So here is a prediction about the next three to five years, for you, your family, and your friends. After the prediction I want to hand you a few frameworks and tools you can use to build psychological resilience against what is happening around you.

IIn the coming three to five years you will see a rise in people suffering from some form of psychosis, and it will show up across most modern societies. The next plague is not a virus. You can already watch it happen across the world. The crisis I want to name is psychosis, and here is why.

People are struggling financially, yes. That part is not new. For all of human history people have fought to make ends meet, to find food and shelter. What is new is the state of people’s minds. Mental health is falling off a cliff. Depression is climbing. So is anxiety, and anxiety disorders, and the use of SSRIs, and bipolar disorder, and personality disorders, and gender dysphoria. A long list of causes drives this, and we will get to them.

The one thing nobody talks about enough, not in the media and not even in psychology, is the rise of psychosis among younger generations and older ones too. People are losing it more than ever, both figuratively and literally.

So what is psychosis? A lot of you may not actually know. And what is feeding its rise, and what can you do to harden yourself against it? That is what this is about.

Psychosis is a mental state defined by a break from shared, objective reality. You break, mentally and psychologically, from the reality you share with the people around you.

When someone enters psychosis, they start to experience the world in ways the people near them do not, while usually not understanding that the delusion or the hallucination is happening at all. That is the hard part. The person is so convinced that what they experience is real, and that their way of seeing is the true one, that they try to pull other people into it. Anyone who pushes back on how they see things becomes a threat to their psyche.

Read more

The principle is identical on both shores. Capital and talent now flow toward whoever treats them best, and they flow fast. It is a brain drain happening in real time. Corporate startups are in decline. And why wouldn’t they be? Everything is set against them.

You cannot plan ahead when the rules change all the time. A bad situation you can prepare for; if you know the weather is going to turn, you pack a coat. What you cannot prepare for is not knowing what the finance ministry will do next week.

Consider the person who, in good faith, bought an electric vehicle because the state told them it was the responsible choice — and who now hears that they might be taxed by the mile. The rules are being changed retrospectively on a decision already made. Or take the owner of a second home, who may wake to find their council tax quadrupled, again retrospectively. An American small-business owner who built a supply chain on one set of trade rules, only to watch tariffs rewrite the maths overnight, knows the same vertigo. How is anyone supposed to build a life, a business, a future on ground that shifts beneath them?

And so, increasingly, people have simply said: we’ve had enough. What has emerged is a global marketplace for the wealthy. There is, undeniably, a privilege that comes with money — and the chief privilege is mobility. You can move from country to country, state to state, jurisdiction to jurisdiction, picking whoever treats you best, playing the system in ways the middle and lower classes never can. It is a reality we may have to accept rather than resent.

Some people, as the now-familiar phrase has it, are somewheres and some are anywheres and a meaningful proportion of citizens will say, frankly, I am mobile, and I intend to hedge my bets. Governments that refuse to recognize this are not principled; they are foolish. Drive out the mobile and the tax take shrinks, and a shrinking tax take begets higher taxes, which drives out more people still. That is the negative circle. What is needed is the opposite — a virtuous one.

A Tale of Several Economies

It would be easy to assume the whole West is in the same boat. It is not. One or two countries are actually doing rather well, and the contrasts are instructive — within Europe, and across the Atlantic too.

The major European economies are struggling. France is in desperate trouble; its fiscal position is, if anything, even worse than Britain’s. Germany’s situation is very bad too, for entirely different reasons. But look elsewhere. A generation ago the Republic of Ireland was a basket case — a poor, largely agrarian economy on the western edge of Europe. Today its GDP per capita is among the very highest in the world, third or thereabouts. Yes, that figure is a statistical freak in part, inflated by the likes of Amazon booking their numbers through Dublin. But strip the distortion away and something real remains: the Irish gamed the tax system, and they did it cleverly, for the benefit of their own citizens. They turned themselves from one of Europe’s poorest countries into one of its richest.

Meloni’s Italy is learning that same lesson. Italy is not out of the woods — it carries a major debt problem, it endured a generation without growth, and its demographics remain a serious drag. But it has started to attract capital. People are moving there. Property, in most parts of the country, costs considerably less than it does in Britain. The quality of life is high, and — crucially — there is tax certainty, and newcomers are made welcome. Italy is addressing its debt, slowly, from a high base, and it is beginning to grow.

Then there is the most interesting European success story of all: the former Eastern Bloc. These nations started from an incredibly low base, and yes, some of their progress is simple catch-up. But the deeper truth is that they have been fiscally conservative. Their states are smaller. They did not go down the mass-migration route — if anything, their populations have shrunk. And the results speak for themselves.

Poland is on course to be richer than Britain, per capita, within ten to twelve years. Think about how extraordinary that is. Poland has ridden every difficulty with genuine aplomb. Nor is it alone; the same is true across that entire northern and eastern European arc. These are societies that are conservative with a small c, socially cohesive, fiscally sensible, and possessed of a strong work ethic. They have welfare states, but welfare states that are not out of control. They are building strong moral societies — dominant may be too strong a word, but they are catching up with the rest of Europe after fifty, sixty, seventy years of appalling misrule under the Soviet yoke.

And then there is America, which is the great rebuke to the fatalists — and, as we shall see, a cautionary tale in its own right. It keeps creating jobs and wealth, it has grown at roughly three percent a year with a consistency Europe can only envy, and it dominates the industries that will define the century: technology, software, artificial intelligence. It has its problems and its yawning regional disparities. But is it mere luck that the most valuable companies on earth cluster in California and not in Frankfurt or Birmingham? No. The Americans are doing something right, and the lesson is there to be learned — even as their public finances rot from the inside, a contradiction we will come to.

That is the real map. The growth in Europe now lives in the east and the periphery. Old Europe is dying, and Britain is dying with it. And the country that should be Britain’s natural model, America, is simultaneously the West’s growth engine and the West’s most reckless debtor. Both truths matter.

The Dying of the Light

What makes the decline so maddening is how needless it is, because the assets are still here, and they are phenomenal. Britain has two of the greatest universities on the planet and at least twenty more that are genuinely first rate. It has Wimbledon, Wembley, Twickenham — every sport there is. It has rock music. It has cultural depth that other countries can only envy. Stand in Soho and feel it: there are not many corners of Europe with that kind of vibrancy, that density of creativity. The City of London, for all its problems, remains the second most important financial center on earth — behind only New York, whose own dominance is a reminder of what concentrated talent and deep capital can still build.

