Red lines of the counter-elite

West vs. East Coast Straussians and the limits of anti-semitic discourse

This post takes a look at the ideas and motivations of the nascent Western counter-elite¹, arguing that there are certain off-limit topics whose prohibition actually undermines the objectives being sought.

This is a post that I thought would be about one thing, but turned into something totally different.

As I sat with a moderately liberal friend at lunch recently, he told me that he hated Trump - specifically, he hated the threat that Trump posed to “democracy” after January 6. He said American democracy is not perfect, but it is an agreed upon system and if one doesn’t trust the process and the experts that feed into it then only chaos will result. How is one to speak to someone like this, if one chooses to engage (as someone who voted for Trump but who thought his presidency was an ineffectual failure)? My angle for these sorts of things, even though I try not to engage with liberals at all - no one ever changes anyone else’s mind - is to focus on economics and math from a dispassionate, impersonal perspective. I explained to this friend that the gap between rich and poor has widened by extreme degrees since 1971, that there is no middle class at all anymore (a shitbox in a major metro area costs over a million dollars), and this happened in part because our elites printed infinite Federal Reserve loldollars resulting in massive inflation, imported in tens of millions of illegal immigrants to lower wages and change the demographics of the country and sent manufacturing overseas to China so they could skim profits off the top. 30% of the U.S. tax receipts currently go toward paying interest on the Federal debt alone, which is due to skyrocket in upcoming years:

What does this liberal friend expect to happen when white Middle America is destitute? Should they accept the endless “studies” of our so-called “experts” against their own lying eyes? Why have we shipped manufacturing abroad, printed Federal Reserve loldollars to infinity, and have unlimited illegal immigration? Our experts, media, and institutions have discredited themselves, because ultimately it comes down to who/whom - who is benefiting from the policies these organizations push? It is only a very small minority. The point, ultimately, is that Trump is merely a manifestation of these underlying issues; that the president has very little power as we saw in his utterly ineffectual first term, and that these issues will not be resolved by pushing the establishment’s foot down harder on Middle America’s head - that will only lead to further radicalization. I told my friend: if you want to de-fang the Trump phenomenon, it’s not hard to do - address the underlying issues that have led to Trump and to the Tea Party before him. Have the establishment cut back the monetary printing, bring back manufacturing to the United States, close the border, and prosecute some of the worst financial perpetrators. But of course this won’t happen. And even if it did, the demographic changes and the current financial state of the U.S. are so poor that even extreme action by Trump will not change things at this point - the situation has become metastatic. Unless one thinks Trump is prepared to deport 40 million illegals, jail or execute hundreds or thousands of “deep state” criminals and institute a debt jubilee wiping out the nation’s debt (like Israel used to do every 50 years in ancient times). What are the odds of that happening?

My friend walked away from the conversation disturbed, but I’m sure he forgot about whatever I said as soon as he left the restaurant. So it goes.

---

Codevilla as the gateway to Strauss

Angelo Codevilla agreed with this point; the Trump phenomenon was caused by the establishment’s failure to deal with underlying issues that they preferred to suppress and destroy rather than address head on. Codevilla had strong establishment credentials - he served as a staffer for the Senate’s Select Committee on Intelligence - even though as a Catholic he disagreed with the internationalist, post-WASP ethos of the Central Intelligence Agency.

Codevilla’s The Ruling Class (2010) was prescient and described in 2010 the rise of Trumpism years before it manifested itself. It’s thesis was that, in the style of James Burnham’s Managerial Revolution (1941) and Max Weber’s works, America’s ruling class is/was our unelected civil service that entrenched itself against the vicissitudes of public opinion, came to see themselves as separate, apart, and better than the masses over whom they ruled, and conspired to increase their power at the expense of the public. It was a uniparty that took the labels of “Democrat” and “Republican” but who together played a political game of kayfabe² against the public as they sought to profit against them - this is why, for example, Democrats have embraced George W. Bush, who they used to consider to be a neo-conservative warmonger Devil in order to fight against the populism that Trump (at least in 2017) represented, Republican arch-villain Dick Cheney is voting for Kamala, and Bob Mueller - who ran a fake investigation against Trump for years over the nonsensical Russia collusion narrative to paralyze his administration from accomplishing anything - was a registered Republican, as was James Comey. The uniparty concept became widely accepted during the Trump era under the label of the “deep state”, but the “deep state” is simply this unelected civil service which voted 90.86% for Hillary and 4.09% for Trump in the 2016 general election. I previously discussed this unelected civil service here.

