Only started this long read and your viewpoint, shared on X by “my people” (folks you have introduced me to through your many podcast groupings), is just what is needed. Most have not done “the work” to understand it is a conflict with the “security services” in modern terms - and you give the history. This essay is a moral deed, giving individuals an opportunity to understand currents events with the benefit of your and others experiences in the military (and the world of finance). Thank you.
In a future article in this series, perhaps the next one, I will discuss this very thing. How power is in the Praetorian Guard, in the willingness and capacity for assassinations. Not in armies or intelligence services or finance, nor anything else which themselves depend upon assassination as the real power.
And in the capacity to prevent it. Not through words or laws. But through equally capable killing. And open ended contracts with the sole stipulation, “in the event of…”
I first found you on the Crypto Rich podcast last year. You make the complexities of geopolitics easy to understand.
For years I’ve talked about the Banksters and European elitist circles and the secret puppet masters to my family and friends. But they’ve always laughed and called me a conspiracy theorist.
Now I send them links to your articles and essays and podcast appearances. And you have opened the eyes of many who refused to listen to me.
You are a national treasure E.M. Thank you again for all you do.
Great video discourse (I have an aversion to the word "lecture" - twisted by related idiocy) recently on Tommy's show; So many questions answered for family + extended (lot's prefer the modern video formats). No happy faces found in photos of the GG-parents from the "old Constantinople". Thanks again !
We must go back to 1688, to a (in) “glorious” revolution that was, in truth, the first hostile takeover of an English-speaking state by an insidiously evolved kind of power: the Financialist (aka Parasites).
Constitutionally, Orange boy could not take the English Crown as he was not a hereditary heir and thus a range of “changes” that failed to meet the English Constitution began with “The Bill of Rights 1688, The Crown and Parliament Recognition Act 1689, Charter to the Bank of England 1694, Act of Settlement 1700 and Act of Union 1707”, which all came about in rapid succession. These “changes” brought in the European Dynastic Houses of Habsburg of Austria, the Dutch House of Orange, French House of Capet and the Roman Catholic military orders, most notably the Jesuit controlled Order of St George which originated in the House of Habsburg. These “arrangements” brought together the new Corporation of Great Britain under the Union Jack, first created by James I & VI in 1604 in Westminster, just two years before the constitution to the Virginia Company in 1606. The red cross in the centre certainly does not appear to represent the George’s Cross of England but a St George’s Cross from the Roman Catholic military order given to the Jesuits in 1598. In constitutional speak, Great Britain changed to the United Kingdom of Great Britain after the Act of Union 1707 which became the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland after the Act of Union 1800. Holy Roman Empire Parasites with a plan.
Linking both this and Byzantium 2.0? today. One in my normal edition @https://nothingnewunderthesun2016.com/ and the other in my special Iran war edition for today. Both good reads!
Great read E.M - I was born and still live in Putney and didn't quite appreciate the significance of the debates. I will have to visit the church (St Mary's)
“English Civil War 2.5 (1861–1865): The American Civil War. The pattern persisted into the American Civil War, where divides over slavery and states’ rights reflected unresolved tensions from prior conflicts. The industrial North and the agrarian South represented not just different economies, but different visions of sovereignty, labor, and the relationship between central authority and local power—all echoes of the 17th-century English debates. And every English debate going back to the founding of England more than a thousand years ago. The Union’s victory solidified the American pole of English-speaking power and resolved (however imperfectly) some of the republic’s internal contradictions, while leaving others to fester.”
Great thought-provoking essay. However, I do think the Roundheads versus Cavaliers analogy bears closer examination. You're right to point out that the Cavaliers were the defenders of vested, aristocratic interests, corrupt and venal, but the Roundheads were a broad tent of two unnatural allies. On the one hand, there were the liberty-loving classical liberals who wanted nothing more than the chance to compete on their own terms, the right to private property and the fruits of their own labour. On the other hand, there were the puritans, religiously intolerant catholic-hating zealots who wanted to control every aspect of their neighbour's life, banishing all sin at the point of the gun. Their dour hatred of fun, or anything resembling it, is the reason Charles I son was invited back from exile and England became a constitutional monarchy.
Here's where your analogy is flawed. Neither of the two main parties which are currently at war in London and Washington are the intellectual and ideological inheritors of the Cavaliers. They're both intellectual descendants of the Roundheads. But on the one hand, there are the liberty-loving classical liberals, who understand government and its tendency to make deals with crony capitalist interests. They understand that the Left actually likes capitalism because the occasional bad actor gives them the perfect excuse for an ever-increasing expansion of government until it reaches the proportions of Leviathan. On the other hand, there are the intolerant and bigoted (in the ideological, religious sense) puritans, who embrace every culture apart from those who disagree with the philosophical disdain for the democratic veto, their preference for society being run by technocratic governance rather than the market and voluntary association, and their passionate belief that government, the disease of which it pretends to be the cure, is infinitely preferrable to people making free choices for themselves.
