In our attempt to change society, it is to men’s souls and minds that we must appeal, their view of society’s purpose rather than their view of society’s design.
Stray reflections on the state of the world under the shadow of Coronavirus.
Caveat lector — In the unprecedented global crisis which has so swiftly seized us, and in the vast array of shifting interpretations which attend to practically every new change within it, I remain confident about one thing only: what a man proclaims about the present Coronavirus emergency more often than not can be regarded as his most personal confession of his own innermost worldview.
There is something gloriously naïve in the idea that the present crisis has dealt a blow, not to speak of a coup de grâce, to the globalist order.
There is an immediate, natural, and telling tendency for each individual to comprehend the Coronavirus, its origins, its severity, and the actions that have been taken consequent to it, in accord, not with the ‘facts’ (it may be that the ‘facts’ of no other widespread public emergency have ever been so devilishly elusive), but rather with his ‘personal equation’: his attitude and temperament intermixed with his view of things or with the ideology to which he most nearly cleaves. Thus the environmentalist is liable to see this outbreak as the result of global warming or deforestation, or the first shudder of a planet attempting to throw the chancre of humanity from its back; the technocrat, meanwhile, will consider it yet another example of the unpredictable hazard represented by unmastered ‘nature’ and the need to keep it under stern bond. The nationalist sees in this the clarion refutation of the globalist view; the globalist, the demonstration of the necessity of global policies capable of confronting global disasters. The socialist will claim that socialism is unambiguously the only thing that can save us from our straits, and the capitalist, that capitalism is. In America, the Never Trumpers see in this moment the latest and most blatant demonstration of Trump’s incapacity, dithering, and corrupt egoism, the MAGA types clear proof of Trump’s independence and sangfroid in a crisis, and the most loyal devotees of Trump evidence that Trump is at last bringing the financial overlords to their knees and preparing for a social revolution such as has never been known. And all of these various individuals, to a one, look upon those who take the contrary stance as though they were mad, the members of an alien race looking upon a different planet to our own.
So each man reads himself into this crisis and comes out the other side the more convinced of his opinions, and perhaps the less able to perceive events for what they are, or to apprise with any justice the views that lie on the other side of the widening divide. Indeed, a great many today seem to have been overcome with an acute form of that illness which has lately been creeping into all nooks and corners of society: the Postmodern hyperfragmentation of beliefs, knowledge, outlooks, communities, families, even personalities. It may be that some foreknowledge of this strange and predominately psychological illness can provide a degree of immunity to it, but for the time being it represents a veritable pandemic – much more diffuse certainly than the merely outward Coronavirus pandemic which is presently remodelling the most basic premises of our social, economic and political lives.
It is therefore probable that the following collection of thoughts on the present situation and its consequences will reveal nothing if not the views of its author, his own pet prejudices and presuppositions, which he, despite his better efforts, casts now upon an urgent and immensely intricate situation in an attempt, less at understanding, than at simplification and containment. For that reason I have hesitated long before publishing these sundry reflections at all, as I did not wish them to contribute to the noise. May they be taken for what they are worth.
On History and Globalism
The murderers of history — My first thought, when the Coronavirus crisis began to appear in its present emergency, was that now, at least, no one could any longer maintain the already preposterous claim that history has ended. It seems indeed that ‘History’, that hoary old meddler in human affairs, is very much alive and about his work, despite all rumours to the contrary; and all those who in prior times announced or intimated that the advent of modern and increasingly global democratic government in the world had brought his course to its terminus, must now allow the prematurity of their optimism.
My second thought was that the first was the speech of complacency in my soul, suggesting, as it does, that these events hold all of us human beings indiscriminately in thrall. Alas, it is not so. Those same shameless globalists who are the least obtusely dogmatic in their millennarian views, and at the same time most intent in seeing such a ‘paradise’ soon come to pass, have long since ceased to look for the automatic ‘end of history’: they have satisfied themselves rather with attempting to govern history, to guide history, to make history – to transform a recalcitrant and multifarious history into the final Single World Order they seek. Nay, let us put the matter still more strongly: perceiving that ‘History’ is alive and well, these men have set their minds to its murdering: they are to a one would-be historicides. And the rise of Coronavirus, far from inconveniencing them in this will, has indeed granted them new and subtler poisons.
