Monthly Archives: June 2025

Blackrockistan

Posted on by
154

Note: Tonight at 8:15 EDT, I will be on with Paul Kersey, Peter Brimelow and Harrison Smith from Infowars to talk about remigration. I may also announce, with a great flourish, that I am officially off the Trump Train. Tune in here.

A question that is never asked in official circles, or even much in unofficial ones, is why Western leaders seem so desperate for war? For the last three-plus years, they have been scheming to start a direct war with Russia. The rhetoric has been so crazed it suggests they have a death wish. It is not just Russia. They want war with China and Iran, which would mean a regional war in the Middle East. The one thing the West seems sure about is the need for a big war.

Of course, given the increasing separation between official narratives and reality, many are sure they are at war. The current Prime Minister of Britain is telling his party that the country is now at war and must mobilize the country. Emmanuel Macron has spent the last year flitting about the continent as if he is leading Europe in a war against Russia, despite the fact the official position of his government, and NATO, is they have no direct role in the Ukraine war.

There is a Little Rascals quality to Europe at the moment. None of these countries have an army capable of fighting beyond their borders and many could not defend themselves against a well-armed militia. Europe has relied on the American military for so long most have forgotten how to fight. Instead, like the old television program, they dress up like big boys and girls and put on a show. Watching the girl bosses of the EU make threats is as absurd as the old television show.

That does explain one reason for the rhetoric. To be a European head of state is to be powerless, other than the power to put on a show. France, for example, relies on the EU to control its economy, trade policy and immigration policy. NATO decides what France can do with its shrinking military capability. The typical American governor has more sovereign authority than the head of France. While not entirely ceremonial, this is the direction for the “leaders” of Europe.

If you are allowed to do only one thing after reaching the highest office in your country’s political system, that is the thing you will do, and with gusto. Keir Starmer, for example, understands that the Bank of England overthrew the Tory government and put Labour in charge of parliament with a minority of public support. Every EU leader knows the EU rigs elections and overthrows governments. Every European “leader” knows he is an actor hired to play a role, so they play the role.

That gets to who is doing the hiring. Starmer is in office because the Bank of England saw him as a suitably complaint puppet. Macron remains in power, despite losing the last election, because Blackrock wants him in power. Germany’s new puppet is in charge for the same reason. BlackRock is the world’s largest asset manager controlling more than nine trillion dollars. That means it has real power, the power to pick who wins elections and who controls public policy.

Blackrock invested billions in Ukraine prior to the war, because it believed Ukraine would fall into the Western orbit, which would mean Blackrock would control trillions in natural resources. The reason the Republicans were suddenly desperate to get sixty billion in new money to Ukraine after the 2022 midterm victory was to get Blackrock and others some of their money out of Ukraine. The proxy war with Russia was sold to the bankers as an opportunity to loot Eurasia again.

Now that the war has turned against the West, the rhetoric has become shriller for political reasons, but also as a way to sell arms. Blackrock and other massive private asset holders have large stakes in companies like Raytheon, Lockheed, Rheinmetall and many other arms makers. Another reason the political class of Europe is carrying on as if Genghis Khan is about to cross the Dnieper is they think it builds popular support for rebuilding their militaries.

There is another element to this. The Western oligarchy is based on the assumption that the United States is the global bank and the global mint. It performs this dual role by controlling the global reserve currency, which is made possible by controlling the most important global assets. To this point, that was made possible by controlling oil via the petrodollar agreement with OPEC. If energy must be priced in dollars, the demand for dollars can never be challenged.

The technological revolution, which is largely responsible for creating this new oligarchical class, has also undermined this arrangement. There are now other things in great demand to meet the needs of technology. Simply skimming from the oil trade is no longer enough. America needs computing power and that means energy production, which means a massive increase in energy consumption, along with the consumption of other natural resources needed for big computing.

The trillions in natural resources underneath the Donbas were seen as a quick and easy answer to the Western hunger for natural resources. Of course, it was just the first domino in the eventual exploitation of the rest of Eurasia. The technological revolution has turned the West, particularly America, into a ravenous beast that must find new sources of food to maintain itself. Big Tech and Big Finance have created a vampire economy that is always looking for a new neck.

They say all wars are banker’s wars and this has been true since the spread of popular government in the 18th century. Once who controls the assets is divorced from how those assets are used, there is no longer any control over how those assets are used by the political system. We see that in the modern West. The people vote, politicians are picked to fill the offices, but policy is made by those who own the assets because the Golden Rule states, the men with the gold make the rules.

If you like my work and wish to donate, you can buy me a beer. You can sign up for a SubscribeStar or a Substack subscription and get some extra content. You can donate via PayPal. My crypto addresses are here for those who prefer that option. You can send gold bars through the postal service to: Z Media LLC P.O. Box 1047 Berkeley Springs, WV 25411-3047. Thank you for your support!

Asabiyyah

Posted on by
157

Note: Behind the green door, there is a post about the death of college athletics, a post about building a workbench, and the Sunday podcast. On the Substack side of the green door, there are now weekly videos. Subscribe here or here.

