Read more

And the tragedy—or perhaps the comedy, depending on your tolerance for the absurd—is that he looks worse now than when he started. He has become, through sheer force of capital and obsession, a creature that resembles nothing so much as the undead he is so desperate not to join.

But Bryan Johnson is not an aberration. He is a symptom. He is what happens when a human being accumulates more wealth than the brain was ever designed to process, when the ancient circuitry of survival and status gets so thoroughly overloaded that it begins to malfunction in spectacular and visible ways. He is, in other words, exactly what we should expect from a civilization that has made the accumulation of capital its highest virtue and its organizing principle. And if you want to understand how we got here—how we arrived at a moment in history where grown men drink their children’s blood and dig bunkers in Hawaii and whisper about Satan in secret societies—you have to go back. Way back.

Bronze began its career in human affairs as a weapon. This is important. It was not invented to make jewelry or to decorate temples or to serve as a medium of exchange. It was invented to kill people. The first bronze objects were swords and spearheads and arrowheads, tools for the projection of violence and the consolidation of power. The man with the bronze sword could take what he wanted from the man with the stone club, and so bronze became synonymous with dominance. But here is the thing about power: it gets bored.

Once you have conquered your enemies and secured your territory and established yourself as the undisputed ruler of your little corner of the world, what do you do with all that bronze? You start making pretty things. You make jewelry. You make elaborate vessels for your wine. You make decorative objects that serve no purpose except to announce to everyone who sees them that you are the sort of person who can afford to waste bronze on frivolity. And because powerful people have nice things, everyone else wants nice things too, and so bronze transforms from a weapon into a status symbol and from a status symbol into a currency.

This transformation took centuries. It happened so slowly that no one living through it could have perceived the change. But the pattern it established—the movement from violence to ornamentation to exchange—would repeat itself again and again throughout human history, with cattle and grain and seashells and gold and, eventually, with little pieces of paper bearing the faces of dead presidents. The lesson, if there is one, is that all money is, at bottom, crystallized power. It is violence made portable and fungible. It is the ability to coerce, abstracted and stored in a form that can be carried in your pocket.

David Graeber, the anthropologist, understood this better than most. In his book on debt, he argued that money as a concept emerged not from barter, as the economists would have you believe, but from situations in which the debt was so profound that it could never be truly repaid. Consider the three primordial debts. The first: blood. If I kill your brother, you will want to kill me, and if you kill me, my family will want to kill you, and the cycle of vengeance will continue until one of our lineages is extinguished. But what if, instead, I acknowledge that I have created a debt that can never be settled, and I offer you something valuable—gold, perhaps, or cattle, or bronze—as a token of that acknowledgment? The violence stops, but the debt remains, transmuted into wealth.

The second primordial debt: marriage. When a woman leaves her family to join yours, something irreplaceable has been lost. A daughter, a sister, a source of labor and love and continuity. And so you give gifts to compensate, not because the gifts are equivalent—nothing could be equivalent—but because the gesture matters. The transaction matters. The acknowledgment of obligation matters.

The third primordial debt, and this is the one that explains the tombs, is the debt we owe to the dead.

When a great leader dies, or a beloved priest, or simply someone who contributed more to the community than could ever be measured or repaid, what do you do? You cannot give them anything they can use. They are dead. They have passed beyond the material realm into whatever comes next, and everyone knows—or at least everyone knew, for most of human history—that you cannot take your possessions with you into the afterlife. And yet the bereaved pile gold into graves. They bury their heroes with jewelry and weapons and food and wine. They construct elaborate tombs, mastabas in Egypt and mausoleums in China and pyramids that scrape the sky, all to honor people who will never see any of it. Why? Because the gesture matters. Because the monument stands as testimony to a debt that can never be discharged. Because the community is saying, with bronze and gold and precious stones, that this person was worth more than we could ever give them, and we will remember them forever.

This is what money was, once. A symbol of the unpayable. A token of acknowledgment. A way of making visible the invisible bonds that held communities together. And then something changed.

Read more

To understand how we arrived at this present American moment — this gaudy, rolling catastrophe dressed up in red hats and executive orders — one must go back, as all useful things require, to the French Revolution. Specifically, to a man most people have either never heard of or have confused with a brand of sparkling water: Maximilien Robespierre.

Robespierre is the inconvenient figure in the story of modern democracy. He is inconvenient because he was genuine. He worked eighteen hours a day. He had no money. He had no lover. He was not being paid. He was, in every conceivable material sense, gaining nothing from the revolution he was pouring his life into — and that, in the calculus of history, made him dangerous in a way that no ambitious man with a palace and a mistress could ever be.

Robespierre believed, with the fervor of a man who has replaced religion with philosophy, that every human being possessed the capacity for reason. Present a logical argument, he thought, and people would understand it. Give them the facts and they would act accordingly. The revolution would succeed because it was right, and being right, in the end, would be enough.

It was enough — for a while. Without Robespierre, the French Revolution would have collapsed in its cradle. He was its architect, its conscience, its relentless engine. He saved it from the monarchists, from the foreign coalitions, from the internal rot of men who wanted to use the revolution as a personal elevator to wealth and comfort. He was, in the language of his own time, the Incorruptible. And his incorruptibility was real, which is precisely what killed him.

