The Gloves Are Off

The Elite Playbook Is Becoming Ever More Obvious

Apr 16, 2025

We have come a long way in the past five years, a journey that we have had no choice but to undertake. I am not convinced that the 'pandemic' – or, more precisely, the lockdown element - was intended to be the final iteration of the globalists' authoritarian wet dream or, instead, a way-station close to the end of the line, but I suspect the latter, as the timing seems to be off. Some of the mechanisms that are clearly intended to serve as bars on the cage – such as CBDCs and a world governed by AI – were several years shy of a full flowering and are still not part of the fabric of our lives.

There's also much talk of 2030 as a target date. Whilst it's just about possible that they thought they could parlay the hysteria for years on end, the more likely explanation is that it was a normalising operation/depopulation tool/US election fraud device, intended to lead to stealth-mode global governance via the auspices of the WHO, the calculation being that we would all be prepared to sacrifice freedoms if Tedros the Terrorist would just keep us safe from the next threat to human existence which, we were repeatedly assured, was just around the corner.

I wonder what grade they would award themselves for their work thusfar. It seems to me that they have achieved some tactical victories, but that they have come at a significant strategic cost. They may have launched a surprise attack and captured a company of pawns but, in so doing, they have also been obliged to telegraph their offence. Additionally, the fact we were blind to the fact that such an attack was even possible has forced many of us into a reassessment of our position which has, in turn, stimulated an Awakening in those whose critical thinking faculties have not entirely atrophied.

Not only can we see where they want to take us; we can also see that we weren't where we thought we were. In the first instance, how have those who rule over us managed to create an engineered reality without us noticing? How can we now approach a state of concientización, where we understand how the world actually works? Rather than the opposite – bougieness – which would be the process of becoming well-adjusted to societies that we now realise are pathologically insane.(1) And, secondly, now that the illusion is being revealed, how are they intending to maintain their hegemony in the face of opposition?

Well, it seems that boiling the frog slowly really does work. Fundamentals that have been accepted for centuries can be usurped, given enough time and a programme of gaslighting that can be presented as compassionate social engineering instead. The key objective, from the outset, was the nullification of Christianity in the West and this has been achieved in stages. Initially, within my lifetime, there was a shift from Christianity itself to the adoption of Christian 'values'. On its face, it doesn't appear that much slippage resulted but, in reality, this was the decisive breach.

Christianity without God is just another ideology, as arguable as any other. 'Human rights', an ersatz concoction, are no longer God-given. The corollary is that they must, therefore, be conferred by some other mechanism. The natural rights crew maintain that humans are superior to the other animals and are thus (somehow) imbued with these enhanced rights at birth. Others argue that the state accords these rights. I think that they are all missing the point, which is that the fact that there is even a debate is the whole enchilada, right there. Neither side will ever gain a decisive victory, because answers can never rise to the level of proof – they will always simply be a matter of opinion. Which is not to say that a belief in the divine might also be characterised as merely another viewpoint, just that, without it, we are all at sea – we just haven't realised it.

The question that the elites – I'll probably stick to that descriptor, although 'globalists', 'Leftists' and 'authoritarians' are words that are largely interchangeable – were keenly aware of was a simple one; can man exist without religion? For our purposes, more specifically, can the West survive without Christianity, 'the West' being a proxy for the liberal societies that dominate the developed world? The elites came to the conclusion that it couldn't and, as the dismantling of those societies was their raison d'être, they set about decoupling God and Christian values. Whether we like it or not, the evidence overwhelmingly suggests that they're right. Our liberal, secular societies are well on the way to proving the point.

Michael Oakeshott, a distinguished 20^th century thinker, provides the bedrock that underpins the argument. In his estimation, the state is a “composite of two ideas of association”:

“The first is that we are associated in terms of law: we observe these laws, and then can enjoy the liberties that these laws permit. This is individualistic. Oakeshott calls this ‘civil association’. The second is that we are associated in terms of a common good: we have come together to achieve some very specific end. This is collectivist. Oakeshott calls this ‘enterprise association’.”(2)

The two ideas of association are continually in tension. This seems to me to be undeniably so and the most profound political divide reflects this truth – socialism/communism as the collectivist ideologies, as against classical liberalism/libertarianism, which represent the championing of the individual. The key, in a somewhat functioning society, is the ability to successfully judge the right mix of individual liberties and collective goods when enacting state activity. Advocating for freedom of speech on the one hand, or fighting a war on the other, the latter probably the ultimate collectivist endeavour. These opposing forces are ever-present;

“...it is not only at a surface level that politics is mixed: the state itself is, in its constitution, an awkward and equivocal, cognitively dissonant, combination of the impetus to allow everyone to live as they want in peace, and the impetus to establish by design and coercion and nudge the greatest good of the greatest number.”(3)

But the equation is not a 50-50 proposition; not even close. Civil association can only exist if we are all on the same page with regards to the rules that govern it. The law, effectively. But it's not a movement. It's not an organised form of association. It doesn't do anything. It couldn't fight a war; that would require an enterprise association. The state would need to heel hard over if it was required to do battle against a foreign (or, increasingly, a domestic) adversary, but it would preside over a failure unless “we are bound together in terms of wanting to achieve a common goal”.(4) And there's the rub. Even if our ideal is civil association, we must accept the irony that we can only defend the idea by resorting to its polar opposite. If we don't, if we instead continue on our current path, we will;

“...be infected, invaded, inseminated with the visions of enterprise derived from other, lesser, civilisations, and also visions of enterprise invented by the bastard children of its own degraded ideology.”(5)

We don't need to guess at that future; it's already upon us. Other collectives that aren't rooted in 'Christian values', that are wholly at odds with Western liberal societies – different flavours of authoritarianism or Islam, in particular – will triumph. There is a certainty about them that we lack, because our moral and ethical framework lacks firm foundations. Cut from the root, the flower will wilt. If we are to turn back the tide and survive, we will need our own enterprise association.

If the one with which we have been provided is not fit for purpose, where do we turn? To nationalism? To some version of ethnicity? Well, neither of those solutions address the deepest part of the problem. Little England, for example, isn't the answer – how on earth could there be agreement on what that meant? And skin colour isn't a determinant of any solid value, either. It may provide a clue, in Western countries where assimilation is very much not on the menu, but it is still downstream from what matters most.

So, if humanism doesn't work, yet we need an enterprise association that is imbued with certitude, that is in tune with our values and capable of arresting the West's societal decline, what are we left with? It seems to me that only an association forged by the divine – rather than man – would be up to the task. Nothing else has worked:

“Christianity is the only safeguard of civil association...it forged civil association: and the walls of civil association will collapse without it...The death of God simply will not work. We will have a religion whether we want one or not. If it is not Christianity, it will be a false or much inferior religion: Islam, or something composted out of out of the rotting peel and cabbage leaves of DEI, NHS, Net Zero, COVID-19, MSM, WHO...”(6)

This wasn't where I expected to end up when I first pondered these matters, but the elites had made their way here decades ago. They understood that they needed rid of God and Christian absolutes. They also knew that they could make relativism sound reasonable and, in the process, difficult to oppose without coming across as a 'fundamentalist', a label that became a pejorative. If they were to remake society, we would have to be conditioned to accept secularism, because:

“All that should be conserved in our civilisation is downstream from Christianity. Our art, our architecture, our music, our legal systems, our social structures, our academic ventures, our sense of history, our agriculture, our connection with nature though hunting, foraging, and gardening—all is gifted by Christianity or conditioned by Christianity.”(7)

My impression is that deleting God was not overly difficult. I don't recollect much in the way of a defence – certainly not from organised religion. The Catholic Church did its very best to self-immolate, weathering scandal after scandal, pissing away its moral authority in the process. The Protestant Church, in the Anglosphere at any rate, largely abandoned the Scriptures and became an uncool, sandal-wearing, social-justice movement. Now, Anglican churches on all continents approve and celebrate gay marriage and are all-in on climate change; the Episcopal Church endorses 'gender-affirming care' for allegedly transgender children (8) and, for America's Presbyterian Church, the 'pandemic' showcased the “the rise of individualism and narcissism where personal preferences and freedoms were elevated above communal well-being”.(9) I wouldn't even know where to begin with the current Pope.