I have warned the Dissident Right before of philocatastrophic thinking1 – this hope, almost a prayer, that some disaster will destroy our foes and bring men of our views to sudden apotheosis. The time is fresh for an emphatic restatement of this warning.
Cui bono? — There is something gloriously, but also dangerously, naïve in the idea that the present crisis has dealt a blow, not to speak of a coup de grâce, to the globalist order. Such a notion rests on a number of altogether gratuitous suppositions, to wit: 1.) the globalist elite could not have anticipated an event of this kind, and was unprepared for it; 2.) the globalist elite would never have desired a worldwide pandemic, certainly not a ‘soft’ pandemic with so measly a fatality rate, and has nothing to gain therefrom; 3.) the globalist elite has far more to profit from the relatively stable status quo ante than from the widespread economic turmoil which is presently emerging around us; and 4.) the people will no longer tolerate a globalist order which has been the direct or indirect cause of such total havoc to our economies and societies.
The first of these suppositions is demonstrably false: the globalist elite has been preparing for just such an event as this for years already, including in the very months immediately preceding the pandemic. The second two are dubious at best: the globalist elite has never yet, in all the past long century, failed to profit from acute nation-wide or global crises. Who among the Dissident Right can really believe that the initial response to the rise of this illness on the part of a George Soros or a Paul Singer or a Larry Fink, a Jeff Bezos or a Bill Gates, a Rockefeller or a Rothschild, was a grimace of shock, fear or alarm? Who really believes that the financeers, banksters and shadow banksters behind such ‘institutions’ as Goldman Sachs, BlackRock, Blackstone or The Vanguard Group (to pick out but a few representatives from a hellish host) are better served by economic stability than by economic collapse?2 We of the Dissident Right are far better prepared for events of this type and magnitude than are the average citizens of our countries; we have a kind of liberty of perspective lacking to the many, and have moreover enjoyed long training in this kind of ‘disaster thinking’ from many of the figures of our movement, as for instance Guillaume Faye, Fenek Solère, and Jason Reza Jorjani. But our level of preparation is nothing compared to theirs – on any level, that is, save the moral and the spiritual.
As for the final, ‘populist’ supposition above: The crisis we are presently facing is in many outward respects nothing new under the sun. Its scope is the one obvious novelty, for never before has a pandemic become so global, so quickly, and never before have nations entire, as opposed to cities or regions, been deadlocked into involuntary ‘quarantines’. The scope of this crisis, and of our response to it, is owed to globalism, even if the crisis itself is not. Supposing for a moment that the people broadly understood makes the correct inference here, and succeeds in understanding that we owe the severity of our plight to the appalling liberties hitherto allowed to the practices and agents of globalism – and it is already far from certain that the people will see this, given the sources from which they like to take their information, and the crude historical parallels standing between this and other outwardly similar ‘pandemics’ – even in this case, will the people be ready to relinquish the many boons it has been accustomed to receiving from the globalist order? Or will it not much sooner and much more readily submit to certain, shall we call them inconveniences (legally required face masks and gloves for certain individuals or certain areas, mandatory vaccines infused with helpful and harmless ‘biometric identification technologies’,3 ‘immunity passports’, various innocuous little ‘apps’ on our ‘smart phones’ which monitor our health and signal our condition to benevolent authorities or even to our peers, sterner social-media restrictions on ‘misinformation’ and ‘fake news’, closer regulation of the internet as a whole, increased ‘distance work’ and ‘distance education’, periodic lockdowns whenever a new ‘flareup’ is ‘detected’, limitations on mass meetings, augmented surveillance of our movements, transactions and relationships for our own good, etc. etc.) rather than surrendering all of its tinsel and toys?
Everything hinges on this last question; you can be sure that the globalists are banking on an affirmative answer to it. And so far, by most evidence, one cannot fault their calculations.