It is not too late to turn this around. But it is getting close to the eleventh hour. Come the next British election, if the country has not got its act together and taken radical action, people will head for the doors in serious numbers, and at that point the decline becomes almost impossible to reverse. They are on a knife edge. The assets are still there. The creativity is still there. Enough people still have the spark. But they are being crushed, and everyday people struggle to understand why the Treasury and the Bank of England — or, for that matter, the Congressional Budget Office and the Federal Reserve — cannot see it.

Go back to the 1980s. There was a genuine excitement about Britain then. The economy grew three, four, five percent a year. Most people — not everyone, but most — were getting wealthier. It was the same restless optimism that ran through Reagan’s America in those years. Those reforms have since been unpicked, one by one, and the result is a country in a worse place than it was even in the 1970s. Because this is not merely an economic malaise. It is a cultural one too. The division and rancour, the willingness of the state to legislate on matters of private ethics that ought never to have left the private sphere, the sense of a society at war with itself — all of it feeds a pervasive feel-bad factor. Americans feel it as keenly as all of Western Europe; the bitterness of their politics is the same disease wearing different colours.

The window is short, but the problem is recoverable. We should be clear-eyed, though, about how we got here: these troubles are thirty to thirty-five years in the making, and no single party built them.

The rot set in with the embedding of the big state, much of it moved off balance sheet and beyond proper parliamentary scrutiny through a careful web of institutions. A Supreme Court was founded that made meaningful change far harder to enact. A quangocracy was built. A civil service was cultivated that is, by temperament, hostile to precisely the kind of reform now required. And here is the part the right would rather forget: all of that was then entrenched, not dismantled.

The American story indicts both parties. The national debt did not climb to thirty-eight trillion dollars under one banner. Republicans cut taxes without ever cutting spending and called it conservatism; Democrats expanded entitlements without ever funding them and called it compassion. George W. Bush ran wars and a prescription-drug entitlement off the books. Obama presided over trillion-dollar deficits. Trump signed tax cuts and then, during the pandemic, sent cheques to almost everyone and blew the deficit wide open — and is now floating the idea of handing two thousand dollars to every American earning under a hundred thousand. Biden answered with spending of his own. Whichever tribe holds the chequebook, the chequebook only ever gets bigger. The leviathan is bipartisan. That is the first thing an honest observer has to admit: this is not a tale of virtuous conservatives and villainous progressives. It is a tale of a whole rotten political class, of every color, that discovered it could buy the present by mortgaging the future.

The symptoms are everywhere once you look. The benefit system is out of control and has become counterproductive. The country is riddled with cliff edges. In Europe, spare a thought first for the people who never earn thirty thousand a year — who get up early, work hard, and watch a neighbour who simply can’t be bothered do no worse. Then there is another group, perhaps less likely to attract sympathy: those earning around a hundred thousand, who find themselves taxed at an effective marginal rate of sixty-five, sixty-eight percent on income between roughly a hundred and a hundred and thirty thousand. It is plainly absurd that someone doing well in life pays a higher marginal rate than someone earning half a million.

America has its own grotesque cliff edges — the welfare and subsidy thresholds where earning one extra dollar costs a family thousands in lost benefits, punishing precisely the striving the system claims to reward. Different countries, identical perversity.

Can a new government — of any stripe — fix all this in five years? No. It cannot. But it can begin to turn the tank around. This is a fifteen- to twenty-year project, and there will be pain. You cannot rectify a fiscal crisis, a tax crisis and a regulatory crisis simultaneously without taking some genuinely tough measures. Whoever governs next should take that pain very, very early. Go big. Take it early. Do the work before you are elected. And anchor it all in fairness, because everyone agrees that people who are genuinely in trouble should be helped — that is not for debate.

Subscribe now

The Arithmetic of Pain

The numbers, set out honestly, are stark — and they are also navigable. A reforming European government needs to take perhaps a hundred to a hundred and fifty billion euros out of public expenditure almost immediately, and recycle a good portion of it into tax cuts. Is that doable? Yes — and there are several ways to get there. Britain, for example, spends around three hundred and sixty billion on benefits, roughly half of which goes on pensions, and there is not much to be done about that half. So the pain has to be shared.

For what it is worth, the triple lock should go. Ending it would save seven or eight billion a year, compounding — modest in any single year, but substantial across the lifetime of a parliament. Beyond that, the country needs to get back to a normalized number of people on benefits, and to think very hard about where the bar sits, because it cannot be right that someone on benefits can end up better off than someone on the minimum wage. A great deal can be shaved from the welfare budget without cruelty. And the quango budgets demand ruthlessness: bring them in-house almost immediately and go through them line by line. Not required. Not required. Yes — we need that one.

America faces the same arithmetic on a vastly larger scale, and the same political cowardice surrounds it. The bulk of the federal budget is entitlements and interest — Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid — the very programmes that neither party will touch, because the pensioner and the near-pensioner vote in numbers the young cannot match. The honest truth, on both sides of the Atlantic, is that the maths cannot be made to work by trimming the parts everyone agrees are wasteful. The big money sits in the promises that are most popular, and courage means saying so out loud.

Re-engineering the State

None of this happens by wishing. It requires re-engineering the very mechanics of the state, and that is probably the first thing a new government has to do. The hard truth, too often forgotten in the euphoria of polling day, is that winning the election is the easy part. Implementing the programme is the difficulty.

The pushback will be enormous, and it will come from every direction. In Britain, whatever shape the BBC is in after its recent troubles — and assuming it remains central — it will be deeply hostile; we saw how it behaved over Brexit, and how it has behaved consistently since. The civil service itself will resist, and it has grown to a size that defies belief. The headcount has risen from around three hundred and eighty thousand to five hundred and fifty thousand. From a post-austerity low of three hundred and eighty-four thousand in 2016 it climbed to five hundred and sixteen thousand by March 2025, and it is almost certainly higher now.

The Office for National Statistics, which tracks UK productivity, records that public sector productivity is lower today than it was in 1997 — a year when there was barely an internet and no digital economy to speak of. How can that conceivably be the case? Layer on top the NHS, which has swollen from around 1.2 million to 1.7 million staff, and the picture is of more than a million extra public sector workers delivering, on the available evidence, less output.

America’s version of this resistance has a different shape but the same logic. The permanent bureaucracy — the agencies, the regulators, the federal workforce that outlasts every administration — has its own institutional interests, and they do not include shrinking. When a reforming president arrives, the machinery slows, the lawsuits multiply, and the careerists wait him out. The resistance, in both countries, will not stop at the broadcasters and the bureaucracy. It will come from the other parties and those doing their bidding. There will be the familiar slurs hurled in every direction — fascists, racists from one side; communists, traitors from the other. And it will come from the courts, in the form of legal challenge after legal challenge after legal challenge.