Codevilla discusses the ruling class in the below video if you want to see him speak:

In a 2019 interview with Tablet Magazine, he was asked about his book:

David Samuels³: In 2010, you wrote an article, which then became a book, in which you predicted the rise of someone like Donald Trump as well as the political chaos and stripping away of institutional authority that we’ve lived through since. Did you think your prediction would come true so quickly?

Angelo Codevilla: I didn’t predict anything. I described a situation which had already come into existence. Namely, that the United States has developed a ruling class that sees itself as distinct from the raw masses of the rest of America. That the distinction that they saw, and which had come to exist, between these classes, comprised tastes and habits as well as ideas. Above all, that it had to do with the relative attachment, or lack thereof, of each of these classes to government.

One of the things that struck me about your original piece was your portrait of the American elite as a single class that seamlessly spans both the Democratic and Republican parties.

Of course, yes. Not in exactly the same way, though; what I said was that the Democrats were the senior partners in the ruling class. The Republicans are the junior partners.

The reason being that the American ruling class was built by or under the Democratic Party. First, under Woodrow Wilson and then later under Franklin Roosevelt. It was a ruling class that prized above all its intellectual superiority over the ruled. And that saw itself as the natural carriers of scientific knowledge, as the class that was naturally best able to run society and was therefore entitled to run society.

The Republican members of the ruling class aspire to that sort of intellectual status or reputation. And they have shared a taste of this ruling class. But they are not part of the same party, and as such, are constantly trying to get closer to the senior partners. As the junior members of the ruling class, they are not nearly as tied to government as the Democrats are. And therefore, their elite prerogatives are not safe.

Unfortunately Codevilla was killed in an “automotive accident” in September 2021 at the peak of the COVID scam even as he was bitterly criticizing both it⁴ and the official version of January 6. Was he murdered?

Anyway, a throwaway line in the book caught my eye and sent me down a different direction than what I was expecting: in the forward to the 2023 revised edition, Michael Anton (of Flight 93 election fame) casually noted that Codevilla was a student of Leo Strauss. This struck me, and I sat there pondering it for a moment. I’ve heard his name pop up repeatedly in reference to the neocons of the Bush administration, so why was Codevilla - who wasn’t in this group - also considered a Straussian? For example, according to the New York Times in 2003:

To intellectual-conspiracy theorists, the Bush administration's foreign policy is entirely a Straussian creation. Paul D. Wolfowitz, the deputy secretary of defense, has been identified as a disciple of Strauss; William Kristol, founding editor of The Weekly Standard, a must-read in the White House, considers himself a Straussian; Gary Schmitt, executive director of the Project for the New American Century, an influential foreign policy group started by Mr. Kristol, is firmly in the Strauss camp.

Furthermore, the Straussian links to the “dissident right” are everywhere. Bronze Age Pervert wrote his dissertation on Strauss (and whose book was reviewed by Anton in the Claremont Review of Books, giving him establishment legitimacy), the Claremont Institute was founded on Straussian ideals, Darren Beattie, Michael Millerman, and Greg Johnson studied with Straussians, while deep state homosexual operative and Palantir co-founder⁵ Peter Thiel (who was close with Angelo Codevilla⁶ and is connected to Claremont-affiliated Curtis Yarvin) wrote a 2007 essay called “The Straussian Moment” which he later had a 2019 chat about with the Hoover Institute. Thiel is also Republican Vice Presidential candidate J.D. Vance’s prime backer as

Mason Mohon

discussed here. Say what you want about Thiel as a sociopathic predator, but he’s charming, polished, and articulate (reflected in his astrological profile):

So who was Strauss, why do both the neoconservatives and influential members of the populist right feel connected to his teachings, and ultimately what does this say about the nature of a potential counter-elite rising against the horrors of globohomo managerialism?

Let’s delve into these questions.

---

Strauss’s background

Strauss was born in 1899 in Prussia. According to the New York Times, “The child of middle-class Orthodox Jews, Strauss converted to Zionism while still in his teens, attended Martin Heidegger's lectures at the University of Freiburg, and eventually crossed paths with some of the most influential European intellectual figures of the prewar period: Walter Benjamin, Alexandre Kojève, Hans-Georg Gadamer. In 1934, Strauss emigrated to Britain, where he wrote The Political Philosophy of Thomas Hobbes. Just before the outbreak of World War II, he joined the faculty of the New School for Social Research, a refuge for European intellectuals.” He received a Rockefeller Fellowship in 1932 in France and then immigrated to the United States in 1937. In 1949 he became a professor of political science at the University of Chicago, holding the Robert Maynard Hutchins Distinguished Service Professorship until he left in 1969.