Because Robespierre could not fathom — could not even conceptually entertain — that the men standing beside him at the Convention, the men who swore the same oaths and spoke the same words about liberty and equality, would conspire against him to protect their own grubby self-interest. He believed in reason so completely that he could not imagine anyone choosing to be unreasonable. His friends sent him to the guillotine on the 10th of Thermidor, and the revolution he had saved began its long, grotesque slide into something else entirely.

Support my work

Enter Napoleon Bonaparte, stage left, wearing a hat that has become more famous than modern France.

Napoleon did not obtain power through virtue. Napoleon obtained power through the oldest technology in politics: knowing whose boots to lick and when to stop licking.

Early in his career, he identified the right patrons — men with influence, men with armies, men with ambitions that exceeded their talents — and he made himself indispensable to them. He did what they asked. He fought their battles. He flattered their egos. And then, when the time was right, he and his allies launched a coup d’état against the very republic that Robespierre had bled to create. The coup succeeded, as coups launched by popular generals against exhausted democracies tend to do. And then — and this is the part that his patrons really should have seen coming — Napoleon betrayed every single one of them. He gathered power unto himself the way a black hole gathers light: silently, inevitably, and with no intention of ever giving it back. He crowned himself Emperor. He placed the crown on his own head, because even the Pope was merely a prop in Napoleon’s personal mythology.

And mythology is the operative word. We remember Napoleon as a military genius, and he was competent enough on a battlefield, but what truly made Napoleon extraordinary was not his generalship. It was his understanding — intuitive, almost preternatural — that human beings do not want truth. They want myth. They want a story they can inhabit, a figure they can worship, a narrative that makes the brutal randomness of existence feel like it has a plot.

Napoleon understood that if you present yourself as a messiah, a significant number of people will treat you as one. Not because they have examined the evidence and concluded you are divine, but because they want you to be divine, because the alternative — that no one is coming to save them, that they must save themselves, that the world is complicated and unglamorous and demands constant, exhausting vigilance — is unbearable.

Napoleon himself said it plainly, with the chilling clarity of a man who has looked into the machinery of human desire and decided to operate it like a carnival ride: “I saw the way to achieve my dreams. I would found a religion. I saw myself marching into Asia, mounted on an elephant, a turban on my head, and in my hand a new Quran that I would have composed to suit my needs.” He was not joking. He was describing his method. And his method worked, until it didn’t — until the myth collided with the Russian winter, with the combined armies of Europe, with the stubborn, unsexy reality that myth cannot feed a starving army or warm a freezing soldier. But by then the French Republic was already dead, its bones picked clean by a man in a bicorne hat who had convinced an entire nation that following him was the same as being free.

Now. Here is where the pattern becomes uncomfortable.

Julius Caesar. Same personality. Same playbook. Same result. Caesar identified political patrons early — Crassus, Pompey, men of wealth and military power who saw in this ambitious young aristocrat a useful instrument. Caesar made himself useful. He fought in Gaul, he conquered, he sent dispatches back to Rome that read less like military reports and more like press releases, because Caesar understood, centuries before the printing press, that the story of the war mattered more than the war itself.

He built a myth of himself as the invincible general, the people’s champion, the man who could not be stopped. And the Roman Republic, that magnificent, creaking, deeply imperfect experiment in collective governance, could not survive the weight of one man’s mythology. Caesar crossed the Rubicon, and the Republic drowned.

Support my work

Adolf Hitler. Same pattern. And before anyone clutches their pearls at the comparison, understand that the comparison is not about moral equivalence in every dimension — it is about mechanism. It is about how republics die. The Nazis did not emerge from a vacuum. They were incubated by the banking cartel that has run the world for centuries, funded and encouraged as a cudgel against the communist movement.

Hitler was, initially, a tool — a loud, useful radical who could be pointed at the left and fired like a weapon. But the tool turned out to be smarter than the men who thought they were wielding it. Hitler outmaneuvered his patrons. He outmaneuvered his allies. He built a mythology of himself as the savior of the German people, the messianic figure who would restore a humiliated nation to its rightful glory. And the Weimar Republic — fragile, battered, exhausted by economic catastrophe and political paralysis — collapsed under the weight of a man who understood that people would rather believe a beautiful lie than confront an ugly truth. He destroyed the German Republic, and the British achieved their goal again. The cost was fifty million dead and a continent in ashes, but by then the myth had already done its work.

So. Caesar. Napoleon. Hitler. Three men separated by centuries, by languages, by the specific textures of their respective civilizations, but united by a method so consistent it begins to look less like coincidence and more like a law of political physics. They all identified and exploited political patrons. They all outmaneuvered those patrons once they had extracted what they needed. They all possessed an uncanny genius for mythmaking — for transforming themselves from mere politicians into messianic figures around whom entire populations could organize their hopes, their fears, their desperate need for meaning. And they all destroyed the republics that had, in their decadence and complacency, created the conditions for their rise.

Which brings us, with the grim inevitability of a car crash in slow motion, to Donald Trump.