Which is why whoever governs next must walk through the door with a detailed plan already drafted. In Britain, under the royal prerogative a government possesses some significant powers, and where a measure has been set out explicitly in a manifesto, it has the moral mandate to use them. It should learn, too, from what Trump’s team attempted in 2024: assembling people aligned with the agenda, ready to serve as senior advisers from day one rather than spending two years learning where the levers are. (That America then demonstrated how easily such an effort can collapse into chaos and self-dealing is part of the lesson, not a refutation of it.)

Britain must also confront the convention that ministers cannot dismiss civil servants — a convention that should be overturned by an Act of Parliament. Not to import some Goldman Sachs hire-and-fire culture, but to remind the civil service of a basic constitutional fact: the government of the day, however little the mandarins may like its programme, is the government of the day, and its will must be enacted.

Above all, the markets must be convinced. Any serious party must put fiscal sustainability front and centre, because it is absolutely essential, and it leads directly to an aggressive plan to regularise spending. The timid route is the one already worn smooth by the tax system: freezing thresholds. Freeze them and fiscal drag does the work quietly, hauling in perhaps twenty or thirty billion a year as inflation erodes their real value — the same stealth tax that American bracket creep imposed for decades before indexation.

But far bolder things are possible. We should remember that the British state has grown from a third of the economy to fully half. How much is too much? Do you want to live in a free society or a controlled one? In a free society, the country will blossom — and the left may be surprised to find that, in the long run, it produces a better health service and a better education system. Freedom and liberty ultimately deliver better services for everyone. What the current approach does is put the cart before the horse: short-term expediency, generosity with other people’s money, and the slow strangling of the golden goose.

Subscribe now

The Golden Goose

For a long while the political class got away with it, because so much of Western Europe was itself a basket case, and by comparison Britain still looked tolerable. But the comparison has curdled. The country has trashed more than its reputation as a low-tax destination. It has trashed its reputation for sane regulation, for the rule of law, for freedom and for fairness. That, more than any single tax rate, is why people are leaving. And America should not be smug here: when a great democratic nation lets its debt and its dysfunction run unchecked, it too begins to trade on a reputation it is busily spending down.

There is a creed that circulates online, blunt enough to provoke and clear enough to remember. Capitalists, it runs, are not mean; they simply understand economics and incentives, and capitalism is enforced by freedom. Socialists, by contrast, are not kind; they are stupid and evil, because every socialist nation has enforced its ideology with wars, bullets and censorship. Choose freedom.

It is a hard-edged formulation, and deliberately so, and the core of it is difficult to argue with: every collectivist project, however prettily it dresses itself, ends in coercion, because a plan imposed on everyone must in the end be enforced against everyone. The one correction worth making cuts against the political right, not in its favour. The self-described champions of free markets have, in office, presided over the largest expansions of the state and the debt in history — which means they were never really capitalists at all, merely statists who preferred a blue rosette to a red one. And that is precisely the point.

The real division has never been left versus right; it is liberty against the state. It is those who would let people keep the fruits of their own effort against those — of every party, every colour, every flavour of good intention — who believe that some committee, somewhere, should decide for them.

The deeper difficulty is that two related weaknesses run beneath the whole predicament, and they afflict every Western democracy. The first is that we no longer have a strong enough culture of freedom; too few people genuinely understand what liberty means. The second is that we have done a woeful job of teaching the basic economics that would let them see how prosperity is actually made. Many of us believed, until quite recently, that we lived in free countries — and have been shocked to discover the qualifications, not only in the erosion of economic liberty but in the narrowing of speech. We can still, within reason, say more or less what we like. But in the mainstream that freedom is increasingly challenged, and the window of what is acceptable to discuss keeps closing — in American universities and corporate HR departments quite as much as in European institutions.

How the Tithe Became the Leviathan

To understand how far the state has swollen, it helps to recall how small it once was. The historian A. J. P. Taylor observed that an Englishman born before 1913, if he was law-abiding, might pass his entire life with no interaction with the state beyond the local bobby on the beat and the local postman. Taxes ran at around ten percent, a biblical tithe, and most of even that went on the Royal Navy. America before the First World War was much the same: no federal income tax to speak of until 1913, a tiny federal government, a citizen who might live and die having dealt with Washington only at the post office. It is a myth, mind you, that there was no welfare in the old order; it simply was not delivered from the capital. It was localized — a dense fabric of local charities, churches and mutual societies, many of which, in Britain, helped to found the Labour Party seventy or eighty years later.

Then came the cataclysm. A first world war, and then a second, both ironically instigated by British money power. After the first came Homes for Heroes and the first pensions — entirely understandable responses to immense sacrifice. The state’s share of the economy climbed from ten percent to twenty-five or thirty. Then came the second war, and then, in Britain, came Attlee, and Attlee changed the game. He nationalized personal responsibility. It sounded moral, and in many ways it was done for genuinely altruistic reasons. America’s version arrived in instalments — the New Deal, then the Great Society — and with the same logic and the same trajectory: each programme launched for the noblest of motives, each one ratcheting the state a little higher and personal responsibility a little lower.

Over the decades that followed, the welfare state grew out of all control, and in doing so it broke personal responsibility and corroded the will of people to make their own way. We have now reached a tipping point. Either there is a counter-revolution in which we grasp just how far our liberty has been eroded, or we enter a genuinely dark period in which the state dictates virtually every aspect of life, and the scope for individual action narrows to almost nothing.

Subscribe now

Coming Apart

It feels, already, like a dark time. There are serious people arguing that Europe is effectively in a state of civil war, a claim that is hard to process and harder still to dismiss out of hand; and anyone who has watched America’s politics curdle into mutual loathing will recognize the diagnosis.

Meanwhile the polls register the rising popularity of leftist figures, who are economically illiterate, and the spectacle of the European Greens and the Liberal Democrats drawing together to fight what they call the fascism of the right — an irony almost too rich to bear. And yet one can understand the anger of the young who turn to the radical left, even while judging them wrong. Many have been failed by poor parenting and poor education. They were funnelled into university and saddled with debt. They cannot find good jobs. They cannot get on the housing ladder. They live in a society that barely punishes petty crime. Of course they are ripe to be sold a socialist story. They are mistaken — but the anger is comprehensible, and a right that merely sneers at them will never win them back.

There is a book about America, Coming Apart, published ten or fifteen years ago, that contrasted the country of the 1960s with the country of a decade ago. In the 1960s, the chief executive ate in much the same burger bars as his workers, took only slightly nicer holidays, and lived a broadly similar life. Most people were married.

Set that against today, where a super-elite has detached itself entirely and the curve below has hollowed out — and the further down that curve you travel, the less likely a person is to be married, with all that implies for the stability of society and the prospects of the next generation. The two tribes are becoming, quite literally, different peoples. It was written about America, but it describes Europe just as exactly, and that is precisely the point: this is a shared Western affliction, not a national peculiarity.