Here's the thing. The puritans, the intellectual predecessors of socialism, weren't interested in overthrowing aristocracy. They simply wanted to replace the old tyrannical order and replace it with a new tyranny, one which wanted to 'perfect' mankind. It's one of the problems of radicals and anyone with a tendency towards policy wonkery- although there are genuine charismatic individuals on the Left who are interested in the welfare of the common man, for the most part anyone who reaches for the policy suite to radically change the world would do better to look in the mirror and correctly diagnose the root causes of their individual misery and the messianic impulses it inspires.
One sees this in socialist revolutions. Yes, there are genuine idealists, men-of-the-people, who honestly want a better more humane world, but without exception they are always wiped out by the closet aristocrats, those who eventually become the dacha dwellers talking wistfully about reforms which allowed the proletariats to grow their own food, not once stopping to recognise that the reason why ordinary people are forced into such straits is because the food system the technocratic ideologues preside over is basically dysfunctional because the people making the rules are not farmers! In the postmodern world, these cretins actually want to be ban both synthetics fertiliser and cows, an approach which can only ever feed 4 billion people, leaving the rest to starve.
The most dangerous human in the landscape is the daydreaming creative with the hubris to imagine they can create a better world with little to no deep knowledge of the domains for which they produce diktats. It's also why they are also naturally censorious. In debate, five minutes with a typical 'reactionary' spells disaster for whatever ill-thought-out idea they happen to be championing.
Basically, in the modern era it's Jeffersons vs. Hamiltonians. The Jeffersonians are the Right. They don't trust centralised power, although they are willing to tolerate it in figures like Trump because although they may not know the terminology they intuitively understand the need for a counter revolution to reverse the profound Cultural Revolution undertaken by the Left in the last ten years. The Left are the closest aristocrats. Their preferred means of robbing the proletariat of their democratic veto has simply changed modus operandi. They enact technocratic governance through entrenched bureaucratic management. They have a strong preference for supranational organisations and are decidedly post-national. They would like nothing more than a world government to negate the voting power of the plebs for all time.
Whether they will support a war in the neocon sense depends entirely upon whether they see the people that run the government as nationalistic or ideological. I agree with them on Putin's aggression, but supporting a theocratic communist autocratic state which routinely murders women for not wearing head scarfs and which also happens the single greatest supporter of terrorism globally, seems to be taking ideological support for anything ideological, no matter how deranged or murderous, a little too far...
Nonsense. Your arguments do nothing but remain within the confines of the very narrative framing - funded and heavily carried out against the English by Rome and its banking power Venetians become Dutch - all of which led to the capture of the Crown and the enslavement of the English-Speaking Peoples to this very day.
So who are the bad guys in your estimation? Anything which increases the power of the sovereign or state over ordinary people and businesses must surely be the totalitarian/authoritarian force. Let's not forget that outside of the preference for finance for economies of scale and standardisation, government is by far the biggest force pushing commerce relentlessly towards large corporations, oligopoly, and a citizenry of serfs.
The Dutch were Protestant. The Venetians Catholic. I also don't get the Roundhead vs. Cavalier framing. Although there were certainly radicals and free thinkers on the side of the Parliamentarians, the puritan element won out, with England ultimately rejecting the religious zealotry of the puritans with their insistence on plain monochromatic clothing, and dour religious observance enforced upon an unwilling population. Cromwell's England was no picnic for the freedom lover.
Let's not forget Cromwell was a puritan himself. Under his authority, theatres were closed, the Sabbath was strictly enforced, Christmas observances were banned as 'pagan', moral reforms were promoted against swearing, adultery, and drinking. Puritan clothing wasn't mandated, but there was strong social pressure. Besides which, this was all expressly against the teachings of Jesus in the Gospels, who expressly rejected religious coercion and was the direct inspiration for libertas religionis.
Cromwell dissolved parliament, he imposed censorship, he tried dissenters. About the only good thing Cromwell did was readmit the Jews.
