-government. To a civilisation conditioned to seek salvation through external authority, this solution is not merely unattractive, it is almost invisible.

We spoke earlier about the 2028 “dark horse” candidate envisioned by Nick Fuentes and importantly – even Christians like Fuentes who have split from MAGA, condemned Trump and all but rejected the party-political system do not yet claim “no political solution”. Here is where some of us who were going down that path have been forced to pause and consider – as I did in my essay The Two Fatherlands.

What does Fuentes mean by “dark horse candidate”? His idiosyncratic and oft hyperbolic notion waxes extreme for dramatic effect but can be distilled into a simple and transferable idea: A popular and viable political candidate at the head of a growing movement motivated and guided entirely by the principles that originally made the West great.

Here then is the proposal: No political solution without Christ.

The idea is that without a transcendent authority that demands discipline, humility and self-sacrifice, secular institutions are inevitably corrupted by the avarice of human ego.

But this comes with a caveat without which the movement will remain helpless against subversion, and which must be examined in future essays: When we speak of a faith-based approach to politics we do not mean the flaccid submission of dispensationalists or the performative piety of dorky social misfits – but a rugged, muscular Christianity.

Some will dismiss this thesis as unrealistic, idealistic or sectarian, but such dismissals represent the very nexus in the dopamine loop that leads the addict back to his external fix – Step 5, Rationalisation – as discussed above. This is where denial lives – the stubborn refusal to admit that the external input isn’t working; that it repeatedly renders the same unsatisfactory results; and that, with each cycle, baseline conditions worsen. This is central to addiction, and it is central secular liberal democracy.

Modern man is not merely politically discombobulated, he is spiritually dependant. He cannot relinquish his rulers because they have become everything to him. The secular state and the institutions that orbit it – media, entertainment, education, finance – serve as his therapist, his priest, his protector, his moral compass and his surrogate god.

And like the addict who uses alcohol, drugs or another dopamine trigger to furnish these anchors, he will always be left empty and wanting more – a harder hit, a more optimised combination, a more perfect experience – because external fixes are always temporary. They are, by definition, alien.

Man is not atheist – he never has been. He has merely traded one god for another, and secularism is a unique and stringent theism, far colder and less forgiving than Christianity. It is not because people are unreceptive to God that the ideas we have discussed here appear unfeasible, it is because, like the addict who fears sobriety, they fear the accountability and toil that accompanies true freedom.

And like the addict who refuses to address the root cause of his pain, secular man may have to fall further before real political change is possible – indeed, he may have to hit rock bottom.

The addict will try everything before sobriety. Modern secular society appears willing to do the same.

People have a tendency toward conspiracy essentialism – whether on the left or right, hawkish plan-trusters or antiestablishment dissidents, most folk tend to adopt a pet boogieman and use it as a catchall.

Here is where the pejorative use of ‘conspiracy theory’ has currency, for the idea that everything can be explained by the devious plots of one interest group is unrealistic.

Certainly, we can and should take the high level view that a spiritual war between good and evil explains most of what we see; and even one step down from this – that the world is ruled by a narrow stratum of elites who collaborate (conspire) to influence events in furtherance of their power and prosperity at the expense of the great mass of humanity.

But here is where the simple dichotomy ends and the nuances of human sentience and complex socio-cultural constructs muddy the waters.

Conspiracy theorists are labelled as ‘crazy’ and ‘paranoid’ or at best accused of oversimplifying matters, and while such attacks are often disingenuous and indeed guilty of the same oversimplification, they are not altogether incorrect.

I too have been overly reliant on certain paradigms to explain the baffling cultural and political landscape of the 21^st Century – notably The Great Reset and its functional roadmap, Agenda 2030. Such is the scale and pedigree of this program that it cannot even be accurately termed a conspiracy theory, for most of it is frankly documented and occurring in plain sight. It is however so widely misunderstood, and its true purpose so obfuscated through linguistic manipulation and propaganda that it sits comfortably in the category, nonetheless.

But even a conspiracy of such scope – which has its roots in mid-20^th Century Rockefeller machinations and whose scions now staff every Western government – cannot adequately explain the war in which we now find ourselves.

While the frontline combatants in the current conflagration are limited to Israel, the United States and Iran, the case can be made for a global conflict – for an energy war effects all people. It is in fact my contention that World War 3 is already in progress and a century from now when the form of history has become clear, this period will be seen as such – perhaps with its genesis in the Russia-Ukraine war, perhaps earlier.

Regardless, the instability of the 2020s has not seen its like in a hundred years, and while much of the chaos can be laid at the feet of the World Economic Forum and the globalist ambitions of its technocratic acolytes, the Great Reset is an insufficient explanation in itself. This is why in my last post I spoke of:

the convergence of two distinct but linked programs: the Great Reset and the Greater Israel project. Importantly these can coexist because their objectives are not mutually exclusive and, in some cases, perfectly aligned: both envision a new world hegemony under a technocratic, AI-driven surveillance state. It is logical that a Pax Judaica could fit the bill.

Let us then examine the idea of convergence while adding a third sphere of interest to the Venn diagram: China.

What follows is not a watertight geopolitical theory but a working hypothesis that I am developing to help make sense of the current moment. In keeping with the parlance of its protagonists, I have named it The Great Convergence:

Seen through this lens, what may appear as chaos or competing agendas in 2026 can be reframed as a convenient convergence of several macro agendas – and it is important to note that numerous overlapping circles could be added to this diagram, but for the sake of simplicity and clarity I have focused on what I consider the three dominant paradigms.

This theory needs further sculpting, but the generalities are worth discussing, especially as the war appears to have bogged down into a dreary stalemate as we enjoy the last of the golden weather before the fuel crunch hits.

Around the periphery of our diagram, we observe three agendas so distinct that one might declare them mutually exclusive, for instance the Jewish supremacy of the Greater Israel Project, the Han supremacy of Communist China, and the woke, one-world utopianism of the WEF appear at face value to be fundamentally incompatible.

But to evaluate geopolitical interplay on dogma alone is folly. We have been encouraged, through institutional indoctrination, to think in such insipid terms because it helps The Machine craft one-dimensional propaganda arcs – ascribing pure and simple zealotry to all motivations, e.g. ‘The Nazis believed they were racially superior, and this informed all they did, hence their genocide of Jewish and Slavic peoples.’ But this entirely ignores Germany’s strategically convenient alliances with ‘racially inferior’ ethnicities, notably Japan, and Palestine. Hitler’s thousand-year Reich had room in it for a Japanese Empire and even formed Muslim miliary units such as the 13^th Waffen SS Mountain Division. The SS also recruited a Ukrainian division.

Likewise, neocon wisdom would have it that the state of Iran is a maniacal theocracy led by deranged clerics and military strongmen whose sole national aim is to develop a nuclear weapon and use it on Israel and the West. While this brand of Islamic extremism may account for a minority of hardliners in the Iranian government and IRGC, it is a purely fanciful caricature of what is in fact a shrewd and mature modern nation.

Thus, while it is useful to understand the beliefs that underpin various regimes and hegemonic spheres, the dogma itself is not an accurate indicator of strategic motivation.

Indeed, the tenets of secular dogmas such as stakeholder capitalism, Marxism and communism are often little more than marketing slogans, and even the religious zealotry of both Islam and Judaism is largely worn as a skinsuit by what are effectively secular nationalist regimes in Iran and Israel.

To properly understand the multilayered fabric of geopolitics we must shift our focus from the garish brand identities of the various players and examine where their interests begin to overlap.

To some, the idea that Tel Aviv’s imperialist aims could align with Beijing might seem farfetched, specifically because China is funding and supplying Iran’s defensive war – and this may well suit the Chinese, for now. But the thing about China is that, of the three players in our diagram, it is the most pragmatic – we may even go so far as to liken China to a ‘gun for hire’. China’s objectives are regional hegemony and national prosperity – it is not ideologically wedded to one major security and trading partner or another. China’s interests lie in projecting economic power throughout the Indo-Pacific and the Eurasian ‘world island’ – and it may do this in cooperation with whichever power seizes hegemony of the Middle East. Xi may well prefer Iran as a partner at this point for it balances American influence in the region, but if US might is permanently stunted by this struggle – as early signs suggest it could be – then the proposition for Beijing if Israel emerges as the new regional hegemon may be no less attractive than the alternative, perhaps even more so.

From Israel’s perspective, war with Iran is the existential struggle and all other considerations are secondary. China’s backing of Iran is not personal, and Xi can be reliably expected to do business with whomever is on top when the dust settles. Israel too, for all its homicidal extremism is also essentially pragmatic, and an economic synergy of Israeli tech and Chinese manufacturing underpinning a new Eurasian security bloc at the expense of the US, Russia and Europe could be an attractive prospect for Tel Aviv.

Little need be said about the converging interests of Beijing and Davos – both paradigms are grounded in a simple and well-trodden premise: no private property. Sinophiles will wave China’s constitution about and proclaim the 2004 amendment that enshrines private property rights, but the fact remains that all urban land in China is state-owned, while rural land is collectively owned. In other words, the Communist Party owns everything – a model that the World Economic Forum openly aspires to.

Subscribe now

Slightly less obvious, but still clear upon passing inspection is the synergy between Israel’s growing panopticon and the global control grid envisioned by the engineers of the Great Reset. Both parties are vociferous drivers of the Orwellian moral inversion of wokeness, and both have deep and undeniable roots in the occult. From a more functional point of view, there is a clear throughline from the millions of refugees and economic migrants created by Israel’s wars to the population replacement program underway in Europe and the UK which is underwritten by the same NGOs and multinational corporations who comprise the WEF, to say nothing of the UN – itself a Rockefeller creation and key organ of the Great Reset.

Yet still, all of this remains peripheral. At the heart of the intersection is where the stark and disturbing truth reveals itself, and here lies the central globalist agenda of the last 60 years: the destruction of the Western middle class and Western national identity.

Repeating the caveat that my hypothesis warrants ongoing stress-testing, we observe in this nexus a word cloud whose verbatim recitation reads like a synopsis of the quintessential conspiracy theory. And here we see that perhaps the ultimate conspiracy is not exclusive, but multilateral.

All three paradigms (Greater Israel, rising China, and the Great Reset) are grounded in the technocratic tools of digital currency, digital ID, AI-powered mass surveillance, and various forms of eugenics – in Israel and China this last has taken the form of outright genocide in Gaza and Xinjiang, while the population reduction goals of the UN and WEF envision a more gradual but vastly grander program of extinction. Likewise, all three players are motivated to subvert the petrodollar as the reserve world currency and occupy key positions at the head of a new multipolar world order – this imagined new order may look different from the respective views of Tel Aviv, Davos and Beijing, but as we’ve discussed, the protagonists are not primarily motivated by dogma and will likely accommodate one another as they coalesce around the core objective to which we now turn.

The great technocratic upheaval of the past century has but one beating heart, one true purpose next to which all other aims of the various converging agendas are inconsequential, for without the execution of this central tenet, all their programs of centralisation and slavery will ultimately wither:

The elimination of Christ.

It is only through Christ that our civilisation has briefly achieved what we may loosely label the ‘freedom’ of the past few hundred years. Only through Christ was cultivated the sanctity of the individual which gave rise to the enshrinement of private property which birthed the middle class and thus the modern West.

A technocratic tyranny can only thrive globally in the vacuum left behind by a deracinated West; in the absence of the moral framework that undergirds the West. And that moral framework, tottering and groaning though it may be, is Christianity.

But there is a final piece:

By any objective evaluation, it is white people, in conjunction with the spiritual framework of Christianity, who built the modern world and, as such, the West – spawning its middle class, its freedoms and bounty.

This is important not for dogmatic, ethnocentric reasons, but because eliminating Christianity alone is not sufficient for the aims of the world controllers. Indeed, Christ’s most faithful followers are no longer concentrated in the West but the Global South with Sub-Saharan Africa, Latin America & Caribbean, and Asia-Pacific accounting for a full two thirds of Christians worldwide.

Such populations are not considered especially threatening due to their lower socioeconomic and educational levels. The dangerous combination is Christian and white.

So, while our Christian faith has endured a global assault in the past century, it is most vicious in the West – North America, UK, Europe, Australia and New Zealand – where the white people live, and so in these places it is tactically paired with relentless anti-white propaganda.

It has often been argued that the middle class is what the elites fear. This is true, but there is nuance. China has a middle class – but the elites do not fear it, for it is already secured within the control grid.

It has likewise been argued that the elites fear Christianity. This too is true but there is nuance here also. South America and Africa have huge Christian populations – but the elites do not fear them, for they lack the prosperity and political capital of a large middle class.

The people of the West, while increasingly secular over the past century, still draw their conception of right and wrong from their dormant Christianity, and our middle class is still robust. We are the true threat – specifically a reinvigoration of Christian faith amongst young men, which is exactly what we are starting to see.

And so, at the heart of the Great Convergence there necessarily exist powerful anti-Christian and anti-white imperatives.

The extent to which these twin imperatives dominate the respective spheres of the convergence is again nuanced. The Great Reset program has been overt in its anti-white, anti-Christian messaging and its Neo-Marxist pedigree needs no further discussion here.

Likewise, no one can make the case that China and Israel are any friends to Christians. However, Sinophiles and Judeophiles alike will take issue with the contention that Communist China and Israel, or world Jewry more broadly, are inherently anti-white, so finally, let us examine this.

We may concede that there is a certain reverence, or even awe for the white man in China, but this comes with a balancing dose of contempt – not least from the Century of Humiliation – but moreover, Han chauvinism leans naturally into aversion to the current hegemon, and practically speaking, Chinese ascendancy is contingent on the destabilisation of Western society most notably seen in the weaponisation of CCP controlled TikTok against the West in the past decade via algorithmic manipulation & cognitive warfare, mass data collection and espionage and, importantly, societal and psychological impacts – creating division and insanity in the form of wokeness which has furnished palpable and widespread scorn within China for the Baizuo (white left) *.

But TikTok has of course just undergone a major restructure to avoid a US ban, handing effective control of its American operations to Jewish Zionist billionaire, Larry Ellison. Credulous MAGA plan-trusters hold this up as a Trump victory, but others claim it is simply akin to handing the ring of power from one dark lord to another even more malevolent…

As for us at Anxiety Addiction and Ascension, we cannot possibly comment. To suggest that there is any animosity toward white peoples from the state of Israel or Jews in general, or even that Jewish diasporas have an ingroup preference that could make them hostile to the interests of their nations of residence, would be in contravention of the Combatting Antisemitism, Hate and Extremism Act 2026 (which interestingly became law one month and eight days before Israel plunged the world into the forthcoming energy crisis) and here in Australia we have learned through bitter experience not to test the law lest we run afoul of the coppers’ batons and tear gas, or lest we find ourselves, like so many in in the post-Covid world, standing in the dock, or even languishing in prison.

Moreover, to suggest such a thing would be both antisemitic and racist and that is not a discourse with which we wish to be associated. In fact, it is a discourse we roundly repudiate.

And so perhaps there is a fatal flaw at the nexus of our so-called Great Convergence, and you have read all this way for nothing.

We apologise for wasting your time.

Subscribe now

Andrew Tate is fond of saying that if you want to know what’s going to happen, just listen to what the media is talking about. Tate has been jestermaxxing lately, prancing like a tit on X, claiming the Iran war is a psyop and Dubai is perfectly safe – probably to ingratiate himself further with the Emiratis – and the spectacle is total cringe, but on the former point, he is spot on: The corporate media uses neurolinguistic programming to get us ready for whatever is coming down the pipeline.

With this in mind I thought I’d turn on the mainstream news this morning to sample the propaganda and in less than 30 minutes the phrase “the government hopes to avoid heavy-handed Covid style mandates” was repeated half a dozen times. This tells me one thing:

Heavy-handed Covid style mandates are not only likely, but already in the pre-rollout stage and not merely a worst-case contingency, but integral to the plan.

Covid conditioned us. Now renewed media signalling primes us. Then when the hammer falls again, we will shrug it off as inevitable.

And the ghost of Edward Bernays quietly applauds.

NOTE: In wartime the news moves fast, so I may periodically drop shorter bulletin type posts such as this for the duration of the current situation to allow myself greater agility. These will not have the philosophical rigor or linguistic polish of my longer essays which usually comprise ~3 days’ work, but I hope they will provide useful real-time reaction to events as they unfold – particularly from the Australian perspective.

You know this script; already the Albanese Government is following a familiar playbook which anyone who was even semi-conscious in March 2020 will recall:

• Phase 1: Delay – there’s nothing to worry about

• Phase 2: Prime – this could get bad, but we hope it won’t (this is where we are now)

• Phase 3: React – for reasons outside our control it’s worse than anyone expected

• Phase 4: Normalise – be a good Australian and do the right thing (likely fuel, food and travel rationing)

To many, this escalation matrix may appear to be grounded in incompetence – and there’s no shortage of that in Canberra – but inept though our politicians are it is not their lack of ability which drives this. We must consider what came before – the slow but steady roll away from energy independence over the past few decades, the outsourcing to far flung supply chains and reliance on ineffectual ‘renewables’ – these were all part of a supranational agenda which these apparatchiks were simply administering, and so was Covid, and so is the current crisis... at least in part.

Indeed the average member of parliament, senator, or cabinet minister requires no more intelligence than a call centre operator, perhaps less, and their job right now, along with their offsiders at ABC, Sky, Nine News etc, is to act as a sluice-gate for public feeling; to manage and massage our fears and outrage in the direction of acceptance, gradually ratcheting our expectations down so that when Phase 4 rolls out there is minimal resistance.

In the immediate and imminent side effects of the Iran war we see the creation of conditions amenable to the furtherance of The Great Reset agenda – essentially a perfect confluence of economic, financial and social crises which can and will be used to sell the public on extraordinary centralisation of power.

At the same time, several of the Great Reset’s utopian goals are achieved – a dramatic reduction of fossil fuel use and reduced emissions. It is also the perfect pretext to decondition us from our reliance on air travel, private vehicle transport and animal protein.

Despite a distinct lack of publicity for the past few years, The Great Reset is alive and well – and I predicted that it would survive the initial public backlash and come back even stronger in my essays BlackRock Has a New Name for ESG and The End of ESG.

What is happening now may not be entirely driven by the Agenda 2030 goals, but it is certainly conducive to them, and it is entirely likely that Zionist, BlackRock CEO and World Economic Forum Chair Larry Fink had to sign off before Netanyahu and Trump started dropping bombs.

Thus, we see the convergence of two distinct but linked programs: the Great Reset and the Greater Israel project. Importantly these can coexist because their objectives are not mutually exclusive and, in some cases, perfectly aligned: both envision a new world hegemony under a technocratic, AI-driven surveillance state. It is logical that a Pax Judaica could fit the bill.

It is possible Israel would have gone regardless, dragging a clearly compromised President Trump with them on their crusade but there is enough commonality across the two agendas to suggest a happy marriage of convenience and crucially, the clownish response of our perennially inept politicians is not accidental – they have not been caught napping: war with Iran and resulting energy shock has almost certainly been gamed out as a precursor for the next phase of the Great Reset which is why the script sounds so familiar.

In the next few weeks, after repeating the trigger words “heavy-handed Covid style mandates” hundreds of times the government and its media mouthpieces will announce that for reasons completely beyond their control we are indeed experiencing another global crisis and then we will move into the well-trodden territory of privation and compliance and, like before, they will invoke the spirit of the Blitz – things are tough but keep calm and carry on, stay safe, be kind and be a good citizen.

This does not necessarily mean we are headed for another lockdown – but the term becomes moot at a certain point: if travel beyond our own neighbourhood (15-minute city) becomes unaffordable and food shortages make grocery shopping the primary household activity – then is there any meaningful difference between 2026 and 2020?

Even if the Iran situation resolves six months, a year, two years down the line, the Covid experience has taught us that consumer prices will not revert to pre-crisis levels but remain elevated. And even if the oil starts flowing freely again and the world economy on the other side largely resembles the pre-2026 situation, the protracted energy crunch will have conditioned us yet further towards an unstable world in which continuous disruption and cost of living hikes are the norm – and this is the psychological habituation implicit in the language of the Great Reset.

A colleague of mine who is in her mid-twenties remarked this week that she feels her entire adult life has been one crisis after another. I wanted to say: that’s exactly what you’re meant to feel, and become accustomed to.

It could be that I’m being too pessimistic and an offramp may be swiftly resolved but there is little evidence of this so far. Either way, the signals from the media will reliably indicate where things are headed – we need only listen out for the phrases that are repeated with an unnatural frequency.

And so, while sounding counterintuitive, it might pay to keep an eye on the nightly news and apply the Tate logic – just don’t do that ridiculous dance because this is already an utter clown show.

Subscribe now

In Season 5 of Mad Men, Roger Sterling, reaching an inflection point of identity crisis as his comfortable, predictable world is supplanted by the upheaval of the mid-sixties, poses a poignant question that many of us have asked ourselves in the post-Covid world: “When is everything going to get back to normal?”

The implicit answer to Roger’s question is of course, never. The stable and insular ‘normal’ he once knew – defined by his inherited status and the post war social order – has become a thing of the past – worse still, may have been an aberration – and all his attempts to alleviate the pain through selling off his business and marrying a younger woman only compound his troubles.

The people of the West might well sympathise with Roger in this moment, and even join him in a commiseratory drink, for his plight is ours in March of 2026. That old normal we’ve been chasing for six years, possibly within grasp again as the inflation of the Covid spending finally began to feel manageable – it’s gone. Worse still, it was never coming back.

Truth be known that safe, orderly world we remember from the eighties and nineties was a mirage – the afterglow of a once-in-a-millennium boomtime: that roaring hegemonic run which swelled the ranks of the middle class and conferred on the Boomers their majority shareholder status in the grand enterprise of 20^th Century capitalism.

It was never coming back and the deepening catastrophe in the Middle East is perhaps the final, virtually incontrovertible evidence that the past quarter-century has indeed been a gradual, controlled demolition of what we naïvely thought of as our way of life.

The Great Reset hasn’t had much air recently, but its fingerprints are all over the current moment, and excluding the unlikely hope of rapid de-escalation in the short term and political deliverance through post-Trump populism like Restore Britain in the longer term, the trajectory for the Christian West appears clear: managed decline into poverty and serfdom.

The Ratchet

A friend of mine, who since Covid has taken to asking me for predictions on macro-political events, asked recently what I thought would happen with the looming Iran conflict. I paused – not out of uncertainty, but caution. This is the kind of prediction that has a habit of aging badly.

If I had to wager, I told her, it would not be a dramatic escalation followed by resolution, but something more insidious: a long, grinding entanglement. Not a shock, but a drag. The kind of geopolitical friction that expresses itself less in headlines than in supermarket receipts – persistent supply constraints, elevated energy costs, and the slow ratcheting upward of prices that never quite come back down.

Because that, more than anything, has been the defining economic experience of the past forty years.

The popular instinct is to describe our situation as a “cost of living crisis,” as though it were a discrete event – like a storm that passes, or as former Federal Reserve Chair Janet Yellen assured us in 2021 “transitory”. The former phrase has in fact been so overused by the media and adopted so blindly by the masses that it is now unironically synonymous with “normality”.

Indeed, what we are living through is better understood as an accumulation. The inflationary surge that followed Covid did not reset; it settled at a higher baseline. Now, fresh pressures begin to stack on top of it. The movement is not cyclical in the way we once understood it. It is directional.

What followed Covid did not initiate this trend; it accelerated and exposed a multi-generational drift; a peculiar form of decline – not sudden absolute impoverishment, but the erosion of assumptions. The assumption that each generation will do better than the last. The assumption that temporary hardship will be followed by recovery. The assumption that stability is the default condition of Western life.

It is in this gap – between expectation and reality – that the present unease resides.

There are shades of T. S. Eliot’s “The Hollow Men” in this sense of civilisational unmooring, not of catastrophe, but slow diminishment – incremental, often barely perceptible, but cumulative.

Eliot was reacting to the spiritual malaise that followed the Great War in this poem but that biblical bloodletting was only the initial jab of a one-two combo which the devastating cross punch of World War 2 would complete – what a friend and contemporary of mine who writes for The XYZ described to me this past weekend as a rupturing of the Western consciousness so severe that we sacrificed ourselves on the alter of liberalism and effectively set about dismantling our own civilisation.

We are now in round twelve, groggy and punch drunk, reeling from the Covid jab (pun intended) and barely registering the incoming Iran cross hit that threatens to decouple us not merely from our identity, as earlier in the bout, but from our very humanity.

The Machinery

This drift has not been an accident of history. It has been shaped, reinforced, and at times accelerated by political choices – choices made in full view, often under the banner of stability, and almost always at odds with the instincts of the populations they purported to serve.

One such instinct – preeminent in the 21^st Century – is populist nativism, the force that brought Donald Trump twice to office and furnished his MAGA brand with political currency for over a decade. Little need be said about the current situation in both the United States and the Persian Gulf other than this:

Trump campaigned on mass deportations and no new wars. Within 14 months of taking office, he has binned his deportation mandate and started another war in the Middle East.