Strauss in 1939; the general impression I get is one of concealment and kind of an autistic, alien vibe

He became interested in the intersection of free speech with mainstream society; according to Strauss each society had sacred truths that it believes and which would be quite dangerous for writers to publicly dispute (this reminds me of the quote, “To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize”). As such, Strauss believed in reading historical texts esoterically; in other words, any dissident author would have to be circumspect about what they actually believed so they would not be persecuted, and one could look back on any historical text and try to interpret what the author actually intended. He interpreted works by Maimonides, Al-Farabi, Machiavelli, Spinoza, Hobbes, and Plato's discussions in the Phaedrus and the Republic in light of such beliefs. Furthermore, Strauss himself practiced esoteric writing and his works would have to be parsed by the initiated in order to be properly understood. In his 2007 essay, Thiel notes:

Strauss alludes to the dangers [regime critics] faced, by reminding us of the warning Goethe had Faust deliver to his assistant: “The few who understood something of men’s heart and mind, who were foolish enough not to restrain their full heart but to reveal their feeling and their vision to the vulgar, have ever been crucified and burned.”….

There are no short cuts in Strauss. The philosopher practices what he preaches, and so one will search in vain in Strauss’s writings for a systematic statement of the hidden truth. Perhaps Strauss’s only incremental concession to the would-be philosopher lies in the fact that his writings are transparently esoteric and hard to understand, in contradistinction to the past writers who wrote seemingly straightforward books whose truly esoteric nature was therefore even more obscured. “The open agenda of the Straussians,” declares Harvard government professor Harvey Mansfield (and himself a Straussian), is limited to “reading the Great Books for their own sake,” and does not include offering dumbed-down summaries.

In a similar vein, George Mason professor Tyler Cowen uses the term “Straussian” as an adjective to describe an approach to reading that is characterized by an emphasis on attention to detail, an appreciation for the complexity of ideas, and a focus on underlying principles and hidden meanings. He uses this term all the time.

---

The Bloom and Jaffa quarrel

Allan Bloom, a homosexual who later died of AIDS, adopted Strauss’s esoteric approach to writing in his famous “conservative” book Closing of the American Mind. On the surface he appealed to conservative Americans, but his book contained a deeply subversive message which was picked up by his followers. Per Tablet magazine:

On the surface, Bloom offered Reagan’s America a defense of the literary canon and old-fashioned morality against the “relativism” of the post-’60s left. But perspicacious readers—including Bloom’s former student, the queer theorist Eve Sedgwick—would notice he argued that the true pedagogue awakens intelligent young men to free thinking by inculcating contempt for democracy and mass culture, and that this awakening includes a (homo)erotic element. Closing of the American Mind was misrecognized by ordinary readers in something of the way that the Village People’s ode to gay cruising, “YMCA,” became the anthem of dorky straight people at sporting events. For all the absurdity of this situation, however, Bloom’s bestseller served a philosophical aim, directing a minority of readers to his studies of Plato’s Republic and Symposium, which are pinnacles of philosophical and political insight.

Bloom was opposed by his former friend and fellow Straussian Harry Jaffa, whose followers went on to form the Claremont Institute. This opposition was along philosophical lines (i.e. valuing virtue of the population vs. the maintenance of constitutional norms, America as grounded in ancient philosophy vs. built on modern philosophers like Hobbes and Locke) as well as the familiar social divide in the Republican Party (grassroots vs. elites). According to the New Republic:

Over time Jaffa became involved in grassroots activism in the Republican Party, authoring the famous lines that Barry Goldwater uttered in 1964, “Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice, and moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.” As he became involved in right-wing activism, Jaffa gravitated towards social conservatism, praising the religious right, appearing on Pat Robertson’s show, and emerging as vocal homophobe (he argued in 1990 that “sodomy is, in the decisive respect, as morally offensive as incest and rape”). This put him in collision with his former friend Bloom, who was a closeted gay man. In a nasty review of Bloom’s Closing of the American Mind (1987) published in the Straussian journal Interpretation, Jaffa wrote that through AIDS “God and nature have exacted terrible retribution” on gays.