The elites were just getting started. The Sixties proved to be a fertile decade, especially in America, The Hegemon – the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Immigration and Naturalization Act of the following year, set the scene for fundamental, detrimental changes. Big government's control over citizens' lives was vastly enhanced and the country's ethnic balance was permanently altered:

“The changes of the 1960s, with civil rights at their core, were not just a major new element in the Constitution. They were a rival constitution, with which the original one was frequently incompatible--and the incompatibility would worsen as the civil rights regime was built out.”(10)

Affirmative action (aka more inequality, in reverse this time) was just around the corner, an inevitable consequence of the new concept of 'disparate impact'. The Civil Rights Act also created friction between its provisions and the constitutional protections “accorded to private property and freedom of association”,(11) which could only have been approved by a constitutional amendment, but it turns out that if nearly all politicians avert their eyes and the press refuses to hold their feet to the fire, then anything goes.

As for immigration, the remaining Kennedy brothers (Ted and RFK, at the time) were at pains to assure Americans that their bill would not have a significant impact – plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose. Not:

"[i]n 1965, whites of European descent [constituted] 84 percent of the U.S. population, while [h]ispanics accounted for 4 percent and Asians for less than 1 percent. Fifty years on, 62 percent of the U.S. population is white, 18 percent is [h]ispanic, and 6 percent is Asian. By 2065, just 46 percent of the U.S. population will be white, the [h]ispanic share will rise to 24 percent, Asians will [constitute] 14 percent – and the country will be home to 78 million foreign[-]born, according to Pew projections."(12)

85-90% of these immigrants have come from the Third World. Many had no particular desire to assimilate and so, increasingly, balkanisation has been the outcome. These two bills created inequality, federal overreach and a watering down of national identity. The ripples spread across the West. But there was more on the way, albeit in stealth mode. As a lesser-spotted Rockefeller admitted, the elites sponsored feminist movements for reasons wholly unconnected to altruism. Instead, they wanted to tax the other half of the population which had previously been confined to quarters, keeping house. They were also set on;

“...disintegrating the family structure by sending children to school at an early age, where they could be indoctrinated to view the state as their primary guardian.”(13)

We know now that this is what modern education has become. We didn't, perhaps, realise that the plan was quite so callous and finely calibrated. Today's universities are “Woke or Marxist and actively destructive to young minds”.(14) America, as is her wont, leads the way:

“They’ve become self-licking ice cream cones mainly benefitting the staff...Entirely apart from that, the US university system has outlived its usefulness. Almost all of them are intellectually dead. They’re essentially indoctrination centers attached to hedge funds.”(15)

In addition to propagandising children and young adults, poisoning minds with feminism, DEI, climate change and intersectionality, the education system has also made them incurious, risk averse, narcissistic snowflakes, prone to anxiety, depression and fragility.(16) And yes, that's my opinion, but it's also the view of researchers in the field. The Self-Esteem Movement, a bastard child conceived in California (where else?), brought us participation trophies, “empathy over discipline, and inclusion at the expense of ability and merit,”(17) all from a man addicted to self-help books and years of psychotherapy, who believed that “the individual should be subjugated to the collective for the sake of social harmony.”(18) Sound familiar?

Incredibly, it transpires that high self-esteem isn't the result of worthless, unearned praise, but rather the consequence of success in an endeavour. The snowflakes that haven't yet grasped this truism and engaged with the world realistically suffer from “an inability to engage in civil discourse, a fear of free speech and new ideas, and a dependence on institutional protection against being “uncomfortable.””(19) Which is just how the elites like it. We've all seen the results on campus, which show no signs of abating. Trump is currently trying to force the Ivy League into abandoning DEI, trans ideology and explicit anti-Semitism, but I don't much like his chances. Students and staff alike are afflicted by delusions that define them as people, that are core beliefs which have taken years to inculcate and which align with their personality-type. De-programming that will be hard yakka.

And further complicated by other factors that have been layered in. Americans, in particular, have never been so mentally ill. Millennials and Gen Z are coming apart at the seams:

“...36.7 percent of women report having been diagnosed with depression in their lifetimes versus 20.4 percent of men. For young people aged 18-29, 34.3 percent had been diagnosed with depression, while for 30-44 year olds it was 34.9 percent. Lifetime depression rates among Black and Hispanic adults have now surpassed those of White respondents.”(20)

Cellphone addiction is rampant, which inevitably results in increased atomization. Social media algorithms have proven to be a cost-effective way of indoctrinating the unwary, who may seek the dopamine hits that TikTok and Instagram provide as a way of dulling the pain of existing in a world of Terfs and climate change deniers. Better a dose of text neck than the anxiety that attends social interaction with someone who isn't uncritically on the same wavelength.

But even those of us who have - whether through experience, temperament or a combination of both – managed to resist most of these fantasies, have still been forced to live in a world that, at the least, pays lip-service to the patently ridiculous and we are still vulnerable to social osmosis. Living with falsehoods has an effect and most of us have had to temper our responses, especially if we have responsibilities to others. And, despite our cynicism, we can still be caught out. We don't know what we don't know. Lately, though, that's been changing. Especially with regard to the revelations emanating from DOGE.

With the passage of a little time, a more comprehensive picture is emerging. It is apparent that the scope of the USAID disbursements is vast. No domain seems to have evaded the narrative engineering. Markets,(21) tech,(22) culture,(23) health,(24) media,(25) regime change;(26) all within USAID's sphere of operations, operations specifically designed to warp our sense of reality:

“Just as fiat currency replaced real value with declared value, we now see the same pattern everywhere: fiat science replaces inquiry with predetermined conclusions, fiat culture replaces organic development with curated influence, fiat history replaces lived experience with manufactured narratives. We live in an era of fiat everything – where reality itself is declared, not discovered. And just as they create artificial scarcity in monetary systems, they manufacture false choices everywhere else – presenting us with artificial binaries that obscure the true complexity of our world.”(27)

Critical thinkers are not entirely walled off from this world, although we have an awareness of at least some of the Big Lies and we aren't suffering from an affliction known as The Great Pretending. Nonetheless, knowledge of the spider's web of bought-and-paid-for influence is still instructive, as it brings the multi-layered, self-reinforcing fakery into sharp relief. The elites weren't just paying for the initial deception and lies; they were also in the business of constructing and controlling the responses that resulted, weaving a narrative structure that appeared to be organic, but which was yet more of the same sham, instead:

“The real power isn’t in manufacturing individual facts, but in creating systems where false facts become self-reinforcing. When a fact-checker cites another fact-checker who cites a “trusted source” that’s funded by the same entities funding the fact-checkers, the pattern becomes clear. The truth isn’t in any individual claim – it’s in recognizing how the claims work together to create a closed system of artificial reality.”(28)

The American taxpayers' largesse has a comprehensive (if unwitting) feel to it. We've seen some of the headline acts; $20 million for Iraqi Sesame Street, $2 million for trans surgeries in Guatemala, $4.5 million to Kazakhstan so that they too can have a stab at eliminating 'disinformation', many millions more spent on cultural initiatives from Serbia to Colombia.(29) USAID was the elites' way of shaping global reality, using somebody else's money. Huge sums spent on media – to control the message – millions more spent on health and development programmes – to establish their philanthropic bona fides – and then, finally, splashing yet more cash on cultural programmes, thus homogenizing them in a progressive image. The construction of a global Overton Window.