If you were to imagine the ideal human community, you would probably assume “ideal” meant peaceful and cooperative. There may be people who think the ideal society is one that it is something like a prison exercise yard, but most people think of the idyllic society as one in perfect harmony. Everyone cooperates with one another in order to overcome the natural challenges that come with human society. Disagreements are worked out through the free exchange of ideas and compromise.

Everyone understands that even on a small scale, such a thing is not possible, but it has always been a useful metric. We often measure society against this standard of what we conceive of as the ideal society. It is why every year there are studies posted listing the happiest countries or the least corrupt countries. These are ways to see how the country stacks up against that ideal. Happy people have less crime and corruption than people in quarrelsome, uncooperative societies.

This is not a Christian concept as many assume. People have noticed since the ancient times that societal health correlates with cooperation. Aristotle talked about the concept of philía, which roughly means friendship or affection. It is the glue that holds a people together, which is a requirement of the polis. It is the natural desire to cooperate with others, not just from personal interest, but for the sake of the polis. The “politics” of a society, therefore, arise from friendship and affection.

The 14th-century Arab historian and sociologist Ibn Khaldun wrote about this thing he called asabiyyah, which is something like social cohesion or group solidarity. It is the natural desire to cooperate that arises from family and the tribe, which allows for the construction of increasingly complex social structures. The more asabiyyah a society possesses, the more it is able to accomplish. This, Khaldun noted, is also why complex societies inevitably collapse.

The thing that makes it possible for one people to dominate other people is that which eventually erodes their social cohesion. It is social cohesion that facilitates cooperation, which increases the prosperity of the society. That prosperity then brings expansion and the incorporation of new people, who begin to drain that social cohesion. The cost of acquiring new people is the loss of social cohesion. This then raises the cost of governing the society, which further erodes asabiyyah.

There are many famous theories as to why human societies rise and fall, but all must contend with this central truth of human society. It can only exist when people are able to trust and cooperate with those outside their kin group. The greater the distance from that kin group, the more it costs to maintain cooperation. The reason empires always fall is they end up including people so distant from one another that they are unable to form any sort of cooperative relationship.

Look around the West and you see two things. One is the cost of the state is spiraling upward as it becomes increasingly incompetent. An unsaid truth of many American cities is they lack a genuine police force. The police are just a state sponsored gang that keeps the less organized gangs in check in order to maintain some safe areas for the elite and the tourist areas. Parts of cities like Baltimore can no longer be included in the concept of “civilized society.”

European cities are struggling with the same issue, but for different reasons. Instead of an unassimilable population from an old economic model, they imported millions of people who are genetically distant from the native population. Many of these people are hostile to other people imported into Europe. This alone has eroded social cohesion, but the efforts to maintain order are also eroding social trust. Every man jailed for speech crimes is a loss of European asabiyyah.

This may explain the sudden lurch in elite opinion in the United States away from unlimited immigration to what may be open hostility to it. Every day the window on the issue seems to move from the long-held position of open borders to what is now called remigration, the return of migrants to their homelands. The State Department has announced it is opening an office of remigration to facilitate this. A year ago, uttering the word “remigration” in many places could get you jailed.

This change is elite driven, which is what matters. Instead of an elite responding to public opinion, it is the elite now trying to drive public opinion. When the CEO of JPMorgan Chase speaks dismissively about immigration, as he recently did on the left-wing cable channel CNBC, something big is happening in the clouds. Conventional wisdom among the elite on immigration has swung to the opposite side. There is a reason for it, and it is not a sense of shame.

This gets back to those old concepts about what makes society possible and how best to measure the prosperity of a society. Decades of mismanagement due to the needs of the American empire have drained the West of its asabiyyah. As a result, the cost of maintaining order in the West is reaching a danger zone. All one has to do is look at the budgets of Western governments and then look at the condition of society. In many places, no government at all would be an improvement.

Therefore, it should not be surprising that it is the money men who are the first to sense something is seriously wrong in the West. They may not understand the cultural issues, but they see the gap between the cost and the results. The world’s richest man was not tasked with finding trillions in waste by accident. With $19 Trillion in debt rolling over in the next year, the money men are right to be worried that they have drained the last drops of asabiyyah from the Western world.

While it is tempting to see this sudden realization as a positive, Ibn Khaldun was not optimistic about a society’s ability to rebuild its asabiyyah. This is a theme with all writers who examined societal decline. Once a society hits that inflection point, it no longer has the capacity to reform itself. Social cohesion is not something that can be rebuilt, not even through shared struggle, as it is something that naturally occurs. Once it is drained it is gone and the society it produced is gone with it.

Perhaps this is a necessity as the West finally escapes the age of ideology. The decline of the West will open the ground for new social cohesion to form organically among the European populations that remain in Western lands. The new, post-ideological societies, growing up in majority-minority lands, will place social cohesion and asabiyyah at the top of their social hierarchy. The new asabiyyah will grow out of the wreckage of the ideological society.

If you like my work and wish to donate, you can buy me a beer. You can sign up for a SubscribeStar or a Substack subscription and get some extra content. You can donate via PayPal. My crypto addresses are here for those who prefer that option. You can send gold bars through the postal service to: Z Media LLC P.O. Box 1047 Berkeley Springs, WV 25411-3047. Thank you for your support!