In addition to the philosophical and social divides, there was also a stylistic divide among the Straussians. Strauss had noted that Nietzsche criticized his cautious, academic, esoteric approach:

Strauss himself observed that his own “Platonic” approach to politics—of external caution and esoteric injunctions to inner nonconformity—had been powerfully critiqued by Friedrich Nietzsche a generation before him. Nietzsche, in Strauss’ account, noted that Plato’s followers had failed to preserve the independence either of their own thinking or of the Greek city-states. Both intellectual and political liberty were subsumed, eventually….In Nietzsche’s telling, either the philosopher speaking to the public fails to capture its attention, and is thus unable to lead it, or, by lowering his own thought to the level of the herd, he does capture its attention—only to be captured by his audience in turn….

Instead, Nietzsche recommended an over-the-top style that would be treated as easily dismissed foolishness by the authorities, but still capture the hearts and minds of those who could perceive the underlying message. This style was adopted by Costin Alamariu/Bronze Age Pervert who Tablet Magazine called “a rogue disciple of Bloom”⁷ (echoed by Damon Linker):

In contrast to Plato’s failed strategy of accommodation, Nietzsche implied that “free spirits” should adopt the pose not of the orator or preacher who address the multitude, but rather of the fool who scorns it. They should adopt wild, perverse rhetorical disguises to incite uncomprehending shock among the many—and thought among the few. The outlandish statements, self-contradictions, and incessant, boorish humor that Nietzsche used in his writing, Strauss insisted, conceal the depths of his thinking from all but the free spirits. Moreover, they are also intended to have an effect on a class of readers sensitive enough to be enlivened by such prose, but not insightful enough for philosophy. This intermediary human type was described by Strauss as the “gentlemen,” and by Alamariu as “aristocrats.”

We will return to Alamariu shortly.

---

“East Coast” vs. “West Coast” Straussians

In practice, followers of Strauss eventually fell into one of two schools of thought:

1. East Coast Straussians who, to the extent they were willing to become politicized instead of merely reading ancient texts esoterically, were basically Jewish neoconservatives like Paul Wolfowitz, Bill Kristol, Richard N. Perle, and Ben Shapiro who wanted to wage war in the Middle East on behalf of Israel - but they had to hide their beliefs esoterically by referring to other, broader concepts like the “War on Terror” because the public would not accept expending huge amounts of resources and lives for the actual underlying cause. According to the New York Times, “Strauss's own experience -- he witnessed Russian pogroms as a child and barely escaped the Holocaust -- alerted him to the perils of history. “When we were brought face to face with tyranny -- with a kind of tyranny that surpassed the boldest imagination of the most powerful thinkers of the past -- our political science failed to recognize it,'' Strauss wrote in his classic On Tyranny. He believed, as he once wrote, that ''to make the world safe for the Western democracies, one must make the whole globe democratic, each country in itself as well as the society of nations.” There's a reason that some Bush strategists continue to invoke Strauss's name.” The East Coast Straussians have been wildly discredited after the abysmal failures of Afghanistan and the Iraq war, although they remain entirely unpunished and they are trying to crawl back into power by pushing for another war with Iran; and

2. West Coast Straussians exemplified by Harry Jaffa and including Charles Kesler, Codevilla, Larry P. Arnn (president of Hillsdale College), and Ken Masugi (a legal scholar at Johns Hopkins University) who believed that America has been ruined by the managerial state and that an internal revolution on behalf of Middle America is necessary in order to course correct. They, too, would have to write esoterically because they couldn’t actually call for open revolution or rebellion without risks of grave blowback from America’s rulers. The West Coast Straussians saw themselves as fit to be the rulers under the new regime; as the “intellectual vanguards” of the counter-elite, like Plato’s vision in The Republic, they would want to serve as philosophical kings to lead America in a radically new direction. For example, Curtis Yarvin wants to turn America into a corporation with shareholders and a CEO, the latter akin to the president but with more power⁸ (he doesn’t seem to understand that this has already been tried and failed in modern-day Russia, with Putin and his cronies looking at the country as a fiefdom to be used for maximum exploitation).

Let’s delve into this counter-elite further.