The American elites have shown themselves to be rapacious in the extreme, and also ingenious. The grift has a Whac-A-Mole quality to it. Boondoggles are squirrelled away in 1,500 page bills that are presented to Congress a day or two ahead of the vote. 'Independent regulatory agencies' are funded, allegedly tasked with keeping government on the straight-and-narrow. As Trump has noted, in an Executive Order, these agencies “exercise substantial executive authority without sufficient accountability to the President, and through him, to the American people.”(30) That's the idea; keep the real power in the hands of the 'experts'.

There are over 1,500 zombie agencies/programmes that still suck at the federal teat, despite the fact that their authorisations have expired. They account for 8% of the total budget.(31) DOGE has discovered that the federal government had 4.6 million active credit cards, “twice as many credit cards as there are humans and these cards are with $10,000 a month limits.”(32)(33) Over time, the tide of accountability has receded – permanently. The elites have been showering cash on their minions for decades:

“This wicked grift cycle goes like this: (1) Taxpayers pay taxes required because Grifters establish programs that require funding; (2) Congress approves such funding in the vaguest possible terms of intent and appropriates those funds to a federal agency run by Grifters; (3) the Grifters in that agency interpret Congress’ intent in the broadest manner possible and provide funds to NGOs that employ other Grifters with six-figure salaries; and (4) that NGO then engages in some sort of woke cause...a cause very few taxpaying voters would vote for if they only knew about it.”(34)

Pattern recognition is a wonderful thing. It can be applied across domains. Once the play-book is revealed, we can see that it is deployed over and over again. But, for the most part, it's still been effective. People rely on secondary manufactured sources which confirm the original lie. They don't understand that there are layers. The normies have been taken in and, even now, you won't lose money betting that some of them still don't get it. Or want to get it.

We've already seen plenty of evidence of that in the response to the ongoing, limited-hangout infused 'pandemic' revelations. An awful lot of folks don't want to deal with the realisation that they were had, which tends to lock them onto a glide path that will result in them being had again. Peeling onions isn't for everybody. Zooming out and realising that these deceptions aren't isolated, that they are part of a more extensive artificial reality, tends to ruin one's day. And doing so would require a recalibration of one's world view; perhaps, multiple recalibrations, with no guarantee that you'll know when you're finally there. Many people would find the prospect unsettling and would prefer not to initiate proceedings.

We still need to be cautious, especially relating to the timing of these revelations. We may be more switched on and/or better able to deal with an altered reality, but we can still be deceived. Especially by the 'good guys'. On our side of the fence, tribalism can be easily manipulated. We are far too susceptible to the 'scraps from the table' dynamic. It's most notable when someone like Bill Maher says something that isn't monumentally dumb, something that is critical of his fellow travellers, and squishy conservatives immediately want to claim him as theirs.

We are also plagued by the inverse of the tall poppy syndrome. Leftists reflexively eject those who can't keep up with the descent into madness. Conservatives, on the other hand, are far too willing to ignore obvious disqualifications, provided a person is on their team. Larry Ellison is as good an example of this readily exploitable fault-line as any:

“Larry Ellison's Stargate initiative – built on Oracle's foundation as a CIA project – is now being welcomed by the same people who, not long ago, vehemently opposed digital control. If this were rolled out under different branding, the so-called freedom movement would be apoplectic...This is the same Larry Ellison who, after 9/11, offered to build a national security database to track every American, complete with biometric identifiers.”(35)(36)(37)(38)

It's also why Patel and Bongino at the FBI have been getting an easy ride. They're 'ours', you see. It's a psychological flaw that tends to afflict agreeable people. Dave Rubin, for example, suffers acutely. Trusted voices that expose real corruption, but then attempt to lead us down the path of managed solutions – the so-called 'second matrix' – are yet another of the arrows in the elites' quiver of control, and they are everywhere. In fact, they make up the majority of voices in the alt-media. How many times do you read a flawed, dishonest analysis by one of ours which fails to take account of basic facts?

There are some classic tells. Whenever I read about bin Laden's attack on the Twin Towers, or the alleged lab leak from Wuhan (when there was a beta test release at the World Military Games months earlier),(39) I know that I am consuming controlled opposition propaganda. The same goes for the following – Putin started the war in Ukraine; the Russian Army's next stop is Warsaw; the Gaza Health Ministry publishes accurate casualty figures; the Qataris are honest brokers; any uncritical fanboying of the Great Communicator; the new Syrian regime is moderate; 'mistakes were made' (applies across the board); all of these are examples of inexcusable positions that can only be embraced by those who are in the business of obfuscation – with the possible exception of the Qatari example, which might just be the result of extreme naivete:

“Like any sophisticated confidence game, it works in stages: first gain trust through real revelations, then build dependency through exclusive "insider" knowledge, finally redirect that trust toward constrained outcomes. Watch how alternative media platforms follow this pattern: expose genuine corruption, build devoted following, then subtly shift narrative focus away from systemic accountability.”(40)

That is what we experience the vast majority of the time. That's why nothing has ever really changed. That's the template for Congress and Parliament. An outrage cycle, followed by the square root of diddly squat. Mazes within mazes. Treachery of various stripes all around. It can be a little overwhelming. We must be careful not to disappear up our backsides or become becalmed:

“The hardest truth isn't just recognizing deception - it's accepting that we might never know the full story while still needing to act on what we can verify.”(41)

Both sides of most major debates are controlled by the elites. With no universally accepted moral framework, narrative creation is a whole lot easier. All players have their position on the continuum and are then given their heads. The opposition is sanctioned and approved. Follow the Twitter feeds of our flavour of keyboard warrior and feel the waves of vapid dreck wash over you. There are very few resistance leaders who are what they purport to be. Only the ones met with screechy antipathy – frequently because they were previously players who are now seen as traitors (Musk and Trump are two prime examples) – are likely to be genuine. Everyone else, to a greater or lesser extent, is a fraud playing a game.

Such a vast control network isn't cheap. That's where USAID and NED (National Endowment for Democracy) come in. It's an elegant scheme, made all the more gratifying by the fact that the public were unwittingly funding their own befuddlement. Not just in the US; the EU has its own network of NGOs and individual nations fund 'nudge units' and disinformation programmes. The German elites, in the grip of a hysteria that is likely to lead to ruination, just splurged €200 million that they don't have to promote 'trustworthy media' and stamp out “deliberate dissemination of false factual claims”,(42) both activities that inevitable rely on an elastic commitment to free speech and also on a subjective assessment of what is true and what isn't.

Yet, despite the effort that has been expended, the sophisticated techniques that have been deployed and the wall-to-wall propaganda, voting publics across the Western world haven't always been assimilated. This is an inconvenience that the elites can do without, as they need what they delicately term 'continuity of government' if they are to achieve their ends. The normal ebb and flow of electoral politics is anathema, as desired outcomes can simply be undone by the proles and that sense of suffocating momentum which insists that resistance is futile cannot be maintained. And so, all of a piece, other methods – by the same actors – become necessary.

Most European establishments have managed to fool most of their populations, most of the time, usually by the simple expedient of redefining what Left and Right are and then cobbling together Uniparty alliances. There is, in any event, limited scope for rebellion, given the primacy of the EU. But there has, nonetheless, been a need to get hands-on in various jurisdictions, within the Union and beyond. There is a menu of options from which to select and, if at all possible, bullying is first amongst equals, as it is simple and cost effective. There is, however, a significant downside, inasmuch as it lacks subtlety and tends to ruin the illusion that all events are organic. Hence, it's a tactic that is deployed in faraway places and goes largely unreported.