The betrayal is unmitigated and unparalleled. And yet this too manifests as a slow and, to many, almost imperceptible drift rather than a seismic shift.

Over the past decade, the establishment has shrewdly deradicalised MAGA through a combination of propaganda, neocon infiltration, and political gangsterism – not least the assassination (or false flag psyop) of Charlie Kirk (as discussed in my essay Beyond the Machine), corralling Kirk’s increasingly Christian followers back within the secular Republican plantation and delivering them six months later to the Zionist war machine.

The resulting civil war within MAGA shows the President’s transformation has not gone unnoticed, yet it has failed to dissuade Trump from his present course of action illustrating the ideological capture not only of the administration but also the base. It is to this infiltration that we must now turn.

Trump’s submission to Israel and his Zionist donors is undeniable. Whether he was always a creature of this lobby or has been turned more recently through bribery, blackmail or his own hubris is irrelevant at this point – what started as a four day ‘operation’ has become a four-week war with no end in sight and the growing likelihood of ‘boots on the ground’, a move which even if initially confined to a limited amphibious incursion to reopen the Strait of Hormuz, may well precipitate a full-scale infantry invasion of the mainland, and even the use of nuclear weapons.

Those of us who remember the Bush years and truly believed Trump was different can still barely believe the headlines. The betrayal is so complete that it transcends borders and settles on the hearts of dissidents and nativists across the Anglosphere for in Trump we of the white, Christian West saw hope – a blueprint for political resistance to globalism, and salvation from replacement migration and endless destabilisation through manufactured conflicts and crises.

And so what presents itself, at first glance, as rupture – indeed as the worst kind of betrayal, a decisive break from the promise of disruption itself – resolves on closer inspection into something more familiar. Not a break from the pattern, but its continuation: the same slow accommodation, the same narrowing of possibility, the same quiet subordination of popular will to forces it cannot meaningfully challenge. The machinery absorbs, redirects, and continues on its course.

The Hollow Men

Yet even here – having traced the economic pressures and political distortions that shape our present moment – we are left circling a deeper uncertainty. For whether one attributes these outcomes to ideology, to competing power structures, or to the impersonal logic of systems, the result is the same: a civilisation that no longer appears to act with a clear sense of itself.

Western man, for all the assaults on his identity, still remembers the good times – the four-bedroom house and station wagon; the yearly vacation to the beach or lake; Friday night takeaways and Saturday morning sport; Easter egg hunts and Christmas carols. The middle-class promise. And fundamentally he still clings to it, and so joins Roger Sterling in lament: When is everything going to get back to normal?

Even the most cynical among us after all the revelations of the Covid psyop nursed a fragile hope that the world we grew up in might be returned to us. In Fitzgeraldian prose, we did not know it was already behind us.

An epoch lost can never be truly reclaimed but it can perhaps be rebuilt. There are those such as Simon Dixon who argue this war is not about ideology or even geopolitics but a deeper contest between competing economic interests within the system itself, but even if the underlying drivers are economic or structural, the response of the population – what it supports, tolerates, or fails to question – is still shaped by its identity.

At face value Israel has plunged the world into war and whether we care to admit it or not, our collective identity in the West has largely rallied around the glib talking points of Benjamin Netanyahu: This is simply zero-sum realpolitik – the valiant ‘Judeo-Christian’ West against brutish expansionist Islam.

The permissiveness with which this paradigm is viewed by the Boomer custodians of acceptable political thought throughout the Anglosphere is revealing and redolent of figures such as Pete Hegseth, Mike Huckabee and Ted Cruz. I have observed it firsthand in my life also – the way Israel, and Jewishness in general, is fetishised by my parents’ generation, and the grave import they attach to the maintenance of a Jewish nation-state while casually facilitating their own ethnic replacement through the repeated election of hostile globalist governments for the past forty years.

Thus, our response to this renewed assault on our already battered standard of living – with prices unchanged since Covid set to rise further – is shaped by a distorted identity which attaches more importance to the war aims of a foreign people than to our own wellbeing.

We of the nominally Christian West have become Eliot’s hollow men – outsourcing our moral and symbolic centre to an ersatz, skin-suited version of ourselves. Decades of Schindler’s List and Saving Private Ryan have cultivated in us both a nonspecific guilt and a misplaced allegiance to a political dynamic that was never in our best interests.

But we were primed for such a spiritual occupation. A society that still calls itself Christian, yet no longer derives its identity, confidence, or moral framework from that tradition, will inevitably seek orientation elsewhere – politically, culturally, even symbolically. And in doing so, it reveals not conviction, but absence – the drift into hollowness.

To break the spell, we must lean into our heritage and rediscover our faith.

We must take our own side.

This must inevitably involve consolidating the right-wing voting bloc around true nativist candidates and parties like Restore Britain but it starts with something much simpler and more elemental: We must rewrite the story we tell ourselves about who we are.

We must redefine what we believe and why we believe it through a factual accounting of our moral DNA – a process that can only be grounded in the truth about where we come from and what makes us different and special, not being the footnote in someone else’s story.

We must adopt the spiritual framework necessary to undertake such a reckoning – and the hour is late, for as we stay dazed and fixated on false idols, the civilisational drift continues, borne on ceaselessly toward its hollow and inevitable conclusion:

This is the way the world ends, not with a bang but a whimper.

And there’s another country, I’ve heard of long ago
Most dear to them that love her, most great to them that know.

Alongside “Jerusalem”, “I Vow to Thee My Country” – from which those lines are taken – was my favourite hymn at school. No chapel service, nor even the weekly hour-long congregational practice, was time ill-spent if our gothic director of music, affectionately known as “Drac”, gave us a crack at that belter.

Most Anglican boys’ schools manage a respectable rendition of one or two great hymns. But our choral tradition was the strongest in the Southern Hemisphere – we even recorded an album in 1997 – and anything we turned our collective voice toward could be heard blocks away.

We had our favourites. “Jerusalem” was the unofficial school song and never failed to raise the roof. “Battle Hymn of the Republic” whipped us into such a frenzy that even Drac sometimes seemed startled by the thunder he’d unleashed.

But for true goosebumps, nothing touched Cecil Spring Rice’s patriotic anthem set to Holst’s soaring Jupiter.

At sixteen, it was clear to me that the second verse – that “other country” – referred to the Kingdom of Heaven. And yet those first two lines always suggested something else, hinted at in fine print beneath the hymn’s title:

The two fatherlands.

Antipodean in parentage and citizenship though I was, I had been born in the old country, held a British passport, and – after long sabbatical sojourns in England during my father’s academic career – nursed an intense patriotism and precocious nostalgia that startled my fifth-form English teacher when I submitted an essay titled “I Remember Webland”, a sentimental ode to my godparents’ Devon farmhouse.

The two fatherlands.

The phrase shimmered with an almost dangerous aura. Though I knew my imagination stretched the hymn beyond its intent, those frosty Friday recitals in the college chapel spun for me a thread of meaning at once personal and collective – summoning romantic visions of Empire and a fierce adolescent love for my two fatherlands: New Zealand and England.

For years I saw Britain – for all her faults – as the locus of my cultural, ethnic, and spiritual identity. Watching the grotesque clown show she has become over the past two decades, I have all but given up on the country of my birth and ancestral home.

No Political Solution

For a decade many of us in the besieged Anglosphere have gazed to America in the vain hope of populist salvation. As Britain and her former outposts withered like a straw fence before the wildfire of woke globalism, that city on the hill shone bravely on, offering the fragile consolation that what starts in the USA most often spreads everywhere.

The movement was real, and perhaps the candidate was too – in the beginning. But the shameful truth is that Donald Trump has proven nothing substantively more than a shallow blowhard with good marketing skills, his administration as corrupt and compromised as any in history, and his presidency fast becoming an unmitigated disaster.

It would be laughable had so many of us not foolishly pegged our hopes to this showman, and the horror of the Trump mirage is compounded by the sunk cost fallacy of the millions of pathetic MAGA diehards who still cling to the illusion.

Smart politicos like Nick Fuentes called it early, and much to my own discredit I was not among them. But unlike notable MAGA jesters such as Tim Pool and his cast of cartoon sycophants, I have confronted the dismal truth. Eight months ago I publicly gave up on Trump and embraced the somewhat loaded axiom ‘no political solution’ – and long-time readers will note a marked theological drift in my writing since then.

Books will be written about Trump’s duplicitous failures but in short, he has reneged on every one of his campaign platforms – from building the wall to mass deportations to ending the Ukraine war. He has completely flubbed the Epstein issue, first with the attempted hoodwink of the ridiculous ‘binders’, then his admission via Pam Bondi that the files were on her desk and awaiting review, then flipping into gaslight mode and claiming there were no files, calling them a “Democrat hoax”, then releasing three million heavily redacted files which raised more questions than they answered and declaring the case closed. This alone has rendered him a lame duck and likely candidate for the Nixon treatment.

But his most egregious sin has been the complete betrayal of Make America Great Again. The Trump of 2015 was a brash outsider; a bellicose billionaire who “didn’t need Wall Street’s money” – whose campaign promise was to wrench America free from the vice grip of international finance, special interests and globalists, and return it to the people. The Trump of 2026 is completely subservient to the very special interest groups he vowed to smash.

Donald Trump is a puppet president like all the rest and more fool those of us who ever believed otherwise. The very best thing that can be said about him is that he changed the conversation and made is slightly less stigmatising to oppose wokeness.

It has been the blackest pill to swallow for we who saw in Trump a last gasp, hail Mary chance for a political solution – a baptism of fire for we who had all but lost faith in liberal democracy and the party-political system. If salvation would not come from the Land of the Free, the last place on earth protected from the Marxist cancer of hate speech legislation, then it would not come at all. In the ignominious revelation of the true Trump, it could finally be stated plainly: There is no political solution…

But there’s another country…

And then along came Rupert Lowe with his grim, no-nonsense and refreshingly honest pitch which basically stated: If we want our country back, it’s going to require hard work and sacrifice, and things will probably get worse before they get better.

Immediately, we see a stark departure from standard political messaging which promises all things to all people for no effort expended. After the decades of bullshit and perfidy, this is message, while bleak, is something people can believe in for the simple truth that anything worth having always requires painful sacrifice.

Within a week of its launch, Restore Britain gained 80,000 members – an astronomical success story eclipsing all other upstart parties in recent history, and Lowe’s austere announcement video was viewed over 40 million times across platforms in just a few days…

One way of looking at the political situation in the West is to declare it hopeless once passed a certain threshold. In Britain’s case, this threshold was certainly reached under the Sunak and Starmer governments – the rampant replacement migration and Stasi style speech policing being only the most visible signs of a tyrannical globalist regime so drunk on power that even the pretence of democracy is slipping.

The other view is that when things get bad enough, the people will rise up.

Is the snowballing popularity of Restore Britain a signal that we have reached this inflection point? That what looked like a defeated nation was in fact a sleeping giant? That a true populist revolution is in the pipeline.

Early indications would suggest so, but we mustn’t get ahead of ourselves – the 2015 MAGA movement had similar energy and look how that turned out. The question we must ask as Rupert Lowe rallies the downtrodden folk the British Isles is not “Can such a movement gain critical mass in Britain?” but “As we approach 2030, can a nativist, hard right movement like Restore Britain not only survive the reputational attack of regime propaganda, but, if elected, withstand infiltration by the big-monied special interests that have gelded the Trump administration?”

The answer will either demonstrate that there is still some utility in representative democracy, or that there is indeed no political solution. Either way, Restore Britain will serve as a meaningful bellwether going into the 2030s as the heavily disillusioned Zoomers become a meaningful political and economic bloc.

The lessons of MAGA and Trump have been hard-learned and, while I am enthusiastic about Rupert Lowe’s vision and the surging growth of Restore Britain, I remain cautiously sceptical. Candidates must be selected, plus the party platform is yet to be fully developed and, importantly, hedges somewhat on the topic of mass deportation. For any serious right-wing patriot or nativist in 2026, this issue must be the deal breaker.

Lowe has pledged to “reverse” mass immigration. To the voter who wants meaningful change, this would look like it sounds: mass deportations – in the millions. Unfortunately, Lowe proposes only to deport those in Britain illegally, those who are not gainfully employed, and those who pose a criminal or clear ideological threat. That’s not a bad start but even a cursory AI sense check of the arithmetic strongly suggests that “the share of migrants fitting Lowe’s deportation criteria is likely in the low-teens percentage range at most, and potentially lower depending on how narrowly “not gainfully employed” and “ideological threat” are defined. It is very unlikely to approach anything close to a majority of the total number.”

We can dissect the vagaries of woke globalism at length and still only gain a strategic understanding of the enemy. To meet him in battle, we must understand his tactical weaponry – and this is two pronged:

1. Reduce our numbers through antinatalism (financial impediments, abortion, feminism, climate change ideology)

2. Replace us with malleable Third World men of fighting age

This is the marquee issue, and we are only a generation from total occupation. While it is true that, at current levels, white British will not become an absolute minority until sometime around the late 2070s, an absolute majority is not needed to jam up a political system and stymie the nativist voting bloc. It only takes around 30-35% of voters to create an effective veto and given that a significant segment of the white British electorate supports continued mass immigration, the actual point of no return – at which a party like Restore will be rendered impotent – lies just over the horizon, somewhere in the 2030s.

As such, the 2029 general election could be Britain’s last chance.

So dire is the dilemma, in fact, that most people avoid thinking about it – the left, by actively embracing our ethnic suicide; and the right, with pathetic copium like Donald Trump or Nigel Farage. For me personally, few existential conundrums have ever loomed so large; it is a sensation akin to getting fifteen minutes from home before realising you’ve left something cooking on the stove, and I too am guilty of having shoved this spectre to the back of my mind. So much so that even a fleeting refrain from “I Vow to Thee My Country” evokes a nostalgic grief so cutting that it can cause physical discomfort.

Ironically that other country I sung about in school, that second fatherland, is perilously close to becoming a myth – just a place I’ve heard of long ago.

Crunching the numbers

Predictably, The Machine is already painting Rupert Lowe, and his supporters as far right Nazi hooligans and establishment turncoat Farage has been activated, vowing to defeat the racist Restore party just like he did the BNP.

This is pure fodder for the normies and to anyone even partially unplugged from the matrix Lowe’s message is anything but extreme, is in fact alarmingly centrist and depressingly reminiscent of Trump’s fizzling mass deportation pantomime.

Rhetorically, his pledge sounds encouraging but the math tells a different story. Even if we take the conservative official figures for net immigration to the UK since the start of the Blair era, we are still talking about 6 million people. If we reasonably assume that 10-15% of these meet Lowe’s criteria, that’s ~550,000–900,000 available for deportation. This still leaves over 5 million foreigners – assuming the official figures are not dramatically understated, which they almost certainly are.

We must also assume that even if politically mandated, removals will be severely bottlenecked by:

1. Legal appeals (Article 8 ECHR, asylum claims, judicial review)

2. Documentation (many migrants lack passports)

3. Origin country cooperation

4. Detention estate capacity

5. Administrative staffing

6. Risk of labour shortages if employment status is interpreted loosely

Therefore, let us assume an ascendant Restore government was constrained to the low end and identified 550,000 for deportation. The question then turns to practical feasibility, which my AI modelling estimates as follows:

The UK currently demonstrates an annual deportation capacity of ~15,000.

Scenario A – Maintain Current Capacity (~15,000/year)

• 550,000 ÷ 15,000 = ~37 years

• Functionally symbolic, not transformative

Scenario B – Double Capacity (~30,000/year)

Requires:

• Major expansion of detention space

• Court capacity expansion

• Bilateral repatriation agreements

• Substantially larger enforcement staff

Timeline:

• 550,000 ÷ 30,000 = ~18 years

• Still generational and well outside the expected tenure of an upstart government regardless of initial popularity.

Scenario C – Very Aggressive Push (~60,000/year)

This would require:

• Emergency-style scaling

• Dramatically accelerated tribunal processing

• Possibly legislative curtailment of appeal rights

• Significant diplomatic pressure on origin countries

Timeline:

• 550,000 ÷ 60,000 = ~9 years

• Only now are we talking about something visible within two parliamentary terms – but this would be unprecedented in modern UK practice.

The rather dismal conclusion then is that even if we accept the dubious notion that half a million deportations will have a significant impact, at current capacity even removing half a million people would take decades. At highly expanded capacity we’re still talking almost 20 years. Such programs are entirely fanciful in a liberal democracy for no party can seriously offer solutions on the assumption that they will hold power for up to four terms.

To complete even this modest token gesture within a single 5-year parliament would require deporting over 100,000 people per year, which would be several multiples of historic UK practice and would represent a fundamental transformation of the immigration enforcement system.

So, the real question isn’t “is it possible?” but “is there political, legal, and fiscal appetite for building a deportation system several times larger than the UK has ever run?” And the answer to this question is entirely contingent on my initial question:

Can a nativist, hard right movement like Restore Britain not only survive the reputational attack of regime propaganda, but, if elected, withstand infiltration by the big-monied special interests that have gelded the Trump administration?

Even a cursory Week 1 sense check tells us that Rupert Lowe and Restore have a very long rope to climb – even to achieve a modicum of real change.

The love that pays the price

But this is the whole point of Restore Britain – in Lowe’s own words: “Hard work, responsibility, effort, duty, stewardship … there are no easy fixes. I’m not going to tell you comforting lies about the condition of our country … What is necessary will be incredibly painful”.

Unlike other populist leaders who employ soaring rhetoric replete with promises of prosperity, Lowe’s bleak opening statement treats us like capable adults rather than an unruly class of first graders with their eyes fixed on the candy jar.

Are half a million deportations enough?

Not to reverse the damage that has been done to the national character. Not enough to satisfy those of us who want a literal restoration of the country we remember from the 1980s.

But if ALL further arrivals are halted indefinitely and the worst of those already in the country are removed, then perhaps it will be enough to stabilise, strengthen and preserve what is left – the England I remember…

Rolling hills and narrow country lanes; low ceilinged pubs that smell like old wood and five centuries of beer; church bells on Sunday morning and a cheerful “hullo” from your local newsagent; bluebells in the woods in springtime and bare branches outlined against a muddy December sky.

And perhaps if such a movement can flourish in Britain – as the junior partner in the Anglo-Western world order, and just as it once exported its governing systems to the world – Restore may catch on elsewhere.

Today, I have undertaken something not only entirely new to me, but also something I had recently sworn I would never do: I have become a member of a political party.

My membership of Restore Britain is a surprising anathema to my recent political nihilism and that’s okay – because hope is a good thing, even if it risks foolishness. Membership of Restore does not repudiate my position that without Christ, human organisation is doomed to corruption and tyranny as outlined in this previous essay and this one – on the contrary, Restore’s own elevator pitch makes ample room for our faith.

Politics is not redemption. Only Christ redeems. At best, politics can preserve, restrain, or buy time. Civilisations are not saved at the ballot box; they are either renewed in spirit, or they decay. Restore Britain is therefore not a saviour, but a mechanism – a tool that may yet slow the rot long enough for something deeper to take root.

Crucially, such loyalty as I have to this party is not unconditional – I will watch closely, and you may expect not-infrequent commentary as we gear up for 2029 and, should Restore Britain succeed in its bid for office, I will forgive not one deviation from its stated charter.

Thus far though, I cannot fault the sentiment.

From the new member email that I have just received from Rupert Lowe:

Radically restored? That’s good enough for me.

We may remain entirely sceptical of party politics but £20 a year is a small price to pay for hope. Meantime, we may revel in the supreme irony of joining a political party mere months after declaring no political solution, and we may commit ourselves to whatever hard work, responsibility, effort, duty, stewardship we are capable of in the furtherance of ethnic and national revival.

The promise of Restore Britain is not the blazing spotlights and fireworks that accompany figures like Donald Trump and Erika Kirk, it is a wind battered torch, flickering out in the distant darkness.

Churchill was a fraud and a villain but a masterful orator nonetheless and an apt symbol for what Britain must now endure – and so, to plagiarise his wartime rhetoric, Lowe’s pledge wins us over not because he promises broad sunlit uplands, but blood, toil, tears and sweat.

And so, thirty years on, the double meaning of Spring Rice’s anthem takes on a new significance for me. And for all its imperfections the once great Anglo-Christian people may look to the fragile flame of hope now glimmering in our ancestral fatherland and find our forgotten voice…

I vow to thee, my country, all earthly things above
Entire and whole and perfect, the service of my love
The love that asks no question, the love that stands the test
That lays upon the altar, the dearest and the best
The love that never falters, the love that pays the price
The love that makes undaunted the final sacrifice

And there’s another country, I’ve heard of long ago
Most dear to them that love her, most great to them that know
We may not count her armies, we may not see her king
Her fortress is a faithful heart, her pride is suffering
And soul by soul, and silently her shining bounds increase
And her ways are ways of gentleness, and all her paths are peace

In the nineties, being anti-establishment was easy. Punk, grunge, gangster rap and smoking behind the school chapel was still enough to horrify the Boomers. Rebellion had a soundtrack, a uniform, and an audience primed to clutch its pearls.

Within a decade, most of it had been swallowed by The Machine. The music was monetised, the aesthetics sanitised, and progressive liberalism itself hardened into something resembling a state religion. By the 2010s, many in my generation – eager to preserve an anti-authority identity – drifted into internet politics, helping birth what is now lazily called the “online right.”

But The Machine, ever vigilant and endlessly adaptive, learned the terrain quickly. It absorbed what it could, ostracised what it couldn’t, and neutralised each challenge at the moment it threatened to cohere.

By 2016, anti-establishment energy had found a new avatar: Donald Trump. We revelled in the chaos he injected into our sensible, centrist, middle-class world – and once again, our parents were horrified.

In 2026, they have finally caught up. In true Boomer fashion, Trump has been embraced just as he is becoming uncool. Like most outsiders before him, our friend Donald has been domesticated.

So where does that leave the anti-establishmentarians of Generations X and Y? If we look to our Zoomer offspring, the answer appears – somewhat unsurprisingly – to lie in the final taboo: Hitler as the ultimate transgressive symbol.

Indeed, so far to the right has Gen-Z drifted that even gigachad Andrew Tate is now taking fire for not being antisemitic enough in the wake of January 17-18’s ‘Clubocaust’ at Vendôme nightclub in Miami, where he was livestreamed with fellow online right and manosphere influencers Nick Fuentes, Sneako, Myron Gaines, Clavicular and others while Ye’s controversial song “Heil Hitler” was played by the DJ.

The incident, which quickly melted the internet, was but one minute of an hours-long stream featuring the influencers across several locations in Miami on Saturday night and into the small hours of Sunday morning. Immediately before arriving at the club in a Mercedes Sprinter van, Sneako is seen to commandeer the Bluetooth and play “Heil Hitler” to the enthusiastic acclaim of all passengers except Tate and construction tycoon Justin Waller who remain impassive, perhaps even slightly derisive.

Upon entering the club, the group (also comprising Tate’s younger brother Tristan and Gaines’s offsider from the Fresh and Fit podcast, Walter Weekes) basically stood around for an hour ‘mogging’ but doing very little of any interest until the song was again played – this time by the club DJ, evidently at the instigation of Gaines and Weekes. During the roughly 60 seconds of play time, the entire entourage apart from Tate and Waller is seen dancing, singing along, and even – in the case of Sneako and Gaines – throwing up Roman salutes.

The fallout has been biblical: Within hours it was international news; the ADL bolted out the gate with the bit between its teeth; both mainstream and alternative media on the left and right went into conniptions; the mayor of Miami took to the stage and reminded everyone that 6 million Jews were killed in the Holocaust; Vendôme fired three employees; and each individual in the Tate-Fuentes party was banned from every hospitality venue in Miami for life.

In one of the most Jewish cities on the planet, it’s not difficult to see why this caused such an outcry. But in case you hadn’t noticed (Boomers and sensible centrists), that’s the whole point.

Zoomers, and in particular young men across the West, have been so battered and betrayed at every juncture and left so little to believe in that edgelord takes on the ‘JQ’ once confined to places like 4chan have broken out into real world situations and the outrage this generates is not only the objective of the trolling but also adds fuel to their fire. Within their worldview, outrage is not rebuttal but confirmation.

Antisemitism has been on the rise across the world in the past decade, fuelled in no small part by influencers like Nick Fuentes whose combination of unapologetic meme humour, razor-sharp geopolitical analysis, and fact-based critiques of Zionism has endeared him to millions and, despite the hardest non-lethal cancellation ever applied to an individual by The Machine, made him one of the most watched live streamers in the world.

But it is broader than single personalities. It goes beyond Fuentes and Kanye West. It’s bigger even than war, and transcends the Gaza genocide. The phenomenon may well have its genesis in millions of average people simply ‘noticing’ – as the Groyper parlance goes.

As the right has slowly moved the ball forward against wokeness over the past decade and a half, taboo after taboo has fallen before the backlash. Sacred cows it was unthinkable to publicly criticise even a few years ago have been knocked off their pedestals and returned to their appropriate place as fair game along with the rest of us. As each protected class fell, the right notched up another victory, and concurrently, the shrieking epithets of the left began to lose their power.