Let us dispense with the usual objections. Trump is a terrible businessman. This is true. His father, Fred Trump, built a genuine real estate empire through the dreary, unfashionable work of actually building things and managing people and navigating the corrupt thickets of New York City government contracting. Fred Trump understood how to make money in the real, granular, unsexy sense — how to hire, how to motivate, how to squeeze every available dollar from every available source, including, it must be said, the government. Donald took this empire and nearly ran it into the ground. His casinos went bankrupt. His airline failed. His steaks were a punchline. His university was a fraud. By any rational measure of business competence, the man is a walking catastrophe in an ill-fitting suit.

But here is the thing that his critics — some of them may be intelligent, well-meaning, hopelessly idealistic people, every one of them a little Robespierre — cannot seem to grasp: it does not matter. Trump’s business failures are irrelevant because Trump is not in the business of business. Trump is in the business of mythology. And in that business, he is, without exaggeration, one of the most gifted operators in American history.

Read more

Sometime around 1200 BC, give or take a few decades that nobody alive can be bothered to pin down with any precision, the known world caught fire. Not in the poetic sense. In the literal, archaeological sense — palaces reduced to carbon, trade networks severed like arteries, entire populations vanishing into the indifferent dust of the eastern Mediterranean.

Scholars, with their infinite talent for naming catastrophes in the driest possible language, call this the Bronze Age Collapse. It is one of the great unsolved murders of human civilization: a thriving, interconnected, shockingly sophisticated global order snuffed out in what amounts to an eyeblink of historical time. And the reason nobody can agree on who killed it is because the answer is too ugly, too familiar, and too inconvenient for a species that has spent the subsequent three thousand years doing the exact same thing over and over again with depressing enthusiasm.

But let us set the scene, because you cannot appreciate the scale of the catastrophe without first appreciating the scale of what was lost.

Picture the world as it existed in 1200 BC. At its center — geographically, economically, and in every way that mattered to the people who lived and died there — sat Mycenaean Greece, that collection of fortified warrior-palaces perched on the western edge of the Aegean Sea. Across from it, separated by a shimmering, treacherous stretch of water, lay Anatolia — what we now, with our genius for geopolitical rebranding, call Turkey.

Anatolia was the seat of the Hittite Empire, a military and diplomatic powerhouse that most people today couldn’t identify in a lineup if their mortgage depended on it, which is a shame, because the Hittites were running one of the most formidable state apparatuses on the planet while your ancestors were probably chewing on bark somewhere in a forest.

South of Anatolia, hugging the coastline of the eastern Mediterranean, was a place called Canaan — a name that should ring a bell if you have ever cracked open a Bible or sat through a particularly tedious Sunday school lesson, because Canaan is the birthplace of the Israelites. Today it is the territory we carve up and call Lebanon, Syria, and Israel, which tells you everything you need to know about how much progress the region has made in the intervening millennia.

Canaan, in 1200 BC, was a province of the Egyptian Empire, because of course it was — Egypt had its fingers in everything, the way empires do when they have enough grain to feed half the known world and enough soldiers to remind the other half who was in charge.

Further east lay Mesopotamia — modern Iraq — the cradle of civilization and the graveyard of approximately every foreign policy adventure attempted there since. Beyond that, Persia — Iran — and then Afghanistan, and then India, stretching the trade routes to a length that would make a modern logistics executive weep into his spreadsheet. To the west, across the Mediterranean, the islands of Cyprus and Crete floated like copper-rich jewels in the sea. Further still: Iberia, and then, at the cold, rain-soaked edge of the world, Britain — a place that even in 1200 BC was mostly notable for having tin, bad weather, and not much else.

This was the Bronze Age world. And the critical thing to understand about it is that it was, by any reasonable definition of the term, globalized. These were not isolated pockets of humanity grunting at each other across impassable distances. They were trading. They were communicating. They were writing letters to each other — we have the diplomatic correspondence to prove it, scratched into clay tablets in a language called Akkadian, the English of its day, the lingua franca of international bullying and flattery. This was a world knit together by commerce, and the thread that held the whole tapestry together was bronze.

Bronze. An alloy of copper and tin. That is all it was — two metals melted together — and yet it was the petroleum of the ancient world, the silicon, the rare earth mineral, the everything. Bronze was weapons. Bronze was tools. Bronze was the economy itself, the material foundation upon which every palace and every empire and every petty chieftain’s ambitions rested. And here is the part that makes the whole arrangement both miraculous and fatally stupid: copper and tin do not occur in the same places. Tin was found in Britain, in Iberia, in Anatolia, in Afghanistan — scattered across the earth as if some malicious deity had deliberately ensured that no single civilization could be self-sufficient. Copper came mainly from Cyprus and Crete and parts of Anatolia. Which meant that to make bronze — to make the one thing your entire economy depended on — you had to trade with half the planet. You had no choice. You were locked into a system of mutual dependence whether you liked it or not, and the moment any link in that chain broke, the whole thing was liable to come apart like a cheap necklace.

There were, broadly speaking, four ways to make money in this world. The first was mining — digging copper and tin out of the earth, the original extractive industry, performed then as now by people who had no realistic alternative. The second was manufacturing — smelting the metals, alloying them, and turning the resulting bronze into weapons, tools, pottery, and anything else that could be sold at a markup. The third was trade, and this is where the geography becomes deliciously ruthless, because if you happened to control the spot through which all trade had to pass, you could sit there collecting tolls like a glorified highway bandit with a crown.