Dangerous precedents — ‘Sooner or later this pandemic will be over, and then —’
But hold a moment, friend: whence your logic? Does it not smack a bit too much of optimism and facility? What does it mean for this pandemic to be ‘over’? That no new Coronavirus or akin disease, not to speak of a recurrence of this very same virus, will arise next week, next month, next year, next decade? That is already questionable, given the low and easy standards we have so generously, not to say hysterically used to categorize this as a ‘global health threat’. But what is a hundred times worse, we have established in this pandemic the pattern of all future ones, of any severity whatsoever. We have already revealed to our leaders, both those of good will and those of bad, that when the moment of fear arrives (conveniently incited by the mass media and supported by paid ‘experts’, naturally), we will be prepared to bow unquestioningly to whatever protocols are established by whatever international acronym-agency, and to move firmly and faithfully in step, to do our part for the ‘common good’, no matter what is required of us, no matter how utterly disproportionate our sacrifice may be to the danger we face.
Anyone who believes that this remarkable docility on our part will not be the object of continuous attempts at rank abuse in coming years, certainly has an oddly rosy outlook regarding the men at the helm of our ships of state. We of the dissident Right, at least, have no excuse for such blindness.
Natura non facit saltus — We of the Dissident Right tend to think in terms of leaps and coups; the globalist elite, in terms of degrees and ‘evolution’. The history of the past hundred years has shown well enough which is the more powerful approach to producing social change.
That is why – that may be the only reason why – we are unlikely to see any kind of denouement to this long dark comedy of modernity in the near future. It is premature to expect the ‘final move’ in the protracted chess game the globalist elite have been playing against the ingenuity and innocence of Western peoples. The globalist elite has never yet been foolish enough to make an open bid for power, and will not do so now; it will rather use present events to ease us into any number of new habits and customs which are to us as venom, and to it as presupposition, just as it has always done in the wake of crises. Consider September 11, consider the housing crisis of last decade: these are the long-standing models which have proved successful, and there is no reason to expect the powers-that-be to veer from them any time soon. Nor is there any reason to suppose that, precisely to the degree our worst fears fail to materialize, we will have lost in the long-term.
A rule, then, which could serve us good stead: let us guard ever against being lulled into complacency when our enemies fail to appear armed with fireworks and fanfare, marching through the city streets. Because the attack is subtle, the watchmen doze, only to wake later to find that their towers suddenly stand on enemy territory. That is how the globalist elite have ever expanded their kingdoms, and that is how they will expand them again this time.
Dangerous exemplars — Those who lionize the totalitarian actions of China in recent months, and hold that example up as a useful foil against our tepid and timid Western response, badly miscalculate. One of the great consequences of the ‘liberal’ revolutions of the past centuries was the uncoupling of power from responsibility, rule from lifelong education in rule, leadership from inherited and class-mandated morality. This political crisis has reached a head in recent decades, to such an extent that the old formula of the dutiful and cultivated public statesman has been inverted into the ruthless and soulless shadow ruler. The great consequence thereof has been this: that the men who seek to govern our nations, often secretly and in half-anonymity, are seldom of a mettle to do so responsibly, or of a will to do so morally.
Then let those who hunger for a purifying authoritarianism beware the hands into which they so readily thrust power; for the fingers that grab for this gift are far from likely in our day to be attached to virtuous hearts.
Where ‘atheism’ is wanted — ‘Universal income’… ‘digital currency’… ‘global government’… ‘biometric identity technology’… control of ‘misinformation campaigns’… ‘universal surveillance’: is it any accident that these many darlings of the globalist elite’s vision have suddenly broken the surface of the present ferment in countless magazines, journals, op-eds, laws, speeches and decrees? That they suddenly appear in a variety of different guises sprinkled about in journalese and bureaucratese in the public discourse? What clearer sign could be wanted that this is not our catastrophe?
The view that this crisis has at last sounded the death-knell for globalism, as has been proclaimed by too many men of the Right (both conventional or true), represents nothing more than an understandable but altogether inexcusable expectation that a hero, a strong man, or an unexpected turn of events will rise amongst us to miraculously save us from our plight. In truth, the battle will not go easier for us from this moment on; it will grow infinitely the harder, as the invisible bureaucratic bonds that bind us grow tighter about our limbs and shoulders, strengthened by the irreproachable, or at least unassailable, pretext of ‘guarding the public health’. And those of us who embraced the coming of these changes, and held them to augur nothing but promise for the future, will soon discover that, in their unworthy hope, they have fallen prey, silently and secretly, to two of the most insidious suppositions of our time: first, the modern meliorism according to which there is a finally ineluctable tendency toward progress governing the course of history, so that everything will turn out for the better in the end; and second, the view that institutions or institutional protocols are more primary than the men who govern them.