Perhaps it is apt to a generation of streamers to apply a gaming metaphor at this point: the Zoomer right believe they have reached the final boss.

He writhes and roars beneath their repeated salvos but will not die like his minions in the previous levels – he keeps on coming, aflame and furious with bloody vengeance in his eyes.

For a movement whose very reason for existing is the freedom to criticise people it disagrees with to finally come up against a protected class that cannot be toppled and just comes back harder and louder each time with the full backing of the establishment, it’s small wonder so many on the right believe they’ve identified the ultimate villain.

This is what Kanye was invoking in the infamous song: You people keep fucking with me and when I ask questions I get no answers; instead, you just call me ‘antisemitic’ and ‘crazy’, so fuck you – I’ll be the villain… nigga Heil Hitler.

The fierce and prescriptive reaction that occurs whenever Israel, Zionism, or Jews in general are questioned or criticised is certainly noteworthy, and it could be argued that if the anti-woke crusade of the past 15 years has ultimately proven anything it is that the one identity group among so many previously untouchable victim classes that must never be criticised is the Jews. The reaction to the Tate-Fuentes ‘Clubocaust’ this past week certainly supports such a thesis.

One does not need to agree with Fuentes and the Groypers to identify a pattern here. One does not need to condone the playing of that song in a Miami nightclub and the performative relish with which members of the group reacted to understand why this particular track is being used like kryptonite against what they and many millions of others see as Jewish control of American and global institutions.

Of course, suggesting such a thing in Australia would land you in the kind of legal peril most people only read about in thrillers, courtesy of the Combatting Antisemitism, Hate and Extremism Bill 2026, and here at Anxiety Addiction & Ascension, we bravely tiptoe around hate speech like seasoned tightrope walkers. But, as a purely hypothetical thought experiment, let us suppose someone did suggest that a particular ethnic group controls the world, and that every cultural, financial, and governmental institution immediately springs into strident condemnation, shrieking accusations of racism in unison. In that case, can we really blame the Zoomers and the new online right for assuming they might be over the target?

Subscribe now

And was the flak ever so thick? Indeed, amid the fallout from the Clubocaust, the crew have turned on one another with the Tate brothers firmly distancing themselves from the shenanigans and throwing Sneako under the bus. Sneako has fired back, suggesting that Tate “got the phone call” and has sold out. Meantime Gaines tries to mediate the feud while his podcast cohost Weekes falls in behind Tate and trashes Sneako (which is rich given that he appears to be responsible for getting the song played at the club). Ironically, Fuentes has come out looking the cleanest, having remained largely in the background for most of the stream, and now sits on the fence defending both Sneako and Tate, both of whom he says are his friends.

So why do we care that this unlikely alliance of Groypers, trolls and moggers are infighting? What’s significant is not the buck-passing, but who is doing it. All these guys (and none more than Tate) have built their careers on being based chads – edgy taboo-breakers who never apologise. Fuentes, Gaines, Sneako and Clavicular have remained unrepentant, and their stock is soaring with the online right. Tate, however, has taken a hit to his credibility, especially it would seem with the Zoomers who, despite their cultural figurehead’s defence of Tate, appear to be falling into a purity spiral.

The day after this all blew up, Andrew Tate appeared on Patrick Bet-David’s podcast where he was immediately subjected to a 50-minute struggle session by PBD’s Jewish cohost Adam Sosnick. Instead of responding with the characteristic Tate flamboyance – which might have sounded something like: It’s just a song. Moreover, I didn’t put it on, I didn’t sing along, I didn’t dance. Next question. – he delivered a meandering torrent of weasel words and apologised to anyone who might have been offended…

Hardly the Tate of yesteryear. This may be the first time he has ever publicly apologised. Talk about kissing the ring… or kissing the wall, as Sneako and his fans are suggesting.

In their zealotry, the Zoomer right are quick to write off anyone who won’t go all-in on the ‘JQ’ and read Tate’s reticence as evidence that he, like Trump and so many others, are controlled opposition.

But this reading confuses ideological retreat with strategic caution. Perhaps Tate’s silence here tells us more than a brash rebuff ever could. Indeed, he is behaving less like a paid shill and more like a man cautiously navigating a topic that he knows could result in… violence… or even (someone’s) death.

Many enraged netizens would retort that Nick, Sneako and Myron have all remained unapologetic and fearless – so what’s Tate’s problem? Who’s pulling his strings?

Seen from our side of the world – where words can carry consequences even the famous cannot escape – Tate’s caution suddenly makes perfect sense. It is very possible no one is pulling his strings and simply that Tate understands something regular US citizens with First Amendment protections may not. He is currently facing what are almost certainly trumped-up criminal charges in two jurisdictions – the UK and the EU – both of which have hate speech laws.

Australian readers may indeed sympathise with Tate’s position. Here in the Lucky Country, we’ve seen first-hand what unchecked hate can do and, with our robust new hate speech laws, we understand – perhaps better than our unruly American cousins – that words can be violence.

Thankfully for the safety of all vulnerable minorities in Australia (especially the Jews), our hate speech legislation was passed with lightning speed, barely a month after the Bondi Beach terrorist attack – which despite what I may have intimated in my previous essay and despite what many whack-jobs on the internet are claiming, was definitely an organic act of terrorism. After the tragic events at Bondi, we Australians know full well how harmful words and ideas can be to particularly vulnerable communities such as the Jews. And while the bill’s language is vague and ambiguous, and its enforcement subject to the feelings of the complainant and the mood of the arresting officers and the presiding judge, it gives us very clear guidance on the types of statements that a “reasonable Jewish person” could experience as promoting hatred.

As such, we in Australia now understand just how hatred can blossom, fester and boil over into violence even through seemingly reasonable suggestions such as:

• Jews have too much influence in media, banking or politics

• Zionists control Western governments

• The Holocaust has been exploited

• Jewish diasporas may be more loyal to Israel

• The Jews killed Christ

Like Ye – who has just issued an extensive apology, saying “I’m not an antisemite … I love Jewish people” – Andrew Tate is a man of the world and knows that someone as influential as he is must be very careful what he says – not because international Jewry has immense power and could see to it that he and his family suffer (obviously, that’s pure conspiracy nonsense – the kind that gets you cancelled faster than you can say ‘Heil Hitler’) – but because he has spent time in countries with hate speech laws and recognises (as we do here, thanks to our illuminating new legislation) that Jews are not organised and powerful, but vulnerable – more vulnerable even than other minority groups – and that words can be violence.

So while the Zoomers, Groypers, and online right in the US do have a constitutional right to ask questions about Jews, Israel and Zionism, they remain insulated from the realities that govern speech elsewhere in the Western world.

Andrew Tate, by contrast, has already encountered those realities firsthand. Tempered by constraints familiar to Australians, Europeans and Britons alike, he has learned where the lines are drawn – and for that, we welcome him to the sensible side of the aisle, at least for now.

Subscribe now

“Australia has been changed forever” – within hours of the Bondi attack, that phrase had already done its work.

Before facts had settled, before investigations had meaningfully begun, before the public had even finished processing what had happened, the emotional conclusion was already in place. Australia was told it had crossed a threshold. Life, we were assured, would never be the same.

This is not how truth emerges. It is how consent is manufactured.

In moments of genuine shock, political power and mass media do not improvise – they revert to a familiar script. Fear is amplified, grief is channelled, and complexity is quietly removed. Certain interpretations are elevated to moral imperatives, while others are rendered unspeakable. The public is invited to mourn, to unify, and above all, to comply.

What followed the Bondi attack was not merely news coverage. It was a coordinated narrowing of acceptable thought – one that framed antisemitism, gun control, and national trauma as settled conclusions, while deeper questions were pushed firmly out of view.

The speed with which this process unfolded made its predictability impossible to ignore.

Within minutes of the attack, I predicted that by sunrise two themes would dominate coverage. By 8am, they had not merely appeared – they were being repeated verbatim by politicians, police, and presenters alike.

1. Antisemitism is a scourge that must be stamped out

2. Gun control is back on the table for national discussion

The message was everywhere. 9News, 7NEWS, Sky News and the ABC all struck the same sombre note, echoed down the chain by breakfast radio, online headlines, and social feeds. Different logos, identical conclusions.

Switch on a television today in Australia and you will indeed learn from Prime Minister Anthony Albanese, New South Wales Premier Chris Minns, New South Wales Police Commissioner Mal Lanyon, and all manner of reporters, ‘community leaders’ and randomly assorted witnesses and local residents that:

• Antisemitism is a scourge that must be stamped out

• Gun control is back on the table for national discussion

Further to this, you will quickly understand, in terms of the utmost gravity that:

• There were DEFINITELY only two men involved (even though the investigation is ongoing)

• The firearms used were licenced by the perpetrators, and thus LEGAL

• Antisemitism seeps into all levels of society but ESPECIALLY via SOCIAL MEDIA

• Australia has been CHANGED FOREVER

• The HEROISM of one brave Australian (named Ahmed al Ahmed) saved countless lives

• This is NOT a time for anger and revenge

• This is a horrific and intolerable attack on the JEWISH COMMUNITY

• BUT this is ALSO an attack on ALL AUSTRALIANS and our cherished way of life.

I resisted the urge to ride the news cycle and publish immediately, choosing instead to spend the day writing this essay with care. What follows is an attempt to slow the moment down, strip away emotional framing, and examine what is actually being said, repeated, and normalised in the hours following the Bondi attack.

And this is where the story stops being about tragedy – and starts being about power.

Today we fly our flags at half mast and “wrap our arms around” the Jewish Community in Australia and murmur earnestly to our friends and coworkers in a manner befitting the darkest day in Australia’s history since the Port Arthur Massacre…

We know the drill at this point: 9/11, 7/7, October 7… We perform this well-rehearsed pantomime with a familiar grim doggedness; even a perverse kind of joy… dancing to the perfectly choreographed operetta being performed on loop by our trusted agents of authority.

Can we stop? Can we please stop now?

No, we cannot. It’s a dark dark day in Australia’s history.

And indeed it is. But not because 16 people have been killed and many more wounded. Of course every needless death is a tragedy and I’m not so callous as to deny this – but there are tears enough for the victims at Bondi Beach, a few less from this writer will not be missed and moreover, were I to sit here in pious misery every time an innocent life was taken somewhere on our troubled earth I would have time for nothing else.

The deaths in Bondi are a tragedy. Now that we’ve acknowledged that, we can address the real problem.

Some commentators, such as fellow Melburnian blogger David Hiscox, writing immediately following the shootings last night, have argued for extreme solutions:

All you need to know is that [Bondi] appears to have involved two warring factions of Middle Easterners whose respective peoples are currently engaged in an on-again-off-again war in the Middle East.

In general, White Australians don’t care about this war, but we do care when it gets brought to our shores. The simple solution to ensuring that this Middle Eastern war does not involve Australia is to remove all Middle Eastern people from Australia.

This should have been done decades ago…

I do not support such proposals, nor do I believe they are feasible or humane, but Hiscox does identify the real issue: Imported conflicts.

To directly quote the mainstream media pundits – Australia has been changed forever. But this change occurred not in a flash of gun smoke at Bondi Beach on 14 December 2025, but over many decades of importation – importation of foreign problems.

Whether one accepts the official narrative that this was an organic act of terrorism (remember: DEFINITELY only two perpetrators, even though the investigation is only 24 hours old at the time of publication… Tyler Robinson, anyone?), or opts for the cautious scepticism that leaves room for false flag intel ops – the problem facing Australia today is an imported foreign problem.

Furthermore, it is the same imported foreign problem facing every Christian Western nation; not the bullets, stabbings, rapes and deaths – these are just symptoms. The core problem is the top-down imposition of incompatible ethnic paradigms upon a naïve populace that has been conditioned to value tolerance as its chief virtue.

People are becoming less tolerant, but Australia does not have an ‘antisemitism’ problem any more than it has an ‘Islamophobia’ problem. What the media breathlessly refers to as “growing antisemitism” is simply the opposition of an awakening public to the genocide of the Palestinian people by the state of Israel.

If opposition to the actions of a state is now defined as hatred of a people, then the term ‘antisemitism’ has been emptied of all analytical meaning. Furthermore, if the Zionists who are disproportionately represented in the world’s largest media conglomerates object so fiercely to ‘conspiracy theories’ about Jewish control of world opinion, then it would behove them to behave a little less defensively as their friends in the Netanyahu government routinely blow the limbs off small children and bury babies under mountains of rubble.

Australians are not antisemitic – but many of us revile the state of Israel and the Zionists around the world who try to justify its genocidal war.

Australia does not have an antisemitism problem – and if it does, then it exists within a certain specific, recently arrived demographic.

Again, whether the obviously Muslim father-son duo who committed the Bondi shootings were organic, homegrown terrorists, or intelligence assets executing a false flag operation, the problem (or the perceived problem) remains a foreign one, not an Australian one – not a Western one.

And the result also remains the same either way: the only party that benefits is the establishment.

“We will fight [antisemitism] everywhere we see it, whether it’s destructive, horrible acts of violence or chance mottos and internet posts” – Chris Minns, Premier of New South Wales.

This statement is intended to be imbibed in tandem with another, equally nefarious and even more emotive trigger phrase – currently being feverishly reposted across the globe: Australia has been changed forever.

That’s right – Life will never be the same.

I’ve heard these words directly quoted or paraphrased repeatedly this morning not only on the internet and TV but in real life – by colleagues in my office.

So effective is the psyop already that I’ve even seen ‘awake truthers’ posting this nonsense on their Facebook and Instagram stories.

This is the very definition of brainwashing. For if we step back and calm down – we immediately see that life will go on, and indeed already is going on just as it did before and practically speaking, for most of us, this changes nothing.

Instead of mindlessly emoting, let’s listen to what the government is actually telling us:

We will fight internet posts, and life will never be the same.

To those who can set emotion aside, the true meaning of these words is clear:

• We are entering a new era of mass surveillance

• Internet speech will be policed by an omnipresent state security apparatus

• The Australian government’s recent social media restrictions for Under-16s will be modified and enforced on the entire population

• This measure will necessitate the blanket roll-out of digital ID

“Things will never be the same” …

Australians are today wandering around in a daze mouthing these words to one another, entirely unaware that they are pre-emptively wiring their brains to unquestioningly accept imminent sweeping legislative change.

I wish I could say the bullshit ends there, but the psyop goes further.

Just turn on the TV – or if you’re not in Australia, search one of the news channels I named above on YouTube – and you’ll see that also on loop is the seemingly benign fact that the guns used in the shooting were all LICENSED.

To the untrained ear this may appear nothing more than a dull media dross. It is in fact being deliberately engraved in the public consciousness to legitimise the reignition of the gun control discussion in Australia and complete the disarmament of the population that began after the Port Arthur massacre in 1996.

Two other media talking points – already rote-learned by 25 million Australians today are worth noting:

1. This is not a time for revenge. Geez, that sounds familiar, doesn’t it? Where have we heard that before?

2. The heroism of ‘Australian’ man Ahmed al Ahmed saved countless lives.

This is the part where the coincidences become a little too thick.

On the one hand, we are eagerly encouraged to be so terrified and shocked that the statement “Australia has been changed forever” seems logical and reasonable. But on the other hand – we are warned not to be angry.

Call me old-fashioned but last time I checked, a violent attack of such existential magnitude that nothing will ever be the same again calls for a healthy dose of anger.

Simultaneously, should Australians be disinclined to follow government and media advice and get a little hot under the collar about having their Sunday afternoon at the beach interrupted by Islamist shotgun fire, it turns out that the hero in this situation is a member of the same minority immigrant demographic that perpetrated the murders! And furthermore, that Ahmed al Ahmed and his death-defying bravery are the living embodiment of the rugged Aussie spirit!

Strewth, mate! That’s a bit of a curly one.

So, you see, there’s really no point in being angry because firstly, we’re a tolerant and kind people and we Don’t Look Back in Anger, but also because it’s not all Muslims… Just look at Ahmed al Ahmed… He saved the day. So really any anger toward a particular demographic is just illogical.

Now, what’s completely appropriate to feel right now is FEAR. You can and should be just as scared as you need to be about all this. Embrace it. Lean into it (just don’t be angry) and, when that fear feels all too much to take, you can rest assured that we in the government have a plan, and if you stick with us and do as we say, we will keep you SAFE.

Is it just me, or is all of this starting to sound really familiar? Cough cough.

Finally, I invite you to consider the overarching doublethink in operation here:

In the same breath we are invited to believe that this is a vile act of antisemitism – a targeted attack on one distinct ethnicity: Jews – and simultaneously an attack on all Australians and our cherished way of life.

For both statements to be true in parallel we must adopt the mantra of Jacinda Ardern in the wake of the alleged Christchurch mosque shootings in 2019:

“They are us.”

This quintessential specimen of Marxist newspeak encourages the subject to suspend common sense, self-preservation and even the evidence of their own eyes by equating two distinct things as one – essentially apples are oranges… men are women… 2 + 2 = 5.

While we can have empathy for our Jewish neighbours at this time – and even if we are so inclined “wrap our arms around them” as the Prime Minister suggests – their political theology is not native to Western civilisation.

The time has come for we of the Christian West to abandon the misbegotten notion of ‘Judaeo-Christian’ values. The term ‘Judeo-Christian’ is in itself a manifestation of ‘they are us’.

This Zionist falsehood has subverted the interests of Western Christian conservatives for too long as we lend ourselves – our tax dollars, our young men and our very souls – to their ancient Middle Eastern blood feud.

We may exist in harmony and mutual respect with our Jewish neighbours, just as we may do with Ahmed al Ahmed and our Muslim neighbours – but if we are to save our society and our civilisation from the globalist Great Reset – we can no longer stand limply by bleating “they are us”.

Perhaps they could be us under different circumstances, but diaspora politics raise difficult questions about transnational loyalty, particularly when foreign conflicts dominate domestic political discourse and in the past 14 months many have argued that our Jewish neighbours’ primary loyalty is to Tel Aviv.

I said at the beginning that while David Hiscox succeeds in identifying the nature of our problem as imported conflict, I do not believe removal of entire populations is a feasible or humane solution. Our main Jewish diaspora has been here for 80 years – long enough for most Jews in Australia to think and act as Australians. Domestically, they are us.

But the motivation for the Bondi attack was not domestic, it was spiritual.

Muslim immigration is much more recent, and as the ostensible perpetrators in this instance, some might find salience in Hiscox’s solution applied only to our Islamic neighbours. But even families that emigrated here from the Middle East in the 70s and 80s can reasonably call themselves at least as Australian as a more recently arrived but more culturally assimilated New Zealander like me can, and while we should absolutely be examining all recent arrivals and deporting all who raise even the slightest red flag, reasonable conservatives and nationalists will dismiss mass deportation as unfeasible and inhumane.

Australia is what it is now for better or worse. As such, what is the solution?

I propose two simple points for Christian conservatives to adopt:

1. No more immigration.

2. When the government and media attempt to weaponize our Christian decency and gaslight us into flaccid submission with Marxist bamboozlements such as “This gross act of antisemitism is an attack on all Australians”, we reject their incitement. We stand firm in Christ and tell them: This is not our fight.

Every generation inherits a lie. Ours was this: without rulers, we would destroy each other.

It’s repeated so reflexively – by academics, journalists, Boomers, bureaucrats, ‘moderates’ – that it has become a kind of secular scripture. Question it, and watch the educated middle-class defender of ‘democratic institutions’ tilt their chin upward and deliver the same sermon: “Democracy isn’t perfect, but it’s better than the alternative. Without a strong state, things would descend into anarchy.”

In this catechism, anarchy doesn’t mean what it actually means – the absence of rulers.

It means what they fear it means: fire, chaos, collapse, marauding hordes. A Hollywood hellscape. A political slur as loaded as racist or Nazi.

The tragedy – and the deception – is that this belief has been handed down unexamined, generation after generation, like a hereditary superstition. The conversation never reaches the obvious question: What if the alternative to bad government isn’t better government – but no government at all?

Because here is the truth few will admit:

The myth that humans will become animals without rulers is not based on evidence, but on the self-interest of the ruling class. The ambitious man convinces the fearful man that without him, there is only darkness.

And we – raised in a world where the state is the nearest thing to a god – believed him.

Two conversations I’ve had recently prompted me to consider the religious sanctity that citizens of liberal democracies attach to government – even those who profess to be anti-establishment. The cognitive dissonance in this respect is remarkable, wherein a person can keep a straight face while claiming in the same sentence to despise the constant, creeping overreach of the central government on both the national and international stage; and that without such an edifice, society would swiftly collapse.

An old friend of mine has recently become politically activated. Having gone forty years as a left leaning but largely apolitical atheist, his new tune whistles a frenetic concoction of anti-Western leftism and online-right antisemitism with the faintest dash of Christian chauvinism. The trigger point was Gaza. As a new father of two young children his paternal instincts were inflamed by daily images of the mutilated child victims of Israel’s ongoing ethnic cleansing operation. He was shocked, appalled and radicalised. And rightly so.

Where we differ is on the solution to this problem. My friend feels the USA has grossly abused its role as world policeman and, in its sponsorship of Israel, perpetuated the latest in a string of abominable crimes against humanity dating back at least to Vietnam. His view is that the Western (white) imperialists must fall and that the world hegemony should pass to the BRICS nations, under the general stewardship of China.

Despite the incoherence of his new politics – notably the use of Christian doctrine to discredit Jewry while leaning into the idea that ‘whiteness’ may also be at the heart of the problem – I entirely agree with him vis-à-vis America and Israel, and will stand with anyone on a platform against such hyper-centralised internationalist elitism – but not on behalf of the Chinese Communist Party.

My friend, in his fervour, has fallen prey to the CCP propaganda that haunts Instagram and TikTok, and traded one evil edifice for another.

Jumping down a generation and back into national politics, my 19-year-old son, grows wary of the burden of white guilt incumbent on all ‘pakeha’ in the Socialist Utopia of Aotearoa New Zealand, and informs me that his political opinions are shifting away from the left. While I am relieved to hear this (for context, see my comments at the end of this, my most viewed and upvoted essay), his disenchantment is only the first layer of the onion.

For at 19, a young man, regardless of intellect, is a product of his environment – and New Zealand is rank with the truism we have discussed above: that the absence of strong central authority (actual anarchy) will lead to chaos and mayhem (his understanding of anarchy, as learned from school, popular history, TV, movies etc). Thus, despite his status as a second-class citizen in his own country being a direct result of government, his ostensible solution is more government.

Leaving aside the fact that the Chinese Communist and New Zealand opposition parties all answer to the same international money men, the common denominator in these two distinct political awakenings is that each person has identified a great injustice stemming from state power and promptly proposed a solution that calls for… state power.

The implicit position of both my friend and my son is that we must be governed by someone… just governed better. Ironically, this kneejerk reaction to the chaos and mayhem inflicted by the incumbent rulers is born of a belief that without such rulers we would descend into chaos and mayhem.

I would invite them to consider what mayhem could be worse than the bombs and bloodletting of the IDF, and the blueprint for ethnic cleansing being slow rolled into existence by successive New Zealand governments (and many others besides).

I am aware of the likely retort – that we’d be facing more immediate and proximal problems such as rampant crime, the failure of critical infrastructure, riots in the streets… etc, etc. I apologise to any pro big government readers but this view is hysterical, bordering on delusionally paranoid.

Why do most of us not sink an axe into the head of someone who insults or injures us? Why do most of us pay for our goods and services rather than thieving and marauding? Why do we follow road rules, dispose of litter correctly, and wait in line? Is it because we fear punitive action from the government? Or is it because most of us are basically good people and wish to exist in harmony with our neighbours?

It is small wonder that in a time of such rampant moral malaise, most people subscribe to the notion that humans are fundamentally mischievous chancers who, without bloated, overbearing bureaucracies, will employ any means to get one up on each other. And it is no coincidence that this worldview primarily benefits these same bureaucracies and the power elites who pull their strings.

When we look outside or, more accurately, at our TV and smartphone screens and behold the deluge of violence and degeneracy served to us by the algorithm, small wonder we retreat into a state of fear and seek reassurance in the great secular monolith of government, legislation and law enforcement. Small wonder we stand obediently at red pedestrian signals even when the road is clear in both directions, so complete is our integration.

We want so badly to be safe and comfortable that we demand ever more powerful states to halt our enemies and assuage our fears, real and imagined, foreign and domestic. And in this we fail to see that the two-party political system is but a game of ping pong – each camp pledging to relieve the anxieties of its pathetically hopeful constituency, cycle after cycle. Each camp one side of the same demonic coin – the great con of liberal democracy; a technicolour cloak worn by the nameless shadows of international finance and central banking; a gaudy pastiche of the original, anarchic democracy, leaning evermore heavily into socialism and world government.

The big government model of the post-WW2 liberal international order is essentially a Boomerism – not in its genesis, but in its canonisation. What’s remarkable in 2025 is how many of the subsequent generations still hold fast to this sacred cow – what a friend from my church refers to as ‘Spiritual Boomers’; zealous adherents to the received wisdom of their parents or grandparents – that, despite its vast profligacy, its congenital corruption and its perennial betrayal, highly centralised representative liberal democracy is the least of all evils and the only thing standing between us and the next Hitler.