That spot, the chokepoint of the ancient world, the logistics hub through which every caravan and every ship had to navigate, was a place called Troy. Troy — yes, that Troy, the one with the horse and the Helen and the whole sordid, blood-soaked epic that Homer would later immortalize. For centuries, wars were fought over Troy, not because of any woman’s face, however lovely, but because controlling Troy meant controlling the flow of wealth across the known world. If you held Troy, everyone paid you. It was the toll gate of civilization.

The Greeks who eventually sacked it were not, despite what the poets would have you believe, engaged in some noble rescue mission. They were pirates. Which brings us to the fourth way of making money in the Bronze Age: piracy. Theft. Raiding. The honest profession of taking what other people had earned, by force, because you had ships and swords and a flexible attitude toward property rights. When we read the Odyssey, when we swoon over the heroes of the Iliad, we are romanticizing a class of armed robbers who happened to speak Greek and whose descendants had the good fortune to produce some excellent literature about it.

So this was the world: interconnected, wealthy, dynamic, violent, and spectacularly unequal. Mycenaean Greece grew rich through trade and piracy. The Hittite Empire grew rich through territorial control and military muscle. Egypt grew rich because it was the breadbasket of the known world, the place where the grain was, and grain is the one commodity that never goes out of style. Canaan grew rich because it sat between all of them, skimming a percentage off every transaction like a well-positioned middleman. It was globalization avant la lettre — all the interdependence, all the inequality, all the fragility, wrapped in bronze and lashed together with the fraying ropes of diplomatic correspondence.

And then, in the space of a few decades, it all came crashing down.

Support my work

Mycenaean Greece was destroyed. Not damaged, not diminished — destroyed, burned to the ground, its population reduced by roughly a quarter. The Hittite Empire, that colossus that had stood toe-to-toe with Egypt for centuries, simply ceased to exist. Canaan dissolved. And Egypt, though it survived the immediate onslaught, was so weakened that it would never again be a true power; within a few generations it was conquered by outside forces and relegated to the status of a historical monument, impressive to visit but no longer capable of frightening anyone.

After 1200 BC, the entire structure of Bronze Age civilization was gone. The trade networks collapsed. The diplomatic channels went silent. The clay tablets stopped being written. Darkness — actual, documentable, centuries-long darkness — descended over the eastern Mediterranean.

For decades, scholars have been chewing on this mystery the way a dog chews on a bone that has long since lost its marrow. What happened? How does an entire interconnected civilization simply evaporate?

The Egyptian records — because the Egyptians, bless their obsessive bureaucratic hearts, wrote everything down — tell us about something they called the Sea Peoples. Over the course of several decades, waves of invaders came from the west, attacking by sea, assaulting Egypt with a persistence that suggests genuine desperation rather than mere opportunism. These were not a single nation or ethnic group. They were a motley coalition — pirates, displaced populations, refugees, the hungry and the armed — crashing against Egypt like surf against a seawall. Egypt managed to repulse them, but the Hittites did not. Mycenaean Greece did not. The Sea Peoples, whoever they were, rolled over the great civilizations of the Bronze Age like a tide over sandcastles.

But this only pushes the question back one step. What drove the Sea Peoples? What turned settled populations into desperate, seaborne marauders willing to attack the most powerful states on earth for a chance at survival?

They attacked Egypt because Egypt had food. These were hungry people — people whose crops had failed, whose cities had burned, whose social order had fractured beyond repair. They joined pirates because pirates had ships, and ships meant the possibility of reaching somewhere that still had grain. The Sea Peoples were not the cause of the Bronze Age Collapse. They were a symptom. They were the fever, not the disease.

The first serious theory proposed by scholars was invasion — that some unknown people from northern Europe swept down and smashed Mycenaean Greece, driving its inhabitants westward in a chain reaction of displacement and violence. It is a tidy theory. It is also, unfortunately, completely unsupported by evidence. There is no archaeological trace of any such northern invasion. None. Zero. The theory persists in some textbooks the way outdated wallpaper persists in old houses — because nobody has bothered to strip it off.

The second theory was natural disaster — a volcanic eruption somewhere that altered the climate and triggered famine, which triggered migration, which triggered war. There is somewhat more evidence for this, but it remains insufficient to explain the totality of the collapse. A single eruption does not, by itself, erase multiple civilizations spread across thousands of miles.

The current scholarly consensus is what academics, with their flair for the undramatic, call a “perfect storm” or “systems collapse.” The idea is that no single event caused the catastrophe. Instead, a series of compounding disasters — earthquakes (for which there is solid archaeological evidence across the region), climate change (the weather grew cooler, making it harder to grow crops), and internal revolt (populations rebelling against their rulers) — combined over decades to overwhelm societies that were already stretched thin. Each blow weakened the system further, until the whole structure buckled and fell. It is, as theories go, pleasingly comprehensive. It is also, in the opinion of at least one dissenting voice, profoundly incomplete.