---

The counter-elite

Basically, the concept of the counter-elite is as follows: the masses never seize power on their own; it is always a dissatisfied counter-elite, using the masses as a political cudgel, that pose the greatest risk to the elites. The counter-elite forms naturally over time because too many elites form in a society chasing too few elite positions. This isn’t a big deal in times of economic expansion when out-of-power elites can focus their energies in other directions, but in times of economic contraction it becomes a major issue. The elites who failed to secure power, embittered and growing in number, seek to secure power using alternative methods - this is Turchin’s idea of intra-elite competition, recounted by

Theophilus Chilton

here, where he states: “The old post-WWII consensus that focused on “left vs. right” in the sense of “Communism vs. classical liberalism/Neo-Con globohomoism” is rapidly being replaced by a new paradigm of populism vs. regime elitism”. A nation-state counter-elite is nascent but is currently forming, headed by a quasi-populist (Trump) and his choice of Vice President (J.D. Vance) along with certain tech elites who realize America is a sinking ship and want to course correct before it’s too late (if it’s not already too late). They possess a perspective of anti-managerialism, pro-strongman rule against the oligarchy, and some degree of anti-egalitarianism. As mentioned in footnote 1, this is a nation-state counter-elite forming, which is still subservient to the worldwide globohomo control grid; there is no counter-elite forming at the higher levels of power.

Additionally, this concept or elite and counter-elite is not meant in a moral, ethical or values manner. Rather, it is meant in terms of a political elite who perhaps have the ability to challenge the rule of the existing elite. This counter-elite is as corrupt from the get-go as the elite it seeks to replace; Peter Thiel, for example, is a regular at the Bilderberg meetings and his Palantir regularly spies on U.S. citizens on behalf of the establishment, even as he criticizes certain aspects of it. Ernst Junger stated when he was 100 years old: “The sociological definition of elite is already an indication of the corruption of the concept. A warning, for me, to no longer trust even the elites, but now only the great loners.” Or as

Rurik Skywalker

states, “Extroverts simply cannot be truth-tellers. It is anathema to them because the truth incurs high social penalties.”

Anyway,

Billionaire Psycho

discusses this rising counter-elite here, where he states:

On one side, you have Silicon Valley, the Pentagon, Wall Street, Erik Prince’s mercenary veterans, Zionists, and the Trump MAGA coalition. These are groups with some kind of interaction with the real world; industries and professions and individuals which suffer immediate, measurable physical consequences when mistakes occur. The new counterelite. On the other side, an ideologically poisoned coalition has assembled in favor of continuing the process of managed decline, recruiting anyone who is insulated from physical reality — NGOs, the State Department, career bureaucrats, Email Caste white-collar professionals, wine aunts, Big Pharma, Hollywood, news media, Google, Antifa, teachers and librarians, the judicial system.

These parties are based on factions, not principles; they are made up of Bolshevik Jews plus the managerial class plus the non-white poor on one side (Sailer’s “coalition of the fringes”) vs. Zionist Jews and the white working class (white pro-union Democrats shifted to Republican over the past few decades, but other than that the coalitions have been stable). Both parties are highly influenced by AIPAC. RFK Jr. is the latest addition to the counter-elite coalition, and Elon Musk has become much more vocal in support of it as

Daniel D

discussed here. One can see the elite split reflected on a smaller level in the split between the East Coast and West Coast Straussians where the latter are increasingly seized by a simple Nietzschian will-to-power dynamic, exemplified by Alamariu per the above Tablet article:

Ironically, one of the critical passages in Alamariu’s dissertation concerns a moment in a Platonic dialogue when Socrates seems to best his interlocutor Callicles, whose views anticipate Alamariu’s own. Callicles calls for an aggressive, virile pursuit of open political power in the name of philosophical superiority. Socrates warns that such a course, in fact, will show Callicles to be the same type of person as an effeminate “catamite” who is guided only by his own pleasure.

Alamariu performs some awkward hermeneutic wrangling to argue that Callicles, “shamed” into silence by this comparison, should in fact be understood to represent what Plato took to be the better argument….In our time, the social context for either of the Straussian solutions—rational collective action guided by political rhetoric or authentic private thought at a safe distance from public life—appears to be disappearing, if it is not already absent. In such an era, discursive games of seduction as practiced by Bloom and Alamariu may still be bring attention and profit to those who play them, but seem capable neither of defending nor truly endangering our decadent regime.

This last point is, I think, a crucial one. I have always been viscerally repulsed by Alamariu/Bronze Age Pervert; it is similar to the same repulsion I felt immediately toward the Q movement. It was a psychic feeling of fundamental dishonesty, even though I disliked the forced pidgin language he used and his casual flippancy.