Read more

You’ll find me saying it at the edges of dinner parties where I’ve had two drinks and decided to tell you how the world really works. I’ve done the reading. I’ve made the money. And I’ve arrived at a conclusion I hand you like a diagnosis, because that’s what it is: the monopoly board is being tipped over, the pieces rearranged by an agenda not one of us was ever asked about, and the only question that should occupy a single minute of your time is whether you intend to be a player or a product. Spoiler: it’s already decided, because you will not change it. You had six years. Six. And what did you do with them? You babbled about “the Great Awakening,” you anointed yourself one of the enlightened, and then — like a dog wagging its tail at whoever rattles the bowl — you waddled from one bait to the next, sniffing each fresh outrage, swallowing it whole, and mistaking the aftertaste for understanding. You called it research. It was feeding time.

And look at what you aim all that magnificent fury at. A tweet. An article. A flag. The idea of a country you’ve decided you don’t care for, or that you’ve appointed yourself moral enough to condemn from a screen. That’s the full radius of your rebellion: things that load in a browser and cost you nothing. You didn’t fight the machine. You performed in front of it, for an audience of one, and the machine logged every twitch and thanked you for the data. It’s not even tragic. It’s just pathetic

The agenda has three legs. We’ve discussed them ad nauseam: Programmable money, so that every transaction can be permitted or denied. Social credit, so that every citizen can be scored. And artificial intelligence, the engine that watches, learns, and tightens all of it. Put the three together and you have a machine for managing human beings at scale — a police and surveillance architecture dressed up as convenience, sold to you one frictionless upgrade at a time.

I know it’s a bleak thesis. What kept me from drowning in it is that I refuse to stop at the bleakness. There is a way through, and I intend to take it.

The tired crypto-bro metaphor isn't mine. It's scavenged from a single film about a simulated reality and then stretched — past the point of meaning, past the point of dignity — until it somehow covers an entire emotional journey. And everyone repeats it. On every podcast, in every publication, in every tweet, the same exhausted reference gets passed mouth to mouth like a chewed-over meme, a ball of fried, degenerated brain cells clutching one threadbare scrap of pop culture and hoisting it up as their god. They didn't read a book. They watched a movie once, decades ago, and built a whole cosmology out of it — and now they recite the colors back to each other like scripture

The blue pill is comfortable ignorance: you keep your job, your mortgage, your opinions handed to you nightly, and you never ask who benefits. The red pill is the first violent waking, the moment I realised the system is engineered rather than natural — that money is created, that media is owned, that the rules were written by people who profit from them.

Then comes the part the recruitment videos leave out. After the red pill, you don’t arrive in paradise. Working in my former job, I crashed into a wall of bureaucracy and lies and things I couldn’t change, and I turned black-pilled. I got dark. I lost my motivation. I stopped getting up early. I drifted, vaguely competent and quietly defeated, because seeing the machine clearly is its own kind of poison. Plenty of people get stuck here forever, doom-scrolling their own disillusionment, mistaking cynicism for insight. I was one of them for the better part of a year.

The white pill is the brief, naive surge of hope in between — the belief that you can fix it, that you’ll be the one to do some good. It rarely survives contact with reality. Mine didn’t.

Here the pills run out. The blue, the red, the black, the white were all things done to me — doses to swallow and wait out, each one changing what I could see. What finally pulled me clear wasn’t another pill. It was picking something up. I think of it now as the forge, and it’s the thing I’ve built my whole way of living around.

The forge isn’t a theory about the world; it’s a way of working inside it. It says: I have taken every pill there is. I know how the system works. I know I cannot put the fire out. So rather than flee the heat or let it consume me, I am going to stand at it and use it — take the fire in my hands and hammer out my own tools, my own work, my own world, on my own anvil. It is reality accepted without flinching, and then beaten into a shape that is mine.

That is the emotional core of everything I’m about to tell you, and I want to name it plainly, because everything else — the geopolitics, the token economics, the rage at the news — is downstream of it. I worked for the machine, I despaired, and then I chose construction over collapse. I won’t pretend the danger and the appeal aren’t the same thing: this is a philosophy that tells the disillusioned they were right to give up on the world, and noble to give up on it gracefully. I’ve made my peace with that.

The age of crude censorship is over. There was a moment when stepping out of line got you cancelled outright — deplatformed, erased, silenced. Then something shifted. The people who run the feeds realised that silencing dissidents only made them interesting. So they changed the rules to something more elegant and more total: freedom of speech, but not freedom of reach. Say whatever you like. Tell your truth, loudly, in full. They want it all on the record — because every opinion you broadcast is another data point in the profile they’re building of you. And then, quietly, they decide who hears you. They boost what they want boosted. They let the rest sink.

It’s a world in which visibility itself becomes the lever of control. You are not banned. You are simply turned down, a dial nobody admits exists, until you are screaming into a room that has been emptied without your knowledge and the only one listening is an Palantir data center quietly feeding your indictment.

The same machine that meters your reach also shapes your soul. Feed a person a narrative for long enough and you don’t just inform them — you radicalize them into the most extreme version of themselves. The algorithm finds the worldview you lean toward and then leans on it, hard, serving you more of the thing that already inflames you until your edges sharpen into a caricature. Everyone ends up at the angriest version of who they were, certain they arrived there by reason.

When people ask me whether this is conspiracy or commerce — whether there’s a hand on the dial or simply a profit motive — I refuse the choice. It’s both. It can be both. There’s the revenue machine, which discovered long ago that the most reliable way to keep you on a device is to feed your worst curiosities, the rubbernecking part of the brain that cannot look away from violence and humiliation.

Most of us go through a phase of watching terrible things we wish we hadn’t, until one day we recoil and stop. And there’s the deeper game, the possibility that the same infrastructure can be rented by whoever has an agenda — a business, a party, an intelligence service — because once a system can change what millions of people believe, somebody is always going to pay to use it.

The primary goal underneath all of it, I think, is simpler and more clinical than any plot. The goal is the doom loop. Keep you on the device. Maximise the time. Because every minute you stay is another minute of profiling, and a fully mapped human being is a manageable one.

And the device works on you at the level of chemistry, not just attention. The more relentlessly you chase the next hit — the next scroll, the next notification, the next small jolt of novelty — the more the pleasure flattens, until nothing feels exciting anymore and you need more just to feel ordinary. The escape isn’t some dramatic digital detox is boredom, chosen on purpose. Less, not more. Letting the mind go quiet long enough that ordinary things get their flavour back. It tells you everything that the single most subversive act left to most people is simply to be bored — to step out of the loop the whole machine is built to keep you inside.