Because here is the thing about the Bronze Age Collapse that the “perfect storm” theory elegantly sidesteps: it was not unique. It was not some singular aberration in the otherwise orderly march of human progress. It was a pattern. The same pattern, in fact, that has repeated itself with nauseating regularity across every continent and every epoch of recorded history.

Consider the Maya. The Maya civilization, centered in what is now Guatemala and the surrounding regions of Central America, began its explosive growth around 200 AD. By 900 AD it had reached its zenith — sprawling city-states, monumental architecture, a written language, astronomical knowledge that would not be matched in Europe for centuries. And then, in the space of roughly three hundred years, it collapsed almost entirely. By 1200 AD, the great cities were being swallowed by jungle. The population had cratered. The written records stopped. The pattern is almost identical to the Bronze Age Collapse: a thriving, complex civilization hitting a peak and then plummeting into ruin. The dates are different. The geography is different. The specific catalysts are different. But the underlying dynamic — the structural rot that made collapse inevitable — is the same.

The traditional explanation for why societies collapse — the one most of us absorbed through some combination of school, popular history, and vague Marxist osmosis — goes something like this: the rich exploit the poor, the poor get angry, the poor revolt, the society collapses. It is a bottom-up model. The engine of destruction is the oppressed mass, pushed beyond endurance, rising up to tear down the structures of power. It is a satisfying narrative. It has the moral clarity of a fable. And… it is largely wrong.

When you actually look at the historical evidence — not the stories we tell about history, but the data, the archaeological record, the demographic curves, the economic indicators — the pattern that emerges is different. The disease is parasitic elite overpopulation — the relentless, inevitable proliferation of people who claim the right to extract wealth from everyone else without producing anything of value themselves.

Let us walk through this slowly, because it is worth understanding in its full, contemptible detail.

Support my work

Read more

Read more

Read more

TL;DR: When President Trump signed the Epstein Files Transparency Act and the Department of Justice disgorged approximately 3.5 million pages of documents, 180,000 images, and 2,000 videos, the public received — for the first time in the machinery’s existence — the raw evidentiary substrate required to perceive something far larger than a sex traffickin…

Read more

The question that burns at the center of this investigation is deceptively simple: why does the entire canon of Western art history contain, at regular and unrelenting intervals, detailed depictions of the torture and ritual murder of Christian children? Not allegorical depictions. Not symbolic martyrdom rendered in soft pastels and gentle halos. Visceral, anatomically explicit, painstakingly rendered scenes of infants and young children being bled, pierced, skinned, and crucified by groups of adults operating with what can only be described as ceremonial precision. These are not marginal works tucked away in obscure collections. They are famous. They were widely distributed. They shaped public consciousness across entire continents. And they keep appearing, century after century, with a thematic consistency that cannot be explained away as coincidence or artistic fashion.

Consider the sheer labor involved in creating a single work of visual art before the AI slop age. Anyone who has ever worked with their hands to produce an original piece, who has spent months in total concentration rendering a high-quality image that captures not just a scene but the emotional and spiritual weight of that scene, understands that an artwork of this nature is not produced casually. It is an excavation. A commitment of the deepest kind. Every brushstroke, every carved line in a woodblock, every mixed pigment is a deliberate choice in service of a message.

So when you encounter not one, not a handful, but an entire recurring genre spanning centuries and crossing national borders, all depicting the same essential horror with the same essential elements, you are forced to ask what message was considered so urgent that generation after generation of skilled craftspeople dedicated their finest abilities to preserving it.

The earliest foundational case is that of William of Norwich, a boy whose death in 1144 in Norwich, England, constitutes the first fully documented governmental investigation into ritualized child murder. A monk named Thomas of Monmouth produced a written account claiming that William had been crucified in deliberate mockery of Jesus Christ, that his murder was ritual performance carried out by a secretive cabal. This account ignited something volcanic among Christian fathers in the region, who armed themselves and moved collectively to root out those they believed responsible.

A fifteenth-century panel painting by an unknown artist depicts the death of William in explicit detail. Another fifteenth-century English panel portrays him as a martyr with nails driven into his head, a deliberate visual echo of the crucifixion. A separate work from the 1500s extends the visual narrative into the next century.

From Norwich, the pattern spread. Gloucester in 1168. Hugh of Lincoln in 1255. Each case generated its own body of documentation, its own wave of public fury, and eventually its own artistic record.

But it was the case of Simon of Trent in 1475 that became the most widely depicted and arguably the most consequential. The Martyrdom of Saint Simon of Trent, a woodcut from Hartmann Schedel’s Nuremberg Chronicle of 1493, produced in the workshop of Michael Wolgemut and Wilhelm Pleydenwurff, depicts a child being tortured and bled by a group of figures in a detailed, almost diagrammatic scene. The blood is shown being collected, not spilling randomly but gathered with purpose into vessels.

The Beatus Simon Martyr, a colored woodcut from around 1479, also from Nuremberg. The Simonino di Trento, an oil painting by Altobello Melone dated 1521. The martyrdom of Werner of Oberwesel, rendered in the eighteenth century. The Miracle of the Host from 1468. Blood libel frescoes in Saint Paul’s Church. A late sixteenth-century painting of Simon of Trent from 1590. The ritual murder festival painting series in the Cathedral of Sandomierz in Poland by Charles de Prevot, an entire decorative program inside a functioning cathedral dedicated to graphic depictions of ritualized child murder. These are murals on the walls of a house of worship, visible to every congregant for centuries.