Places that are far from the madding crowd, like Montenegro or Macedonia.(43)(44) And Kosovo.(45) And, previously, in Ukraine in 2014.(46)(47) Then there's Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan.(48)(49) And Belarus (twice).(50)(51)(52) Out of sight, out of mind. A blank canvas. Most of the above were ye olde colour revolutions, funded by NED and USAID. The two -stans and Belarus rode out the storm, but the others fell. Further failed attempts have been made in Hungary,(53) Georgia (54)(55)(56) and Israel.(57)(58) At present, it's Serbia's turn in the barrel.(59) All activity can be plausibly denied, because very few people stateside would give a monkey's, even if they knew the truth – which they don't.

Those are all operations designed to collapse elected governments, frequently after the actual election. Ginning up opposition from the losers isn't usually a problem and rent-a-mobs are ten-a-penny in the Balkans and the former Soviet republics. Still, in toto, the simple can become complex and the cost-effective can still be costly. Better all round if the election can be stolen instead and this tends to be the tool of choice in more advanced nations, those in the near abroad. There has been a plethora of these in the recent past and only a very few have been widely reported.

Bolsonaro's ouster in Brazil was probably the clumsiest and most high profile example. The rate of invalid or allegedly blank ballots was 4.58% - the margin of victory was only 1.8%. In the big cities, that rate was anywhere up to 6.4%. In the rural communities, it was typically less than 1%. Perhaps that was all that was required to flip the race, although it's likely that ballot stuffing or manipulation of the voting machines was also necessary. Brazil uses Dominion machines, as does the US. These are the machines that, according to the testimony of a cyber-security expert, the US intelligence community can access to influence foreign elections.(60) Where there's a will, there's a way; usually via a router.

Bolsonaro was complaining about crooked elections for his entire term in office. Even though he won in 2018, he felt there had been fraud. The 2022 election did nothing to disabuse him of that notion. Once again, a familiar pattern emerged. Despite the polls having him down 57-43 in late September, he was leading in early voting, only to be consistently reeled in by every subsequent vote dump. Statistically, Benfield's Law got yet another kicking.(61)

And French elections have also become deeply suspect, not that anyone wants to talk about it. The 2017 and 2022 editions featured all manner of shenanigans, mostly concerning the paper ballots themselves. One might think that an old school approach to voting would be impervious to fraud in a way that mail-in ballots definitively aren't but, as ever, the devil is in the detail. In both elections Le Pen was on Macrons' heels in the first round of voting, only to fade badly in the second round head-to-head. Simultaneously, there were spoiled or blank ballots left, right and Chelsea in round two, quadrupling in 2017 and surpassing even that in 2022.(62)(63) In each case, Macron won going away. We are encouraged to think this unremarkable and that a significant minority of French voters believed themselves to be so disenfranchised that they went to the booths and cast worthless ballots' just to make a point.

It may be that a more likely explanation lies elsewhere. In addition to the millions of spoiled ballots that were still voted, there were additional millions that were already spoiled when they were sent out (in both elections) and were thus never cast. Le Pen complained, the watchdog shrugged theatrically, then forbade media reporting.(64)

Figure 1

Not to forget the voters in Macron territory who received multiple ballots,(65) or what appears to be some startlingly clumsy algorithmic manipulation. If there's one thing we ought to be able to guarantee, it would be that – given the passage of time – if ballots are still being counted, vote totals go up. In France, the traditional stockbroker's warning is more apposite – values can go down as well as up. The prediction bottom right is also somewhat outlandish, given that there were only three million more votes to be counted – according to the official results.(66) 'Amateur night' is, perhaps, too kind a descriptor.

Figure 2

Figure 3

Figure 4

The huge Le Pen drop-off in the second round is even less credible when compared to her consistent popularity amongst all voters, where she polls higher than le petit roi.(67) It would appear that the French elites are storing up trouble, which is unwise given the mob's historic propensity for correcting course in an abrupt fashion.

The German public, on the other hand, are much better behaved and, commensurately, much easier to abuse. The normie quotient appears to be particularly high and, as previously noted, elite neuroticism is set to peak crazy. In February, the ruling 'traffic light' coalition – a cobbled-together, slow motion car crash of an alliance – got its ass handed to it in a snap election. That this would be the outcome was not unexpected, but an existential threat haunted the political nobility.

A not insignificant section of the population had shown itself to be distressingly resistant to the constant excoriation of the AfD, Germany's populist insurgents, and the odds of an acceptable outcome were falling rapidly. To complicate matters further, the freshly minted BSW was odds-on to get at least 5% of the vote, thus ensuring that another tranche of seats – two to three dozen – would be out of the reach of the elites. (In German elections, those with less than 5% of the vote merely receive a Blankety Blank chequebook and pen and are then cast into the political wilderness.) Desperate times lend themselves to desperate measures.

When the smoke cleared, disaster had been averted by the slimmest of margins. Fortunately, BSW had only managed 4.972% of the vote, missing out by around 13,000 votes.(68) And the AfD, whilst doubling their vote share, didn't quite manage to acquire 25% of the seats in the Bundestag - “a threshold that confers powerful opposition parties special rights and prerogatives,”(69) which would have brought on a fit of the vapours. They were short by six out of a total of 630. So, two remarkably close shaves for the establishment. Their lightly toasted cojones had been yanked from the fire. The blacks and reds could safely ignore the blues and purples. Close, but no cigar.

Figure 5

At this juncture, it may be worth noting that Germany has gone the mail-in voting route, a sensible precaution when there might be a need to massage the figures at some point. On an all-time high turnout of 82.5% - another statistic that might, perhaps, give pause – that translates to over 22 million mail-in ballots.(70) That number didn't include the majority of the 230,000 German voters who live abroad, because they didn't receive the necessary documentation in time.(71) On a pro-rata calculation, the BSW might have expected to pick up around 11,000 of these votes, which would have put them on the cusp of electoral relevance.

There is good reason to suspect that they shouldn't have needed the help. An 'error' in the count in Aachen, a city of over 260,000 souls, allocated their 7.24% of the vote to another party.(72) Whilst this 'glitch' was eventually corrected, a pattern of flaws and repeated errors across Germany – mostly to the detriment of the BSW – has now come to light, not that it will make any difference.(73) The fix is already in and undoing it now would mean that the elites would have to break bread with 'enemies of democracy'. And,of course, if they neutered the BSW, there is no reason to suppose that the AfD's mishap wasn't similarly manufactured.

The new Chancellor-to-be, knowing that he didn't have the supermajority he needed to amend the constitution, instead abused the voting public by using the ghost parliament – 81 days after its dissolution – to demolish Germany's strict debt brake and grant the old parliament's kingmaker (the execrable Greens) a blank cheque for whatever Net Zero nonsense they desired, as well as prostrating himself and being the bottom to the Social Democrats' top, despite those parties being the two biggest losers in the election,(74) thus proving the wisdom of H.L. Mencken's maxim:

“Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard.”(75)

The German people ought to be outraged, because they've just had a turbo-charged version of what they voted out thrust upon them before the latest traitors have even taken power, but it's all quiet on the western front, so far. More fool them.

There are two further examples of rampant malfeasance, both in countries that have flitted across news cycles in recent weeks, without attracting any sensible analysis, but a one-off in the UK is also noteworthy in two regards; firstly, the electoral system has a reputation for soundness and, secondly and ironically, the comic ineptitude of the steal tends to support that hypothesis. As an example of how far the elites are prepared to go, it is second to none.