Roger Morrison

has a very strong takedown of the BAP vitalist philosophy here.⁹

---

The red lines of the counter-elite

This brings me to the main point of this article: both sets of elites are quite pro-Israel and pro-Jewish, and both sides maintain a strict zero tolerance policy toward discussing Jewish exceptionalism. As Jews comprise only 2% of the country, this issue is reflected in extreme Jewish over-representation in over-financializing the West, opening its borders and serving at the forefront of its leftist movements, along with serving within both Democrats and Republican administrations as discussed previously here:

Per the Jerusalem Post, Jewish Journal, and Jewish Telegraphic Agency, Jews serving within the Biden administration include Antony Blinken, Secretary of State; David Cohen, Deputy CIA Director; Janet Yellen, Secretary of the Treasury; Merrick Garland, Attorney-General; Avril Haines, Director of National Intelligence; Ron Klain, Chief of Staff; Eric Lander, Director, Office of Science & Technology Policy; Rachel Levine, Deputy Secretary, Health and Human Services; Alejandro Mayorkas, Secretary of Homeland Security; Anne Neuberger, Director of Cybersecurity, National Security Agency; Wendy Sherman, Deputy Secretary of State; Jeff Zients, COVID-19 Coordinator; Rochelle Walensky, Director, Center for Disease Control; Jared Bernstein, member, Council of Economic Advisors; Douglas Emhoff, second gentleman, husband of US Vice President Kamala Harris. And of course there’s infamous, bloodthirsty neocon Victoria Nuland, currently serving as Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs, who specializes in causing tremendous chaos and upheaval abroad….

It’s not just limited to Democrats, of course. Among the Trump administration, also per the above Jerusalem Post link, there were also a large number of Jews. Among them included Jared Kushner, son-in-law and senior advisor; Elliot Abrams Special representative for Venezuela, then Iran; David Friedman, Ambassador to Israel; Jason Greenblatt, Special Representative for International Negotiations, the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict; Steve Mnuchin, Secretary of the Treasury; Stephen Miller, Senior Advisor, Policy; Gary Cohn, Director, White House National Economic Council; Reed Cordish, Assistant to the President, Intragovernmental and Technology Initiatives; Avrahm Berkowitz, Deputy Advisor to the President; Rod Rosenstein, Deputy Attorney General; Elan Carr, Special Envoy to monitor and combat antisemitism; Ellie Cohanim, Deputy Special Envoy to monitor and combat antisemitism; Jeffrey Rosen, Attorney General; Morgan Ortagus, Spokesperson, State Department; David Shulkin, Secretary of Veterans Affairs; Lawrence Kudlow, Director National Economic Council; Ivanka Trump, daughter, Advisor to the President; John Eisenberg, National Security Council Legal; Ezra Cohen-Watnick, Acting Under-Secretary of Defense for Intelligence; Len Khodorkovsky, Deputy Secretary of State and Senior Advisor to the US Special Representative for Iran.

The following image by

Academic Agent

highlights this point among the approved dissident counter-elite network:

As long as one doesn’t cross the red line around an honest discussion of some pretty deep problems within the Jewish community and one stays away from discussing the Rothschild central bank ownership and the structure of the modern world, along with the deliberate falsehoods of the prevailing World War 2 narrative (which Tucker Carlson apparently approached for the first time in his recent interview with Darryl Cooper) where the war was set up from the get-go by the globohomo overclass, and the inappropriate role of the Holocaust as the foundation origin myth of the West, one can fairly easily key into this network in order to supercharge one’s viewership counts, connections and sinecures as long as you have some degree of talent, a strong work ethic and you’re friendly and articulate. But you must tow the party line and respect the red lines. This is why

Jasun Horsley

argues, “My view is simple to the point of seeming simple-minded to some: if a disseminator of “dissidence” has a platform of more than 100K followers—or the equivalent in terms of being centered in the “alt-media”—I generally don’t waste my time on them….I am not saying they must be a “shill” to have such high numbers behind them. But, at the very least, they can’t be rocking any serious boats.”

Rurik Skywalker

agrees. Taking it further, James Delingpole and Guido Preparata argue in this interesting interview that any major philosophical, scientific or political figure of the past multiple-hundreds years has been a controlled agent for alternative, nefarious purposes.