If the men of the Dissident Right do not feel shame before succumbing to either of these illusions, I do not foresee much hope for us. We have rightly taken it as a point of fundamental superiority in our worldview that it seeks to resurrect and defend the old gods; but let us always maintain a firm and conscious atheism with respect at least to one so-called deity, the deus ex machina.
The law that governs us — It is in this ‘historical moment’ as it has always been with us: if we do not save ourselves, we will lose ourselves.
A false stave of support — The globalists have boundlessly more money than we do and infinitely more resources (including ‘human’ resources); they are far better prepared than we are for events of global bearing, having had both the leisure and the finances to work through the probable consequences of many such hypothetical events. It would be well for us to follow them more closely in their public conferences and presentations, and to learn from them where we may.4 We have seen in late days how even an emergency of comparatively mild stature might produce excuses for unprecedented advances against us and the liberties which we so blandly take for granted, and upon which we depend nonetheless.
There is nothing to wonder at in any of this, and it must reinforce us in at least this view: we must not rely on a global catastrophe to pave the way to the rebirth or regeneration of our societies. Such an event can at best provide opportunities for change, but these opportunities will be lost irretrievably if we are not already prepared to take advantage of them, long before they arise.
In summation — Friends, let us resist altogether the siren’s call of ‘global solutions’, no matter the guise in which they appear before us. Our strength is and must be the local, not even the national, and certainly not the global.
Opposition to globalism can never come on global terms. If we confront the globalist elite on their planetary stomping grounds, we meet them on their terrain, where they stand king of the hill; our defeat there is as much as guaranteed. But in hearth and home, in family and community, in small farm and small market, in heart and mind – there we stand as uncontested champions, which is why our enemies never attempt to defeat us here, but rather seek to eliminate or defame, to suppress or supplant these domains altogether. Present events give them unheard of pretext for moving forward in that awful work. The only question that matters any longer is whether it is already too late for us to regain our rightful rule over our rightful domain.
On Science and Morality
Where ‘fact’ blinds ‘value’ — Let us not rush to congratulate ourselves on our ‘scientific’ approach to this crisis – this reflexive, often indiscriminate and largely unreflective worldwide lockdown; these ceaseless ‘safety measures’ taken almost fretfully against ‘infection’; these waves of contradictory graphs and charts and studies and ‘expert opinions’; these many ‘models’, as useless as they are influential; this swamp of swirling numbers in the place of vital experience; this anticipation of the saviour in the form of some ‘vaccine’ – for more than anything else, all of this bespeaks in us the pith of the modern spirit, which has hungered from the first to ‘conquer Fortuna.’ We, too, long to conquer Fortuna; and when she stands before us so nakedly as she has lately done, it is a goad to this will in us. For make no mistake: whether this virus was engineered in a laboratory or produced spontaneously in the veins of some Asiatic bat – whether it escaped from the grip of some honest scientist or was planted by some malicious governmental agent or was the fruit of nature’s continual and often violent self-development – it comes before us individually in the guise of Lady Luck alone.
Let those who hunger for a purifying authoritarianism beware the hands into which they so readily thrust power.
Hence our will to control this thing, to get our fingers around it and to choke it out, to beat the accident from out of our lives by any means necessary. But it is the strange way of the world that when it is choked at one point the fortune in it seems to squeeze out from another. It matters not how dictatorial a lockdown we propose to contain this outbreak, for there will be consequences aplenty on the economic scale and the political scale, and they will likely dwarf the ills we seek to avoid thereby. Let us for once openly own to ourselves the truth of our plight: we have already lost control, and the appearances to the contrary are merely the trappings of a masquerade that we ourselves set over the face of a grinning reality to ignore its leer.
What is worse still: we had the chance, as many generations of men have had before us, to nobly confront the necessity of our mortality and the limits of our knowledge and power with dignity and manful serenity. Instead we opted in our shrill panic to default our human duty and to thrust our fates into the hands of ‘authorities’ – political authorities, scientific authorities, health authorities, take your pick from the rabble of them. (It is likely enough that one chooses the same men no matter which group one decides to trust.)5 Even if we have saved our lives thereby, we have fatally diminished ourselves in the saving.