Andrew Bridgen, after fourteen years as MP for a constituency in Lancashire, lost his seat in spectacular fashion in the general election of 2024. Of every hundred people that had voted for him at the previous election, 95 decided that, on this occasion, they would either stay home or that there was better value elsewhere.(76) Bridgen had won an allegedly unwinnable seat in 2010 and had increased his share of the vote in the following three election, with 62.8% (a total of 33,811) being his highpoint in 2019.(77) This time around, he managed to attract 1,568 votes and lost his deposit.(78)

Strangely, the winner of the seat and the runner-up do not appear to be top-notch opposition. Labour's Amanda Hack, ascendant, has a following of 2,431 on X. Tory Chris Smith, first loser, clocks in at 1,366. Bridgen has 261,900.(79) He enjoyed over 95% name recognition on the doorstep and had been endorsed by no less a luminary than RFK Jnr. But, even though (or because) he was;

“...a popular MP, fighting David-and-Goliath causes considered taboo by the government but essential by the electorate, he had become a thorn in the Conservative government’s side, and he was expelled in April 2023. Facing ferocious opposition from his own party, he exposed the Horizon Post Office scandal, fought for recognition for the covid vaccine injured and bereaved, and highlighted the iniquity for those facing compulsory house purchases to make way for the HS2 rail link.”(80)

… he had to go. While the conspirators covered their tracks to a degree – cancelling an exit poll two weeks prior to the election that would, no doubt, have been irreconcilable with the result -(81) there were numerous anomalies concerning the ballot boxes, no explanations and ballots were still being validated – after a four hour delay until two am – when the election result was called.(82) Not subtle, but the message had been sent; the elites have no compunction about ridding themselves of their turbulent priests.

Mighty Moldova, yet another pawn in the Grand Game (otherwise known as the attempted splintering of Russia), may have served as the template for the German's jolly jape at their overseas voters' expense. Only the government there dropped all pretence of fairness, not that they had much choice in the matter, as the incumbent president – darling of the West, pro the war and proud possessor of a Romanian passport – would have received a comprehensive shellacking without a thumb and four fingers on the scale. Her opponent knew what was coming, as he detailed the strategy in advance.(83)

Moldovans who actually live in Moldova didn't want her, neither did the citizens of Transnistria, nor the Moldovans living in Russia (of which there were 400,000 plus). This inconvenient reality was overcome by providing sufficient resources for the Western-based diaspora and disenfranchising Transnistria and the ex-pat communities that were unlikely to be willing to get with the programme. The number of polling stations in Transnistria was reduced from forty four to thirty and only two were opened in Russia – down from seventeen, previously – and they were only provided with 10,000 ballots.(84)(85) (The Estonians went one better and revoked the voting rights of 80,000 resident Russians, because they failed to organise a “massive protest on the streets” in support of Ukraine).(86)

Despite this kneecapping of large parts of the Moldovan diaspora, a record number of overseas voters cast ballots (allegedly)(87) and 83% of them backed the elites' approved candidate. Again, allegedly. As previously noted, mail-in ballots are the gift that keeps on giving to those with nary a passing interest in the will of the plebs.

The other recent poster-child for elite meddling is South Korea. Western reporting on the country's ongoing paroxysms may represent the gold standard in gaslighting; this in a crowded field. When buzzwords such as 'insurrection' and 'impeachment' start getting thrown around with reckless abandon we know that, if we are able to clear the fog, we will find ourselves in comfortably familiar territory.

If anything, the South Korean political establishment is the least concerned with appearances, which is why the media is having to lie so egregiously. We are told that their president, channelling his inner Mussolini, tried to 'destroy democracy' by declaring martial law, thus precipitating a constitutional crisis. Naturally, all right-thinking people would be suitably appalled and then shift their attention to other matters. What is actually happening is a near carbon-copy of the US Deep State/Democrat partnership, which grossly manipulates elections and then spits the dummy when a populist party has sufficient minerals to enable it to fight back. The ongoing struggle is also a reminder that, to globalist elites, China is an ally, not an opponent. And that Type B personalities aren't just a Western problem.

The now ex-President is a populist, elected in 2022. In the run-up to his election, he enjoyed a comfortable lead in the polls of around 4%. He won by 0.73%. His Leftist opponent, expected to get 40% of the vote, managed to accrue nearly 48% instead.(88) It has the feel of a near-miss, South Korea's version of 2016's 'Hillary'. The elites had taken out a conservative president in 2017 – by impeachment, over what looks a lot like a fabricated scandal – and surfed the wave of public discontent to victory but, in the absence of a similar circuit-breaker, they were undone. Not to worry, though. They've had the legislature sewn up since 2020.

Which is a bit of a puzzler. I'm not convinced that large swathes of voters go for populists at presidential level and then seek to balance their power by casting their ballots for the socialists in the general election. I've not heard of an electorate with those tastes. In 2020, the fraud likely centred on voting machines and the QR codes on early ballots and mail-ins.(89) A familiar pattern was observed; a populist is winning on election day, but loses once other ballots are counted.(90)(91) The disparity was around 25%,(92) with the eventual loser enjoying a 12.5% lead on the day itself and the Leftist a similar margin in early and mail-in ballots.

Statistically, due to the law of large numbers - “a mathematical principle that states the average of results obtained from a large number of independent random samples will converge to the true value” -(93) the two possible explanations for these anomalies are divine intervention or fraud.(94) And it happened in all 253 districts, nationwide. History then repeated itself in 2024, the result being that South Korea has a conservative president, yet nearly two thirds of the legislature is comprised of the opposition.

The National Election Commission (NEC) and a shadowy NGO called the Association of World Election Bureaus insist that all is well. Those assurances are somewhat undermined by the USAID logos on their websites and its 'partnership' with South Korea's own administrative state.(95)(96) The Chinese are also all over South Korea like a rash,(97) but it is the woke, globalist ideology that the Leftists are trying to force onto what is a traditional conservative, family-focussed culture.

The Korean Leftists have effectively crippled the government. Between 10^th May 2022 and 3^rd December 2024, they filed twenty-two impeachments against prosecutors, state officials and members of the cabinet.(98) Many more have since followed. They also kiboshed the President's budget, gutting energy R&D and cutting funding for Korea's ballistic missile defence system.(99) They are a holy terror. So, the President fought back. Armed with a 2023 report from the intelligence services which revealed that the election commission's internal system is connected to the internet, he declared Martial Law and, within three minutes, police were inside the NEC, looking to seize evidence of fraud.(100)(101)

He was not only within his rights, constitutionally, he was also forced into taking action in this way. The judiciary and the NEC are in bed with each other, the chances of obtaining a search warrant were effectively zero and the Supreme Court had made a habit of slow-walking election fraud cases, then finding for the NEC, evidence be damned.(102) These ballots, which showed no signs of handling, were apparently made from 'memory paper' “that snaps back to its original state of stiffness.”(103)

Figure 7

The Left was, nonetheless, predictably apoplectic, despite the fact that the period of Martial Law only lasted six hours and had no effect on the general population. So, they impeached the President, tried to arrest him for 'insurrection' using a police body which lacked jurisdiction and somehow forced South Korea's Constitutional Court to get shot of him. The only thing they didn't manage was to get their own sworn in instead, although that is merely delaying the inevitable, as the NEC's ability to game the upcoming election presumably remains intact:

“It is looking like up until April 1st, the Justices were leaning to nullify the impeachment until the senior judge changed his mind and the other judges fell into place. Unclear what changed his mind, but this is one of the differences in the South Korean and American Court systems, there is this atmosphere of conforming to the consensus in South Korea.”(104)

Another domino down, then. More steals. With a coup d'état thrown in, for good measure. Of course, if possible, prevention is superior to cure, a truism that has not been lost on the elites, which is why they are also doing their level best to remove nailed-on populist winners from the ballot paper.

Our Moldovan friends are once again in the mix. In addition to deploying a collector's item of a trick – enshrining a globalist priority in the constitution via a rigged referendum, thus depth charging one of the opposition's central policy positions, a workaround that has also been floated in the UK -(105)(106) they are also arresting politicians. When this tactic is utilised, it's usually either due to claims of financial impropriety or some variation on the Russia! Russia! Russia! trope. In this case, Evgenia Gutsul, the elected leader of an autonomous region within Moldova and strident critic of the government's Western sycophancy, is in the clink accused of illegal campaign financing.(107) Naturally, the government is adamant that it's all a big coincidence, not political targetting.