Besides, London and New York are deeply aligned as financial centres. They're almost synchronised in terms of the ideology they adopt. New York adopts ESG, so does London. Both were deeply committed to the WEF with its delusional neo-Malthusian Paul R. Ehrlich ideology, which has, incidentally, been repeatedly proven completely wrong. Ever read the Tablet 'Whole of Society' article? https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/news/articles/whole-society-american-politics
The question is never who is on which side initially. Political conflict always tends to be messy, with strange bedfellows making temporary alliances, the Arthashastra of realpolitik. The question is who will ultimately win out within a coalition of 'allies'? Jerry Pournelle's Iron Law of Bureaucracy tends to suggest that the winners will always be the bureaucrats and the apparatchik, the intellectual midwits of misrule.
Thanks for providing a different angle and some reported context (which I accept others might dispute). At a time like this, one is tempted to listen to a narrative that seems to join all the dots and explain everything. So it is great to read a comment so quickly posted in response to the original article that prompts one to consider that a "grand narrative" that purports to explain "everything" may not be all that it initially seems!
I am not going to join any mob of any sort in a hurry! Especially when I do not know enough! So thanks for the angle you have provided.
I know what you mean about not knowing enough! I'm constantly updating my model of the world these days. So much of what I thought I knew was media misinformation and spin. The irritating thing is when you already know something is wrong, but haven't managed to update all the knowledge which is founded upon the misconception/misinformation.
Here's a Hegelian contradiction- I think that in order for a civilisation to persist and flourish it has to believe in its own enduring grand narrative myths and legends, whilst also possessing the capacity to correct the downstream consequences of the assumptions the grand narrative generates- an uneasy truce at the best of times, and certainly not true in the West today, with its postmodern obsession with deconstruction.
The fact that China and Russia are currently "standing by" makes sense in a multipolar world. Not the United States as global hegemon, but as the tripwire for the self-selection of nations to either stand behind their benefactors, or push against them unto their death.
You articulate 'discourse' the way estrogen does. Estrogen is not my peer. Any who "discourse" in anything other than personal experienced life conflict is not comparatively discussing fuck all. As they're not a peer to me at all.
Only started this long read and your viewpoint, shared on X by “my people” (folks you have introduced me to through your many podcast groupings), is just what is needed. Most have not done “the work” to understand it is a conflict with the “security services” in modern terms - and you give the history. This essay is a moral deed, giving individuals an opportunity to understand currents events with the benefit of your and others experiences in the military (and the world of finance). Thank you.
In a future article in this series, perhaps the next one, I will discuss this very thing. How power is in the Praetorian Guard, in the willingness and capacity for assassinations. Not in armies or intelligence services or finance, nor anything else which themselves depend upon assassination as the real power.
As you have said, the real power is in death (or killing/threatening to kill your enemy/competition.)
And in the capacity to prevent it. Not through words or laws. But through equally capable killing. And open ended contracts with the sole stipulation, “in the event of…”
#BlackOpsMatter
In this insidious and malevolent world, there is no other way.
Another amazing essay. Thank you very much.
I first found you on the Crypto Rich podcast last year. You make the complexities of geopolitics easy to understand.
For years I’ve talked about the Banksters and European elitist circles and the secret puppet masters to my family and friends. But they’ve always laughed and called me a conspiracy theorist.
Now I send them links to your articles and essays and podcast appearances. And you have opened the eyes of many who refused to listen to me.
You are a national treasure E.M. Thank you again for all you do.
Great video discourse (I have an aversion to the word "lecture" - twisted by related idiocy) recently on Tommy's show; So many questions answered for family + extended (lot's prefer the modern video formats). No happy faces found in photos of the GG-parents from the "old Constantinople". Thanks again !
Another great history lesson. Ty.
We must go back to 1688, to a (in) “glorious” revolution that was, in truth, the first hostile takeover of an English-speaking state by an insidiously evolved kind of power: the Financialist (aka Parasites).
Constitutionally, Orange boy could not take the English Crown as he was not a hereditary heir and thus a range of “changes” that failed to meet the English Constitution began with “The Bill of Rights 1688, The Crown and Parliament Recognition Act 1689, Charter to the Bank of England 1694, Act of Settlement 1700 and Act of Union 1707”, which all came about in rapid succession. These “changes” brought in the European Dynastic Houses of Habsburg of Austria, the Dutch House of Orange, French House of Capet and the Roman Catholic military orders, most notably the Jesuit controlled Order of St George which originated in the House of Habsburg. These “arrangements” brought together the new Corporation of Great Britain under the Union Jack, first created by James I & VI in 1604 in Westminster, just two years before the constitution to the Virginia Company in 1606. The red cross in the centre certainly does not appear to represent the George’s Cross of England but a St George’s Cross from the Roman Catholic military order given to the Jesuits in 1598. In constitutional speak, Great Britain changed to the United Kingdom of Great Britain after the Act of Union 1707 which became the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland after the Act of Union 1800. Holy Roman Empire Parasites with a plan.