Support my work

The artistic record maintains, with remarkable consistency, a set of core visual elements: the child victim, the group of adult perpetrators acting in concert, the instruments of prolonged torture, and above all, the collection of blood. The blood is always being collected. It is always the blood of the young. And it is always, implicitly or explicitly, intended for consumption.

What the artworks communicate is a degree of cruelty that defies ordinary criminality. These are not quick deaths. The artists consistently portray processes designed to maximize suffering, to methodically inflict pain upon infants while keeping them alive as long as possible. The skinning of newborns. The tearing of small bodies limb from limb. The deliberate withholding of death. This is liturgical violence. It has structure. It has purpose. And that purpose is the harvesting of something from the suffering itself, something carried in the blood that is made more potent by the extremity of the terror and pain that precedes its extraction.

The individuals depicted are consistently portrayed not as common criminals but as members of organized, secretive groups operating with access to resources and protected spaces. What the art record describes is organized child trafficking conducted by networked groups of elites whose motivations are ceremonial. The violence is the ceremony. The blood is the sacrament. And the operation functions as an inversion of Christian liturgy, a calculated blasphemy deriving its power from its opposition to the dominant spiritual framework.

In 1989, a guest on the Oprah Winfrey show described, on camera, being forced as a young person to participate in rituals in which babies were sacrificed. When asked what the purpose was, the answer was immediate: power. The media did not pursue it. The footage exists. The word spoken, power, is the same answer the art record has been providing for a millennium.

Now imagine a scenario that sounds like fiction but which the documentary record suggests actually happened on American soil—before anyone knew about Epstein. Imagine that the United States government became aware that children were being trafficked, not merely trafficked but abused ritualistically and systematically within networks reaching into the highest corridors of power. Imagine the victims testified. They named names. They provided flight logs, locations, dates, photographs. And imagine that every single one of them was destroyed for it.

Lawrence E. King Jr. managed the Franklin Community Federal Credit Union in northern Omaha, Nebraska, a small institution established to serve the local Black community. He earned sixteen thousand dollars a year. He spent ten thousand a month on travel and entertainment alone. He wore silk suits, hosted private jet parties, sang the national anthem at Republican conventions, had luxury clothing flown in from Europe, and maintained rental properties in both Omaha and Washington, D.C.

In 1988, the National Credit Union Administration conducted an audit and found the books hollowed out. Missing funds. Phony loans. Shell companies. Forty million dollars in assets and a manager living like royalty on a poverty wage. The auditors were looking for embezzlement. What they found instead was a trapdoor into something that no one in an official capacity was prepared to confront.

Read more

Accordin…

Read more

Read more

Read more

Read more

Read more

Read more

Read more

Read more

Read more

Call this decadence if you like—the old word has been banished from the faculty lounges, but it still wanders the streets. History records the sensation in a thousand forms: capitals that sleepwalk, empires that forget what their hands are for, elites who curate grace while willpower drains from the limbs. Nothing here is exactly new. We have been here before, under other chandeliers.

History is a library of endings. Holger Sonnabend once catalogued fifty polities that bloomed and blew away: from a one-day Ruthenian flicker in the Carpathians to the long, basalt ages of the Pharaohs. Norman Davies, narrowing his scope to Europe, walked among the corpses—Burgundy, Byzantium, Prussia, the USSR—and refused to pretend any death certificate looked the same. Implosion, conquest, merger, velvet divorce, quiet revolution; sometimes the monarch’s folly; sometimes the people’s exhaustion.

Alexander Demandt tallied 227 reasons for Rome’s fall. Two hundred twenty-seven! You can laugh at the pedantry or take the point: decline is never monocausal. It is a slow turning of many keys in many locks, until the great door swings open and the barbarians walk through.

What did the ancients notice? Sallust, already in 34 BC, muttered that luxury breaks the spring of effort. Augustine observed the moral hydraulics in order: simplicity produces effort; effort yields victory; victory becomes power; power begets wealth; wealth summons luxury; luxury hollows out the moral core. Hobbes blamed the inner sicknesses of the body politic. Barbara Tuchman gathered a gallery of ruling-class blunders and called it folly. The patterns differ, the feeling rhymes: the center forgets its purpose, the appetite forgets its limits, the periphery remembers its teeth.

Subscribe now

Rome’s posterity loves to diagnose Rome. Gibbon saw imperial overstretch and the state’s slow strangling embrace. Others, the debasement of currency, the obedience of guilds, the bureaucrat’s triumphant creep, the collapse of republican fiber, even the tender-hearted theology that unsexed the sword. There are harsher readings and gentler ones.

What seems solid is this: when citizens stop defending their own walls—militarily, culturally, spiritually—someone else will knock on the gates with a different hymn. I will not name the group of barbarians we are currently dealing with, as I concluded that you either know already or have to experience the violence they bring firsthand to understand that none of their causes should be ours other than their contingency. Otherwise, I’m just preaching to an ostrich sticking its head in the sand, hoping that “not all of them are bad”.