Over in Gay Paree, Macron's wholly independent judiciary is a few steps ahead. They've secured a conviction against Marine Le Pen, current front runner in the 2027 presidential race,(108) for (you've guessed it) financial impropriety, in this case using EU funds (between 2009-2016) to pay staff who worked for her party, instead of using it to pay parliamentary aides, despite the fact that the same staff performed both functions and other politicians did exactly the same.(109) There's also another tiny problem – the legislation that is being used to bar her from office as part of her sentence is a more recent addition to the law:

“Second, Le Pen will argue that the law used to bar her from office – the loi Sapin II– should not apply retroactively. The misconduct for which she’s been convicted dates from 2004 to 2016. But the provision of the Sapin II Act that allows judges to impose immediate ineligibility for financial offences only came into force in 2017. Le Pen’s legal team will argue that applying it retroactively violates the principle that harsher penalties cannot be imposed for past conduct.”(110)

Although strictly a barrack-room lawyer, I would have thought that the decision also trashes a legal principle, which holds that, while the perp can willingly choose to violate the law, the consequences of doing so should be known at the time. Retroactively changing the penalty for a crime does not, therefore, pass the smell test. Still, the Left and the mainstream media (I repeat myself) are still ululating about how taking the Far Right demagogue off the board is “a good day for French democracy”.(111) Sometimes, they are beyond parody.

The Romanian version of this particular game is pretty similar, but with an additional dash of Russophobia. The initial unpersoning of Călin Georgescu, achieved by the annulment of the first round of the presidential election when it was clear that he would win the second, was both a tacit admission of a colossal misjudgement on behalf of the globalists and further confirmation that they had settled on a weapon of last resort, the back-up in the ankle holster – the judiciary, in all its many guises. And now, he too has been arrested and barred from competing in the rerun.(112)

This angle of attack should not have been in any way surprising – more a question of when and where, rather than if. Trump's many travails during his wilderness years offered a template of sorts, with advocates and judges working harmoniously towards preordained conclusions. It gradually became apparent that, instead of black-robed, impartial arbiters of truth, America's courts were stuffed with partisans.

Perhaps there are also some who had already noticed that this guardrail had been compromised during the Covid debacle and that the law itself could be weaponised without pushback. Boris' government in the UK provided us with a prime example. Here is what used to be true. Laws were crafted which reflected principle; in the Western world at least, we did not have to think too hard about the legitimacy of the law, because it was underpinned by a constitution, a Bill of Rights or equivalent thereof.

There was an acceptance that new law would not run afoul of the principles espoused in those foundational documents. The legal framework of a nation state was, effectively, the tactical deployment of those principles. As such, there was a nexus between legitimacy and legality. Come the 'pandemic', most of us were probably still labouring under that misapprehension.

But it's amazing what a manufactured emergency can accomplish, when the courts chose to punt instead of doing their job. Then we discover that constitutional norms, whether explicitly set (as in constitutional democracies) or arrived at via common law and precedent, are as much use as a chocolate fireguard. Johnson's handlers certainly had no truck with them. They realised that they needed to start at point B, whilst pretending that it was Point A.

It wasn't as though the government was hamstrung or that adequate legislation did not already exist. There was a perfectly adequate 2004 Act on the books, although that was half-reasonable in its provisions and had an element of parliamentary scrutiny.(113) But giving MPs regular opportunities to put their views on the record is a sub-optimal outcome, redolent of actual democracy. Far better to ram through framework regulations using a less appropriate 1984 law instead, which could be expanded as and when, without any oversight other than the government's own 'experts'.

So, that's what happened. On 16th March, 2020, the secretary of state was telling parliament that '”unnecessary social contact should cease”; the Prime Minister, Boris Johnson, indicated that this was “advice”, an unnecessary intervention as speeches in the House of Commons and legislation have always been separate entities. As to what constituted “unnecessary social contact”, who knew? The government's Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies (SAGE) weighed in with its considered opinion, which was that there was “clear evidence to support additional social distancing measures be introduced as soon as possible.”(114) And, after a week of coordinated flapping, the coronavirus laws were passed and parliamentarians were banished to their constituencies.(115)

They had been railroaded by a simple, but effective, wholly artificial moral panic. The key to its success was speed. The public was equally bamboozled. In the resultant panic, the majority didn't mind having their fundamental rights ripped away because, well, it was necessary and we're halfway conditioned to it already. The government told us so. And, when it's happened once, it's much easier to do it again...and again. The precedent is all important.

However, once one hacked one's way through all the usual lawyerly BS, it was readily apparent that the regulations were ultra vires; acts that require legal authority but which are done without it. They were also rather glaringly in breach of the Human Rights Act of 1998.(116) Former Supreme Court Justice, Lord Sumption, noted that the lockdown measures lacked any legal basis and formed part of a response to a 'pandemic' that was “a monument of collective hysteria and government folly,”(117) an assessment that is only half right – there was no folly involved. Sumption also had this to say:

“The sheer scale on which the government has sought to govern by decree, creating new criminal offences, sometimes several times a week on the mere say-so of ministers, is in constitutional terms truly breathtaking. This is how freedom dies. When societies lose their liberty, it is not usually because some despot has crushed it under his boot. It is because people voluntarily surrendered their liberty out of fear of some external threat.”(118)

In any event, Mr Simon Dolan, businessman, was deeply unimpressed, so he sought a judicial review of the lock-down measures. The Court of Appeals had the opportunity to set the record straight, but opted to play politics rather than rule on the underlying legality of the rules. Circular logic was the order of the day, because to delve into the detail and then reject Dolan's petition would have been next-to-impossible. Far better not to go there. Instead, “because the Government believed it was doing the right thing, it was doing the right thing.”(119)

Across the pond, the same legerdemain was unfolding, but with two hot potatoes rather than one. The US Supreme Court (SCOTUS) managed to largely remain above the fray vis-a-vis the Covid tyranny throughout 2020, but it had its work cut trying to justify multiple punts regarding the stolen election in November. That hardy perennial, 'lack of standing', was pressed into service once more and a case brought by Texas against four other states – all of whom introduced unconstitutional changes designed to aid voter fraud – was kicked into the long grass; even though SCOTUS is supposed to be the arbiter in state versus state disputes.(120) The court did the same with a case from Pennsylvania, first ruling (prior to the election) that no harm had yet been caused and then, once it had, scheduling a hearing in February 2021 and declaring the case moot, because it was now too late; the infraction had already occurred.(121) Seemingly, the majority has no shame.