Audacious analysis. I expect nothing less at this point. Thank you.
Linking both this and Byzantium 2.0? today. One in my normal edition @https://nothingnewunderthesun2016.com/ and the other in my special Iran war edition for today. Both good reads!
Excellent and clarifying.
Great read E.M - I was born and still live in Putney and didn't quite appreciate the significance of the debates. I will have to visit the church (St Mary's)
Thanks, E.M.
As you noted, C-in-C coordinating this op and the A Team from Mar-a-Lago, and not DC, which is infested with the B Team and where 'walls have ears.'
An excellent piece E.M (as per usual) and it gives the reader plenty of food for thought! Thank you!
“English Civil War 2.5 (1861–1865): The American Civil War. The pattern persisted into the American Civil War, where divides over slavery and states’ rights reflected unresolved tensions from prior conflicts. The industrial North and the agrarian South represented not just different economies, but different visions of sovereignty, labor, and the relationship between central authority and local power—all echoes of the 17th-century English debates. And every English debate going back to the founding of England more than a thousand years ago. The Union’s victory solidified the American pole of English-speaking power and resolved (however imperfectly) some of the republic’s internal contradictions, while leaving others to fester.”
this is as even-handed a description as i’ve read
Great thought-provoking essay. However, I do think the Roundheads versus Cavaliers analogy bears closer examination. You're right to point out that the Cavaliers were the defenders of vested, aristocratic interests, corrupt and venal, but the Roundheads were a broad tent of two unnatural allies. On the one hand, there were the liberty-loving classical liberals who wanted nothing more than the chance to compete on their own terms, the right to private property and the fruits of their own labour. On the other hand, there were the puritans, religiously intolerant catholic-hating zealots who wanted to control every aspect of their neighbour's life, banishing all sin at the point of the gun. Their dour hatred of fun, or anything resembling it, is the reason Charles I son was invited back from exile and England became a constitutional monarchy.
Here's where your analogy is flawed. Neither of the two main parties which are currently at war in London and Washington are the intellectual and ideological inheritors of the Cavaliers. They're both intellectual descendants of the Roundheads. But on the one hand, there are the liberty-loving classical liberals, who understand government and its tendency to make deals with crony capitalist interests. They understand that the Left actually likes capitalism because the occasional bad actor gives them the perfect excuse for an ever-increasing expansion of government until it reaches the proportions of Leviathan. On the other hand, there are the intolerant and bigoted (in the ideological, religious sense) puritans, who embrace every culture apart from those who disagree with the philosophical disdain for the democratic veto, their preference for society being run by technocratic governance rather than the market and voluntary association, and their passionate belief that government, the disease of which it pretends to be the cure, is infinitely preferrable to people making free choices for themselves.
Here's the thing. The puritans, the intellectual predecessors of socialism, weren't interested in overthrowing aristocracy. They simply wanted to replace the old tyrannical order and replace it with a new tyranny, one which wanted to 'perfect' mankind. It's one of the problems of radicals and anyone with a tendency towards policy wonkery- although there are genuine charismatic individuals on the Left who are interested in the welfare of the common man, for the most part anyone who reaches for the policy suite to radically change the world would do better to look in the mirror and correctly diagnose the root causes of their individual misery and the messianic impulses it inspires.
One sees this in socialist revolutions. Yes, there are genuine idealists, men-of-the-people, who honestly want a better more humane world, but without exception they are always wiped out by the closet aristocrats, those who eventually become the dacha dwellers talking wistfully about reforms which allowed the proletariats to grow their own food, not once stopping to recognise that the reason why ordinary people are forced into such straits is because the food system the technocratic ideologues preside over is basically dysfunctional because the people making the rules are not farmers! In the postmodern world, these cretins actually want to be ban both synthetics fertiliser and cows, an approach which can only ever feed 4 billion people, leaving the rest to starve.
The most dangerous human in the landscape is the daydreaming creative with the hubris to imagine they can create a better world with little to no deep knowledge of the domains for which they produce diktats. It's also why they are also naturally censorious. In debate, five minutes with a typical 'reactionary' spells disaster for whatever ill-thought-out idea they happen to be championing.