The demographic undertow—the laws of Augustus to reward parenthood and penalize childlessness—was a panic in statute form. Perhaps it wasn’t the cause, but it was surely a symptom: Rome had grown elegant enough to forget replacement. One day Odovacer announced the last Western emperor could go home. It’s the passage from culture to civilization: from living form to polished mechanism; apparently an arc the West cannot stop repeating.

Rome’s population crashed from two million to 70,000 by the seventh century. Max Weber saw this as the extinguishing of classical civilization’s light, after which “the intellectual life of Western humanity sank into a long night.”

Demandt argues that military weakness was the coup de grâce. Rome fell—like Carthage before it—because its citizens would no longer defend themselves. “Decadence,” he writes, “is the marriage of refined lifestyle with declining life-force.”

No culture fixates on the end as vividly as Christianity, which married apocalypse to accountability: the curtain will fall and you will answer for your role. The earthquakes, the blood moon, the stars like stones. Even secular art has painted this dread—Gryphius’s “Es ist alles eitel,” Milton’s Paradise, Thomas Cole’s “Course of Empire.” Schopenhauer bittered the palate. Nietzsche, decadent diagnostician par excellence, flipped the table: Christianity itself, he said, was the great enfeebler, an ethic of softness and pity that unlearned pride.

While there is simple deductive logic behind my belief that Christianity is the only true religion that wasn’t penned by men, Christianity probably didn’t help with its celebration of virginity and otherworldly focus, its turn-the-other-cheek pacifism, and obsession with martyrdom—none of this builds empires—and we see where it brought modern-day churches—hijacked by liberalism—, celebrating their conquerors and protecting the perpetrator rather than the victim. It’s a weird perversion of what still reigns as the only logically coherent religion.

The Bible, Old and New Testaments alike, wallows in apocalyptic-eschatological visions. It’s fine. I get it, drama always sold well, but Christianity is the religion most obsessed with final judgments, promising earthquakes, floods, falling skies, universal conflagrations, total darkness, cosmic catastrophe, which might be because these are all very real things out of our control that could annihilate us—again with the logic.

The Book of Revelation provides the most vivid disaster porn: “There was a great earthquake, and the sun became black as sackcloth, and the full moon became like blood, and the stars of heaven fell to the earth...” Christianity seems almost sexually fixated on eschatology (from the Greek ta eschata, “the last things”), fascinated by the fall of “Babylon the Whore,” the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, by apocalypses, by divine judgment, by dies irae—those days of wrath. Theologian Klaus Berger (1940-2020) explained the strategy: “If you can’t depict horror, you’ll hardly awaken longing for salvation.”

But then the doom-mongers multiplied: mystics, Pietists, Jehovah’s Witnesses. Islam—that deranged bastard child of inferiority complex, victimhood, and blood thirst—offers its own End Times, though less cinematically—early Suras speak of a final judgment of souls. Buddhism—a religion in which women are reborn as dung beetles—envisions a “dark age” as the fourth epoch after Buddha’s birth.

Poets and artists have always been decay’s eager chroniclers. Andreas Gryphius’s 1637 sonnet “All Is Vanity,” written in the middle of the Thirty Years’ War, captures the mood:

“You see, wherever you look, only vanity on earth. What this one builds today, that one tears down tomorrow: Where cities now stand, meadows will grow, Where a shepherd boy will play with his herds. What now blooms magnificently shall soon be trampled. What now pounds and defies will tomorrow be ash and bone...”

John Milton’s Paradise Lost (1667) chronicled the fall of angels, the original sin, paradise lost. Visual artists joined the funeral parade: Thomas Cole’s 1836 five-part painting cycle “The Course of Empire” traced the arc from “The Savage State” through “The Arcadian or Pastoral State,” reaching “The Consummation of Empire,” then “Destruction,” finally “Desolation.”

Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860) built an entire philosophy of pessimism on the assumption that the world constantly deteriorates, viewing Earth as a vale of tears and dismissing all optimism as childish, even foolish.

Nietzsche held Christianity directly responsible for decadence. As the religion of the downtrodden, obsessed with original sin and eternal guilt, Christianity caused Rome’s fall. Christian “slave morality” corrupted pride and self-confidence, replacing them with a morality of humility, nervous weakness, irritability, sentimentality, pessimism, self-contempt, contrition, and—worst of all—pity. “Christianity began the falsification of natural values” and the “rejection of national communities.”

Though Nietzsche never explicitly predicted it, many read him as prophesying Europe’s death by Christian compassion. Immanuel Kant had similarly rejected all pity-based morality as contradicting the categorical imperative, which locates life’s meaning in action, not in yielding to soft emotions. Nietzsche advocated for a “restoration of humanity’s egoism” and rejection of everything weak. Only the Übermensch could save us.

Interestingly, Dostoevsky, whom Nietzsche greatly admired, saw things completely opposite: for him, decadence resulted from moral rot and abandonment of Christian values, not their embrace.