It wasn't until August of that year that an allegedly conservative Justice, Amy Coney Barrett, refused to grant a group of Indiana University students a hearing, thus approving forced 'vaccinations' as a condition of returning to school.(122) That decision opened the floodgates and a slew of similarly spineless rulings followed, including a refusal to prohibit the US Air Force from disciplining service members who didn't want to be turned into a pin cushion.(123) And, using a form of logic previously unknown to man, the court binned Biden's attempt to impose a vaccine-or-test mandate on upwards of 80 million American workers, while simultaneously allowing a 'vaccine' mandate for most health workers to be enforced.(124)

And, just like that, not that anybody really noticed, new life was breathed into Thomas Jefferson's warning;

“... to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions: a very dangerous doctrine indeed and one which would place us under the despotism of an Oligarchy.”(125)

James Madison was of similar mind:

“The cumulation of all powers, Legislative, Executive and Judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.”(126)

But that is where we are. And we are here by design. We have been conditioned to accept that the courts have the final say. That's because the courts are compromised. If they weren't, if they were genuinely impartial and also the final decision-maker, then they would be in control – not the elites. Which is a concept that we should, by now, consider risible. Instead, the supremacy of the judicial branch provides the elites with a final backstop:

“Who writes the laws? Lawyers. Who enforces the laws? Lawyers. Who interprets the laws? Lawyers. Who decides whether you get justice? Lawyers. It’s a closed-loop system where they make the rules, enforce the rules, and then tell you why the rules can’t be changed. It’s not a justice system—it’s a control system. And then of course they have immunity.”(127)

And in the US, SCOTUS has accrued enormous power. As noted, it is not obliged to take cases on. Nor is it required to explain why it refuses writ. In addition, it will only become involved if four of the nine justices assent.(128) All sorts of abominations can besmirch the lower courts, but there is no guarantee that they will be corrected by SCOTUS. Americans are supposed to cleave to the notion that the court is wise and just and apolitical, but that is arrant nonsense:

“It is a myth that judges are apolitical arbiters of sacrosanct legal principles. Judges are policymakers who seek to get results they want in cases and to establish legal principles and policies they prefer. They are fully part of the struggle for power that is the essence of politics.”(129)

If anything, the Israelis and the Brazilians have got it even worse. In those countries, the Supreme Court not only has the final say on constitutional matters, it also decides what the elected government can and can't do. And, in the case of Brazil, the court has abandoned any pretence of legitimacy.

Although navigating the byzantine innards of Brazilian politics is frequently unrewarding, the circumstances that have led to a de facto judicial dictatorship are pretty straightforward. A vast corruption scandal, unearthed by Operation Car Wash, swept up much of the Brazilian elite from March 2014 onwards. Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva (aka Lula), the Leftist former president, was one of them. He was sentenced to twelve years in prison in 2018, but was out on appeal nineteen months later after the Supreme Court took control, reversing a previous ruling and stating that suspects could not be held in prison until every avenue of appeal had been exhausted, something of a boon for those with deep pockets,(130) who would be able to drag the process out for years.

Next up, the court annulled his convictions on a technicality.(131) This allowed him to run for office once more and, in 2022, as previously noted, he purloined the presidential sash once again. Justice Alexandre de Moraes then decided to leave the reservation far behind, not that he hadn't already demonstrated a rare talent for overreach, by jailing critics of the Supreme Court and those who cast doubt on the efficacy of the 'vaccines' or lock-downs.(132) He had also ordered social media companies to take down the social media accounts of members of Congress and those of over a dozen right wing commentators.(133)

And when Bolsonaro's supporters demonstrated against the stolen election, having physically trashed the court, Moraes sought revenge. He ordered the protest camps dissolved and all persons in then to be sent to prison “under charges of terrorist acts, criminal association, violent abolition of the rule of law, coup, threats, persecution, and incitation to crime.”(134) 942 were held without bail and all were forcibly 'vaccinated'.(135) Then, in time honoured fashion, he used the power of his supplementary gig – head of the Superior Electoral Court – to nullify Bolsonaro's political rights for eight years without so much as a criminal conviction to be used as a justification.(136) Once again, a populist sawn off at the knees by Leftists, paid for by USAID and the American Deep State elites,(137) but also a shameless judicial coup.

By way of contrast, Israel's constitutional crisis has been festering since the 1980s. Its Supreme Court – in concert with the security services and the office of Attorney General – rules the roost, appointing its own Justices and all other judges. Elected politicians have absolutely no say in it. The Attorney General gets to decide which government decisions she will defend before the court and which she won't. So, another closed-loop system that completely circumvents democracy. All it takes is a complaint to the Supreme Court which goes undefended and government policy is upended.

Neither is the Prime Minister permitted to hire and fire security chiefs, because the Supreme Court believes that this power is also its to wield – despite the existence of a law which says otherwise. Additionally, in 2023, the court struck down a legitimate constitutional amendment simply because it didn't agree with it. In March of this year, Netanyahu – elected on a promise to reform the judicial system – had finally had enough. His government passed a bill bringing judicial appointments under government control,(138) sacked the insubordinate head of the Shin Bet security agency and began the process of dismissing the Attorney General.

The Supreme Court tried to intervene and the government ignored it.(139) The mockingbird media did what it always does when the hated Bibi tries to do his job; lie about a 'right-wing power grab'. It's actually a long-overdue attempt to return power to the people:

“The showdown over the Shin Bet is not symbolic—it is existential. It encapsulates the various elements of the elite that are trying to cripple the elected government.”(140)

The elites in question are Israel's traditional secular Ashkenazis, who have been gradually losing their political dominance since Begin's election victory in 1977. They have used the institutions that they still control to entrench their influence at the expense of elected officials who represent Israel's predominantly conservative population. These institutions are same entities that all Western elites dominate; the courts, the academy, finance, much of the administrative state and the intelligence community.

Plus, in Israel's case, the IDF General Staff,(141) which means that governmental defiance of the Supreme Court runs (and has previously run) the risk of provoking a military coup in response. The battle is far from over. Dismantling a structure that has been forty years in the making is not the work of a day or two and the many-headed Hydra is going to give it the beans, although it seems likely that, post-October 7^th, Israel has little sympathy for head spy of an agency which failed so miserably. Nor does the majority of the public now have much sympathy for the anti-reform/colour revolution-type protests, which also featured mass walkouts by reservists, providing encouragement to Israel's enemies. The momentum is with the government, not the gatekeeping elites.

It's beginning to look that way in the US, too, notwithstanding the fact that activist judges have initiated a controlled demolition of the judicial system, trusting that SCOTUS and the sleeper cells in the DoJ have got their back. Within less than two months of Trump's inauguration, 119 legal challenges had been filed before all manner of judges, most of them humble appointees in district courts.(142) Three weeks later, that number has risen to 195.(143)

Judges have issued Temporary Restraining Orders (TROs) on many diverse executive actions; an attempt to turn around planes deporting Venezuelan gang members;(144) many attempts to prevent agencies from being shuttered;(145) a block on a ban on transgenders in the military; and an order restricting the ability of the administration to truthfully haul Perkins Coie – the law firm at the heart of Russiagate and much election interference – over the coals.(146)(147) They've even attempted to reinstate fired employees.(148)

District judges issued nationwide injunctions and assumed powers that they simply do not possess under the law, “in paroxysms of frothing Trump hatred”.(149) One particularly hubristic individual – a Judge Boasberg – openly subverted the Alien Enemies Act and the Supreme Court,(150) which had made its position clear over 200 years ago. While the court slapped him down, no further sanction has been imposed.(151) Neither are there consequences for disregarding rules mandating that those who bring suit against the government, must give “security in an amount that the court considers proper”.(152) As this would provide protection against frivolous lawsuits, judges have simply refused to comply with a federal rule:

“In issuing sweeping nationwide injunctions that compel federal rehiring, halt deportations, or command public expenditures—all without requiring a just and proportionate bond—the judiciary isn’t merely encroaching on Congress. It is usurping the executive’s constitutional role.”(153)

It may very well be that the vast majority of these roadblocks are eventually cleared by the Supreme Court and that the process itself is intended to be the punishment. But Chief Justice Roberts, allegedly a conservative, is almost certainly a fifth columnist. He is a good friend of Norm Eisen, a Leftist lawyer who has spent the best part of a decade orchestrating lawfare campaigns against Trump and his associates.(154) He's also a member of an invite-only club of judges, along with the aforementioned Boasberg and other Leftist judges who are currently sabotaging the administration.(155) The cherry on top is the news that his right hand man – Sheldon Snook;

“...is married to Mary McCord, involved officially in every lawfare prank against Mr. Trump since RussiaGate, when she was U.S. Assistant Attorney-General for National Security — and who then went on as counsel for Jerrold Nadler’s House Committee Trump Impeachment No. 1, and the J-6 House Committee, both actions of stupendous bad faith.”(156)

There have been rumours about Roberts for many years. Some commentators have gone on the record, accusing him of either being a Deep state plant or a victim of kompromat and his voting record is increasingly dire and he went to bat for Boasberg when Trump said that the latter ought to be impeached.(157) Ana a somewhat combustible attorney by the name of Lin Wood has made a number of allegations, none of which have been addressed, despite Wood inviting Roberts to sue:

"A bit more on CJ John Roberts. I have publicly accused him & Justice Breyer of being profane anti-Trumpers. I have linked Roberts to illegal adoption, Jeffrey Epstein, pedophilia & prior knowledge of Scalia's death. Did Roberts skip class on defamation? Maybe not…"(158)

There's also this, from Epstein's flight logs to his island – which may be something or nothing.