Support my work

Cancellation is never about punishment. It is about conversion. The point of destroying a prominent person — suing them, bankrupting them, dragging their name through a year of headlines — is never to remove them from public life. It is to break them, and then to bring them back. Ruin a man and you create an asset: someone compromised, someone in debt, someone who now understands exactly what happens if he steps out of line again. The ones who return from the wilderness don’t return free. They return on a leash, with a narrative that has been pre-approved, escalating only as far as their handlers allow.

It’s a grim cynicism, and I’m aware it can absorb any fact. A public figure who falls and rises again isn’t redeemed; he’s recruited. A creator who learns which headlines pay isn’t adapting; he’s being trained. Every reward is a hook, every platform a finishing school for the speech the platform wants. You can monetize on a network, which proves the network has decided your message is acceptable — or that there’s simply too much money in it to refuse. Either way, the cage is the same shape.

I’ll admit what this does: it removes the possibility of anyone simply meaning what they say. In the world I’m describing, sincerity looks like naivety and success looks like suspicion. To be heard at scale is to have been permitted. The only people I fully trust are the ones with nothing left to lose — or everything already won. I sit closer to the second category than I’d like to admit, and I try not to let it make me stupid.

Which brings me, inevitably, to money, and to the idea that organises everything else for me: capture.

My own education in capture came from SpaceX, and I tell it as a tragedy because I lived it. It started with an ethos - but every company I watched, every project I backed, walked the same path into the same cage. First you incorporate. Then you appoint a board. Then the board needs a licence, and a licence needs a banking relationship, and the banking relationship needs you to behave. Then you raise venture capital, and the venture capital wants a return, and the return demands growth, and growth demands an IPO. By the end you are a public company — a fully owned subordinate of the financial-industrial complex, loaded with debt, governed by incompetent people who bought their way onto your board, optimized to never again threaten the system you set out to escape.

That’s my model for how every rebellion dies: by domestication. The movement doesn’t lose the argument; it accepts the funding. The capital comes in, and capital is never neutral. Take on debt and you become the product of whoever you owe. Sell shares and you become the asset of whoever buys. Every dollar that enters from outside arrives with a string, and the strings all pull in the same direction: toward compliance, toward the center, toward the system.

The survivors, in my experience, are the rare few who refused the on-ramp. The ones who got rich without venture money, who held their own assets in their own custody, who built an audience that paid them directly and therefore owed nothing to any platform. Those people are the ones the system cannot abide — wealthy enough to matter, independent enough to speak, and unleashed from every lever that keeps the rest in line. They’re vanishingly rare, because almost everyone gets pulled into a business that bends them somewhere along the way. I spent years trying to become one of them - it didn’t work. Because getting things for free online, still beats supporting a common goal of independence for someone other that is not you.

Support my work

At one end sits the person with no real money and a mountain of debt. He is, in the cold language of my thesis, the perfect product. He pays his interest, his rent, his mortgage, his credit card, and he watches his situation get worse year after year. He can complain. He can shout as loudly as the algorithm allows. Nobody who matters cares, because his shouting changes nothing and his payments never stop. He is useful precisely because he is trapped.

Move up the spectrum and you reach real power — the corporate tier, the people running companies worth billions, preparing colossal public offerings. They look free. They are not. They sit inside bounded compromise: cross the wrong line and your access to capital evaporates, your share price is destroyed, your advertisers vanish, a regulator or a lobby arrives to dismantle you. They rarely need to be blackmailed. They simply protect their own interests, and their interests have been engineered to align with silence.

Read more

The mechanism is so elegant it could be taught in business schools, and probably is, although the syllabus would not call it what it is. Recruitment begins in the obvious places. The National Security Agency keeps an eye on graduate programs at the right universities and conducts interviews of promising candidates that are framed as job offers and conducted as lie detector sessions. The agency is not looking for ideological commitment.

The agency is looking for weaknesses. The successful candidate is the one with appetites the institution can both feed and lever against him later. Sex, money, power, in the durable phrase: the three drugs the system runs on. The recruits are then handed off to private consulting firms that pay them out of contracts billed back to the United States government, which keeps the State Department’s fingerprints off the operation and ensures that when the work eventually surfaces in a magazine investigation, the federal government can disclaim responsibility for what private actors chose to do on their own initiative.

The job, once you are in it, is to produce forecasts. The forecasts are the load-bearing lie of the entire apparatus. A target country, generally one sitting on oil or copper or rare earths or a strategic waterway, is approached with the offer of a substantial loan from the World Bank, the Inter-American Development Bank, or some other multilateral lender.

The loan, the country is told, will fund the construction of infrastructure required for economic takeoff: power plants, transmission lines, ports, highways, industrial parks, hydroelectric dams on whatever rivers happen to be available. The economist working on behalf of the consulting firm produces a projection of future GDP growth that, if it materialized, would generate the tax revenue required to service the debt. The projection never materializes, because it was never meant to. It was meant to clear the loan committee. The country signs. Construction begins. The contracts go to Bechtel, to Halliburton, to Stone & Webster, to the other firms whose lobbyists have made themselves useful in Washington over the preceding several decades. Roughly ninety cents of every dollar borrowed never leaves the United States in any meaningful sense; it travels from a World Bank ledger to a Houston invoice. The infrastructure, once complete, serves the wealthiest five percent of the host country, which is precisely the five percent of the host country that has been bribed into signing the loan in the first place. Everyone else inherits the debt.

Subscribe now

Ecuador is a clean example, because the books are open and the math is uncontested. As of December 2025, Ecuador’s national debt reached $87.5 billion, or roughly 67 percent of GDP, which means that a country of eighteen million people, sitting on oil reserves the global market still wants and rivers the global market is happy to dam, exists in a state of permanent financial captivity to creditors most of its citizens could not name.

The loans were never going to be repaid in any honest accounting, because they were not structured to be repaid; they were structured to be refinanced, perpetually, on terms that grow worse, the way a credit card debt grows worse when you pay only the minimum, except that the credit card company is the World Bank and the cardholder is twenty million human beings who never signed for the purchase.

Nigeria, sitting on oil and now, in 2026, sitting also on roughly sixteen percent inflation according to IMF estimates, is the financial weather report for a country that has been pumping crude for half a century and somehow has nothing to show for it.

Venezuela is currently running projected inflation in excess of three hundred and eighty percent annually, a number so catastrophic it functions less as an economic indicator than as a memorial plaque.