Subscribe now

It is understandable that Boomers still fetishise the state under which they prospered. But those who’ve been most harshly punished by this system – the Millennials and Zoomers who exit university saddled with debt only to take jobs as Uber drivers and will never own a home unless they inherit one – why do so many of these young adults and kids still worship the machine which briefly enriched their immediate forebears, yet offers them less than zero.

My Millennial friend has seen the rot in the liberal world order and wants to tear it down… and replace it with another highly centralised government edifice. My Zoomer son has seen the lie of the NZ left and wants to turf them out… and replace them with another centralised government edifice.

Why are these two men of the 21^st Century behaving as Spiritual Boomers?

And it’s not just them – I use these examples anecdotally because they aptly reflect the opinion across both generations (albeit the Zoomers less so – and this is an encouraging sign).

I believe the answer lies in their conception of authority.

We who were raised in a secular society have difficulty looking past the ultimate authority of man. The great world controllers have done their work well in eliminating Christ from our Western consciousness, for when we look back at the prosperous and cohesive societies of past epochs which flourished under a decentralised model, we see common themes:

1. A strong, unified moral framework

2. High social trust

3. Strong communal institutions

4. Dispersed responsibility

5. Limited diversity in foundational worldview

While these societies cannot be called anarchic in the purest sense, when compared to the sprawling bureaucratic octopi of the liberal world order, we can reasonably attribute the definition. And when we examine these societies and the shared traits that allowed them to thrive independent of a bloated and imperious central government, we find at the core a conception of authority that transcends man. For example:

Classical Athens (with a deeply shared civic–religious ethos)

• Religion tightly bound to civic duty

• State was small; bureaucracy was minimal

• Citizen responsibility central to the system

• Social cohesion created through rituals, festivals, and shared identity

• Virtue ethics (arete) encouraged civic excellence over state coercion

Outcome: High cultural and intellectual flourishing with limited administrative apparatus.

Early Islamic Caliphate (Rashidun period, 632–661 CE)

• Deeply shared religious framework

• Strong moral expectations of leaders and citizens

• Emphasis on personal responsibility (zakāt, charity, justice)

• Administrative structures were tiny compared to later states

• Community norms resolved many disputes before the state intervened

Outcome:
Rapid expansion, economic prosperity, high levels of social trust, low corruption.

Medieval Icelandic Commonwealth (930–1260)

• Strong shared Christian (and earlier Norse) social norms

• Law governed behaviour but had no executive branch

• Chieftains were chosen by followers; legitimacy was moral

• Disputes handled through assemblies and norms

• Religion and honour codes stabilised social behaviour

Outcome: Long period of cultural flourishing; extremely decentralised but functional.

The Medieval Swiss Cantons (1290s–1600s)

• Strong shared Christian ethic

• Highly decentralised; each canton was practically self-governing

• Civic duty and militia service seen as moral responsibilities

• Central government was deliberately weak

• Very strong local cohesion based on shared faith and traditions

Outcome: Centuries of stability, prosperity, and effective defence with minimal central authority.

Colonial New England (17^th century Puritan societies)

• Homogeneous shared religion

• Community-centred covenant theology

• Emphasis on virtue, literacy, self-governance, and civic duty

• Town meetings served as direct democracy

• Very limited bureaucracy; local communities policed morals and disputes

Outcome: Strong civic institutions, high literacy, economic success, and community resilience.

But we need not dwell in centuries past. The most striking and obvious modern example lies just barely beyond the living memory of many still alive today:

Pre–WW1 United States (c. 1776–1913)

• Homogeneous shared Christian moral culture

• Community-anchored civic and religious institutions (churches, lodges, mutual-aid societies)

• Emphasis on virtue, self-reliance, local governance, and civic responsibility

• State and municipal governments handled most affairs; town meetings, juries, and local councils shaped public life

• Very limited federal bureaucracy; moral norms and community institutions resolved most disputes and social needs

Outcome: Broad prosperity, strong social trust, widespread civic engagement, and a flourishing society with minimal central government.

Thus, we can clearly demonstrate that many societies, both ancient and modern, have operated with a level of decentralisation and self-governance that makes them anarchistic-by-comparison to modern Western states, and that the common theme – the magic glue that held them together – was faith in a moral authority higher than that of man.

Where people hit a roadblock in 2025 – people who are otherwise awake – is their inability to envision a society that does not have at its centre a powerful and far-reaching state. The glass ceiling they hit on their ascent toward radical insight is their default perception of ultimate authority as a function of human organisation.

During my research into anarchic societies, I fell into a philosophical discussion with ChatGPT who, despite its nominally progressive parameters, had no alternative but to cautiously admit the truth:

Societies based on a unified worldview require fewer external controls. This is a delicate topic but historically undeniable: The more cohesive the shared moral system, the less coercive the government needs to be.

History shows this truth clearly: When moral norms are internalised, the state can shrink. When moral norms erode or fragment, the state grows.

Here is the part that those who know don’t talk about, and those who don’t know miss at their own great folly. What most people think of as freedom, enlightenment, tolerance and inclusiveness (hedonism, secularism, degeneracy and multiculturalism) are in fact devices of moral erosion employed to ensure the perpetual expansion of the state.

Once state power has become sufficiently vast and its constituency sufficiently heterogenous, the way to world government is unimpeded and state socialism will become global communism.

It is important to note that due to the crony corporatist nature of the rising world order, this system can be more accurately described as fascist, but such semantics are already becoming moot and will be entirely irrelevant by the time the hammer falls. All that will matter at this not-so-distant point, is that humanity will have entered a millennium of slavery.

The good news is that there is an answer.

I shan’t labour the point, and in deference to my atheist and agnostic readers, will refrain from evangelising – at least for as long as I can formulate persuasive peripheral arguments.

As I outlined in my previous essay, we need not agree on what that higher moral authority is (nor on a prescriptive definition of ‘anarchy’) but if we can coalesce exclusively around the idea that each of us is imbued with the grace and fortitude to conduct ourselves righteously, and that this power derives not from any human creation, then we have the collective strength to reject enslavement, and the basis for a society that can flourish anarchically – without rulers. Without government.

Subscribe now

Selected Bibliography

These works informed the historical understanding behind this essay and provide deeper background on the societies discussed.

Classical Athens

• Ober, Josiah. The Rise and Fall of Classical Greece. Princeton University Press.

• Rhodes, P.J. A History of the Classical Greek World: 478–323 BC. Blackwell.

• Hansen, Mogens Herman. The Athenian Democracy in the Age of Demosthenes. University of Oklahoma Press.

Early Islamic Caliphate

• Hodgson, Marshall G. S. The Venture of Islam: Conscience and History in a World Civilization. University of Chicago Press.

• Donner, Fred M. Muhammad and the Believers: At the Origins of Islam. Harvard University Press.

• Kennedy, Hugh. The Prophet and the Age of the Caliphates. Routledge.

Medieval Icelandic Commonwealth

• Byock, Jesse L. Viking Age Iceland. Penguin.

• Miller, William Ian. Bloodtaking and Peacemaking: Feud, Law, and Society in Saga Iceland. University of Chicago Press.

• Byock, Jesse L. Medieval Iceland: Society, Sagas, and Power. University of California Press.

Medieval Swiss Cantons

• Head, Randolph C. Early Modern Democracy in the Grisons: Social Order and Political Language in a Swiss Mountain Canton, 1470–1620. Cambridge University Press.

• Church, Clive H. The Politics and Government of Switzerland. Palgrave Macmillan.

• Maissen, Thomas. Geschichte der Schweiz. Hier + Jetzt Verlag. (Standard Swiss-language reference)

Colonial New England

• Fischer, David Hackett. Albion’s Seed: Four British Folkways in America. Oxford University Press.

• Morgan, Edmund S. The Puritan Family: Religion and Domestic Relations in Seventeenth-Century New England. Harper & Row.

• Hall, David D. Worlds of Wonder, Days of Judgment: Popular Religious Belief in Early New England. Harvard University Press.

Pre–WW1 United States

• Tocqueville, Alexis de. Democracy in America. (Any scholarly edition.)

• Wood, Gordon S. The Radicalism of the American Revolution. Vintage.

• Reynolds, David S. Waking Giant: America in the Age of Jackson. HarperCollins.

• Wiebe, Robert H. The Search for Order, 1877–1920. Hill and Wang.

• Morone, James A. The Democratic Wish: Popular Participation and the Limits of American Government. Yale University Press.

In my previous essay, The Real Killer of Charlie Kirk, I criticised the left-right division that has captured the discourse surrounding Kirk’s shooting and reiterated the core thesis of my writing to date – that this dichotomy serves only the system itself.

While the left jeer at the cringey jingoism of Kirk’s MAGA style ‘funeral’, the Trumpian right fall in along party lines, happily accepting the official story – that their hero was murdered by a woke leftist.

Alarmingly, broad swathes of the formally alternative media (now more accurately described, after boosting Trump back into the White House, as the New Media) are also going along with the narrative, evidently too wedded to their status as friends of the president to think critically – a perennial folly grounded in the same hubris that two decades ago intoxicated the dissident left and drove them into the arms of the establishment.

It is plain to see that after several years of retching and convulsing, the GOP has reinvented itself in a vaguely Christian nationalist guise, and Kirk’s death has finalised this transfiguration. What better way to enrage the left? And what better way to corral the restless Christian right back within the safe confines of left-right party politics?

What I observe here is the legacy of a decent and true Christian nationalist co-opted by a secular, internationalist political edifice masquerading as a reformist populist administration, and whatever progress Charlie Kirk and Turning Point may have made toward creating real societal change is largely void now the movement has the official Trump stamp on it.

Charlie Kirk can be forgiven for his naivety vis-à-vis Donald Trump – indeed, the same forgiveness I ask for having penned such stary-eyed rubbish as this in which I too was swept away by the allure of a charismatic strong man and the kneejerk human instinct of tribalism and safety in numbers. Kirk’s youth and passion, and his boundless Christian optimism may well have blinded him to the reality of politics – realities that many, including close friend Candace Owens, claim he was beginning to realise – and while he might one day have become an unstoppable force for good and a true agent of change, we will never know for coincidentally he died at the very moment he had done all he could for the political system but before he could step up and threaten it.

I concluded my previous essay on the disheartening note of seeing no hope in party politics. I’m here today to draw a line under that and pick up the theme of spiritual reawakening – the only solution as I see it.

Those of faith may shrug at this as an obvious no-brainer. Atheists and agnostics may frown in frustration or even exit and move on in their search of a real-world practical solution to this woke madness. But I ask you to stay a while, you might find you’re a lot closer my conception of faith than you think.

I am not blind to the inadequacy of ‘God’ as a solution. We are tactile beings, orientated toward problem solving with the tools and mechanisms we have created – real world practical solutions; in a sense – the essence of conservatism. But if we frame the problem we face as one of pure evil then surely the piffling function of man-made bureaucracy is of little use, and the solution lies only in good and righteousness.

It is important when discussing such matters not to get hung up or triggered by the word ‘God’. Personally, while I have re-embraced the Anglican faith into which I was baptised after more than twenty years in the wilderness, it is unimportant to me whether another person has the same understanding of God as I do – at least insofar as we may contrive to align as allies. What’s important is that we agree what ‘good’ looks like. Who or what put that conscience within can wait until later.

For many of us, that realisation – what good looks like – was born of its corollary: grasping the existence of evil – a revelation that crystallised for me and millions of others during the COVID period.

Thus, most of us on the nominal right, can agree on the easy part – the existence and nature of evil. Where we still diverge is the nature of good – we know what it looks like, but we’re divided on its source. So let us coalesce around our point of agreement: the quiet voice within that tells us right from wrong.

As a quick intellectual exercise, perhaps we could give a name to that voice, independent of any dogma? Would it be reasonable to call that voice God? For, from the atheistic perspective at least, God is just a word invented by man and thus applied as man sees fit… Many people prefer to speak of, ‘The Universe’, which when you think about it, is equally arbitrary.

I ask not that you acknowledge the existence of a divine being who created the world or even the accounts recorded in biblical scripture, only that there is an instinct within you that alerts you to evil and orientates you toward good – regardless of how frequently you pay attention to it. And secondly, that the name we give to this instinct need only be that – a name for something none of us fully understand.

We can therefore potentially agree that the solution to the evil we face is good, and that regardless of our personal views on where that conscience originates, an acceptable word for it might be God.

Where then does politics fit into this?

The essence of politics is the art of appealing to the broadest possible spectrum of emotional and material wants and needs by any means necessary – the societal equivalent to a Tinder fuckboy.

And at its pointy end it aggregates a plurality of smitten voters into a single power bloc based on a narrow set of bland campaign promises comprising a beige mosaic of centrist compromise and then fails to delivery on any of them.

There are modest exceptions such as Trump’s piecemeal moves to tackle illegal immigration, but these are few and far between and in most cases reversed by subsequent governments.

Such is the abject, enduring and worsening failure of liberal democracy – a system of governance that ultimately leans into tyranny as its legitimacy is grounded in lies and broken promises, thus – like the fibbing child who quickly understands he can achieve maximum personal gain through deception – it voraciously perpetuates itself, largely at the expense of its subjects and always at the expense of the truth.

And we of the democratic West submit to this because we believe a broad consensus of compromise has been achieved – which must make it fair, which in turn must make it good.

This Enlightenment idea of fairness has been our great stumbling block – one man, one vote, problem solved, everyone is represented. Never mind that which we know in our hearts to be good or evil, what matters in democracy is that you had your say. As long as the ballots are cast every three or four years then good has prevailed, and if, cycle after cycle, decade after decade, nothing seems to change and indeed everything gets gradually worse, the great majority of folk appear to shrug it off, mumbling something about the price we pay for freedom, or an imperfect system being necessary for the prevention of fascism.

So propagandised are we that most do not see what should be plain as day – that what they think of as democracy, is fascism incarnate. Quite literally, The Doctrine of Fascism, published under Mussolini’s name in the Enciclopedia Italiana Volume 14, 1932 (ghostwritten by the neo-Hegelian philosopher Giovanni Gentile, Mussolini’s director of scientific affairs) states “Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power”.

Nothing more succinctly describes modern Western democracies than this sentence.

Subscribe now

As Joel Bakan lays out in The Corporation: The Pathological Pursuit of Profit and Power, corporations by their legal personhood behave as psychopaths. Governments which receive their funding from these corporations and their legitimacy from an apathetic and hoodwinked public have no incentive toward good as we have defined it above. Such a system’s only motivation is to consolidate and perpetuate its own power.

And yet a majority, or at least a blocking plurality of the public across the West still clings to the misbegotten belief that electing yet another iteration of this morally bankrupt party-political system can reverse the centuries-long backslide into poverty and slavery.

Our Enlightenment obsession with personal liberty and the primacy of the individual has ironically undermined both. In abandoning the concept of God we set ourselves up as individual units of divinity entitled to a hand in the governing process – all well and good – but thence, as most were unwilling to don the mantle of leadership themselves, outsourced this agency to other individual units of divinity – humans like ourselves, equally frail and flawed and in most cases far more ambitious, corruptible and ruthless, whereby the liberty and primacy of every individual became subject not to what is singularly good, but what is good for those in power, resulting in an intergenerational, international two-party fascist state under the moniker of ‘democracy’.

At this point, detractors will ask if I honestly believe that under the pre-Enlightenment church and aristocracy people were any less oppressed.

Probably not, although I have heard it convincingly argued that these peasants did have considerably more personal freedom we do now, but that is beside the point. With this shift came the beginnings of a moral malaise which in the 21^st Century is reaching its zenith. The focus has shifted away from what is good (or Godly) to what is convenient, materially beneficial and pleasurable for us as individuals (small wonder our so-called leaders behave the same way) and in the fine flush of plenty and the daydream of consumerism we have forgotten that comfort is not the same thing as freedom. We can look back on the Godfearing poor of centuries past and thank The Universe that we have such a better quality of life – but what of the quality of our souls?

Everything we decry about wokeness, everything we resent in the corpo-state-sponsored indoctrination of our children would have been unthinkable in a bygone society governed primarily by biblical scripture – just indeed as it is unthinkable in the communities of today governed by Quranic scripture.

It’s possible that Charlie Kirk was a prophet; the beginning of a new kingdom of conscience, and thus possible that he was killed by agents of the system before he could threaten it, then venerated and martyrised by that system, and his followers subsumed back into the control grid, loyal once more to the Party rather than their own conscience – I mean, why not? The Romans ran the same play.

In my previous essay I railed against the right’s obsession with wokeness and suggested (not for the first time) that in battling this scourge we only treat the symptoms and ignore the root cause of the disease.

Wokeness is a dialectical tool that serves two purposes:

1. To maintain the left-right dichotomy.

2. To dismantle capitalism – which means eliminate private property; everything from houses and land to our children (as Karlyn Borysenko explains in this excellent free webinar), this being the ultimate objective of the globalist Great Reset.

Those who still seek a political solution (both believers and atheists) look to politicians like Donald Trump and Nigel Farage to fix wokeness much like modern medicine is geared toward treating disease rather than preventing it, and indeed these treatments for wokeness (like the pharmaceutical treatments for disease) are mere tools of the system that created the disease.

To take this analogy a step further, many people in our camp are well down the rabbit hole of natural medicine, preventative remedies, and holistic healthcare – this paradigm is virtually synonymous with ‘right wing’ or ‘conservative’ at this point. And yet many of the same people take a different approach to the problem of good vs evil: Instead of leaning into the good that resides within them, they outsource the problem to political parties.

Do we really think these edifices, which have failed and betrayed us time after time, can deliver us? The system for which our politicians act as gatekeepers does not fear a politically engaged public, no matter how right wing or anti-woke we are because we still operate within their construct and are thus constrained by its rules. The first rule of this construct is left vs right. The Machine feeds its foot soldiers on the left with woke ideology and its opponents on the right with vaudeville sideshows like Donald Trump who (whether acting as a puppet or a form of controlled opposition) serves to mollify our angst and rally us within the party-political system.

What the Machine fears is a disengaged public, one united in the simple concept of good and unbeholden to the party-political system.

One truth I have discovered in my own journey is that the more I lean into goodness (or Godliness) the clearer things become and the less utility I find in the constructs of man. The transformation is gradual but remarkable:

One becomes better at shutting out the noise; retreats from the programming of TV, movies and music; starts researching the ingredients in their food; stops buying certain products and services; becomes adept at filtering out propaganda; becomes more resilient and resistant to pain; develops sharper analytical skills; starts treating people better; starts volunteering their time and skill to worthwhile endeavours; learns how to obtain the things they desire without resort to chicanery; learns how to spread joy; becomes stronger, fitter and more capable…

The list goes on and on – it really does.

And none of this came from reading any self-help book – but simply by embracing that perpetual, flickering flame of goodness and setting it as the benchmark in all things.

It is my belief that a society with this operating system at its core will be buttressed against all evil. But it must begin in the heart of every individual, and it will likely take generations to achieve. I see little alternative though – as far as I’m concerned, we are standing at the gates of hell, and the only way out is back down that long road from whence we came.

One does not need to embrace Jesus to live this way – though He certainly makes it much simpler – and we need not even agree on a word like God to explain the instinctual good which can propel us collectively down this road.

I do believe, however, that we would reach our destination much sooner if we got over ourselves and just said it… God.

Maybe try it out for size next time you feel prompted to attribute something good to ‘The Universe’. You never know, it might fit better than you think.

Subscribe now

I have intentionally reserved my opinion on the murder of Charlie Kirk this past week as I’ve learned that analysis in the afterglow of such a visceral event can be wildly skewed by emotion and tribal solidarity. Having had several days to look at the facts (such as they are) and digest the views of those closest to the event, I now offer what I hope to be a sober and lucid view.

If we have learned anything from political assassinations and high-profile deaths over the decades, it must be that ascribing a perpetrator is a fruitless pursuit. From Jack and Bobby Kennedy and MLK, to Jeffrey Epstein, to Trump’s alleged brush with death in 2024, to the killing of Charlie Kirk, two themes persist:

1. The identity and motivations of those who orchestrated the events remain in question, and the official story is always at best, dubious, and at worst, fanciful to the point of absurdity.

2. More can be determined by examining who benefits from the death than by fixating on who did it, or why.

Therefore, having processed the inevitable emotion of watching a charismatic and effective conservative activist killed in front of his family, I am able to sit in this knowledge now free from bothersome feelings of outrage and vain jingoism. Only having moved past these unhelpful primal emotions can we understand the first crucial point – that it matters not who killed Charlie Kirk.

I say this ironically as naturally the truth matters above all else – but it would be the worst kind of naivety at this point to assume we will ever know the whole truth about the events of 10 September 2025 at UVU. Therefore, we would do well to accept this facet of political life and zoom out.

Since Charlie Kirk’s murder, the predictable battle lines have formed – or rather, the existing lines have dramatically entrenched – and it is difficult to recall the last time the so-called left and right were this polarised. Indeed, it appears we have reached a new crescendo in the culture war that has been growing ever hotter for the last fifteen years.

Notably, the left (everyone from Marxist extremists to beige big city liberals) have doubled down on their self-righteousness, embracing one of three distinct behaviours: celebration, justification or obfuscation. The legacy media, as ever running cover for their audience and the prescribed ideology of their corporate backers, is obfuscating the matter, and wasted no time in doing so, immediately running stories so ludicrous they could only have been intended to provide plausible deniability talking points for their stakeholders – that the alleged killer, 22 year old Tyler Robinson, is in fact a MAGA supporter, or even, minutes after the fatal shot, that it could have been a fan of Kirk “firing off a gun in celebration”. We have come to expect this dross from the propaganda organs of the Liberal World Order, so nothing is new here. Likewise, predictable yet slightly more disturbing is the reaction of the well-to-do, latte-sipping professional class. This demographic, the backbone of The Machine, is largely opting for a more vanilla response: ‘Well, I don’t condone murder – but when you say extreme things, you get extreme consequences.’ Again, the myopic ignorance is staggering. To label Charlie Kirk ‘extreme’ is either to know nothing about the man, or to have shunted one’s Overton Window so far to the left that basic family values are now on par with Auschwitz. But we’ve been seeing this relentless reclassification of extremism for years now, so again, no great surprise.

Perhaps what has surprised many of us on the nominal right, however, is the third camp – those actively celebrating Kirk’s murder. This widespread jubilation is shocking not only in its mere being but in that it has broken across the ranks of the left, manifesting not only within the traditional nucleus of ANTIFA extremists and far-left commentators, but amongst the previously mentioned demographic also – and a rapidly growing (and entirely justified) online doxing operation by the right has exposed hundreds of regular middle-class people from various professions, for publicly celebrating Kirk’s murder and advocating the same for other conservative personalities. Many of these lovely folk have already been fired from their jobs, and I don’t mind saying, after years of cancel culture against the right (or indeed anyone with a common-sense opinion), that I take great (and admittedly unchristian) pleasure in their demise.

The craven obfuscation of the corporate media and the smug shrugs of the urban liberal elite might have been enough on its own to conjure the political storm now raging, but it is almost certainly the ghoulish celebration of the brutal murder of a husband and father in front of his family that has finally galvanised the right in a uniform sentiment: Enough is enough. We’re no longer interested in reconciliation.

The feeling is palpable; we’ve entered a new paradigm.

The art of detaching oneself from his ostensible tribal allegiance and seeing the larger agenda is hard-won, and at times like this the impulse to revert to the old programming is powerful. Many of us did it when Trump was allegedly shot – and that is to name only the most memorable instance in recent memory when the intoxicating pull of team loyalty has inflamed our passions. In fact, this past decade, and perhaps many before it, has been one epic, seething schism – a steadily escalating current of outrage, fuelled daily through every medium we touch, each side clocking up injustice upon injustice, filing them away and growing ever more resolute on the virtue of their own cause. And here we are now at the potential breaking point – or to indulge in very sad irony, the Turning Point.

Many still live in hope, clinging to what now seems an outdated notion of finding common ground – indeed it is the ultimate tragic irony, that in death, the man whose brand was open dialog and debate, may be the catalyst for the final irreconcilable conflict. Can there be any going back now? It doesn’t feel like it with what we’ve seen this past week – both sides have drifted too far apart. The othering is near its completion.

The discourse on the conservative internet this week has swung in a distinctly militant direction with talk of mass arrests, book burning, firing squads… But in our strident certainty that our cause is the righteous one, spurred on now by Charlie Kirk’s death to finish the war, muster all our resources and defeat the left once and for all, we fall victim to emotion and yet again into the perennial trap of misconstruing the nature of this war and the identity of our true enemy.

Subscribe now

I have maintained since this writing’s genesis that the roughly fifty percent of society we refer to as The Left is not the real enemy, they are merely the soldier drones of the system. One might be tempted to reason that if we defeat the soldiers of the enemy, we win the war. But this is not a war of arms, it is a war of the mind and the soul – a spiritual war. Such a war can only be won through unity; through finding common ground and uniting as one awakened people against the few who tyrannise us; who extract our wealth through endless money printing, who decimate counties and peoples through war, mass migration, pharmaceutical poisoning and cultural degeneration, and whose Malthusian ‘green’ utopia envisions our enslavement and eventual genocide.