Guilt in innocence, innocence in guilt — Tacit to the laws regulating movement and apparel (‘social distancing’, ‘voluntary’ quarantine, face masks, gloves, etc.) is the proposition that each healthy human being is potentially guilty as a carrier of disease, would be some way responsible if he became an unwilling link in the chain between the origins of this virus and one or another deaths to result from it. That is a remarkable moral calculation, and would lead to remarkable practical results. Are we to suppose the same, for instance, for the workaday influenza? For men die as well of that: have we all a little blood on our hands, for ever having caught a sniffle?
Let us seek some clarity here. Let us, in good ‘modern’ or ‘scientific’ manner, take an egregious example to shed light on the rule: a man who is conscious of being infected with the AIDS virus goes to the bed of a woman without informing her of his case, and without taking any precautions to defend her from his illness, as Foucault for instance was rumoured to have done. Is such a man not to be regarded as morally responsible for any illness, and finally any death, which results from his act? Similarly, we might charge a man with gross negligence and some moral complicity who, in the throes of some respiratory sickness, nonetheless put himself in contact with elderly or otherwise physiologically compromised persons, without doing anything to defend these weaker persons from a malaise which to him must be passing.
Well and good. But what of the man who, as a healthy human being, has become the unconscious ‘healthy carrier’ of a disease? To claim that such a one is guilty of any contagions to proceed from him, to claim that he ought to take automatic precautions to protect those around him, to claim that he must constantly and vigilantly defend other and weaker men from his own health – is this not identical to reproving him for his very strength? Is this not the democratic idiocy par excellence?
The new protocols surrounding health, far from rendering us healthier, have indeed imbued us all with a fundamental sense or suspicion of our own basic illness, transforming us into hypochondriacs, while rendering us morally culpable of a wholly potential and hypothetical illness; in so doing they have undermined the premise of any ‘natural aristocracy’, any ‘good conscience’, any free and clear view of the world or our situation in it.
Let us beware of falling prey, not so much to the Coronavirus, which will find us as it may, but rather to this infinitely more devious and deplorable illness, which is an illness of soul and not merely of body: the illness of ressentiment – or the folly of submitting to some imagined moral superiority in the bearers and purveyors of this ressentiment.
The new lens — We are encouraged in these days to regard one another, and we ourselves, as unclean, agents of infection, dirty, dangerous, endangering. What a view of man! And what can possibly redeem us to ourselves? No, not a god; rather a – vaccine!
Motive and consequence — ‘There is nothing inherently good about our so-called “civil liberties”; why should we then lament their passing?’
Methinks you are playing with fire. But even granting your premise, there is still something inherently bad about a man who will sell his outward freedom in order to placate his fear.
The necessity in choice — Supposing for a moment that the ‘numbers’ are precisely as proposed by various international ‘health’ organisations – truly a leap of faith, in the mind of this writer – well? Does a fatality rate of roughly 3.5% justify the full arrest of our societies and the destruction of what is, despite all its prior seeming, a frail global economy?
It is a callous thing, some will tell me, to lay human life on one side of the balance and human prospering on the other. But this is what the rulers of men have always been tasked to do in times of national crisis, there is no way around it. Defaulting in one way or another does not defuse the moral gravity of the choice, nor permits us to finally evade the consequences which will result from our decision.
Dishonour in honour — What we would not do to save a few thousand lives of our weakest citizens! That is a measure of our ‘humanity,’ and is not at all to be frowned at. May be it does us enormous honour, and precisely in the healthiest among us represents a kind of contemporary noblesse oblige. But underlying that sterling honour there is often enough a duskier metal, one which darkens at the withering touch of death and attempts to withdraw our attention, at any cost whatsoever, from the necessity of our own mortality. Then let us be bold enough to ask: how much of our ‘sacrifice’ was made, in the end, not for the good of those it might have saved, but rather from the mortal fear of an unknown menace, our complacent belief in the continued stability of ‘life as we know it’, our immediate and slavish obedience to the governmental or scientific authority of the moment? As is too often the case, our public virtues are easily underpinned with secret vices.
We had the chance to nobly confront the necessity of our mortality and the limits of our knowledge and power with dignity and manful serenity.