When you are this far in debt to the right people, the right people own you. They demand, as the operative phrasing inside the consulting firms goes, their pound of flesh. They demand the oil concession. They demand the canal. They demand a vote at the United Nations. They demand a port. The vocabulary the diplomats use for this is structural adjustment, and the policy papers are written in a register so anesthetized you could read one in a dental chair without flinching, but the substance of structural adjustment is this: cut the schools, cut the clinics, sell the water utility to a French conglomerate, devalue the currency, and we will reschedule your payments. The internal slang for this work, among the men who did it, was hit man. The accuracy of the language was one of the few honest things in the operation.

The countries pulled into this system in the postwar era are a long list, and the list reads as a map of the world’s contested resources. Indonesia, where the work began on Java and expanded to Sulawesi. Iran, before the bottom fell out. Colombia. Panama. Egypt. Guatemala. The countries inducted into the arrangement have not, by and large, escaped it. The ones that tried got their presidents killed.

This is the part of the story the foreign-policy magazines avoid, because the foreign-policy magazines are mostly written by people who attended the same dinner parties that originally produced the operation. When the economic instrument fails, the next instrument is sent in, and the next instrument is a CIA-trained operative working under the institutional euphemism of intelligence asset. The job is to foment a coup. Failing that, the job is to assassinate. The practice is older than the agency that conducts it, and older even than the empire that funds the agency. Rome did this. The British did this. The novelty of the American version is mainly the paperwork.

Support my work

Jaime Roldós of Ecuador was an unusually inconvenient kind of inconvenient. He had won the presidency in 1979 on a platform of human rights and labor reform, and he had the unforgivable habit of meaning what he said. He declined to attend Ronald Reagan’s January 1981 inauguration on the grounds of bilateral disagreements he considered worth honoring.

On May 24, 1981, after delivering a speech in Loja commemorating the Battle of Pichincha, in which he told his country that the fight for Latin American independence remained unfinished and that Ecuador should pursue a humanist agenda rather than enlist in Washington’s hemispheric crusades, he boarded a Beechcraft Super King Air. Within an hour of the speech, Roldós and his wife Martha Bucaram were dead, their aircraft having crashed into Huairapungo Mountain, fifteen kilometers from Loja. Killed alongside the president were the minister of defense, his wife, two aides-de-camp, another passenger, and both pilots. The Accident Investigation Committee of the Ecuadorian Air Force, with admirable speed, attributed the crash to pilot error.

Two months and a week later, on July 31, 1981, Omar Torrijos of Panama died in a similar way. His Twin Otter, the presidential plane, came apart over the mountains. All seven people aboard were killed. The cause remains disputed, which is the diplomatic shorthand for: the investigation files vanished during the 1989 American invasion of Panama and were never recovered.

Witnesses inside Panama at the time reported that a tape recorder had been handed to Torrijos before takeoff, and that the tape recorder was a bomb, and that the South American investigators who later worked the case considered this an open secret. The American press did not. The story hardly made the American papers at all.

A 2014 CIA document release revealing Ecuador’s involvement in Operation Condor prompted Ecuador’s then-attorney general Galo Chiriboga to reopen the investigation into Roldós’s death, though no official disclosure about a possible US role has followed. Chiriboga’s investigation has now run for more than a decade and produced, predictably, nothing.

Read more

Read more

That one sentence reframes everything you have watched happen over the past three years.

A war broke out with Iran. Oil spiked past one hundred dollars. Two hundred children died in a single school. The Strait of Hormuz closed. Sovereign debt kept exploding. Millions of jobs vanished to AI in months. Europe got hollowed out. The dollar cracked. The news called it chaos. A reasonable person looked at the sequence and asked whether the whole financial order had finally started to break.

It did not break. It consolidated. Every event you watched on your screen was a scheduled step in a transfer of power that was planned years in advance, negotiated between two factions of corporate power that sit above every government you can name. Yes, the bombs are real. The deaths are real. The casualties are real. The outcome was agreed before the first missile flew. And no, there is no “good” side in this conflict. Islam is not the good guy. Israel is not the good guy. America is not the good guy.

The factions are real, too, and they can be named. One faction holds the nationalistic American military-industrial complex, wedded to the dollar and to forever wars. The other holds transnational capital and wants a multipolar world aligned with China, Russia, and the Gulf sovereign wealth funds. One of these factions is losing. The other is winning. The handoff is happening now, in public, disguised as geopolitics.

Humans are not the subject of this operation. Humans are the input. A corporation maximizing shareholder return, if it could hit that maximum with no employees and no customers and no citizens at all, would take the deal tomorrow. The sovereign networks that sit above governments run on the same logic. If the whole operation could execute on AI and robotics with no humans attached, that version wins. The model treats populations as material to extract and discard. What looks like crisis is design. What looks like chaos is theater.

Once you see the design, three questions follow. Who are the specific people running the handoff. Where, by name, do they launder the money that funds it. What, specifically, happens to you and your family when the transition completes. The answers are in this essay.

The financial industrial complex runs the consolidation. What looks like accelerating decay on the surface produces predictable gains underneath. Every trend of the past few years is accelerating in the same direction. Our debt-based society has entered a bad situation for the average person. Oil prices feed inflation. Rising unemployment from artificial intelligence, robotics, and automation pushes the K-shaped economy further apart. The rich get richer. The poor get poorer. One group owns the assets. The other group is the asset, carrying the debt that backs the whole structure.

Unless you sit inside the financial system with access to cheap leverage on favorable terms, you stand on the wrong side of financialization, securitization, and tokenization. A breaking financial system always produces the same outcome: losses get socialized and gains get privatized. Private equity mops up the cheap assets in an asset-stripping operation. Capital then flows out of the host nation that suffered the predatory operation and resets in a new region where growth can reboot. The West has become the host nation for this cycle. The next region is already selected.

Three Factions of Power

Three corporate factions compete for control of the American state. Each has its own interests. Each funded the current administration at different levels.

The technical industrial complex received the largest allocation. It represents the weaponization of algorithms, technology, and data to build control grids. Its tools include artificial intelligence, social credit scores, stablecoins, and programmable money. X Money has launched. Palantir is accelerating border controls. Digital IDs are accelerating. Civil unrest campaigns provide the justification for a technocratic surveillance state. The Genius Act, the Clarity Act, and the Big Beautiful Bill pushed these priorities through, along with significant funding for AI and cybersecurity inside the military budget.

The financial industrial complex sits in second place. It wants to weaken state power over corporate financial power. If America grows too strong as a nationalistic entity, transnational capital needs to diversify away from it. When growth, birth rates, and civil unrest get disjointed enough to justify a surveillance state, capital needs to diversify globally. This group uses captured states like America and the collective West as capital-market platforms. The economy itself has become a byproduct of capital markets, and the goal is to send capital globally through exchange-traded funds and pension systems.