What a coincidence then that, with this latest development, we are further than we’ve ever been from finding common ground and uniting.

The Machine knows the only thing threatening its perpetual hegemony is a united populace. This is the one thing that frightens it. What a providential boon then for the system that Charlie Kirk is dead, and the people are more divided than ever; what a stroke of luck for The Machine, just when the right appeared ascendant and the antics of the looney left were becoming yesterday’s news.

The earnestness with which many right-wing commentators are currently discussing Tyler Robinson is astonishing. The same people who have for years, questioned every official narrative, now seem quite happy to accept what the government tells them at face value. Here lies another inherent fallacy of partisan politics – ‘Our side is in power now, so we can trust them.’

I am no more inclined to believe the Tyler Robinson story than I am the Lee Harvey Oswald story.

But it matters not what I or anyone else believes. The narrative has been established now, and it won’t shift. People will either accept what they are told by the authorities or remain sceptical, and unfortunately the official Charlie Kirk story suits almost everyone at this point:

It suits the right who (bless them) know that their philosophy is correct and thus need a visible villain to battle, and cling to the spectre of the woke left. It suits the left who need a villain to justify their immense hubris, and cling to the boogieman of the evil nazi fascist right. It even suits the centrists (yes, these creatures still exist – Boomers mostly, and little more that leftists with good manners) for they get to gleefully opine that everyone needs to calm down and come back to the sensible centre. It suits the Trump administration who get to hold Kirk up as a MAGA martyr. It suits Benjamin Netanyahu who needs to quell the growing perception that Israel has its hands on the levers of US politics. And above all it suits The Machine, which requires societal chaos and discord to furnish its long-term agenda.

The only people this story doesn’t suit are the small minority who understand that a divided populace can never be free and that Charlie Kirk’s death, regardless of who is responsible, and regardless of which side is correct, serves only The Machine.

Morally and logically of course, the right is correct. But our strength is also our weakness. Integrity cannot stand lunacy and our obsession with defeating the madness of the woke left ensures we are forever treating the symptoms of the disease rather than targeting its root cause.

Just as it does not ultimately matter who killed Charlie Kirk – or even why, it does not matter that we are correct. Being on the right side of history, in other words, counts for nothing if we are not the ones writing the history.

History is written by the victor, and while we remain divided along left-right lines, the only victor will be the system itself. And the history it writes will lionise neither the left nor the right – only itself. It will tell a story (if indeed stories are even necessary at that future point) of a feckless and quarrelsome public, too brutish and emotional to be trusted with democracy and freedom. It will be an old story with a sleek new skin, and it will proclaim (if only to its own authors by way of karmic absolution): the people proved themselves unworthy of self determination and so, for their own good, we took total control.

Afterthought:

I had not intended to conclude this essay on such a gloomy note, but halfway through I realised I’d waded into a topic too big to cover in 2000 words or less. Readers may infer from the above that I see no point in battling wokeness, or even that I have become completely black-pilled and have no hope of victory. Neither correctly reflects my position. We must of course oppose wokeness, but I believe this energy is often misdirected. I do have hope, but not in the left-right political struggle – the only solution I see lies not in politics, but in spiritual reawakening. In both respects, I have not yet formed a coherent thesis and so, having articulated the problem above, I will endeavour to explore solutions in future essays.

Finally, while I arrived independently at the position outlined above, many others got there first and have undoubtedly influenced my thinking along the way. They are too numerous to credit, but special mention must go to Chase Hughes, whose recent video is a must watch.

Subscribe now

We should never underestimate our own potential for naivety.

The axiom ‘Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice shame on me’ finds salience often for the young and naïve in the form of the jilted lover. But it is for the mature and naïve that these words ultimately ring true – moreover, the jilted voter.

Before I continue, a brief but heartfelt apology to readers for my long absence. While my blog has remained free too all, thus absolving me of stringent obligation, I have always nevertheless felt indebted to my readers for their support and impelled to deliver regular material. I have not written anything in nine months, and for this I apologise. We needn’t dwell on the reasons, suffice to say I hit a wall and burned out. I can’t promise my output will immediately pick up where it left off but I am back and will endeavour to ramp up the frequency in the coming months.

In many ways though, I am glad for this hiatus. It has given me time to take stock of my preconceptions, clear away the deadwood, and recalibrate not only my assessment of world affairs as outlined in my work to-date, but also my expectations for the future. When one is at the coal face, he can remain oblivious to the methane seeping in, or more colloquially – he can’t see the forest for the trees.

It is now incumbent on me to repudiate a previous essay Wilson took his shot… but missed! written in the frenetic afterglow of what I now believe could possibly have been a false flag.

Am I finally embracing the ultimate conspiracy theory, that all this time since 2015 and long before, Donald Trump was part of the psyop – a cultivated and curated political sop for an increasingly angry voting base, installed via a series of multi-layered intelligence operations to act as a gatekeeper for the steadily accelerating New World Order?

I think it’s unlikely. But at this point, given everything we’ve seen in the past six months, it’s not impossible.

What has gone wrong?

By my reckoning, the MAGA camp can be broadly delineated along two strands. There are those who have lost faith in The System, see most existing power structures as corrupt, and whose driving motivation is to see the elite ruling cartels of banking, Big Pharma, armaments and the like exposed and held to account. As a white Millennial male, I am in good company as we constitute a hefty chunk of this cohort. Trump’s original 2016 base is largely comprised of this faction.

Then there are the centrist types – notably middle-class Gen Xers and Boomers who may previously have found Trump distasteful, possibly voting for him in 2016 while holding their noses, but more likely, only coming on board in the last two cycles, having groggily emerged from their Trump Derangement Syndrome as they witnessed the utter clown show of the Biden years.

Along the fissure that once only nominally divided Trump’s base, there now simmers an ideological rift that threatens to split the movement and herald a return to business as usual for the Republican Party or even a Democrat victory in 2028. And it is the folk in the second camp who are now saying, “Forget about Epstein and Kennedy. Learn to sing when you’re winning. We need to take our wins where we find them. Just look at all the progress we’re making on illegal immigration! And by the way – I stand with Israel and Ukraine.”

And well might we take the win and stop grumbling because, after all – it’s better than Biden isn’t it? Indeed, well might we learn to see the glass as half full… if it were not for one thing:

Glass-half-full politics is exactly what got us here in the first place and, moreover, this is not what we voted for. I use the word ‘we’ here liberally as of course I could not vote in the US election, but I have voted in other ways, specifically the abovementioned essay in which I unreservedly endorsed then candidate Donald Trump.

This is not to dismiss the democratic legitimacy of those Trump supporters who are happy to leave the past behind vis-à-vis Epstein and JFK, and who believe it is the USA’s sacred duty to defend Ukraine, defeat Putin, and above all safeguard the interests of the state of Israel. Certainly not – after all, there’s no law against being stupid.

I jest! And do not wish to offend readers who feel this way. What I really mean is, I believe this position to be misguided, and I hope that eventually – perhaps after another twenty years of war and unaccountable criminality of big business and intelligence agency elites – they might come around to our way of thinking, that the world is not as it is presented to us and the true evil is not the boogiemen of foreign dictatorships, not the perennial menace of Islam, not even the millions of Third World grifters crossing our boarders – but the high placed functionaries and moguls of our own societies.

At this, many in the glass-half-full camp, who prefer to cap their concerns at issues they can see on TV (such as illegal immigration and men in women’s sports) may still feel the words ‘conspiracy theory’ trembling on their lips. But I ask:

Is it a conspiracy theory that Jeffrey Epstein presided over a global child trafficking ring which involved many dozens if not hundreds of high profile politicians, businessmen and celebrities? No, this has been established as fact beyond any reasonable doubt.

Is it a conspiracy theory that John F. Kennedy was not killed by a single shooter and his murder involved senior government, intelligence and military officials and likely monied interests from the defence industry? No, and while perhaps not yet accepted as canon, it is widely agreed, at the very least, that the official story is a complete falsehood.

How then, if the very people and institutions that are held up as our best and brightest, as the flagships of ‘our democracy’, are perpetually enabled to avoid accountability for gross criminality, can we ever expect things to improve for the common man?

I will go on to ask:

Is it a conspiracy theory that the war in Ukraine was engineered by US deep state actors loyal to the Liberal World Order and sponsored by the Obama and Biden administrations? No. This is undeniable to anyone inclined to switch off cable news and actually research the subject.

Is it a conspiracy theory that the United States underwrites Israel’s position in the Middle East and that US foreign policy never runs counter to the interests of Tel Aviv? No. This is a fact.

How then, if the governments to whom we outsource our sovereignty, legitimised only by our good faith, are enabled to carry on endless military adventurism through various foreign proxies to the vast profit of their biggest corporate donors, can we ever keep a straight face and say “My government acts in my best interests”?

Trump may have swayed the strangely hawkish centrist block with its credulous faith in The System, its fundamental respect for authority, and its adherence to the received wisdom of experts, but in doing so he appears to have swerved into their lane and adopted their tepid and incoherent version of nationalism, and thus risks losing his core base, the people who made him who he is today, and without whom his movement will implode.

It is these many millions, both in the US and around the world who, with me, supported Donald Trump because we thought he meant what he said about ending the war in Ukraine, and releasing the full story on Epstein and JKF.

We really thought he cared about the truth, about ending the corruption, criminality and degradation of working and middle-class living standards through trillion dollar handouts to the finance and defence industries in furtherance of endless Vietnams, Afghanistans and Iraqs. We believed that he was not afraid of Wall Street and the CIA.

We believed that, just maybe, he had the balls to stick it to the man and change things by exposing the rot at the centre.

But what did we get instead?

A great big nothingburger is what we got. The familiar old fusillade of gaslighting and prevarication.

A reality TV clown show with the cokehead reality TV sock puppet president of Ukraine in the Oval Office on 28 February, and then a mind-numbing continuation of the status quo.

A theatrical dump of 80,000 pages from the JFK files on 18 March which revealed absolutely nothing while crates of documents remain sealed.

And then a similar obfuscation on the Epstein case made even worse by the premature reassurances of the Attorney General and the Director of the FBI, then underscored with these two attempts by the president himself at damage control – possibly the lamest moments of his entire political career and which landed with all the grace and subtlety of a fart in an elevator.

“…Jeffery Epstein, somebody that nobody cares about”…

If ever there was a tone-deaf, piss-poor take by a sitting president, then this is it. I beg to differ Mr President. We care. Remember us? The millions who supported you before it was cool to do so, because we thought you were different.

One of Trump’s most endearing attributes pre 2025 was that he spoke to his base like fellow humans rather than subjects. Now he’s engaging in the worst kind of political gaslighting, just today calling the Epstein files a “hoax”. Here he lays bare the arrogant, elitism that his detractors on ‘the left’ have for the past decade ascribed to him. Trump’s contempt for us as he insults our intelligence in this clumsy and bloviating manner is unacceptable. We are not stupid. We know it’s not a hoax and we want the files released.

Not because it’s salacious and sensational, and not so we can say ‘I told you so’ to our credulous friends and sneering adversaries. We want it all released because the truth matters.

Some have argued, evidently in a desperate attempt to justify Trump’s lack of action and thus absolve themselves from the responsibility of critical thinking, that to release the Epstein files would tank the economy due to the sheer number of highly influential people on ‘the list’. The flawed logic here is astounding. If this were true then it would literally mean that the world is run by paedophiles. And yet this rationalisation favours perpetuating such a grotesque state of affairs to avoid what would certainly only be a temporary economic disaster at worst. To my mind, the more CEOs, senators and socialites implicated in this miasma, the greater the impetus to reveal all.

Other apologists cite Trump’s tremendous progress on illegal immigration and his much publicised ICE raids. While this is certainly a bold step in the right direction, how many has he sent back in this term? 100,000? At this rate he’ll have deported half a million by the time he leaves office – from a pool for perhaps 30 million… you’ll forgive me if I don’t break out the champagne just yet.

And what happens when he’s gone? Are we just supposed to hope that a Trump protégé will follow in his footsteps and that the Democrats don’t get in and simply turn the tap back on? And what about the UK and Europe and the rest of the Western world?

The mass migration problem is bigger than America, because the players behind it are global in their scope. They care not about transitory populist movements and presidents with limited terms because their movement is perpetual and their agenda is universal. They do not recognise national borders, indeed they want them gone. They operate above the law and above governments in cooperation with the biggest corporations and NGOs on the planet and the spooks of the intelligence agencies who have all the right dirt on all the right people to ensure that the globalist program endures. Looking in at America from the outside right now, I get the impression that many Trump fans are so thrilled to finally see some action at the border, that they’ve entirely forgotten it is merely a symptom of the disease – a treatable symptom, but one that will return in perpetuity if the root cause is not addressed.

Who is pulling the strings?

What can we infer about Epstein, apart from the obvious? His alleged association with Robert Maxwell, a known Mossad asset, through his daughter Ghislaine is a red flag to anyone but the most credulous of official narrative believers. We also know that FBI Deputy Director Dan Bongino implicated Epstein in intelligence work with Mossad which appears to have involved an extensive high profile international blackmail ring, and who stated “(A trusted source) told me that Epstein is an intelligence asset for people in the Middle East… Epstein worked for multiple governments, including the Israelis”.

And most tellingly, we know that Epstein ‘killed himself’ under the most unlikely and suspicious set of circumstances in the long and storied history of suspicious suicides – a remarkable parallel with Robert Maxwell’s demise 28 years earlier.

While we cannot conclude anything concrete from all this, it does strongly suggest that Epstein’s racket was not just a means by which he and his associates could diddle underage girls; not even a means by which Epstein himself could blackmail politicians and businessmen for his own gain – but a means by which the Israeli government could blackmail politicians and businessmen.

But of course that remains a conspiracy theory because there’s no real evidence.

Which is exactly why we want the files released.

Who is pulling Trump’s strings? Because the man who once appeared to have no fear is beginning to look remarkably like every other politician before him. Furtive, mealy-mouthed, and ineffective.

Why hold back the JFK files? Is he scared of the CIA?

Why flub his hallmark campaign promise to end the war in Ukraine? Is he scared of the Military Industrial Complex (in a way that JFK was not, and which ultimately led to his death)?

And why sit on the Epstein files and gaslight his voter base after allowing Pam Bondi, Kash Patel and Dan Bongino to grandstand on the issue for months?

Ghislaine Maxwell cools her heels in federal prison for trafficking hundreds of underage girls… to no one. Hundreds of victims, and no perpetrators… Is the Donald himself somehow implicated in the files? Some would have it so, but I think it’s more likely that he’s been asked (or told) by someone in the ‘Middle East’ to kill the whole thing.

It is not wild-eyed conspiracy to suggest the CIA killed John F. Kennedy and may be threatening to do the same to Donald Trump or his family; just like it is not Putin-love to suggest Trump may now for some reason be more interested in Lockheed Martin’s bottom line than he is about achieving a peace deal; just like it is not anti-Semitic to suggest that Israeli intelligence could be wielding the might of US foreign policy through a decades-old kompromat scheme.

And if indeed Trump has either wittingly or unwittingly lent himself to such deeply cynical paradigms, then not only has he failed to deliver on his campaign promises, he has failed on his entire platform: America First.

For what is America, in essence, if not that beacon on the hill? The idea that the individual, no matter how low and menial, is created in God’s image and thus sacred, and therefore no earthly authority can hold ultimate domain over him.

In this sense, ‘America’ is the little man – the striving individual, family, or community… America is, or was meant to be, an example to the rest of the world that truth and decency matter above all things.

Donald Trump can deport all the illegals he wants, but they remain only one symptom of the greater illness – and treating symptoms will not cure the disease. Like banning knives to tackle knife crime, or increasing welfare spending to address poverty – the root causes will find their way to the surface again, like grass growing through concrete, and if Trump turns a blind eye to the true perpetrators of evil then America First dies, and with it so fades that beacon on the hill.

This is why we want to see the files. Not because it will magically fix everything, but because it sets a precedent – that evil will not be permitted to abide, that the names of the evildoers will not be kept in the shadows. The release of the ‘list’, more than any tangible effect it may have, is emblematic of the will of an awakening people who refuse to be played for fools – who won’t get fooled again.

The road will remain long and a better world may yet elude us, but the journey must start with naming those who have remained anonymous. Those who commit evil with impunity, shielded by the blanket of legitimacy granted them by the body politic.

I have not ruled out a redemption arc for our boy Donald – after all, I’m a romantic at heart, but once again, I shall keep the champagne in the fridge for now. And while my long hiatus has returned to you a sceptical and deeply disillusioned man, I remain steadfast on one key point, reiterated earlier in this piece:

We are constantly told which way to look for danger – Russia, Iran, Islam, immigration… and perhaps there’s some truth in all this, but our true enemies are much closer to home.

And their names?

Well, I don’t know for sure. But I’d bet good money that many of their names are on that list.

Hello dear friends. I must first apologise for my long absence. I recently spent several weeks in Europe and used the holiday to switch off from political and cultural matters because I’ve thought about little else for the past few years and was approaching burnout. My preoccupation with the ever-encroaching globalist tyranny has given me purpose and drive, but not without taking a mental and spiritual toll – and I needed a break.

As I’ve had my head out of the game since the end of August and have only just tuned in again, I don’t yet have much to say about current events, and pretty much all I’ve gathered so far is that they tried to kill Trump again and, unsurprisingly, the polls favour him to win the election next month – although I certainly do not take this as a given after the clown show we witnessed four years ago, and entirely expect more of the same shenanigans which may well render cackling Kamala Harris the 47^th President of the United States.

Little else appears to have developed in my absence, in that the outlook for us, the great unwashed, remains bleak and freedom is very much still on the line – even if a miracle occurs and Trump gains a second term.

And so, to recommence, I turn to this – the central theme of my writing to date – freedom. And in reflecting on the nature of freedom today, I’d like to tell you about two wonderful friends I made while I was in Europe – Nougat and Boubou.

As you may have guessed from the banner image, Nougat and Boubou are dogs, but not just any dogs. Let me explain.

In rural France where my parents spend the greater part of their retirement, dogs are kept less as pets such as we’re accustomed to in the big Western cities, and more as an ancient staple of country life – indeed, in many cases, as working dogs. The attitude toward these creatures, at least in the tiny village in Gascony where I was staying, is not the doting adoration of the thirty-something glamour girls whom I see parading their cavoodles and dachshunds around south Melbourne’s leafy avenues and parks, but a nonchalant indifference. Many of the local farm dogs are rumoured to live, at best, on scraps and in some cases expected to hunt and forage for their meals. They are scruffy and rugged looking, often appearing at the gates of their dilapidated stone farmhouses to growl or bark, a half-crazed look in their eyes somewhere between keen curiosity and hopeful hunger.

The well-to-do urban dog-lover may be feeling pangs of pity or even outrage at this point, and indeed it would appear, on the surface at least, to be a gloomy state of affairs.

In the case of Nougat and Boubou however, the story is even somewhat sadder.

Nougat (a lean young female collie) and Boubou (an elderly, matted male mongrel) were the working dogs of Jean-Paul, the patriarch of the local farming family, whose ancestors have tilled the land there for centuries. Last year Jean-Paul died of sepsis from an injury sustained in a farming accident, having stoically opted to keep his leg and hope for the best over the option more likely to guarantee his survival – amputation.

Nougat and Boubou are then, effectively, orphaned dogs. Jean-Paul’s widow Therese remains in the big crumbling old maison, in whose yard and outhouses the dogs still reside, but village rumour has it she does not feed them and on any given day the pair can be seen roaming the lanes and ditches in search of a tasty snack.

Again, city-dwelling canine owners may be horrified at this, but one does need to understand the mentality of the rural French, especially in poorer areas like southern Gascony – the dogs are there to work; to boost the productivity of the farm, and do not get a free ride. Now that Jean-Paul’s sons have taken over the farming full-time, there’s no more work for Nougat and Boubou, as Bertrand and Laurent have their own dogs. So, they are of course allowed to stay, but having become surplus to requirements they must largely fend for themselves.

This, however, they do – with extraordinary aplomb.

Accustomed as they are to village life, Nougat and Boubou know where to go for treats and scraps from sympathetic locals and expats who’ve made part-time homes there – although this is not to say the dogs are popular, Nougat in particular. In concord with her jarring heterochromatic eyes, she has a lunatic obsession with chasing cars that pass through the village, often at speeds of up to 50km/hr and sinking her teeth into their rear bumpers. It is a sight to behold as she sprints alongside the moving vehicle, never more than inches from death, looking to gain just the right vantage point from which to give the bumper a good hard chomp – and the crack as her fangs hit the plastic is like a small-bore pistol shot.

Amusingly though, Nougat will only chase and bite vehicles she doesn’t recognise. When my father drives past her gate, for instance, she will race out and stand to attention but allow us to pass unmolested.

But sadly, some visitors to the village take exception to the fang marks Nougat leaves on the bumpers of their Renaults and VWs, and view the dogs as wild pests, and have tried to run her down. Agile as Nougat is though, she has thus far avoided injury. Poor old Boubou has not been so lucky and was struck by a car some years back, sustaining a broken leg.

Boubou is currently rumoured to be over twenty years old but despite still being in his prime at the time of the accident (if one can call it that) he never received any veterinary attention, and the leg never healed properly and so he lollops along with a gammy limp – them’s the breaks for French farm dogs. Boubou is also now deaf, which makes life even harder, but what fascinates me so much about both him and his companion Nougat is this:

I’ve never seen two happier dogs.

Worked to the bone their whole lives, relegated to the barn even in the snow-blown wintertime, kept lean and hungry on starvation rations and forced to make up the difference off their own nous, orphaned, attacked, maimed, and generally disliked, or at the very least tolerated – Nougat and Boubou are living their best lives.

Making the best of a bad situation since their master passed away, they have adopted my dad whose daily hikes up and down the valley provide them with the bounding joy of their former daily work. For miles and miles they’ll trot with him, up steep ridges, and down deep gullies, often in temperatures well exceeding 30 degrees Celsius, although on these hotter days old Boubou will often turn back at the halfway point and head for home while Nougat races on ahead of Dad, her long pink tongue happily lolling out the side of her grinning jaw, racing in and out of ditches, investigating hedge rows and, hilariously, stopping often to cock her leg like a male dog (evidently a habit she’s picked up from working around blokes all her life).

In the two weeks I stayed with my folks I accompanied them on many of these walks and was instantly struck by the comparison between these dogs and the pampered little accessory pups I see back home in Melbourne. If you own such a dog, please don’t take offence and unsubscribe – it’s just that I’ve never been much of a dog person, always preferring the insolent independence displayed by cats as this suits my personality type much better than the pining subservience so commonly seen in pet dogs in smarter urban areas.

I realise now that it’s not dogs per se that are the issue for me, but the context in which most of the dogs I’ve ever known exist: a cushy, pampered, centrally controlled bubble consisting of tightly regimented routine, often cramped and unamenable dwellings, ludicrously priced luxury food, treats, toys, vet bills and accessories, and most of all – leashes.

Even when city dogs are off the leash, they’re still on the leash. I’m no expert but drop your average apartment-dwelling South Yarra cavoodle 10km from home in a strange part of town, and I doubt he’d ever find his way home.

Nougat and Boubou on the other hand – they own the whole valley. They know every house, every road, every lane, every rutted farm track and field. They roam freely or, when it suits them, in the company of an accommodating surrogate like my father, or, as it turned out on the last day of my visit, me! More on that to finish but first, my real point.

How much like our urban dogs have we in the great cities of the West become? Dependant, pampered, soft, whimpering beasts who scrape and bow to our masters’ beck and call.

Subscribe now

My time in the country has taught me that dogs, like cats, in their natural state, while loyal and obedient creatures to a point, are also in fact independent-minded, cheeky, impulsive, and ultimately ungovernable creatures.

It strikes me that we have turned our big city dogs into miniature versions of our modern selves and, just as if my thirty-something single female neighbour were to suddenly disappear, her little cavoodle would whimper and pine in his own filth until either he was recued or he succumbed to the brutal realities of a world without gratuitous welfare, how long would we, the servants of The Machine, last if our masters decided we were surplus to requirements and simply pulled the plug?

There was a time when I thought that because I could run 20km and do a hundred push-ups, and because I had liberated my retirement money from the big asset management firms that I was on a fast track to survival.

But after spending time with Nougat and Boubou, I’m not so sure. Somehow those two obscure Gascon farm dogs illuminated what I’m disheartened to say is still a gross and unsustainable dependence on the system to which I have reluctantly returned.

Nougat and Boubou are free. But I am not.

They survive on scraps – often dispensed in measly portions by my mum or dad at the end of a long hike – but they are happy. Comparatively I eat like a king (or a South Yarra cavoodle), yet I am not happy.