Figure 7

It wouldn't be unreasonable to suppose that some of the other conservative judges on the court are also squishy, if only by reason of intimidation. They would have reason to be apprehensive - Chuck Schumer, in a fit of pique at the prospect that SCOTUS would overturn a federal abortion edict in 2020, threatened two of the Justices by name:

“I want to tell you, Gorsuch. I want to tell you, Kavanaugh. You have released the whirlwind, and you will pay the price. You won’t know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions.”(159)

Two years later, in the midst of the liberal meltdown that accompanied the leak of the draft opinion suggesting that SCOTUS was about to overturn Roe v Wade (a sacred text for the 'reproductive rights' cult), a Nicholas John Roske was arrested near Kavanaugh's house whilst in possession of a Glock 17, a knife, zip ties, pepper spray and duct tape.(160) As he had travelled from California to Maryland, the cops took him seriously when he stated that he had intended to kill the Justice. He has since pleaded guilty to attempted murder.(161)

The Feds, under the Biden administration, also refused to enforce a law that forbids demonstrations at the homes of judges, thus condemning the six Right-leaning Justices to months of protests.(162) The latter may have also noted how the Summer of Love in 2020 went largely unpoliced (and unpunished) and that the current modus operandi – torching Tesla dealerships – plus the macabre deification of Luigi Mangioni are proof that violence is still very much an agenda item for the elite-funded, Loony Left. It would not, therefore, be a surprise if some of the Justices prove to be less than robust in the near future, lest they make themselves targets of the Molotov cocktails.

It seems to me likely that the establishment is also trying to goad Trump into a response that can be represented as a 'constitutional crisis', which the Democrats can then exploit. There may very well be such a crisis, but one that's triggered by the judiciary, not the administration. The difficult-to-misinterpret language of Article II of the Constitution - “The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America” -(163) has been systematically elided by those who would seek to subvert democratic control and, at some point soon, Trump may have to risk more 'sploding heads' by pointing out an inconvenient truth:

“Nothing in the Constitution makes the judiciary the exclusive arbiter of the meaning of that document, and, at various points in our history, both Congress and the executive branch have, in effect, asserted the power to determine the meaning of the Constitution. During FDR’s administration, he asserted that it was necessary to save the Constitution from the Court and the Court from itself. Whether that happens again may soon be decided by the justices.”(164)

Roberts may make pragmatic decisions, as the Chief Justice did in Roosevelt's day, in the belief that he would be destroying the Court's influence if he forced Trump to ignore him. Or he may go to the mat for the Deep State. It will depend how much black the elites have on him (if any), because the battle for control has an existential feel to it. Trump is clearly on a mission to demolish the front-of-house Administrative State, the power structure that runs America. The elites cannot allow that to happen:

“The jurisdictional overreach and clear political bias is astonishing, but it makes sense. The US President is not supposed to have any real power, he’s only meant to act as a figurehead to make us peasants feel like our votes matter. He’s not supposed to actually follow through on his campaign promises and effect legitimate reform according to the will of the people.

Did anyone really think that a reckoning would happen with the endorsement of the courts? The courts have never been the true counterbalance to tyranny, the American people are the counterbalance. Make no mistake, this is a life or death struggle playing out in front of our eyes.”(165)

And so, I suspect that they will push to the limit and beyond, in the US and elsewhere. They are already there in some Western countries, as we have seen. Cancelling elections and arresting populist leaders are not acts that can take place in fully democratic nations, but the globalists don't accept that there are no-go areas. They will use the courts to consolidate their power and they aren't really bothered by propriety. It doesn't have to make sense; it's enough that a judge has said that it does. The laws themselves don't have to be legitimate. As long as they are on the books, that's all that counts. The Digital Services Act in the EU and the Online Services Act in the UK are two such – both abridge the right to freedom of expression, but that proved to be no impediment.

But because we have been conditioned to accept the primacy of the law, we are flummoxed. We lack cohesion and unifying beliefs. We are not principled. There was no upswell of protest when these laws (and others) were proposed and there isn't one now. Many people are uninformed, others are cowed, some don't care and still others probably approve. The framework that is supposed to protect us has gradually been weaponised against us.

The gloves are now well and truly off. The response to the pandemic was co-ordinated and global. While some of us might have had no objections to the initial lock-downs are alleged preventative measures, it gradually became apparent that all mandated mitigations had no merit and were simply a mechanism for forcing compliance with what had suddenly transformed into authoritarian regimes. None of our precious rights survived first contact with the enemy. And the judiciary caved, everywhere. We were discombobulated:

“Democracy as an idea, plus the rule of law, died in those months and years, deferring always to the global institutions and financial systems that assumed de facto control of the planet. It was the most astonishing show of universal power on the historical record.”(166)

But, for whatever reasons, the globalist ruling class didn't (or couldn't) close the deal. But now, the cat was out of the bag. The wave of populism that has swept across much of Europe has been a reaction to that glimpse into the abyss. In America, it appears that one elite faction outmanoeuvred another and plumped for Trump. The elites have been forced into ever more obvious attempts to keep their project on track and the courts are their guarantee that their will will be done. I would expect that to continue.

We are being starved of options and, soon enough, it'll come down to one of two. Perhaps not in the US, if Trump prevails. But elsewhere, the noose is tightening:

“No society can exist unless the laws are respected to a certain degree. The safest way to make laws respected is to make them respectable... There is in all of us a strong disposition to believe that anything lawful is also legitimate. This belief is so widespread that many persons have erroneously held that things are ‘just’ because law makes them so.”(166)

At present, judges are abusing law that they find inconvenient and politicians are passing new law that is illegitimate. The options that we'll have will be limited to either accepting our fate or breaking a big taboo and refusing to comply. The elites are essentially daring us to call their bluff and play a new game, sans their rules, and they're betting that we don't have the courage to do so. But, sooner or later, we are surely going to have to make a choice, because backing down is not in their nature. And it would be useful if we were all on the same page, but that’s our Achilles heel.

Citations

(1) https://brownstone.org/articles/concientizacion-and-the-rebirth-of-critical-thinking/

(2) https://dailysceptic.org/2025/03/31/the-liberal-order-cannot-defend-itself-which-is-why-it-needs-christianity/

(3-6)Ditto

(7) https://mansworldmag.online/on-becoming-a-crusader/

(8) https://www.newsweek.com/church-endorses-transitions-transgender-children-all-ages-1734866

(9) https://americanreformer.org/2025/04/those-hideous-scales/

(10)https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2020/03/the_64_civil_rights_act_and_the_origins_of_political_correctness.html

(11) Ditto

(12) https://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/fifty-years-1965-immigration-and-nationality-act-continues-reshape-united-states

(13) https://conspiracyforever66.home.blog/2025/04/03/we-are-facing-the-most-dangerous-totalitarian-movement-in-history-freedom-corruption-and-the-new-world-order/

(14) https://www.lewrockwell.com/2025/04/doug-casey/bipartisan-assault-on-free-speech/