The military industrial complex came in third. Its model runs on forever wars and compensation deals. When one war zone stabilizes because finance wants to invest in that region, another war starts somewhere else. This group operates through a transnational faction of which Israel is one node, and profits from a continual series of wars it can sell weapons into.

Media sits as a cross-cutting instrument that all three factions use to build fake narratives so that populations think something else is happening.

Support my work

The Trump Administration as a Transactional Vehicle

To understand a political strategy, look at who funded the installation of that political leader. The top three backers tell the story.

Elon Musk represented the tech faction. The mandate was to push through AI data center funding, stablecoin legislation, digital ID infrastructure, and the Department of Government Efficiency, which consolidated government data into a single database managed across private interests. Palantir and X handled different pieces. The PayPal mafia, mostly out of South Africa, staffed key positions. David Sacks handled the crypto legislation. A Ponzi scheme in the credit markets funded the data centers, topped up with Gulf sovereign wealth money, which explains current stresses in those markets.

The Mellon banking family represented finance. Tariff policy served the financial industrial complex rather than American industry. The April 2, 2025, announcement was called Dollar Liberation Day, and the name described the operation accurately: the dollar was being liberated from its role as global reserve currency. Capital markets restructured the currency wars. Instead of the dollar dominating, capital flows through ETFs determined which countries received capital through the Western pension and insurance systems. The dollar weakened against gold, against silver, and against foreign currencies.

Other stock markets outperformed. The UK economy performed badly, but the UK stock market rose. European markets rose. Brazilian markets rose. Asian markets rose. American stocks held up on technology and government spending on AI data centers. Strip out AI, and growth was low. The whole structure depended on financialized constructs propping up the manufacturing of data centers.

The administration was the most transactional in modern memory. Side deals and side investments aligned with the strategic weakening of the dollar and the push of capital into a multipolar world. The goal was to make China look stable and rational by comparison, so that everyone renegotiated their contracts with China as the stable partner.

Miriam Adelson represented Israel, which is a node for the military industrial complex. Israel agitates war in the Middle East. An Israel-first policy gave the empire plausible deniability: we are not the ones doing this, we are blackmailed by Jeffrey Epstein and Israel rules us. This narrative protects the architects of empire from direct accountability for the crimes against humanity.

Trump functioned as a puppet for corporate power across the West. The continuation of uniparty policy ran through his administration as cleanly as it ran through the previous one. The Biden administration opened the borders. The Trump administration closed them, which generated all the Palantir technology and all the data consolidation needed for a surveillance state. Open, then close, and the control grid emerges from the whiplash.

Support my work

When finance needs Venezuelan oil, the narrative gets built around drugs. The CIA’s drug cartels form part of the same deep state, and the supply side is built into the government, so the demand-side rhetoric functions as cover rather than policy. Initial hope that the Maduro removal would restore Venezuela faded within weeks. A gold deal followed quickly. The gold deal explained the entire operation.

Venezuela was a piece of the multipolar reset. The Gulf countries needed to diversify. Russia needed to reposition. China needed to secure oil flows. Iran needed to change its strategy. All of that happened before the Venezuelan operation, which means Russia did not react, China did not react, and Iran did not react when Venezuela fell. When world powers do not react, world powers have agreed.

The outcome was America getting access to Venezuelan resources. The economy gets dollarized through a stablecoin mechanism. The Venezuelan currency gets crashed as a precursor to further operations. All the resources get extracted. The Western Hemisphere falls under American corporate interest.

Maduro appears to have agreed to this. The Venezuelan stock market rose 300 percent after the operation. That gain concentrated in a few banks and financial institutions, not among the Venezuelan people. Either Maduro was betrayed by his inner circle and the structure remained intact, or Maduro allowed the whole thing to happen. Either way, America got its Hollywood movie. The MAGA base saw a clean operation with few deaths and felt good about war again. The Venezuelan brochure became the marketing material for the Iran operation.

Support my work

The Iran operation represents the decisive moment of the transition. Understanding it requires seeing beyond the sovereign state framing. The common model treats Iran, the US, and Israel as three nations at war. The accurate model treats the conflict as transitional theater: real bombs, real deaths, real casualties, scripted outcome, negotiated between two factions of power with different visions for the next order.

One faction holds the American nationalistic military industrial complex, location-based, wedded to the dollar and to forever wars. The other faction holds transnational capital, which wants a multipolar world aligned with China, Russia, and the Gulf sovereign wealth funds.

Iran is not a monolith. The clearest lens for understanding Iran comes from the CIA’s own declassified documents on the Iran-Contra Affair. During the 1979 revolution, a banking network running through Credit Suisse laundered weapons-trafficking and money flows. Before 1979, Iran functioned as a playground for British Petroleum, with 80 percent of oil revenue going to BP and only 20 percent staying in Iran.

When Iran’s democracy considered nationalizing the oil, America and the British empire ran Operation Ajax through the CIA and Mossad. Operation Ajax killed people and blamed the deaths on the regime. Sanctions were imposed. Civil unrest was manufactured. The currency was destroyed. Savings were wiped out. A democracy was replaced with the Shah, because the more authoritarian the government, the easier the control. The Shah fell. Khomeini returned from exile in France. A hostage operation produced a weapons-for-hostages deal. Iran became complicit in weapons-trafficking routes.

A theatrical narrative emerged: Islamist terrorism, religious war, and the eternal conflict between Shia and Sunni powers. The Iran-Iraq war followed, with Saddam Hussein as a CIA puppet receiving chemical weapons to throw at Iran, while Iran received weapons from Israel. The IRGC received weapons from Israel. That is how the whole strategic tension started.

The Iran-Contra pipeline flowed through this structure: America sent money to Israel, Israel bought weapons from US military contractors, the weapons moved to the Revolutionary Guard, and Iran’s trafficking networks shipped them to Central and South America to fund the Contra militias protecting CIA drug-trafficking rings.

Religion provides the easiest recruitment mechanism for an army. In an ideological war, recruitment works. Britain cannot raise an army today because the population no longer believes the empire stands for anything worth dying for. Iran can raise an army because martyrdom mythology recruits quickly. Israel can raise an army on the trauma of European persecution, even though the actual mass murder of Jews has been a global project for millennia that the architects of empire would prefer the world to forget.

Support my work

Two cartoon versions of Iran circulate. Both miss reality.

The Western cartoon: Iran is the center of terrorism, the head of the snake that must be cut off, the source of death-to-America and death-to-Israel rhetoric.

The resistance cartoon: the IRGC is the last defender against Western imperialism, a morally driven force protecting the Palestinian cause and resisting American and Israeli suppression.

Reality: the IRGC operates as an asset management company. It runs banking assets, weapons-trafficking operations. When you can find a cause and fund a militarized group around that cause, you gain leverage to become a regional hegemon. Different actors run this same model across the Middle East.