Nougat will risk death fifty times a day for her favourite pursuit, and get her teeth into that bumper bar if it’s the last thing she ever does, while Boubou, at the human age of about 90, will limp along for ten or fifteen kilometres in 30-degree heat, sweltering under his thick dreadlocked coat, just happy to be alive and enjoying the pure and simple adventure of the new day.

Sometimes I flinch at the ding from the bell of a passing tram, and sometimes I’m so lost in the inane demands of my corporate job that I don’t know who I’m looking at in the mirror when the day is done.

Those dogs have everything I don’t, and they have nothing. But they are free.

On my last day in Gascony, I went for a run – there is no better way to experience these beautiful, wooded valleys. I’d spent two weeks attempting to endear myself to Nougat and Boubou, but unless my mum or dad was along for the walk, they would not come with me (even the vagabond French farm dog knows which side his bread is buttered!) But on this last morning as I jogged up past Jean-Paul’s place, Nougat and Boubou came racing out of the gate. It was a beautiful day and despite my sadness about my imminent departure I was filled with joy – the type of joy (or so I imagine) that these (my) dogs feel every time they exit that gate on another adventure.

Poor old Boubou only made it about 400 metres up the road before he had to turn back. A trooper though he is, Nougat was already setting a scorching pace that I could barely match (about 5:00 min/km) and he had to limp off home.

But Nougat and I ran on into the Gascony morning, past ploughed fields freshly sown, past sweeping slopes of sunflowers, picturesque barns, cottages and maisons, all in varying states of dilapidation, and down into the valley. It’s easy-going on this downward slope but even so, Nougat increased her pace and often disappeared into a tiny dot, way up the road ahead of me. But as she and Boubou always do when out on a joint expedition, at every fork of the road, she would pause and wait for me – to see which way I wanted to go.

Eventually I made it to the bottom of the valley, before realising too late that I’d taken a wrong turn. I’d found my way right down to the Save riverbed, only traversable at this point by way of an unthreatening, yet very wet ford of about seven to ten inches in depth.

I looked at Nougat and she looked back at me tolerantly, tongue hanging out, as if to say, “We should have taken a left, a kilometre back up the road, boss.” I didn’t want to get my runners soaked as I had no easy way to dry them and wanted to wear them on the plane the next morning. I looked at Nougat again, and then at the overgrown farm track to our left which ran parallel to the river. ‘Maybe if I follow that track it’ll lead me back to the main road without having to ford the river’ I thought. As if reading my mind, Nougat took off down the track.

I followed her down this squelchy path for about half a kilometre before emerging at yet another ford. We approached it together and exchanged glances – hers seemed to be somewhat apologetic but also a tad reproachful, like “Well, you got us into this mess.”

Nougat was evidently happy to go back the way we came, but equally happy to cross the river. My shoes were already half soaked from the muddy farm track anyway, so I elected to go all in and cross the ford. The humour of the situation was not lost on me, so I videoed it.

Once we got across, Nougat resumed her emphatic gallop and off we went again. By this point I was in a part of the valley I’d never been before, and while I could have easily found my way back by following the major landmarks, it was comforting to simply pursue Nougat, as she was obviously heading home.

She ditched me at around the 9km mark, but not before she’d gotten me back onto the main road to the village. We were on the steepening incline back up the valley and my pace was slowing. I remember her waiting about 500 metres up the road for me, for about 30 seconds, then turning and racing off up the hill. “Screw this guy and his shitty navigation skills,” I imagined her thinking, “He knows his way from here, and I’ve got better things to do.”

At the time I was slightly resentful and felt she had spoiled what could have been the perfect 10km run.

I soon felt differently as I returned to my reflections on the nature of these dogs. When I arrived home about ten minutes later at the end of the steep hill climb, there she was with Boubou. She’d gotten all the way home and hooked up with my dad at the tail end of his morning walk and was squabbling with Boubou over some doggie treats at the front door.

I told her she’d been a bad girl and – “Next time stick with me for the whole 10km!” but I wasn’t mad. I gave her and Boubou a goodbye hug, knowing I probably wouldn’t see them again before I left and, moreover, sound in the knowledge that Nougat was her own captain. She’d happily run with me while it suited her and even helped me find the way home, but in the end – she knew there was probably a few mouthfuls of food waiting for her at the top of that hill, and I wasn’t able to keep up – so sod me!

It was a choice between me – her newest friend and adventurer – or her next meal. And Nougat knows which side her bread is buttered. It’s buttered on her side. On her terms.

Nougat and Boubou aren’t happy dogs because they are looked after and pampered, they’re happy because they’re free.

I saw this freedom encapsulated most succinctly as Nougat disappeared up the hill, leaving me far behind, sweating and panting. She might have enjoyed the company and the exercise, but she wasn’t going to let this guy, this strange Antipodean interloper who spoke to her in very bad French, interrupt her plans – she had places to be and scraps to scrounge.

Nougat abandoned me on that hill climb – when I needed her most (not for navigation, but for moral support) – and I can’t imagine your average well-heeled city dog ever doing that. But Nougat knows when to follow and serve whichever master she has lent herself to on any given day, and she knows when to say, “See ya!” and go her own way.

And I salute her for it.

Je te salue Nougat ! Au revoir, Nougat et Boubou... Je t'aime

Subscribe now

Hello friends. I am currently taking my first proper overseas vacation in eight years and have limited time for writing. I do, however, have some scintillating content to share with you. My friend and mentor Kassandra X recently submitted this article to her usual publisher (a ‘conservative’ New Zealand news outlet) and was knocked back on the grounds of “speculation”. Readers of mine, I’m certain, need little proof of the BIG MONEY behind the cult of Trans, and so I invite you to enjoy Kassandra’s fantastic commentary on this paramount cultural issue.

The Australian Federal Court’s ruling in Tickle vs Giggle, while grotesque, was not unexpected under the progressive ideology of Anthony Albanese and its uncomfortable capture of the judiciary. However, as a landmark judgment it will reverberate globally, especially as the narrative has been framed as a victory for an alleged marginalised community, whose battle cry is ‘Trans rights are human rights’.

It may be simply that Australia’s Federal Court has been tripped up by the law that evolved from The Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) adopted in 1979 by the UN General Assembly, however the now installed legal precedent will make formerly protected women’s spaces and places only notional and open to any easy and specious challenge, as outlined in Jenny Ruth’s Bassett Brash and Hide article.

Rodney Hide has similarly expressed outrage at an explicit and inappropriate sexual education teaching unit supportive of transgenderism being used in his Year 9 daughter’s school and was astonished at the tepid response he received to his complaint from the Minister of Education, Erica Stanford.

Optimists will be hoping these are anomalies that supporters of natural justice and women’s rights will correct.

Observers of the rising phenomena of transgenderism in Australia and New Zealand cannot be blamed for seeing it as a passing fad, a pet project of Lefties and Teals in Australia, or a loopy obsession in certain Ministry silos in Wellington, where changes in government policies are being openly sneered at.

However, the movement is not organic, and transgenderism is being amped up through the West’s political apparatus under the guise of a human rights’ paradigm. And where ideology meets influence, the glue is money.

And the money is mostly American. Notable billionaire supporters of transgenderism include Jon Stryker, heir to the Stryker corporation med tech fortune (and its investment in facial feminisation), and transexuals Martine Goldblatt and Jennifer Pritzker.

It is odd that the Pritzker name has, to my knowledge, not been mentioned in this connection by NZ legacy media since its investigation makes compelling reading. Jennifer, formerly James Nicholas Pritzker, is described by some as ‘American investor and philanthropist’, by others as a pusher for synthetic sex identities (SSI). Pritzker who transitioned in 2013, burly and blokeish in frock and makeup for publicity pics, is also known as the only trans billionaire currently out of the expensively appointed closet.

Like the Sackler family whose business it was to make billions from investing in opioid addiction, the Pritzker business, its genesis in the Hyatt hotel chain, now focuses on the techno-medico industry, specifically to make money from promoting and normalising SSI, its medications and trans-surgeries.  At the lowest end of gender intervention, experts estimate that the annual cost to US families for a child using puberty blockers is US $20,000.

To bolster the normalisation of non-binary human sexual function the Pritzker family has made notable donations to such organisations as teaching hospitals, law and medical schools, human rights, and minority organisations. Such bodies include The Chicago School of Medicine, The University of California’s Ronald Reagan Medical centre, the UCLA School of Law, the medical schools at the universities of Michigan and Arkansas, the US psychiatric community and many bodies set up to affirm gender dysmorphia.

This summary is but a very abbreviated list of the Pritzker donation influence which is aided by the positions other family members hold such as the Governor of Illinois J.B. Pritzker (also co-chairman of the Hilary Clinton presidential campaign) and Penny Pritzker, former US Secretary of Commerce.

Stryker’s Arcus Foundation is the largest LGBT NGO in the world supporting social justice for the so-called Rainbow Community, and the US $500 million in grants he has made, mirror the purpose and direction of Jennifer Pritzker’s.

Transexual Martine Goldblatt, CEO of United Therapeutics was the top earning CEO in the biopharmaceutical industry in 2018. Of Goldblatt’s company, AI informs that, “United Therapeutics is at the forefront of organ development, aiming to expand the availability of transplantable organs through innovative approaches. However, their focus extends beyond sexual organs to include hearts, livers, kidneys and lungs.”

Tim Gill, founder of the Gill Foundations is not at this point technically a billionaire although his foundation is the world’s second largest LGBT-supporting NGO, just behind Stryker’s Arcus. Known for his ‘philanthropy’ and LGBT rights activism his political influence can perhaps be judged by the fact that his husband, Scott Miller, is the Biden appointee to the Swiss and Liechtenstein Ambassadorship.

It is not difficult to find headlines in international business journals such as The 23 most powerful LGBTQ+ people in tech, and in the same article reference to “diversity in tech advocates” who are influential in Microsoft and IBM, as well as in Google and Amazon.

The investment tentacles of Vanguard and Blackrock are similarly easy to uncover – who would have imagined that boring old Woolworths’s major shareholder is Blackrock, the world’s largest asset manager? With US$10 trillion tucked under its wing and one of its three key objectives being ‘To embrace differences in age, colour, disability, ethnicity, gender or gender identity or expression, sexual orientation, and other characteristics that make our workforce unique’, it represents financial muscle that can and does influence politics, education and corporate practice.

It is when the wealth of LGBTQ+ activists meets Big Pharma that the story becomes truly dark. Investigative journalist Jennifer Bilek’s ten years of research into their attack on the sex binary and the push to move sexual reproduction into the tech sector is examined in her book Transexual, transgender, transhuman (2024).

She explores how under the guise of philanthropy our laws, education and societies are being nudged closer to the acceptance of, for example, exogenesis (the growing of babies outside the body) and the manufacture and implantation of uteruses in men who think that giving birth is fun, by these billionaires who sit on boards and run med tech companies.

New Zealand has been dragging its heels in accepting the damning Cass Report, particularly in its repudiation of puberty blockers for children.

In this regard Bilek remarks, “The transgender child is a corporate construct in order to support the fetish of adult men who wish to own womanhood…and the avatar-isation of humans.”

Philanthropic grants made to political parties, law and medical schools, corporates and councils would need to be significant in the US to have any societal effect. It would, however, be relatively cheaper for the Pritzkers, Strykers, Gills and their like to buy compliance in our country. This might partly explain the reluctance to speak out of some of our formerly trusted institutions who seem to have lost their moral compasses on the subject of gender delusion.

In the end, this isn’t just about transgender politics or skewed legal judgments but a case once again of ‘follow the money’. 

Kassandra X is an educator, writer and contrarian who lives in New Zealand and southwest France.

Before I go into my usual prosaic preamble, can I get a virtual high five from all like-minded readers and take a moment to applaud the spectacular uppercut that Robert F. Kennedy Jr just gave the establishment and the Democratic Party in his endorsement of Donald Trump?

WATCH: RFK drops out and endorses Trump

WATCH: RFK on stage with Trump at campaign rally

Truth is indeed stranger than fiction, and it is still a long road to November, but for the first time in years I feel excited and hopeful about politics.

More on this in a minute, but it’s important that I contextualise this pivotal political moment by way of my own experience within The Machine.

When I finally hung up the spurs of my youthful dissidence and entered the corporate world 14 years ago, I expected to find suits and cigars, stuffy but sensible chitchat about the economy and government policy, and the type of bland centrism or mild conservatism that one might, in decades past, have associated with figures like Bill Clinton and Ronald Reagan.

Instead I found wokeness.

It wasn’t what I had signed up for. I wanted to join the club, and I persisted with my suits, ties and pocket squares even as everything around me turned progressively more namby-pamby with woolly-headed political correctness. I was disappointed with advertising – it wasn’t at all what I’d come to expect from watching Mad Men. I wanted to be Don Draper, but everyone around me was playing at being some odd amalgamation of Che Guevara, David Attenborough, and Maya Angelou.

This baffled me for some time and pushed me further to the so-called right. I recall the 2014 election night in New Zealand, upon which day I had successfully cajoled my sceptical younger brother into voting for John Key – New Zealand’s own Wall Street success story and then neolib kingpin of the ‘National’ Party, which retook the reins from the Neo-Marxist dictatorship of Jacinda Ardern last September, but (like all well behaved ‘right wing’ parties in the West) has done and will continue to do nothing to slow the onslaught of woke globalism, and the WEF/UN-sponsored Great Reset whose genesis I explored in my essay The Truth About the World in One Word: Rockefeller.

More fool me. The story we had grown up believing was that the corporate world was that of the right-wing; of conservatism – suits, cigars and money. That’s what I thought I wanted (the unfortunate spectre of interventionist wars notwithstanding – and which I justified to myself in all sorts of idiotic ways).

How was The Corporation suddenly marching in Pride parades and breathlessly greenwashing everything it touched?

It didn’t make sense to me, and I wanted the old world back. I was in fact, resentful that I’d missed it and gotten instead this lame, watered-down version of Gordon Gekko… I thought greed was supposed to be good, and I wanted my piece of the pie, cooked to the traditional recipe.

This was of course years before I took my red pill, and I believed that there was still ultimate utility in The System. I naïvely believed, as so many still do, that because I earned a modestly good salary and could afford champagne and oysters that I had made it into the club and would be sustained in my dotage by the largesse which The System bestowed on its faithful middleclass scions.

I therefore reached the conclusion, early-on, that the corporate world had simply rebranded itself as ‘left-wing’ to maintain its salience with my Millennial generation. It struck me as silly and unfortunate – especially given that this new form of leftism was awash with oddity, and nothing resembling the punk rock anti-establishment views I’d held in my twenties – but it made sense on face value, and I decided to just filter out the parts that irritated me and carried on my merry way.

And thus, The Machine got its hooks into me.

In 2016 I called Trump a ‘demagogue’ and I tut-tutted at one of the account managers at the ad agency I was working with when he said positive things about the man. I also clutched my pearls over Brexit and made cringey pontifications about it on Facebook. That same year I was shocked on a trip to Europe to meet regular working folk who despised the European Union – specifically two English lads from Gloucester whom I met at a nightclub in Amsterdam, and a Polish chauffeur who drove me and my then wife from Krakow to Auschwitz (the latter, by my recollection, had an engineering degree but could not find employment).

I had become the bleary-eyed normie automaton whom I now deride, mindlessly adopting the talking-points of the corporate media and everyone around me; blindly worshipping power, and never stopping to apply critical thought to the nature of that beast.

A year later, the Culture War was in full swing and once again, things were not adding up for me. I quickly became what many around me at the time would call ‘radicalised’, or what we of the resistance have long called ‘red-pilled’. I adjusted my view as it became apparent to me (or so I thought) that the capitalist system had simply been hijacked by bozos and weirdos and that Trump would restore order – and for my pains, I was of course called a racist and a homophobe.

My journey was only just beginning, and the rest is not important, suffice to say that it took me another three or four years to fully draw the curtain back and understand that no one had hijacked the system, the new boss was the same as the old boss, he just had some fancy new jargon.

The inflection point for me was COVID – when I finally realised that I, my family, and people like me meant absolutely nothing to The Machine, and that, in all likelihood, it hated us.

The left-right dichotomy of establishment party politics was finally shattered as I understood there was no difference between the two branches of the global uniparty and that a third-way was the only way.

In short – populism. Not about left vs right, but the people vs the system.

While Bobby Kennedy Jr’s journey has been very different from mine, he has arrived at the same political train station – feeling like an outsider, despised by The Machine, and abandoning his own third-party campaign in the crucial swing states to throw his weight behind the only truly viable third-way populist of our time – Donald Trump.

Traditionally left-wing comedian Jimmy Dore sums it up at the end of this video, saying, “In the age of miracles, Kennedy has … become an outsider. How did that happen? How did Donald Trump, a billionaire, and a Kennedy become outsiders?”

Subscribe now

I don’t agree with RFK Jr on some issues, but I’ve admired him for a long time and find it remarkable to see my own journey (and that of many millions of others) mirrored in this man with the famous family name.

That I have, in my time, gone 540 degrees around the political protractor and finally settled on an albeit more refined version of the dissident politics of my twenties, which broadly encompass what most of us understand as traditional leftism (anti-war, anti-big business, true environmentalism etc.) and repudiated the system, which for most of my life I believed was the righteous force that kept our world stable, is not especially extraordinary – I’m just a guy who started paying attention and asking difficult questions.

What is remarkable, is witnessing this same tale of disillusionment and awakening in Bobby Kennedy Jr not only turning his back on the Democrats and running as an Independent, but then standing on the world stage and endorsing a Republican!

Nothing could be more un-Kennedy – and yet, as Jimmy said, “in the age of miracles”, it just happened.

And let it be noted – there is a chasm of difference between Trump Republicanism and establishment Republicanism. This is what so many still fail to grasp – that the word ‘Republican’ no longer means what it used to: a byword for war and big business, and this distinction now belongs to the Democrats. Trump has successfully infiltrated and gutted the party, turning its base into a mighty populist front, further enflamed by the failed assassination attempt of July 13 – an event which, with almost supernatural serendipity, appears to have bonded him inextricably with the Kennedy story, thus bringing to his side perhaps the one man who can seal the deal for him.

RFK Jr’s projected share of the vote is sitting anywhere between 5% and 20%, and in the battleground states his endorsement is likely to provide Trump with a big enough boost to render the latest establishment puppet, Kamala Harris, dead in the water.

Far too many both in the US and around the world, including friends of mine here Down Under, still apply to the Democratic Party, with shockingly simplicity, the old badge of honour that RFK Jr himself still naïvely pins to its legacy 65 years later – as he said in his announcement:

Back then the Democrats were the champions of the Constitution; of civil rights; the Democrats stood against authoritarianism, against censorship, against colonialism, imperialism, and unjust wars. We were the party of labour; of the working class. The Democrats were the party of government transparency, and the champion of the environment. Our party was the bulwark against big monied interests and corporate power. True to its name, it was the party of democracy.

He goes on to explain that he turned his back on the party because it has departed so dramatically from the core values he grew up with.

Bobby is perhaps blinded to reality by the disproportionate impact his own family had on the Democratic Party – deeply flawed though its luminaries may be – an impact so seismic that both his uncle and father were murdered for it.

And if I can be forgiven for failing to grasp the true nature of the system that I gave my allegiance to in exchange for a few nice suits, fancy restaurant meals and a low interest mortgage, then we can forgive Bobby for his myopic view that the Democratic Party was ever the great panacea he rhapsodises about, and perhaps in time he will see this also.

What matters for now is that he sees the party for what it is – as Jimmy Dore says here at 21:42, “This is amazing what’s happening here … the Democratic Party is so corrupt … so fascistic, so anti-democratic, that they got Bobby Kennedy to endorse a Republican for president! That’s how bad the Democratic Party is … The Democratic Party is the establishment party now.”

Jimmy shares some of Bobby’s myopia in his ironic use of the word ‘now’. I would argue that, perhaps apart for a few short years in the early 60s, the Democrats were always simply one side of the establishment coin, and one must go back decades before both men were born to identify a time in American politics when either side of that coin was not corrupted by big monied interests – if ever.

But Jimmy too can be forgiven.

What matters right now is that the traditional left and right are joining forces and the populist resistance to the globalist agenda is solidifying and uniting in the US – and if it wins out there, it will invariably spread further afield, as everything that happens in America does.

Or perhaps it is I who am being naïve and there is some inevitable plot twist to come, or some deep conspiracy that I am too simple-minded or romantic to grasp. But as I wrote in my essay Wilson took his shot… but missed!, after many dark years of pessimism, I am ready to indulge in a little hope.

It appears likely that if Trump wins, he will give Kennedy a cabinet position, and if this were one in which he could go after his traditional enemies Big Pharma, Big Food and various other nefarious corporate poisoners, we could be in for a wild ride.

Furthermore, Trump announced, on stage with Kennedy at his rally in Arizona on August 23, that “in honour of Bobby” he will establish a presidential commission on assassination attempts and release the files on the assassination of John F. Kennedy in 1963 – watch at 4:33.

I invite you to imagine for a moment what a world in which Bobby Kennedy was the chairman of such a commission might look like…

Or better still, in which he was given dominion over the CIA, FBI, and other intelligence agencies…

I may be straying into wonderland here, but what a gloriously poetic ending that would be. One could not write a more compelling movie script.

Can they possibly let this happen? They’ve tried everything up to and including blowing Donald Trump’s head off and nothing has worked. Now he’s got RFK Jr by his side…

Do they dare come at Trump again? Let alone bump off yet another Kennedy??

I’ve always been ambivalent about the romanticised version of the Kennedy story. It’s a nice fairytale in which one deeply wants to believe – but it’s always been marred for me by the less attractive aspects of that great American dynasty.

But Bobby Junior has always stuck me as a decent and genuine guy, and moreover, his bowing out of the race to give Trump a leg up strikes me as selfless to the point of heroism. Perhaps, despite the skeletons that rattle around in the Kennedy family closet, they were really a good bunch, Jack and Bobby Senior; upright men who, like Trump, wanted to make the world better for regular people, and – as so nearly happened to Donald – paid the ultimate price for it.

Perhaps this grit and integrity now shines resplendently in Bobby Junior, and he may get the chance not only to avenge his father and uncle, but help set right the wrongs that they endeavoured to confront sixty years ago.

With two months until the finish line, and after the events we’ve witnessed since 2020, one would be foolish to assume it’s all wrapped up, and I will remain only cautiously hopeful.

But for now, and although we arrived via different routes, I am delighted to stand in the same camp as the still slightly naïve yet awakened and activated Robert F. Kennedy Jr, and would say simply to him, if I were able: “Welcome, brother.”

Subscribe now

Let me begin by apologising for my lack of output lately. The pressures of my day job have intensified recently and, in keeping with the general financial and economic state of affairs globally, we’re all being asked to do more with less. So, to long-time readers and new subscribers alike – my apologies; but, until I find a way to do this kind of writing for a living, I still must serve The Machine to keep the lights on.

It is apt that my month’s silence can be put down to the expectations of my corporate overlords – asking me to do more with less – in that this characterises not only the plight of the middle and working classes in 2024, with the cost of living having increased by around 50% in my estimate since 2020, but even more specifically, the situation in the UK at present. Never was the concept of being pushed to the breaking point by unreasonable expectations coupled with gross under-resourcing more manifest on a societal scale than in the unrest we’ve witnessed in the UK in the past few weeks.

Britain’s new Tzar, Two-Tier Keir, the living embodiment of Orwell’s Big Brother, has made it profoundly clear to the native people of the United Kingdom, the country of my birth and of which I am still a citizen, that there will be no reprieve from the relentless program of mass immigration and the long-since failed experiment of multiculturalism – and moreover, that Britons who dare to oppose it, by way of protest, or even online rhetoric, will be swiftly and mercilessly crushed by the state.

Here he is addressing England’s “far right thugs” (that is, regular folk who have had enough of the unmitigated flow of criminal immigrants form the Third World and who finally reached boiling point with the stabbing murder of three children in Southport on July 29). “I guarantee,” said Two-Tier Keir, “you will regret taking part in this disorder, whether directly, or those whipping up this action online”.

I am not going to inundate you with resource material on this topic – many of you will have been following the story, and if you have not, then you need only jump on X (Twitter) and search #TwoTierKeir – but it is quite clear at this point that the UK has indeed reached the utopian destination of the long march begun by Tony Blair in 1997 toward a two-tier justice system wherein native Britons are subject to one draconian law, and immigrants – specifically those of Middle Eastern and African origin and especially those of Muslim faith – one entirely more benevolent. You can dig into this topic at your leisure, but Paul Joseph Watson sums it up with his usual acerbic humour in the following short videos:

And David Starkey undertakes a more nuanced and academic analysis here:

I have discussed at length my views on the New World Order envisioned by the likes of the UN and WEF and the web of NGOs affiliated with both these supranational politburos, most recently in one of my most viewed to-date essays The Truth About the World in One Word: Rockefeller, suffice to say that the globalist elite desire a borderless world wherein the docile and productive societies of the West are inundated with migrants from the Third World, causing destabilisation and unrest to which they can then apply their clarion call of ‘one world’, uniting their ‘global citizens’ under one ultimate authority and invoking their mantra of ‘diversity, equity and inclusion’ to justify the implementation of a global police state to protect the so-called vulnerable minorities from the racist brutes of the countries that they and their swarms of immigrants have invaded, conquered, and destroyed.