This substrate, which blessedly is not always present in our finer acts, nonetheless is far from rare in them, particularly in the present day. We are biophiles, we moderns, great lovers of life, life at all costs. — I leave it to those steeped in the teachings of the ancient philosophers to calculate the moral weight of this neologism.
Beware illusions — There is a part of the Dissident Right which wants to prove that this illness is far worse than the evidence presently suggests, because it craves catastrophe, the collapse of society as the one remaining possibility for our rebirth. There is another part of the Dissident Right which wants to prove the same thing, because a potentially devastating outbreak would more clearly justify an authoritarian response, empowering, it is somehow hoped, the right kind of leader.
I will not here adjudicate the motives guiding these attempts. It suffices to reckon out the ‘wishful thinking’ implicit to them both, to denounce and reject them: for the weaker party in any war cannot afford to live in delusions, not even very beautiful ones.
On Conspiracy and Duty
Behind false binaries — Of all the false binaries that circulate around the Coronavirus – and there are a great many, such as ‘lockdown versus opening’, ‘safety versus rashness’, ‘information versus misinformation’ – none is so prejudicial to conversation as the dichotomy between ‘reality’ and ‘conspiracy’. And none does more to favour, not certainly the truth and the seekers after truth, but to those men who are most concerned with concealing their nefarious ambitions or their despicable actions.
Losing one’s head before losing one’s heart – We should tender our ceaseless compliments to the so-called ‘conspiracy theorists’ among us – not because they are always right, but because they are always bold, even in times when every head has bowed to the rise of an unprecedented authoritarianism, meek as daisies before the scythe. There come rare moments when it is better to be courageously wrong. Best of all is it, of course, to lose neither one’s courage nor one’s head; but the prerequisite for such an attitude is not first of all reason, but first of all bravery.
The alibi of the ‘elite’ — ‘Why would the governments of the world, or the banksters, or the “global elites”, or whatever group you please, ever seek to destroy the world economy? What could they possibly gain from disintegrating the very ground upon which they stand?’
Ah, I fear you have not paid near keen enough attention to such crises as we have within living memory; nor do you have near clear enough a sense of the foundation upon which they truly stand.
But lay that aside, a simple calculus should suffice, not to demonstrate their guilt, but to dissolve their alibi. In the case of economic collapse, who will be in a position to profit? The average citizen, the small business owner, the grassroots movement, the honest and incorruptible journalist or intellectual working diligently in his study to expose the truth of present events? Or the men with millions of dollars of expendable income at their immediate disposal, with their hands in every pie, with their advanced and dedicated knowledge of complex economics, with their fearlessness in the face of mendacity and manipulation and their ruthless hearts? This much must at least be clear: these men have the least to fear, of anyone under the sun, from economic meltdown.
So much for alibi; now what of motive?
Barbed query — But of course, let us be reasonable; let us avoid ‘conspiracy thinking’ in our present emergency. For really, how could it possibly aid the powers-that-be to grant governments, on the basis of emergency decree alone, the right to enforce widespread house arrest, upon any perceived or fabricated need, over innocent civilians? Or to give our ‘social media’ and our ‘online marketplace’ the clear pretext for more strongly censoring ‘dangerous’ or ‘misleading’ speech? Or to lay at the feet of our ‘authorities’ every excuse they could possibly desire to embed us all more tightly in the network of digital tracking, registration, surveillance, by confounding their efforts here with the legitimate governmental responsibility of defending the public health?
Indeed, how could they, the global rulers, be served by the banning of mass protests, the limitation put on social discourse, the sense prevalent among the public now that a man, for his own preservation, must stay away from other men, must not speak to anyone in the dangerous privacy of organic, unrecorded and spontaneous conversations, must not be allowed too long to discuss, for instance, the vast and shocking changes occurring around us in the very fabric of the law? How could our governments possibly profit from a situation in which they are automatically and trustingly, not only permitted, but expected, to force swift passage of historical legislation radically altering the present balance of powers and the standing structure of our institutions? And as for this collapsing economy – what occasion could it possibly give to billionaires, with their universal ‘networks’, their eye for opportunity, their shameless abuse of every chance? — How, indeed, could any of this ever aid – the globalist elite?