Basically, in the modern era it's Jeffersons vs. Hamiltonians. The Jeffersonians are the Right. They don't trust centralised power, although they are willing to tolerate it in figures like Trump because although they may not know the terminology they intuitively understand the need for a counter revolution to reverse the profound Cultural Revolution undertaken by the Left in the last ten years. The Left are the closest aristocrats. Their preferred means of robbing the proletariat of their democratic veto has simply changed modus operandi. They enact technocratic governance through entrenched bureaucratic management. They have a strong preference for supranational organisations and are decidedly post-national. They would like nothing more than a world government to negate the voting power of the plebs for all time.
Whether they will support a war in the neocon sense depends entirely upon whether they see the people that run the government as nationalistic or ideological. I agree with them on Putin's aggression, but supporting a theocratic communist autocratic state which routinely murders women for not wearing head scarfs and which also happens the single greatest supporter of terrorism globally, seems to be taking ideological support for anything ideological, no matter how deranged or murderous, a little too far...
Nonsense. Your arguments do nothing but remain within the confines of the very narrative framing - funded and heavily carried out against the English by Rome and its banking power Venetians become Dutch - all of which led to the capture of the Crown and the enslavement of the English-Speaking Peoples to this very day.
So who are the bad guys in your estimation? Anything which increases the power of the sovereign or state over ordinary people and businesses must surely be the totalitarian/authoritarian force. Let's not forget that outside of the preference for finance for economies of scale and standardisation, government is by far the biggest force pushing commerce relentlessly towards large corporations, oligopoly, and a citizenry of serfs.
The Dutch were Protestant. The Venetians Catholic. I also don't get the Roundhead vs. Cavalier framing. Although there were certainly radicals and free thinkers on the side of the Parliamentarians, the puritan element won out, with England ultimately rejecting the religious zealotry of the puritans with their insistence on plain monochromatic clothing, and dour religious observance enforced upon an unwilling population. Cromwell's England was no picnic for the freedom lover.
Let's not forget Cromwell was a puritan himself. Under his authority, theatres were closed, the Sabbath was strictly enforced, Christmas observances were banned as 'pagan', moral reforms were promoted against swearing, adultery, and drinking. Puritan clothing wasn't mandated, but there was strong social pressure. Besides which, this was all expressly against the teachings of Jesus in the Gospels, who expressly rejected religious coercion and was the direct inspiration for libertas religionis.
Cromwell dissolved parliament, he imposed censorship, he tried dissenters. About the only good thing Cromwell did was readmit the Jews.
Besides, London and New York are deeply aligned as financial centres. They're almost synchronised in terms of the ideology they adopt. New York adopts ESG, so does London. Both were deeply committed to the WEF with its delusional neo-Malthusian Paul R. Ehrlich ideology, which has, incidentally, been repeatedly proven completely wrong. Ever read the Tablet 'Whole of Society' article? https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/news/articles/whole-society-american-politics
The question is never who is on which side initially. Political conflict always tends to be messy, with strange bedfellows making temporary alliances, the Arthashastra of realpolitik. The question is who will ultimately win out within a coalition of 'allies'? Jerry Pournelle's Iron Law of Bureaucracy tends to suggest that the winners will always be the bureaucrats and the apparatchik, the intellectual midwits of misrule.
Read today's piece. And those over the next five days which brings us all up to ECW3.0 and current.
Thanks for providing a different angle and some reported context (which I accept others might dispute). At a time like this, one is tempted to listen to a narrative that seems to join all the dots and explain everything. So it is great to read a comment so quickly posted in response to the original article that prompts one to consider that a "grand narrative" that purports to explain "everything" may not be all that it initially seems!
I am not going to join any mob of any sort in a hurry! Especially when I do not know enough! So thanks for the angle you have provided.
I know what you mean about not knowing enough! I'm constantly updating my model of the world these days. So much of what I thought I knew was media misinformation and spin. The irritating thing is when you already know something is wrong, but haven't managed to update all the knowledge which is founded upon the misconception/misinformation.
Here's a Hegelian contradiction- I think that in order for a civilisation to persist and flourish it has to believe in its own enduring grand narrative myths and legends, whilst also possessing the capacity to correct the downstream consequences of the assumptions the grand narrative generates- an uneasy truce at the best of times, and certainly not true in the West today, with its postmodern obsession with deconstruction.
zwzWz . As rzzz zz we eDa
The fact that China and Russia are currently "standing by" makes sense in a multipolar world. Not the United States as global hegemon, but as the tripwire for the self-selection of nations to either stand behind their benefactors, or push against them unto their death.
You, obviously, failed to understand even the remotest bit of what I wrote or in so very many other works articulate.
You articulate 'discourse' the way estrogen does. Estrogen is not my peer. Any who "discourse" in anything other than personal experienced life conflict is not comparatively discussing fuck all. As they're not a peer to me at all.