The same formula applies to the elevation of ‘LGBTQ Pride’, the climate change hoax, and the now perpetual boogieman of pandemic (which is either profoundly overstated, or entirely fictional depending on where you stand on the subject of communicable disease and the efficacy of vaccines).

I covered this thesis in detail in the abovementioned essay, and if you’ve not read it, please consider doing so, and viewing the resource material I cite therein – it took me a week’s worth of research and work to complete this lengthy piece, and is part of the reason I’ve been absent for some weeks now, needing time to catch up on my ‘real’ work. But to quote from it, in summarising the end goal of the globalist agenda:

…what do we observe?

A tactical matrix of programs and narratives solely aimed at smashing the bonds which have nurtured healthy societies for millennia: family and nationhood; integrity and morality.

We can point to any of the progressive hegemonic narratives of our age and chart each one toward the very same inevitable outcomes: The destruction of individual integrity, the destruction of the family unit, the destruction of the middle-class, and the destruction of the nation state.

Feminism, Rainbow Pride, Transgendersim, ESG, DEI, race politics, Sustainability, global health mandates… it all leads to the same place: a divided, atomised society of fearful individuals – weak, malleable, and compliant – united only in an anxious and guilt-ridden group consciousness.

Under such managerial autocrats as Two-Tier Keir (who by comparison makes his placeholder predecessors – bumbling Boris, and Rishi Sunak – look like playful kittens) this program will be rolled out globally, country by country, until the West that we grew up in is but a bedtime story to tell our children; starving as we freeze to death in the dark (as James Lindsay is wont to say), that is, if we (the nominally Christian folk of the old West) even have any children to whom we can tell these stories.

And here lies the point upon which all of this hinges: We are not having enough children.

Subscribe now

Contrary to the ludicrous alarmism that permeates the legacy media discourse, overpopulation is not the catastrophe that faces humanity, but rather underpopulation, and figures show that the peoples of every Western country and many others besides (including China) have for some time been reproducing at well below the established population replacement rate of 2.1 children per woman. As such, the giant edifices of social welfare and pork barrel government handouts endemic in every Western society can no longer be sustained, and thus, compliant workers are required from elsewhere – and how wonderfully convenient for our masters that the people they have chosen to fill this gaping hole come from parts of the world where even a Western minimum wage (or perhaps a subsistence level universal basic income) is infinitely more attractive than staying put in what Donald Trump once, not inaccurately, referred to as their “shithole counties”.

Carl Benjamin succinctly discusses this here:

With many other commentators I agree that we cannot begrudge the people of these godforsaken reaches of the planet for flocking to our benevolent and abundant societies – would many of us not opt for the same course of action in their shoes? I direct my wrath, as I always have, at those who continue to facilitate this disaster: The likes of Keir Starmer and his friends at the World Economic Forum; George Soros and the sprawling tangle of NGO organs that fund both the migration itself and the propaganda in our home countries that mollifies our people into unflinchingly accepting it; the Neo-Marxist former leader of my own country New Zealand, Jacinda Ardern, and the current globalist puppet of my adopted home Australia, Anthony Albanese; the EU and the Biden regime, and Obama before him; the Democrat Party and their vast cadre of Military Industrial Complex backers who add fuel to the fire by keeping the world in a perpetual state of warfare and strife; and the international corporate machine which, through its ubiquitous DEI and ESG codes, ensures adherence to the UN’s 17 Sustainable Development Goals which underpin the entire program and which, as I outlined in The Truth About the World in One Word: Rockefeller are simply the upshot of an at least century-old conspiracy of the super-rich, to bring the planet under one centralised autocratic authority.

I am certain our rulers know full well we are headed for catastrophic population collapse, and this suits them just fine – they’ve never liked us and would be quite happy to see us gone. And they are not coy about it either – we are constantly being told that we need to reduce Earth’s population, and they augment this already occurring phenomenon (which began in earnest with Big Pharma’s miracle invention of the contraceptive pill and the Rockefeller-sponsored upheaval of 20^th Century feminism) with ongoing propaganda aimed at disincentivising child-rearing: our responsibly as ‘global citizens’ to reduce our ‘carbon footprint’, and what better way to do this than to produce fewer troublesome little humans?

Overpopulation is a myth as naked and insidious as anthropogenic climate change, and they know it. They’re downsizing us by design, not because they fear our species may outstrip the planet’s resources, but simply because we are a threat to their hegemony and they want us gone, and indeed, their perfidy has been so effective that we have for some decades now been downsizing voluntarily, incentivised in no small way, of course, by the ever increasing cost of living which, of course, is a direct result of the Ponzi scheme of fractional reserve banking – the very beating heart of the Liberal World Order.

But naturally, in the meantime, they need to keep the machine running while they wind things down, demolishing the civilisation that has taken us millennia to build up; and for this they need worker bees – hence the sacred cow of mass migration and multiculturalism whose opponents, as Two-Tier Keir so bluntly informed his subjects two weeks ago, “will face the full force of the law … arrests … remand … charges … and convictions”.

What is the answer?

One must read my entire catalogue to grasp my views on the many ways in which we must fight back, but on this one crucial point, the solution is quite simple. We need to have more children. And this is not about race. I am not talking about ‘white people’. I mean any constituent of our societies who holds Christian, or at least Western values.

As the title of this essay suggests, I have no issue with controlled, legal immigration. I know, respect and love many people who have come to places like Australia and New Zealand from non-Western countries. They are good, honest, hard-working folk who, in many cases lead more virtuous and productive lives than I do and probably add more to the general wellbeing of society than I do. They think and act as Westerners, and that is what counts.

But having said that, I am utterly sick to death of proclamations from the likes of Donald Trump and countless conservative commentators extolling the virtues of ‘legal immigration’.

Yes, it’s fine, at a sensible and controlled rate, but it is not the answer.

The answer, to put it quite crudely, is to get busy in the bedroom and start making more babies.

There are of course myriad roadblocks to this as, naturally, more children alone will not render positive results – the sanctity of marriage and the family unit must be re-established; hook-up culture, enjoyable as it is, and much as I’ve partaken in it, must be relegated to the backseat; housing, energy and food must become more affordable… I could go on.

As for stemming the flow and beginning the necessary deportations in places like the UK, France, Germany and the United States – I have little faith in any of the established conservative political figures – not even Donald Trump or Nigel Farage. They talk the talk, but even if Trump does win in November, which I have serious doubts about (despite the hope I articulated in my previous essay) I doubt any actions he manages to take in this regard will have a meaningful impact.  

And for those of us Down Under, who look around and see no noticeable demographic shift and accompanying strife such as has ignited the recent turmoil in Britain, I say – just wait a while. Left unchecked (and I say again, I see little hope in any current political movement – we need a radical new brand of nationalistic populism in all our countries) the program will advance at speed and, once the UK and Europe are full, and buckling beneath the enormous weight of their newly arrived protected ‘minority’ class, they will start shipping them down here. I have often said that the only reason it hasn’t happened yet is because places like Australia, New Zealand and even Canada take longer to get to. Europe and the US southern border are the natural destinations for phase one, but the blight will eventually reach us here too.

As the father of only one child, I have at least done more than some of my contemporaries. But I have many friends and associates with two, three or more children, and to these fine folk I take my hat off. Having reproduced at (by modern standards) a very young age, and subsequently failed in many respects as a father, then failed at my marriage and then again at another long-term relationship, I am currently in mid-life-crisis mode.

I recently encouraged my 18-year-old boy to find a good woman, get married and give me some grandchildren, and for all his dissonant progressive confusion and wayward punk rock antics, I think he heard and understood me, saying in all sincerity, “Thanks Dad, I’ll keep that in mind.”

But I can’t pin it all on him. I don’t feel I’ve done my part yet, and while I’ve still got some lead in my pencil, I intend to devote my efforts these next few years to finding that good woman, letting go of the ambivalent and relapsing hedonism that modernity has bred into me, and doing my part by having a couple more kids.

Daunting and unworkable as this may seem in the current climate, I don’t see what else most of us can do at the granular, individual level to secure not only the future of our way of life, but indeed, our own peace of mind and happiness.

We have many things to fix, and I don’t have all the answers – only ideas, hopes and dreams, which I have set down here from week to week, and month to month these past three years. This will take a great deal of work, sacrifice, and perhaps even suffering and I have little hope that things will improve without first getting worse.

But perhaps the utmost sacrifice we of child bearing age, who find ourselves without children to nurture and meld into future torch bearers, can make at this point is to hark back to the values of our forebears and relinquish that part of our ego that longs for profligate freedom, find that good woman, or man, and have a couple of children – costly and burdensome though it may be.

I have not forgotten the sleepless nights and the smell of baby-formula vomit at 3am as I nursed my infant child 18 years ago – but I will happily go through it all again for the good of our civilisation and indeed for my own much needed spiritual healing.

Subscribe now

In April 2023, the lawfare apparatus of the establishment swung into action against Donald J. Trump, having tried for eight years, and ultimately failed, to cancel him through character assassination.

At this time I wrote a whimsical essay titled The Great Trumpsby – An American Allegory: The remarkable parallel of Donald Trump and Jay Gatsby in which (over-simplistically, I thought at the time) I likened Trump to Gatsby, Tom Buchannan to the US/globalist establishment, and the narrator, Nick Carraway, to us – the hopeful onlookers, who dare to believe our world may yet return to a place both of reason and of simpler, purer idealism.

Gatsby’s embodiment of the American Dream was, I argued, mirrored in Donald Trump – in their enigmatic rise and swift, subsequent fall, but more importantly in the somewhat naïve but compellingly romantic belief, harboured by both men, that they could turn back the clock, and repeat an idealised former time; a sentiment immortalised in the closing lines of The Great Gatsby, “So we beat on, boats against the current, borne back ceaselessly into the past.”

In this essay I wrote:

As the machine gears up to crush Trump once and for all we ask ourselves if Donald Trump will get to complete his story arc and write the sequel that poor old Gatsby never got. We ask ourselves, is it even possible, not only to repeat the victory of 2016, but to return the Western world to a place of pragmatism, prosperity, decency? Or has America, the land of the free and the home of the brave, retreated into such vast carelessness as to stake this final roll of the dice instead on the crumbling, cancerous edifice of the Liberal World Order? Is the soul of America still intact?

I did not know at the time that there would be another, yet more analogous chapter to this story, and that my flawed metaphor would eventually be granted a neat little conclusion – but one that ultimately departs from the tragedy of Gatsby.

“It is not important who Wilson represents in our analogy,” I wrote in The Great Trumpsby, “– pick your functional organ of American national life: the intelligence agencies; the media; the Democratic Party ... What matters is – Gatsby threatened Tom’s control of Daisy, Tom used his status to manipulate Wilson, and Wilson put an end to Gatsby.”

For indeed, my analogy was then imperfect, and Wilson to me simply represented the many tentacles of the state, then fixing to imprison the former president and prevent him from running again in 2024.

But Wilson now has a name in my fanciful little saga: Thomas Matthew Crooks.

Last Sunday, as those of us behind the westwardly advancing sun awoke to the news of the assassination attempt on Donald Trump, Andrew Tate posted on X:

“Remember what I told you. You get three lives. First they cancel you. Then they try and put you in jail. If they both fail. They kill you.”

Tate was hardly alone in his prescience, and countless other high profile commentators (and many millions of commoners aside) have been predicting for months now that this bullet was incoming, including Tucker Carlson.

But what a remarkable parallel it is that can now be drawn between the character of Wilson and Thomas Matthew Crooks – the snivelling weakling, the struggling loner, so very easily manipulated and maneuvered by the The Machine which, I again remind you, I analogised in the character of Tom Buchannan in The Great Gatsby.

“I told him the truth,” [Tom] said [speaking of Wilson]. “He came to the door while we were getting ready to leave, and when I sent down word that we weren’t in, he tried to force his way upstairs. He was crazy enough to kill me if I hadn’t told him who owned the car. His hand was on a revolver in his pocket every minute he was in the house—” He broke off defiantly. “What if I did tell him? That fellow had it coming to him. He threw dust into your eyes just like he did in Daisy’s, but he was a tough one. He ran over Myrtle like you’d run over a dog and never even stopped his car.”

“That fellow had it coming to him,” Tom says, and here, in his above justification to Nick Carraway following Wilson’s murder of Gatsby, we see again mirrored the pronouncements and prodding of the establishment for the past nine years.

Whether Crooks was ‘acting alone’ and simply goaded by the propaganda machine into the action he took on 13 July, or whether he was recruited and resourced by the same intelligence and paramilitary actors that we now know were responsible for the assassination of John F. Kennedy is irrelevant.

For the record, I entirely believe this to have been orchestrated by the state, and that Crooks was simply the last link in a long chain of conspirators potentially leading all the way back to the White House, and certainly involving the big monied interests who sit behind it and pull the strings of the current presidency.

But even if one takes the view that Crooks was merely a deranged maniac, driven insane by the relentless media attacks on Trump since 2015, the analogy of Wilson stands: A weak and unstable individual, used as a pawn by a powerful elite (either through direct compulsion or cunning innuendo) as the trigger man to accomplish what it could not affect through defamation and legal chicanery.

Subscribe now

My analogy of 15 months ago is thus complete, and we now know who Wilson is.

There is of course one crucial difference: While Wilson’s bullet hit its target, Crooks’s projectile missed, by a mere centimetre to be sure, and not without drawing blood. In the novel, Gatsby’s lifeless body floats on an inflatable mattress in his swimming pool amid a cluster of autumn leaves, revolving around “like the leg of compass, a thin red circle in the water.”

The vermilion streaks that punctuate the images which emerged from Butler Pennsylvania last weekend could not tell a more antipodal story – departing from the tragedy of The Great Gatsby and coalescing resolutely around the novel’s other core theme: Hope.

Readers may have noted my general avoidance of the topic of Donald Trump these past few years. I’ve dedicated only one essay to him and made only passing mention elsewhere. This is partially because there is so much coverage of the man that I’ve generally felt there is little I can add, but moreover because I have, since 2020, been somewhat sceptical about his salience as what many millions view as our political salvation. And I am forever saying, put not your trust in princes.

Trump’s achievements in his first term, some of his policies, some of the people he placed in his immediate entourage, and most of all his complicity in the COVID ‘vaccine’ rollout and subsequent ambivalence on the topic have all given me cause to distrust him.

And while I am still not convinced that he alone can save us from the woke globalist onslaught, all of that changed on 13 July 2024, and I am now back on the Trump train.

Put quite simply, and as I remarked to a friend this past week (a fellow who, like many others, does not like Trump and does not want to see him in office, yet still characterised his bloody rise from the floor of the podium, and defiant raised fist as “a BOSS move”)…

Anyone who the CIA is trying to kill, is most likely on my side.

It’s been a dark year and I’ve had my fill of grief, doubt, and pessimism. I’m ready to indulge in a little hope. And nothing inspires hope, defiance, and, in Trump’s own words, “FIGHT” like the above image.

Will Donald Trump now get to complete his story arc and write for himself the sequel that poor old Gatsby never got? Will his reach extend across that foggy gulf which Gatsby could not bridge and finally grasp “the green light, the orgastic future that year by year recedes before us”?

I wonder what Gatsby’s sequel would have looked like? Or his alternate ending, more accurately put. Would Wilson’s failed assassination attempt have jolted Daisy back to her senses, out of Tom’s clutches and back into the arms of her lover? Would the book’s fragile theme of hope instead trump the grim motif of tragedy?

At the conclusion to The Great Trumpsby I left readers guessing as to whom Daisy represented in my American allegory, suggesting that I’d already revealed the answer within the body of the essay. I no longer see any utility in this coyness and so shall reveal that she, of course, is emblematic of the soul of America.

And the question remains: Is the soul of America still intact?

We shall find out, come November – further tragic turns in the road notwithstanding.

As the crumbling mask of the Liberal World Order continues to slip, laying bare the grotesque creatures who have for so many decades masqueraded as our great and benevolent benefactors, it only remains to once more quote Nick Carraway’s words to his friend Gatsby on the morning that his gunman came for him:

“They’re a rotten crowd. You’re worth the whole damn bunch put together.”

Subscribe now

Tucker Carlson’s recent tour of Australia has me once again pondering the nature of fame and fortune and how compatible these things are with a credible position inside the Truth movement.

I thought Tucker did rather well – and here is his parting address to Australia at the conclusion of his two-week tour: Tucker Carlson’s Warning to Australians | Melbourne, Australia Full Speech

Tucker’s based takes, his acerbic wit, his signature high-pitched guffaw, and his compelling seven-year stint on Fox News – before they neatly cancelled him for saying nasty things about BlackRock – have furnished the front room of populist conservatism since the dawn of the Trump era.

He is indeed one if our leading luminaries, and I must say, I have a lot of time for the guy.

I have, however, been swift to remind starry-eyed Tuck fanboys – that during his tenure on Fox throughout the scamdemic, he conveniently avoided the issue of the COVID ‘vaccines’.

Certainly, now that the golden handcuffs are off, he has been more vocal on the matter – not least in the above-linked speech. And we must, perhaps, forgive Tucker, and concede, that when working for a media behemoth like Fox, there are simply things one cannot say (especially when Pfizer's total advertising spend was over $100 million in 2021, a significant proportion of which – we can assume – went to Fox).

I have repeatedly said – put not your trust in princes.

And I do not exclude Tucker Carlson from this mix. Along with the likes of Elon Musk, Andrew Tate, Nigel Farage, and even Donald Trump himself, I say we must see all these men for what they are: Hustlers and players; charismatic and well-intentioned certainly, but out for themselves at the end of the day, and (while they may converge with us on a broad array of socio-cultural-political issues), we should never abdicate our personal responsibility for the resurgence of our people (the hard-grafting common folk of the world – both working and middle classes) to these idols.

In Tucker’s case, I currently extend a certain amount more leniency. His recent discussions of our struggle through a spiritual lens, with frank reference to his own faith; the paramount importance of telling the truth – as often and as fully as one is able; and his crystalline grasp of the antihuman agenda of the globalist elite – all this suggests to me that despite his great wealth and fame, and despite the fact that his father was a US intelligence officer (red flag! Same as Andrew Tate!) – he might just be one of the good guys, and at the very least, far less controlled opposition that he was while working for Rupert Murdoch.

I like Tucker’s current tune. I don’t trust him 100%, but then again, I don’t really trust anyone 100%. As Warden Norton famously pontificated to Andy Dufresne’s arriving prisoner party in The Shawshank Redemption – “Put your trust in the Lord. Your ass belongs to me.”

Much as I despise the Warden (hilarious caricature though he is) I tend to agree with him, or at least the salience of his statement.

Who does Warden Norton represent? The Warden represents The Machine. And it is quite likely that the agents of The Machine care not what happens after they die, but only that they are in power as long as they live on this Earth. That is – Put your trust in the Lord (for I care not what He does to me in eternity) because, while we’re both here, on this patch of ground…. YOUR ASS BELONGS TO ME.

And so, I maintain, put not your trust in princes – however, as far as princes go, Tucker is probably my favourite right now.

I’ll tell you who I remain disappointed with though…

Jordan Peterson.

I expect none of us are strangers to disillusionment. How many fallen idols must we endure? How many human frailties must we discover in the various manifestations of our heroic personages?

Tommy Robinson is a cokehead…

Andrew Tate became a Muslim...

Paul Joseph Watson sleazed on Lauren Southern like a common London tomcat...

And Tucker...?

Yeah, Tucker failed to call out the ‘vaccines’… (while he had his golden handcuffs on).

I’ve said often that I consider the COVID vaccine genocide to be the paramount issue of our time. And this may be the one issue on which I offer no quarter to cowards and shills who went along with the narrative because it suited them to do so – but more so, those who then recanted once ‘The Science changed’ and accordingly changed their own tunes.

A perfect example of this is the much vaunted (Nurse) Doctor John Campbell. Go back to his videos from 2021 and check out his opinion on the ‘vaccines’ then, compared to the ‘heroic’ stand he’s taking now. Or just Watch Alistair Williams’s brutal takedowns here, here, here, here, and here  – it’ll take you way less time and will at least make you laugh.

I think I can forgive Tucker for his silence on the vaccines (grudgingly) because I suppose at the time, as the highest-rated news personality in the world, he did some simple math and decided: ‘I could lose my job and my platform by saying this one thing; or I could use the pedestal that these evil bastards provide me to try and destroy them’…

At least that’s what I tell myself.

It’s much the same calculus that Tim Pool applies to the format of his nightly show – and it is far from ideal. I do however consider Tim to be (despite his considerable contribution to our fight) an immoral heathen and borderline narcissist, whereas I believe fairly firmly that Tucker is a man of God.

But all moral judgments, and Tim Pool rabbit holes aside, let’s get back to the issue:

Tucker vs Jordan.

Were you aware, as indeed a friend of mine (and long-time Jordan Peterson fanboy) was not – that back in 2021, Jordan went online to his millions of followers and said, “Get the damn vaccine!”

See our text conversation from earlier this week:

Well, first of all: Tucker never said that (as far as I am aware). Tucker never told anyone to “get the damn vaccine”.

Subscribe now

He stayed silent, sure. And perhaps there’s a special place for him in hell, and one which we’ll never know about unless we wind up there with him and all the others who didn’t quite cut the mustard. But if it were up to me, I’d forgive him.

Now I say this as a man who read 12 Rules for Life and was transformed in no small way by Peterson’s enigmatic philosophy, but rather than staying silent like Tucker did on the vaccine, Jordan on the other hand…

And it bears mentioning how difficult this video was to find. It took me ten minutes of searching on three different browsers to find even this shonky rendition.

An immediate red flag.

Jordan Peterson is one of the most Googled and influential figures of the past decade. Why then should it be so difficult to locate a video of him saying "Get the damn vaccine”?

Go try it now, for a little censorship experiment… Type in: “Jordan Peterson Get The Damn Vaccine”…

Use whatever browser you like. Use Twitter/X… Hell, type it directly into YouTube itself and you’ll probably have to spend several minutes filtering through rubbish to find him actually saying these words.

It raises the question: Why would the world’s most powerful tech monopolies (who are all deeply in bed with the Pharmaceutical Industrial Complex and the globalist power matrix that pushed this poison in the first place) not want us to remember that he said this three years ago?

When viewed through this perhaps overly simplistic lens, it smacks quite crudely of controlled opposition.

Oh yes, Jordan has changed his tune now… And fans may still argue: ‘He just didn’t know! He was in the dark like the rest of us… But AT LEAST he’s taking a stand now…’

At least?

I would say the least a man with the entire countercultural internet at his fingertips in 2021; a man who was then rubbing shoulders, through at least one degree of separation, with most of the leading scientific lights in the early COVID vaccine alarm-bell brigade… the least such a man could have done would be to remain silent…

Like Tucker did.

But here’s the difference between Tucker and Jordan: Tucker worked for Rupert Murdoch, whose hands are tied by all manner of nefarious interests – not least the Big Pharma marketing spend at Fox.

Jordan was a free agent… Wasn’t he?

That then leads us back to the hypothetical argument that his hands weren’t tied at all, he just didn’t know.

No.

At the risk of repeating previous essays ad nauseum I must say again: If an absolute nobody like me, through a little basic research, knew (in 2021) that in all probability mRNA vaccines were both unsafe and ineffective – then HOW THE HELL DID A PERSOANGE OF SUCH COUNTERCULTURAL CLOUT AS JORDAN PETERSON NOT KNOW?

To say nothing of the fact that before even looking into the issue I knew, through basic common sense and established ‘scientific’ fact to-date, that it was impossible to develop a vaccine for a coronavirus, and if it was remotely possible, it could not be done in a period of six months.

At the very least – how was there not enough doubt in Peterson’s mind to simply stay silent on the subject as others such as Tucker and Douglas Murray did? Both (presumably) for the reason of golden handcuffs – despicable, but understandable. Jordan, from the popular tale we are told, had no such handcuffs…

And thus, we are simply expected to put his ridiculous faux pas down to ignorance? The man with a 156 IQ was simply ignorant?

Okay bro. Cool story. Go clean your room, Jordan.

We all remember exactly where we were at certain critical junctures in life – when our understanding of the world took an abrupt turn. I doubt a single reader can fail to remember where they were when 9/11 happened for instance. Older readers may even recall what they were doing when they first heard the news of the JFK assassination.

As such, I remember exactly where I was when I first became a serious vaccine sceptic – having ‘trusted The Science’ my entire life.

It was September 2021, and I was taking a bath. A friend had sent me this essay earlier in the day and, much as I’d have preferred to lose myself in music or a mindless novel, I resolved to plough through it. The topic of vaccine mandates was becoming prevalent at the time, not just in Melbourne but worldwide, and I felt I needed to educate myself through whatever sketchy means necessary – such was the lack of anything other than keen enthusiasm from mainstream sources. At the time I was doubtful about this obscure blog site, but as I read on, a lot of dots began connecting, and even my own rudimentary understanding of epidemiology began crying: ‘Yes. This actually makes sense. And what they’re telling us on the 6 o’clock news doesn’t!’