The final sacrifice on the altar of Moloch — He who believes that the globalist elite love money over all things and so will do whatever they can to preserve the economic status quo is sorely mistaken; history itself refutes him. It is not money, but power that these creatures crave at bottom. And the greatest power can finally only be bought at the sacrifice of the global economy on the alter of a far darker deity.
Default position — There is little stronger ‘circumstantial’ evidence of the ‘conspiracy theorist’ view of these present events, than the rapidity, unanimity, and mercilessness with which the conglomerate of media and big tech has censored the same. It should be the standing protocol of the Dissident Right to favour, in moments of doubt or limited knowledge, the opposite course to that most emphatically urged by the globalist elites. This is not altogether reactionary thinking: our enemies have access to more money than we, and thus to a wider view of the factual state of affairs. They alone know their plans, they alone know how present events fit in line with them. And whatever else may be true of them, they desire with all their hearts the obliteration of the things that we most cherish.
Having said that, we speak here only of a ‘default position’; for in truth we of the Dissident Right should by rights seek to be independent of all modern influences, even ‘negative’ or reactionary ones. That independence is both our necessary and sufficient justification.
Then a final question, to close these ‘untimely’ reflections: Have we, in the present crisis, attained that loftier goal?
2As regards the preparation and, one is tempted to say, foreknowledge of the globalist elite, consider the by now infamous Event201, a Coronavirus pandemic simulation organized by none other than the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation in October of last year, just weeks before the first cases of Coronavirus began to appear in China. The official ‘Highlights Reel’ from this event, with but few divergences, sounds eerily like a summation of the real Coronavirus pandemic of 2020. Even supposing that one does not put a more malevolent interpretation on this striking coincidence, at the very least it demonstrates that the events to which we have been witness were far from unpredictable. And Event201 is of course but a single instance of decades’ worth of conferences, simulations, debriefings, warnings from scientists and other experts, etc. etc. regarding the possibility of a pandemic like the present.
So far as the benefits which have accrued to at least some among the globalist elite, it does not seem to me that at least BlackRock and its CEO Larry Fink, considered by Forbes to fall in the top thirty of the world’s most powerful men, will suffer much from the present disaster.
3For information on this heinous idea, and Gate’s relationship to it, see ‘Bill Gates, MIT Develop New “Tattoo ID” to Check For Vaccinations’, 21st Century Wire, December 23, 2019. Accessed April 22, 2020.
4Event201, for instance, lays forth a great many scenarios, in a great many spheres, which it would be well for us to bear in mind and to prepare for. To name but a single instance: consider the possibility, openly discussed by the ‘participants’, of ‘limited internet shutdowns’ effected by governments in order to regulate the flow of ‘dis- and misinformation’.
5As but a single example, consider but the masterful and simultaneously absolutely ludicrous role that Bill Gates has played in recent days. His ominous grandfatherly wrinkles leer out of practically every screen, his importunous, officious words appear on the pages of every major newspaper and journal in all the world. This man – to all public knowledge, a mere entrepreneur in the field of personal computing – has suddenly appeared wearing the full raimant of some unexplained authority, touting himself (in his own words) as an ‘expert’ in vaccines, if not virology itself, and speaking freely, by his report, to heads of state – all the while being granted media time evidently on demand. He arises like a hero to save us from the devastation wrought by Coronavirus and to administer to us all (that is to say, the entire global population) a vaccine of his own production. His title of ‘philanthropist’ invites us to turn a blind eye to the monstrous conflict of interest involved in all of this. But supposing one wishes to listen to the scientists, rather than a Bill Gates: well, where shall we turn? The World Health Organization, whose largest donor (now that Trump has withdrawn public American moneys) is none other than the Gates Foundation? Or perhaps its most outspoken representatives, such as Dr. Michael Ryan, Executive Director of the World Health Organization’s Health Emergency Programme, who recently suggested the necessity of taking people from their homes – and who happens to be one of Gates’ old employees? Or perhaps to our governments, who are informed by the same no doubt totally disinterested WHO? An American is still better off: he might listen to the likes of Dr. Deborah Birx or Dr. Anthony Fauci, both of them colleagues or beneficiaries of Gates himself. If only we lived in the good old days, when all roads still led — to Rome!