This “red line” is also reflected in the New World Order caste system / Oppression pyramid, where the Holocaust is used as a shield to prevent any criticism of Jews as anti-semitic:

I want to emphasize something here: my intention here is as a callout for Jews to do soul-searching and a strategic course correction; it is intended to be helpful. As I argued in my article about the complicated relationship between the central bank owners and the Jewish people, the central bank owners use the Jewish people as a bulwark against the population’s criticisms of central bank financial parasitism; they can deflect and claim that it is “anti-semitism.” The central bank owners give the Jewish community elements of power and preferment for assuming this rule, but they don’t really care about them. At the same time, the second order effects of this setup is disastrous long-term for the Jewish people as a whole, because there are only three likely endings of current trends:

1. The golem turns on its master: The children of the endless non-white masses brought in after the 1965 Immigration Act (which Jewish organizations from the left to the right universally supported) are increasingly anti-semitic, refuse to see differences between whites and Jews with respect to intersectional politics, and ultimately support Israel’s destruction and discrimination against Jews (we are already seeing this among the non-white Democrat youth and it’s reaction to 10/7);

2. The redneck rebellion: The declining white majority turns anti-semitic and white nationalist, finding the ethnic co-solidarity it lacked when it was such a large majority of the population and when economic times were better; or

3. Rothschild victory: The Rothschilds and their allies simply win across the board, turning the world including most Jews into neo-feudal, ultra-poor serfs or exterminating them entirely; their intention was seen pretty clearly when they force-vaxxed Israel with the untested experimental mRNA poison more than any other country in the world.

If there is going to be an alternative to one of these futures, the Jewish community must wrestle with its unparalleled will-to-power and it being wildly overrepresented in over-financializing the West, opening its borders and serving at the forefront of all leftist movements, which is paradoxically against it’s long-term interest as they almost universally love living as minorities within white Christian countries which are all being destroyed now. But the only way this will happen is if the Jewish elites or counter-elites recognize these issues and become willing to honestly wrestle with them. Banning free speech, criminalizing anti-semitism, instituting mass censorship will ultimately only have the opposite effect of what is intended: as I told my friend at the start of the essay, the way the temperature of a conflict is lowered is by addressing the underlying legitimate complaints, not through censorship which will only make it worse. So if the Straussian West Coast counter-elite of Thiel, Vance, Moldbug, BAP, Anton, etc. have the Jewish people’s best interests in mind, the way they would show this would be to start publicly wrestling with the setup of this modern system as it is construed and not hide behind silence and censorship. And that would require Jews allying with western civilization for real moving forward as opposed to conditionally, the latter of which has been their historical demotic strategy. In practical terms, at minimum, it would require an end to America’s open borders policies and strong reversal thereof, an end to or at least complete nationalization with transparent auditing of the Federal Reserve (and audit of the Pentagon), a debt jubilee (national debt cancellation), prosecution of the worst globohomo offenders, and removal of the Holocaust as blood libel against white Western civilization.

I see very little sign of this happening at this time; however, the Jewish shock at the overwhelmingly pro-Palestinian non-white reaction to 10/7 may be the very first sign of it. But as Milton Friedman explained and as Gilad Atzmon pointed out, time is running out as anti-semitism increases across the board from both the far-right and far-left.¹⁰ One thing is for sure: doubling down on the censorship tactics and ignoring these issues will only make them worse.

Thanks for reading.

1. The term “counter-elite” used herein is meant as nation-state elites. Nation-state elites are lower in the hierarchy of power than the international elites, which is outlined here. There are no counter-elites at the higher levels.

2. The fact or convention of presenting staged performances as genuine or authentic.

3. Samuels’ has an interesting theory about collapse of empire in the article. He states: “Every student of history has their own theory about how and why empires fall. My theory is this: The wealth of any empire flows disproportionately to the capital, where it nourishes the growth, wealth, and power of the ruling elite. As the elite grows richer and more powerful, the gulf between the rulers and the ruled widens, until the beliefs and manners of the elite bear little connection to those of their countrymen, whom they increasingly think of as their clients or subjects. That distance creates resentment and friction, in response to which the elite takes measures to protect itself. The more wealth and power the elite controls, the more insulation it must purchase. Disastrous mistakes are hailed as victories or are made to appear to have no consequences at all, in order to protect the aura of collective infallibility that protects ruling class power and privilege.

What happens next is pretty much inevitable in every time and place—Spain, France, Great Britain, Moghul India, you name it: Freed from the laws of gravity, the elite turns from the hard work of correct strategizing and wise policymaking to the much less time-consuming and much more pleasant work of perpetuating its own privileges forever, in the course of which endeavor the ruling elite is revealed to be a bunch of idiots and perverts who spend their time prancing around half naked while setting the territories they rule on fire. The few remaining decent and competent people flee this revolting spectacle, while the elite compounds its mistakes in an orgy of failure. The empire then collapses.”