By the time I’d finished reading, gotten out of the bath and dried off, I was texting up a storm to family and friends, attempting to warn them about this ‘vaccine’. I’d had my doubts for almost a year already having consumed plenty of cautionary content from the various writers and podcasters I was following at the time: I remember former Pfizer Vice President Dr Mike Yeadon talking to James Delingpole about it late in 2020 (a conversation which appears to have been scrubbed from the internet – but his subsequent two appearances with James can be accessed here and here).

I’d been wading through ‘antivax’ discourse for months but finally, this obscure yet compelling essay was the straw that broke the camel’s back and made me a ‘vaccine sceptic’, and it wasn’t even twelve months (as the fruits of the jab became evident and I’d gone much deeper down the vaccine rabbit hole with the likes of RFK Jr) until I was what the propaganda apparatus of The Machine likes to call an ‘antivaxxer’. And let us be clear – for context – ten years ago (in my Patrick Bateman phase) I used to love making fun of ‘antivaxxers’ on Facebook and Twitter.

My pre-COVID vaccine regret is another topic for another day, and much less the odd symptoms I now recall developing at the age of 11, after my MMR vaccine, than the fact I had my infant child jabbed to the hilt because, well, vaccines save lives right?

But while I and millions of other people of very limited means were discovering the true nature of these new miracle drugs and all their predecessors, what was the mighty freedom fighter Jordan Peterson doing? He was telling millions of people to “suspend judgment for six months and get the damn vaccine”.

Our earthly rulers have been shown to be evil, that much should be a basic tenet of any awake person’s world view by now. But our earthly idols, too, are imperfect humans – as indeed is each of us.

It was this singular realisation – that no human could offer me absolute truth, made so clear during the COVID years – that began for me the rediscovery of my spiritual life.

Imperfection demands room for forgiveness and the spiritual life, at least as far as I understand it through the gospels of Christ, implies that repentance is grounds for forgiveness. Often our fallen idols repent. Often they do not. In Tucker’s case it appears more cut and dry: he couldn’t speak up, but now he can. I’ve yet to hear Jordan apologise for telling people to get the vaccine (and if you have him on video to this effect, please do share it with me).

Our fallen idols are many, and indeed the lesson here is that we should not have idols at all – leaders and luminaries, yes, but idolatry paves the way to blind faith, which is exactly what has led our people into the snare we now find ourselves in.

Forgiveness is a tricky thing, and each case must be considered on its own merits, and I have made clear many times what I think should be done to those who aided and abetted the COVID vaccine fraud – the greatest ever crime against humanity.

I stopped reading Douglas Murray’s books when he fell silent on the vaccine issue – a man whom I’d previously revered as a stalwart of our movement. Can his silence be forgiven?

I lost a great deal of respect for Tucker Carlson when he fell silent. Can Tucker’s silence be forgiven?

But the question of my forgiveness, or yours, is ultimately irrelevant.

What is relevant is who we can trust.

I say again, put not your trust in princes. But if you will permit me to use a playground analogy: I am far more willing to trust the kid who stands silently by with a troubled frown, while the bully demands his victim’s lunch money, than the kid who stands behind the bully and yells – “Yeah! Give him your damn lunch money!”

Subscribe now

I do not know how this happened. It was certainly not a deliberate action that I took and can only assume that Substack updated a default setting at some point without notifying creators.

If you are a regular reader who likes to leave comments and have wondered why this function was disabled, I apologise for not noticing the glitch and assure you that I value and enjoy all your regular interaction and, indeed, have been dismayed and baffled lately at the lack of engagement!

In future I will ensure that each post has the comments section enabled and invite you to share all your thoughts, positive or negative and everything in between, as I am here as much to learn from you as I am to share my own limited understanding of the world.

If for any reason this issue recurs, please do drop me a line at dawsonjj@protonmail.com

My apologies again for this oversight.

JJ

One of the biggest mistakes that otherwise well-intentioned and relatively awake people make is to assume that the forthcoming tyrannical cataclysm (The Great Reset) which I and so many other commentators are constantly warning of, cannot possibly happen because the elites whom we charge with its inception simply wouldn’t do that to themselves.

That is, the billionaire class depends on the continuation of our legacy economic system and Western cultural hegemony to sustain their great wealth and, just as its downfall would spell the demise of the working and middle classes, so too would it doom the super-rich.

For the longest time I believed this very thing, and I kept it at the front of my toolkit, and used it as a soothing balm any time I was confronted with ‘conspiracy theories’ of this ilk, hastily slathering it on my enflamed normie sensibilities when confronted with inconvenient titbits of information as I drifted through the endlessly fascinating new world of social media which defined the early days of the post-GFC internet.

But gradually certain titbits began connecting; patterns began emerging; rabbit holes converged and opened into dimly lit yet broad and even highways, and after some years the titbits had begun coalescing into facts – often undeniable facts, and these led me further into the labyrinth where I eventually began to uncover larger truths.

There are times I wish I could unsee these truths, but short of lobotomy or drug-induced stupor, there is no way back into the Matrix, so it is the humble and usually thankless lot of we who have seen, to push on – ever forward into the murky recesses and follow that road wherever leads.

Others however – even those on our team who oppose wokeness, globalism, and ‘Sustainability’ – still refuse to take that final step into the darkness and instead cling doggedly to their old ideas, comforting themselves with the notion that, in fact, we are all in this together (as the elites are so wont to assure us at any given opportunity) and the system that nourishes us also nourishes them, and as such, while things may be going in a disagreeable direction, The Great Reset is to fantastical to give credence; the solution lies at the ballot box and our old two-party system will come right in the end; that enough strongly worded letters to the editor will end the woke madness, and everything will eventually be alright.

Far too many on our side still fall into this camp – one foot in the rabbit hole and one foot out; head and torso outside of Plato’s cave but legs still dangling inside – and these folk, however well-intentioned, act as unwitting gate keepers, much like the so-called conservative arms of the corporate media, employing ‘limited hangouts’ to show that they’re hip to the emerging zeitgeist, but ultimately shrinking from the curliest issues. Indeed, one of my readers contacted me this past week saying:

I see a lot of detail emerging that links the funding for all the pro-Palestine protests to Soros, Pritzker, and similar actors. My husband says he cannot see why they would be underwriting the destabilisation of the US and the West as these economies rely on the supply and purchase of goods on which these people depend for their fortunes.

To understand why this coping mechanism is fallacious, one must understand the true nature of our elites and the enterprise in which they are engaged and, much as few people enjoy a history lecture, to understand this, we must go back about a hundred years to the emergence of the Rockefeller dynasty.

What follows is largely informed by the stellar work of Ivor Cummins and his documentary discussions with Dr. Jacob Nordangard whose book Rockefeller: Controlling the Game should be required reading for anyone wishing to understand how the world really works. However, the two-hour discussion with Cummins is a meaty synopsis and will serve as great auxiliary viewing to this essay.

I am going to cover this long and intriguing history in as few words as possible but everything that follows about the Rockefellers and their many collaborators is historical fact (not ‘conspiracy theory’) and thoroughly referenced in Dr Nordangard’s book.

By the time John D. Rockefeller had become the world’s first billionaire through his monopoly, Standard Oil, he was getting a lot of bad press. Unlike today, the media in his time were not bought and paid for by the conglomerate of big business interests and NGOs that he himself would spawn, and articles and cartoons were appearing in major papers raising alarm bells about his undue influence on the White House and Congress.

Rockefeller was also widely blamed by an outraged public for the Ludlow Massacre in which private guards from the Colorado Fuel and Iron Company (of which he was part owner) joined with National Guardsmen in attacking 1,200 striking coal miners, killing 21 people, including wives and children.

To combat this bad publicity, he did exactly what Bill Gates did 85 years later when he was given a humiliating slap-down by the US justice system for monopolistic practices not at all dissimilar to Rockefeller’s – he reinvented himself as a philanthropist.

Rockefeller hired the public relations guru of his time, Ivy Lee, and set about polishing up his image. In this famous stunt he made a great show of going about handing nickels to young children.

But Rockefeller was interested in much more than being liked by the common folk. His driving ambition, as it had always been, was power and control, and with Lee’s help he quickly realised he could achieve both ends through one endeavour – the establishment of large charitable foundations, and so the Rockefeller Foundation was born.

Through the Foundation, J.D. Rockefeller and his son and grandsons were able to rebrand themselves as noble humanitarians, donating millions of dollars to medicine, education, and social causes.

Thus, we see the birth of what is often now cynically referred to as ‘Rockefeller medicine’. Recognising the potential to transform medicine from patient-focused care into a consumer good, the family used its sponsorship of medical schools and influence over big magazines like Time and Life to discredit natural remedies and proliferate the leviathan of pharmaceuticals that now define modern medicine and which, very conveniently for the Rockefellers, are primarily derived from petrochemicals…

Meanwhile, understanding that the consolidation of power was contingent on manipulating public opinion and steering the zeitgeist, the five third-generation Rockefeller brothers: John, Nelson, Laurance, Winthrop, and David were busy extending their influence into social activism. To this end, in 1940, they established the Rockefeller Brothers Fund whose stated mission to this day is to “advance social change that contributes to a more just, sustainable, and peaceful world” [emphasis is mine]. It is important to note that the Rockefeller Brothers Fund is part of the Steering Group of the Foundations Platform F20, an international network comprising dozens of foundations and philanthropic organisations, notably including George Soros’s Open Society Foundations – we shall return to this point.

But the Rockefellers’ ambition was not confined to the US – it was global in scope. As such, in the aftermath of World War 2, they were instrumental in setting up the United Nations, with J.D. Jr donating money and land for the UN building in New York. His son Nelson also became a key player in the political facilitation of this, the first true step toward global government, in his capacity as First Assistant Secretary of State for American Republic Affairs under President Truman, and later as Vice President to Gerald Ford.

In the 1950s, the Rockefeller Brothers Fund established their ‘Special Studies Project’ (conceived by its then president, Nelson Rockefeller) to “define the major problems and opportunities facing the US and clarify national purposes and objectives, and to develop principles which could serve as the basis of future national policy.” This bland string of bureaucratic gobbledygook sounds benign but in fact contained the germ seed for what many now call the New World Order. Jacob Nordangard explains how this group of experts (notably overseen by Henry Kissinger) appeared to view itself as divinely ordained with a historical mission – economic, political, and cultural – to remake the world as they saw fit… Sound familiar?

The Special Studies Project ran from 1956 to 1960 and then unfolded throughout the Kennedy, Johnson, and Nixon administrations and, with Kissinger’s connections, pulled in all the major players in contemporary American hegemonic lore including the CIA, Harvard University, and the Council on Foreign Relations (the foreign policy think tank established in 1921 of which David Rockefeller was director from 1970-1985). It is also worth noting that David Rockefeller was chairman of Chase Manhattan Bank from 1969-1981.

The Special Studies Project members quickly understood that to bring about their envisioned utopia they needed to confront the public with problems that were global in scale and requiring global cooperation, and that ‘science’ could be used as a tool for international management. Thus, without consulting a single scientist, the project identified two key focus areas: Global health (pandemics), and oceanography and meteorology (climate).

Thus, once The Science was agreed upon, the project then found appropriate scientists (including Roger Revelle, the godfather of ‘anthropogenic global warming’) to carry out its ‘research’ and, through their sprawling NGO apparatus and the Rockefeller University (a private biomedical research organisation), began advancing their agenda, all the while bolstered by ‘grassroots’ social activism sponsored by the Rockefeller Brothers Fund.

We now move into the 1960s when the Rockefellers were among the leading funders of the Club of Rome whose 1972 report Limits to Growth paved the way for the modern environmental movement. In 1968 Lyndon B. Johnson became the first US president to publicly speak about ‘global warming’ and most readers by this point should know the rest of the story.

‘Limits to growth’ sounds antithetical to capitalism, doesn’t it? And here one may be asking why ultra-wealthy industrialists such as the Rockefellers and their many collaborators would be funding something that ostensibly goes against their own interests? Why indeed? This brings us back to the question posed by my subscriber’s husband: Why would they be underwriting the destabilisation of the US and the West as these economies rely on the supply and purchase of goods on which these people depend for their fortunes?

We will soon come to this, but first we must wrap up our history lecture.

We arrive now in the 1970s at the World Economic Forum (WEF).

Around this time Henry Kissinger, now Secretary of State to Richard Nixon, became involved in a Rockefeller-sponsored program, through Harvard and various other internationalist organs including the CIA, to shape ‘emerging world leaders’.

Enter Klaus Schwab.

Schwab set up the European Management Forum in 1971, which went on to become the WEF. In 1972, the UN Conference on Environment declared, in response to the now widely perceived threat of global warming: "We have 10 years to stop the catastrophe"… Sound familiar?

In 1987, the Brundtland Commission, chaired by Maurice Strong (a member of Club of Rome and Secretary General of the Stockholm Conference on Environment, and a friend of the Rockefellers) and Gro Harlem Brundtland (the Norwegian prime minister) set forth the agenda that now defines our current time – to create a plan for the future to manage the planet in a “sustainable” manner.

This then led to the establishment of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in 1988 and the UN’s declaration of climate change as a global problem – conveniently providing a justification for its own continued existence at the exact moment when the existential threat of the Soviet Union and nuclear war began to wane.

Shortly thereafter followed the 1992 Rio De Janeiro Earth Summit (which incidentally is my earliest clear memory of the global green agenda and I recall, as a child at the time, being alarmed at mankind’s precipitous trajectory toward self-destruction, and frightened of what might happen if we did not ‘take action’ – such is the immense power of this type of propaganda on young minds. I did not know at this point that we were already a decade past the UN’s supposed point of no return – the first of many, as it turned out).

The upshot of the Rio Summit was the infamous Agenda 21 and the anthropogenic climate change narrative was thus embedded in public consciousness, ignoring the multitude of natural factors that contribute to changing atmospheric conditions and touting the "97% of scientists agree" trope – a thoroughly debunked falsehood.  

We now move into our present paradigm at the outset of which it was determined by the UN and WEF and their cadre of NGO backers that to tackle the existential threats faced by our species, a global consciousness was required, necessitating a “consensus on new global values”. Not surprisingly the man placed at the helm of this nakedly Neo Marxist notion was also a Rockefeller – namely Stephen (son of Nelson), a professor of religion… I kid you not.

Stephen helped coordinate The Great Transition Initiative, a flagship program amongst the many that hang off the side of the globalist edifice like barnacles, aimed at creating a ‘global citizens’ movement.

This term – global citizen – is now so ubiquitous that it is used unironically by all and sundry within the progressive camp, and not only by NGOs but in the marketing campaigns of multinational corporations also. It is an important and extremely powerful piece of globalist newspeak as its fundamental purpose is to undermine the concept of the nation and instead foster in people, especially the youth, a loyalty not to their own families and local communities, but to the nebulous idea of ‘one world’ and whichever class of victim the spin doctors of The Machine direct our attention to on any given day – not least the ultimate victim: Planet Earth herself. James Lindsay often describes this new religion as a reinvigorated form of pagan Gaia worship.

There is not much more to the backstory, you likely know the rest: The WEF’s Young Global Leaders program whose alumni, Klaus Schwab boasts, have “penetrated the cabinets” of various national governments; the UN’s Agenda 2030 and the 17 Sustainable Development Goals; the advent of Saint Greta of Thunberg; and the formal partnership of the WEF and the UN in 2019.

We come now to 2020, and everybody knows what happens next.

For its 75^th anniversary, the UN declared a “decade of action” and no sooner had the media frenzy over Greta become second-page news than the COVID ‘pandemic’ was upon us.

You will recall that in the Rockefellers’ Special Studies Project of the 1950s, two key triggers were agreed upon to facilitate the global consciousness needed to create their one-world utopia under centralised control by an international managerial elite: Pandemic and climate change.

We have covered the development of the climate narrative and most of us have been familiar with its widely publicised permutations since we were children. But the pandemic strand was always bubbling along in the background and this topic necessitates an entirely separate essay but, in brief, most of us will recall the staggered dress rehearsals for COVID: SARS in 2002; H5N1 bird flu in 2006; and H1N1 swine flu in 2009.

And notably, the WEF Global Risks Report of 2006 stated:

The risk of a pandemic flu, particularly one caused by the human-to-human transmission of the H5N1 or another avian flu virus, is now a dominant theme in the global conversation on risk … a lack of information or misinformation leading to a breakdown in public trust in the ability of governments, international institutions or business to manage risk can lead to a spread of fear in ways that greatly amplify the consequences of a particular threat.

And few can deny (though many a rubber-faced bureaucrat or beclowned corporate media anchor has tried) the ludicrous serendipity of the WEF’s Event 201 in October 2019, which gamed out the forthcoming ‘pandemic’ and the coordinated global response almost to the letter.

The conclusion is simple for anyone who has done a little digging, and my own position on this matter should be obvious, if not already known by readers who are familiar with my catalogue: COVID was planned well in advance, and dramatically staged as the second trigger in the Rockefellers’ decades-old, two-pronged crisis matrix designed to homogenise global consciousness under a single ruling principle: Fear.

Mere months into the ‘pandemic’ Klaus Schwab announced The Great Reset and was swiftly endorsed by global luminaries including then Prince Charles and UN Secretary General António Guterres.  

Thus, a new social contract was birthed, based not on human rights, but human responsibilities: “Citizen of the world, YOU are responsible.”

You are responsible for the health of our planet, so you must reduce your carbon footprint.

You are responsible the health of the community, so you must wear a mask, stay home, and get vaccinated – or grandma will die.

You are responsible for the poor of the Third World, so you must uncomplainingly accept mass immigration.

You are responsible for the feelings of others, so you must embrace LGBTQ Pride and repeat after us ‘Trans women are women!’

Indeed, you are responsible for the plight of the Palestinians, so you must march and protest in solidarity.

And all this had been brought about (as I discussed long ago in my essay The Mistake Everyone Makes About Wokeness) not by genuine grassroots upheaval, but by astroturfed activism through the conglomerate of NGOs that spawned around the original philanthropic con men – the Rockefellers. Foundations such as Open Society, Bill and Melinda Gates, Pritzker and the rest. In tandem with big business marketing and reinforced through a media and education system massively endowed by these same organisations, here finally J.D. Rockefeller’s vision nears its fulfilment: An atomised society of global citizens; godless, nationless, and beholden only to the great centralised sceptre of existential dread.

And so I answer my reader’s question, why would they be underwriting the destabilisation of the US and the West as these economies rely on the supply and purchase of goods on which these people depend for their fortunes?

I answer: One must understand who these people are, what motivates them, and what they believe.

Firstly, it is a schoolboy blunder at this point to equate the economies of the “the US and the West” with the fortunes of the power elite. Western economies produce very little these days other than financial services and war – the plant was outsourced to China and other developing nations decades ago. This is the entire economic premise of globalism – one economy unbeholden to any national will or spiritual morality.

Secondly, these people are not actually business owners and industrialists, not anymore. Their fortunes do not depend on the “supply and purchase of goods”, not anymore. It is amusing when folks earnestly compare the likes of Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos in the context of ‘the richest man in the world’. The amassed wealth of dynasties like the Rockefellers and Rothschilds and the network of aligned interests that their legacies control make Musk’s fortune look like a welfare cheque. These people do not rely on any form of economic exchange for their great wealth – their wealth is so entrenched and diversified that it is virtually indestructible. As Mayer Amschel Rothschild, founder of the Rothschild banking dynasty said: “Give me control of a nation’s money supply, and I care not who makes its laws.” Or as Andrew Tate more succinctly put it when questioned on this very issue: “They’ll just print the new money.”

This leads to the question of what motivates them. It is not money. They already have all the money – and if they face a situation where the nature of the money supply does become a problem for them, they will just reinvent it (this is in fact already in the works with Central Bank Digital Currencies (CBDCs)). In the meantime, they have so much money that they’ve run out of things to do with it other than use it to amass more power. This is precisely what J.D. Rockefeller did once he had more money than he could spend – channel it into philanthropic organisations for the purpose of socially engineering the common folk in the manner he desired.

And this then answers the question of what these people believe… Quite simply: That they have been divinely ordained to rule. They may indeed believe that what they are doing is noble, but this is neither here nor there. They see themselves as gods, and us as their subjects – the great unwashed; cattle, unworthy and incapable of self-determination – and thus it is incumbent on them, the better men, to direct the course of the future, for the greater good as it were. This is not conjecture, the documented machinations of this elite for the past century prove this mindset – a cult-like religious zealotry grounded in a narcissistic worship of their own splendid majesty, and here then is the final answer:

When dealing with autocrats and psychopaths who zealously believe in what they are doing – why even ask why? We only need observe what they do. By their fruits shall ye know them.

And when we do take stock of their fruits, what do we observe?

A tactical matrix of programs and narratives solely aimed at smashing the bonds which have nurtured healthy societies for millennia: family and nationhood; integrity and morality.

We can point to any of the progressive hegemonic narratives of our age and chart each one toward the very same inevitable outcomes: The destruction of individual integrity, the destruction of the family unit, the destruction of the middle-class, and the destruction of the nation state.

Feminism, Rainbow Pride, Transgendersim, ESG, DEI, race politics, Sustainability, global health mandates… it all leads to the same place: a divided, atomised society of fearful individuals – weak, malleable, and compliant – united only in an anxious and guilt-ridden group consciousness.

In conclusion to what may be my longest essay to date, it remains only to thank you for reading this far and to say that the fervent adoption of the ‘Free Palestine’1 cause by the young progressives of the West is just yet another permutation of the same thing – a seed of division sown by the same NGOs and propaganda instruments we have herein discussed, with the same end goal: Divide and conquer; the destabilisation of our societies and our nations and the creation of global citizens.

And the misdirection is working. Instead of harnessing their youthful zeal and marching on parliament to hold our criminal leaders accountable for the fact that most of these kids will never be able to afford their own home, or that most of them were poisoned by government-coerced experimental gene therapies two years ago, what are they doing? Occupying college campuses and chanting cringey slogans about a conflict 14,000km away affecting people they will never know. And I warned about this at the outset in my essay Don’t Get Distracted by the Israel Palestine Thing.

Indeed, these rowdy protestors, these young global citizens, have reached my very doorstep. I observed them outside my work a month ago chanting and shrieking and waving their suspiciously professional-looking placards. I recall noting at the time how scripted the main speaker sounded (the predictable earnest, mousy teenaged girl) as she shrilled into her microphone; how strikingly familiar the talking points sounded, right down to her pleading inflections and robotic cadence. It wasn’t until a few weeks later I realised why.

My 18-year-old son is in a punk rock band, and he posted a video online from one of his latest gigs in which a different teenaged girl (but equally earnest and mousy) stood on the stage, which was backdropped by a huge Palestinian flag, reciting the very same speech and, in that moment, I realised it was simply the stock standard script of a thousand TikTok clips, Instagram reels and YouTube shorts.

They’re all saying virtually the exact same words.

This is because the words were not written by the people speaking them, or even by their friends, or members of the wider local ‘movement’. They were written by a PR consultant in some sterile NGO office oceans away in San Francisco, Seattle, or New York – probably the same office where the professionally printed placards were designed.

This is Rockefeller’s astroturf activism in action and it deeply distresses me that my own child is now being sucked in by it; that he and his bleary-eyed pot smoking buddies, in the strident belief that they are fighting the system, are in fact unwittingly playing straight into the trap laid for them by the system a full century ago. Punk rock my arse.

To make matters worse he’s now also posting Sustainability propaganda from New Zealand’s Green Party.

When I saw this, I messaged him saying, “Dude… you’re sharing this on a device that is powered by mined rare earth minerals!”

Bear in mind, this is a good kid; a remarkably intelligent, funny, and generous kid. Furthermore, I wasn’t completely derelict as a father and schooled him from an early age in the great fallacy of wokeness. Moreover, this is a boy who used to enjoy watching Paul Joseph Watson videos!

But all of that began to change when he hit his teens. I’ve tried to steer him back on course, but the usual reaction is sullen silence or a grudging acknowledgement that he is willing to consider ideas other than his own…

His own ideas? I can’t remember having ever been so frustrated with another human. How I yearn to rant and chastise him; to shake him by the collar and make him understand that he evidently has no ideas of his own, as what he is saying comes straight from the operational manual of the World Economic Forum. But what’s the point? This is what the kids are into, and the last thing he will do at eighteen is adopt any opinions likely to alienate his clique – especially the girls.

My best bet at this point is to hope he grows out of it, like I did. But I wonder… The global consciousness of wokeness was barely dreamt of when I was his age, and the propaganda dissemination devices that each teen now clutches in their palm were still ten years away. The mind virus is now very advanced, and most rampant in the brains of the young.

My son posted another video to his Instagram recently, a wobbly late-night clip, shot by a friend or a fan, of him performing a cover of the Ramones “Rockaway Beach”. I had to resist the urge to comment: You should have changed the lyrics to Rockefeller Beach.