Sigmund Freud (1856-1939) proved equally pessimistic, developing his cultural pessimism in works like “Beyond the Pleasure Principle” (1920), “Group Psychology and Ego Analysis” (1921), “The Future of an Illusion” (1927), and “Civilization and Its Discontents” (1930). Under the impression of World War I, Freud formulated his dialectic of Destrudo versus Libido, Thanatos versus Eros, death drive versus life force. Max Horkheimer and Theodor W. Adorno interpreted Western history through Destrudo’s lens as progressive suppression of both external and internal nature. Adorno stated: “No universal history leads from savagery to humanitarianism, but there is one from the slingshot to the megaton bomb.”

Central to the decadence debate remains Oswald Spengler (1880-1936) with his monumental The Decline of the West: Outlines of a Morphology of World History. Published in two volumes (1918 and 1922), it spans 1,200 pages plus a 50-page index. Within twenty years, it sold over 200,000 copies across 75 editions. Spengler was in his mid-thirties when writing it, dead at 56, probably planning revisions he never lived to make.

His inspiration? Perhaps the 1911 Second Morocco Crisis (Germany’s forced abandonment of colonial ambitions), certainly World War I’s catastrophe, possibly even the Titanic’s sinking on April 14-15, 1912—seemingly to many a perfect metaphor for technological hubris meeting natural reality.

Intellectually, Spengler acknowledged his debts: “In conclusion, I feel compelled to name once more those to whom I owe practically everything: Goethe and Nietzsche. From Goethe I have the method, from Nietzsche the questions...”

Spengler’s core thesis: world history moves in cycles of rise and decline. He borrows Goethe’s biological-morphological metaphors (hence his subtitle referencing “morphology”). For both men, all life passes through phases of youth, maturation, aging, and death. These cycles apply to art, society, politics, and state. Each high culture lasts roughly a millennium. For the “West” (one of eight high cultures he identified), Spengler mapped the phases thus: Spring (500-900 CE), Summer flowering (900-late 18th century), Autumn decline (from 1800), Winter death (after 2000).

All cultures eventually become civilizations in their decay phase. Culture versus Civilization—this is Spengler’s great antinomy: homeland versus cosmopolitanism, religion versus science, wisdom versus mere intelligence. Late-stage civilizations share symptoms: senile need for rest, post-heroism and historylessness, artificiality and rigidity in all spheres of life, dominance of inorganic world-cities over vital countryside, cool factuality replacing reverence for tradition, materialism and irreligion, anarchic sensuality, “bread and circuses” mentality, entertainment industries, moral collapse and artistic death, democracy sliding into imperialism and “formless powers,” declining birthrates, absent “will to duration” (including in marriage).

Add to this art’s commercialization, public opinion’s manipulability, consumerist attitudes, and finance’s omnipotence (”billionaire socialism,” as he calls it in a separate chapter).

Every former cultural area ends up inhabited by primitive masses, the fellaheen (Egyptian peasant-farmers)—or every story of every Middle Eastern high culture in existence. The West looks at these places’ history and thinks: “Well, surely it will be different this time.” With freedom’s decline comes rationalism’s discrediting, ignorance of what is right but feels wrong, and metaphysical hunger’s return. The ultimate victor is whoever best masters anarchic tendencies during cultural dissolution.

For Spengler, the West’s essence is “Faustian”—restless, expansive, always seeking the highest and deepest: “Faustian culture was supremely directed toward expansion, be it political, economic or spiritual; it overcame all geographical-material barriers; it sought, without any practical purpose, purely for symbolism’s sake, to reach North and South Poles; it ultimately transformed Earth’s entire surface into a single colonial territory and economic system.”

Some accused Spengler of inspiring National Socialism. True, he wasn’t a Weimar Republic enthusiast, but the Nazis hated Spengler and Spengler hated the Nazis. A meeting with Hitler on July 25, 1933, in Bayreuth confirmed mutual antipathy. He called Hitler’s first cabinet of 1933 a “carnival ministry.” About Alfred Rosenberg’s Myth of the Twentieth Century—arguably the Nazi movement’s second-most important book after Mein Kampf—Spengler wrote: “A book where nothing’s correct except the page numbers.”

Elsewhere, Spengler wrote: “National Socialism was largely an intrusion of Tatar will into the West’s borderlands, as un-German, un-Germanic, un-Faustian as possible—flat as the great Asian plains!” He called the Nazi Party in 1933 an “organization of the unemployed by the work-shy.” (Sounds familiar?") To Nazi Reichsleiter Hans Frank, he wrote presciently in 1936: “...since in ten years a German Reich will probably no longer exist!” Spengler predicted Germans would embrace “soulless” Americanism: materialistic, militaristic, animalistic. He saw Germans as a “politically uneducated mass,” led by political “fools, cowards, criminals.” Political parties were “profit-making enterprises with paid bureaucratic apparatus.” This “swamp” had made the state its “prey.”

Is Spengler still worth discussing? World history vindicates Spengler to an astonishing degree. The forgotten Spengler takes revenge by threatening to be right. Whether this assessment holds 75 years after this article remains debatable. But it holds concerns about the “decay of education, morals, the individual, family, philosophy; especially culture’s decline into “culture industry” and “calculated idiocy.”

Read more

Read more

But that's the point, isn't it? Once you've called …

Read more