4. From the NYT article: “Dr. Codevilla was particularly incensed over the government’s response to the pandemic. He considered Covid a public-health threat on par with a bad strain of the flu, but said that the ruling class, including Dr. Anthony Fauci — whom he called a “deep state fraud” — had used it as an excuse for an unprecedented power grab.”

5. Which exists to spy on the population on behalf of the government. How can such an operative be considered a “dissident” or “populist” in anything but a clown world?

6. See his obit for Codevilla: “One of the last people to be “elite” in the sense of uniting excellence with responsibility; one of the most prescient in diagnosing the diseases of “the ruling class” in America that has become merely entitled rather than truly elite; a well-connected Catholic in a Protestant country—Angelo Codevilla was a man both complex and uncommonly wise. He will be much missed, for his inimitable personality and for the model he presented—difficult but not impossible to imitate—of a gentleman and a scholar.”

7. And a likely homosexual: “Rather, such people must be produced and perfected through an erotic education that aims at making young men more vigorous, physically perfect, and hostile to our supposedly feminized, egalitarian society (Alamariu, like Bloom, is frankly uninterested in women). Alamariu’s project involves a combination of erotic pedagogy, in the vein of the ancient Greeks and of Bloom, along with a program of eugenics, the outlines of which he only sketches but which resemble no less the ideal city of Plato’s Republic than the biopolitics of the Third Reich.”

8. Quoted from here, Moldbug states:

To a neocameralist, a state is a business which owns a country. A state should be managed, like any other large business, by dividing logical ownership into negotiable shares, each of which yields a precise fraction of the state’s profit. (A well-run state is very profitable.) Each share has one vote, and the shareholders elect a board, which hires and fires managers.

This business’s customers are its residents. A profitably-managed neocameralist state will, like any business, serve its customers efficiently and effectively. Misgovernment equals mismanagement.

9. In part, he writes: “What this basically does is reduce all political questions to the projection of an ideal self-image. Indeed, there is a tried and true script. The vitalist will continually repeat the following cliches: “human excellence,” “Faustian man,” “superior man,” “conquering the stars,” “reaching to infinity,” and so on. Whenever someone raises a troublesome practical question, the vitalist immediately retreats to his happy place where all of our problems are simple: just put 12 superior men in a room and heaven on earth will be done. As to why these 12 superior men never end up congregating in that room, it is because the inferior masses are holding them down. This becomes the canned answer that the vitalist delivers to every problem. The vitalist is not actually a political person at all. He is apolitical. Worse than that: he is anti-political. After all, politics is the world of nomos, and by definition superiority cannot thrive in a nomos. Every single political question becomes nothing but a solipsistic aggrievement. It’s always “great men” being “obstructed,” “held down,” “longhoused,” or whatever. Not a single word of the state, of administration, of management, of actual politics.

The trouble with vitalism is that its social ideal not only fails to find practical application in the year 2023, it fails to find practical application even in the year 1023. The whole ethos of a feudal aristocracy with its strong emphasis on kinship, inheritance, primogeniture, estate administration and the centrality of the patriarchal household is utterly at odds with the Männerbund ideal presupposed by vitalism….

The vitalist will engage in endless and futile grandstanding about how “the Aryan man can do anything” and proudly declare that he is too good for the society he lives in. Precisely because he is too good and no one deserves him, he will do nothing. Vitalism is, in many ways, the opiate of the right-wing.”

10. Gilad Atzmon in The Wandering Who?:

Friedman argues that the free market and competition is good for the Jews. Yet he is also adamant that government intervention is a disaster that leads to anti-semitism and other forms of institutional bigotry. If Friedman’s model is valid, then Jews in the West had better brace themselves, for Western governments are currently desperately intervening in the markets in an attempt to slow down the inevitable collapse of what is left of our economy and relative wealth.

If Friedman’s model is correct and intervention is indeed bad for the Jews, then anti-Jewish bigotry could be imminent, especially considering the gigantic bailout intervention schemes put up by states in an attempt to save what remains of the Western economy.

But it goes further - it is also very clear that the bailout schemes are there to amend a colossal disaster caused largely by the endorsement of Friedman’s own ideology. We are all paying a very heavy price for free enterprise, zero (governmental) intervention, lack of regulation, hard capitalism - in general, the ideologies Friedman was so enthusiastic about.