Western interests funded Israel, Al Qaeda, and ISIS, using Saudi Arabia and the Gulf countries as terrorist factories to create chaos. Iran then countered these misguided groups with their own misguided counter-resistance: Houthis in Yemen, Hamas in Gaza, Hezbollah in Lebanon. The ginormous industry that profits from this strategic tension runs the whole region. Saudi Arabia does it in Libya. The UAE does it in Libya and Sudan. Every power builds its network around the same conquest-of-resources model.

Israel operates as a node for the military industrial complex. The IRGC provides the counter-narrative. For forty years Iran was about to get a nuclear bomb and was about to kill the Jews, and it never happened. Everything ran through proxies. Everyone acquired resources, land, and territory while negotiating for regional hegemony.

Iran and Israel did not fire on each other for four decades. The firing started only in the last two years, because the whole strategic-tension model needed to end. The factions that profit from forever war had to be wound down to enable the next phase.

What Changed to Require This War

Several shifts broke the old system and forced the current realignment.

The financial industrial complex put China into the equation by admitting China to the World Trade Organization. This created an environment where America became more financialized and securitized, so that 70 percent of its economy moved from manufacturing to services, with financial services as the largest component. The dollar stayed strategically overvalued. Countries whose currencies and economies got destroyed by the IMF had to lend back to the US government through the bond market.

Hollowing out the manufacturing base became the price of the overvalued dollar. The military outsourced components to China. China strategically weakened its own currency while America strengthened its own. Everything manufactured in China got cheaper. China exported. America imported. The World Economic Forum and corporate interests called it globalization. The real effect: the Dollar strengthened, the Yuan weakened, China built a ginormous manufacturing base, and America became a collateralized debt obligation wrapped in financial services.

Eventually this position reverses. Weaken the Dollar, and the trade flips. Strengthen the Yuan, and Chinese exports become less competitive. Both sides can now re-collaborate.

The extremes reveal how fake the current narrative is. America’s nuclear program imports highly enriched uranium from Russia. The F-35 fighter jet cannot be produced without Chinese inputs. The American military and nuclear program depend on China and Russia for their own supply chains. No Third World War is coming through this structure. If real nation-states were fighting, China could kill the US military in a day by stopping exports. Simultaneous wars in Ukraine, Iran, and everywhere else generate revenue for military companies while destroying the national security of the country that fields them. National security has been subordinated to corporate interest. The hollowing out and the asset stripping were the point.

The Iran war solves a specific problem created by this structure. America became energy-independent under the Trump administration. The wars in the Middle East had always served to prop up the petrodollar by pricing oil in dollars and creating artificial demand for dollars. Saudi pegged its currency to the dollar, which meant buying treasuries and lending to the US government. American military bases across the region protected the oil in exchange for participation in the petrodollar system.

When America becomes energy-independent, the petrodollar breaks. The currency pegs break. The US competes with the Gulf states for energy exports. The military bases no longer serve their original function. Gold rises because central banks sell dollars and stop lending to the US government, buying gold instead. The Bank of Japan raised rates and broke the Japan carry trade. NATO heard from America that the war narrative was over, which broke the Euro.

Everything broke at roughly the same time. The Gulf countries looked at the situation and realized they were now competing with America for energy. They were competing with Russia for energy. Their wealth flows increasingly came from selling oil to China. China bought energy from Russia, from Iran, from the Gulf, from Venezuela, from anyone selling, because it needed every form of energy for its manufacturing base. It needed solar panels. It needed wind farms. It needed renewables. The ESG project that destroyed European manufacturing was BlackRock’s vehicle for selling Chinese windmills to Europe, shutting off nuclear power, blowing up the Nord Stream pipeline, cutting off Russian gas, and leaving Europe to be bought on the cheap.

Transnational capital co-opted the sovereign wealth funds of the world. Every deal it invested in, the sovereign wealth funds could invest in alongside. X AI, ChatGPT, and the other major deals opened to Gulf co-investment. In exchange, the Gulf received cover for its role in the Nord Stream destruction and the liquefied natural gas contracts that followed. America took a share. Qatar took a share. The structure locked in.

The Middle East now sits in a position where Iran depends on China, America depends on China, Russia depends on China, the Gulf countries depend on China, and the world depends on China. China influences the sovereign wealth funds because those sovereign wealth funds get their money from selling oil to China. The signal from China to the region: we want a de-dollarized Middle East, we want peace in the region, we want people to buy our products, we do not want war, we do not want militias. Capital will flow into Iran. Capital will flow into the Gulf. Capital will flow into Russia. The Belt and Road Initiative will invest in Africa, the Middle East, and Asia. The IMF and Western colonialism will get undone. Not because the model competes with America, but because the financial industrial complex wants the same thing and owns America.

The One Remaining Resistance

Every regional power supports this multipolar transition. One faction resists.

That faction uses a nationalistic neocon narrative. America is the best. America is the greatest. The Dollar is the reserve. America wins. America kicks ass. Let us go get more war. Either this narrative gets destroyed, or the military companies need compensation through different contracts.

The Zionist hardliner faction in Israel holds a related position. It justified the old wars. Its business model depends on continual Middle East conflict.

The IRGC hardline faction runs the economy in Iran. It profits from war. Its business model also depends on continual conflict.

Every proxy militia must be dismantled. ISIS. Al Qaeda. Hezbollah. Hamas. All of them. US military bases in the Gulf must be removed. Iran must keep a government aligned with China but without an IRGC that profits from war. These factions all participate in the mafia networks, which means the transition requires taking out specific people rather than whole systems.

The war serves as the agreed outcome between the military industrial complex and the financial industrial complex, because China now wants regional stability and Trump wants to take credit for delivering it.

Support my work

Everything above is the frame. The frame shows you that the war is scripted, that two factions negotiated the outcome, and that the populations on every side are inputs rather than subjects.

What follows is the mechanism. The day Oman announced the framework. The specific target the US struck. What Iran was told to hit in return. Who drafted the seventy-five percent insurance premium that closed the Strait of Hormuz on a timer. Which twenty-year LNG contract America signed to feed Europe after Qatar’s production was bombed. The names of the banking jurisdictions that launder the money. The three sovereign cities that operate outside the laws of the countries they sit inside. The specific mechanism by which your pension is already funding the next operation. The ten-year plan that the people who see this clearly are running right now to protect their families, their assets, and their time, while everyone else is still watching the news and trying to figure out what happened.

If you stop reading here, you have the worldview. That alone puts you ahead of ninety-nine percent of the audience. If you keep reading, you get the playbook.

The playbook starts at a table in Oman.

Read more

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