“Among the prebureaucratic types of domination the most important one by far is patriarchal domination. Essentially it is based not on the official’s commitment to an impersonal purpose and not on obedience to abstract norms, but on a strictly personal loyalty.”
Max Weber[i]
***
“The evolution of mankind toward the rationality of positive science was for Comte a distinctly progressive development; for [Max] Weber it was a process of disenchantment and de-divinization of the world. By the overtones of his regret that divine enchantment had seeped out of the world, by his resignation to rationalism as a fate to be borne but not desired, by the occasional complaint that his soul was not attuned to the divine, he rather betrayed his brotherhood in the sufferings of Nietzsche – though in spite of his confession, his soul was sufficiently attuned to the divine not to follow Nietzsche into his tragic revolt. He knew what he wanted but somehow could not break through to it. He saw the promised land but was not permitted to enter it.”
Eric Voegelin[ii]
***
“Permanent agencies, with fixed jurisdiction, are not the historical rule but rather the exception. This is even true of large political structures such as those of the ancient orient, the Germanic and Mongolian empires of conquest, and of many feudal states. In all these cases, the ruler executes the most important measures through personal trustees, table-companions, or court-servants. Their commissions and powers are not precisely delimited and are temporarily called into being for each case.”
Max Weber[iii]
***
Socrates thought it was “the grossest deception if a good-for-nothing person conveyed the false impression that he was capable of directing the State.”[iv] Given the inept policy shifts of President Donald Trump, given his demands that President Zelenskyy resign, Given the withholding of antimissile weapons already purchased by Ukraine, or the bungled war against Iran, we clearly see before us a good-for-nothing who has practiced gross deception. However sharp Trump’s instincts may have been, his grotesque lies are no longer excusable, no longer explicable as three dimensional chess. Trump has shown that a good-for-nothing can win power through demagogy and media charisma, where “charisma” signifies not the grace of God but a parody of grace; and when this parody is not seen as parody by his followers, this man-as-parody declares himself a national hero while millions cheer. And then, the many-too-many, blinded by self-conceit, follow the monster to his monstrous end (and perhaps to their end as well). What was politically ordered now falls into disorder. Solid ground disappears from beneath our feet. The high tower of civilization, along with our system of checks and balances, faces its ultimate test.
Under the Trump presidency our defensive structures are being wiped away. Our economy is disrupted. How is this possible? Our bureaucracy opened the door to all of it. We eliminated tradition and embraced bureaucracy, the “rules-based-order,” only to find that the inferior man has taken charge of that order, leading us into chaos. This inferior man is a new type, with no moral grounding, with a dilapidated intellect, with inordinate ambition and limited imagination. These inferior men are weak and ineffectual, best represented by Friedrich Nietzsche’s Last Man. What inferior men understand by “rules-based-order” is not what the superior man understood. Inferior men have no personal loyalty and therefore no loyalty to rules. Who, after all, is loyal to his own whip hand? For rules are a whip in the hand of the bureaucrat. When bureaucracy is sovereign, the bureaucrat is above the rules (as the people of the Soviet Union discovered). Whether the inferior man is a Soviet bureaucrat, a Red Chinese bureaucrat, or a Washington, D.C. bureaucrat, power tends to corrupt that which is already weak. Furthermore, the bureaucratic state is the coldest of all cold monsters, which leads to general disenchantment and the advent of dark mythologies (i.e., conspiracy theories). Enter the charismatic spellbinder and his fellow travelers.
Consider the case of a charismatic fellow traveler, Marjorie Taylor Greene; she, a self-admitted know-nothing and sometime Republican congresswoman, now disillusioned – no longer loyal to the spellbinder Donald Trump. In late 2025 Greene pushed for the full release of the Epstein files. Naughty girl, she was summoned to the White House where Trump barked at her. His friends would be hurt if the files were released. Trump demanded that she remove her signature from the offending petition. But she was defiant. Trump then labeled her a lunatic, calling her Majorie Traitor Greene. Death threats were heard from Trump’s yapping dogs, even against Greene’s college-aged son. Trump then revoked his endorsement of Greene and threatened to back a primary challenger to oust her. Greene resigned from Congress. Her most poignant swipe against Trump on leaving Congress? “They all hate him.”
The authority that Trump and Greene have with voters is what the German sociologist Max Weber would call “charismatic authority.” Yet, it is not the gift of grace as much as the gift of combative vitality. Donald Trump is America’s big daddy, insisting that the American system revolve around him. Greene is the latter-day mommy, seeking protection for her babies. Everything here is visceral, even primitive. It is also feudalistic, resembling what we see in crime families, monarchies, and tribal politics. Of course, the United States is not a monarchy. Trump would like to be a monarch, but he is limited by the Constitution and by the Separation of Powers; that is, by Congress and the judiciary. He is also limited by his own stupidity.
However much Donald Trump, as spellbinder, would like to supplant George Washington and frame himself as America’s re-founding father, he cannot achieve such a distinction. He figures in Socrates’ admonition that the greatest fraud is the person who deceives others by persuading them that he is competent although he is worthless. And as the mask of competence is torn from his sagging face, he will find himself embattled on multiple fronts. The more he reaches for greatness, the more apparent his fraud. Not only is Greene against him. The whole system is about to turn on him. Of course, Trump has made enemies. He has also broken promises. Full of braggadocio, he has not delivered on his promises.
Great hopes were projected onto Trump. He promised to make American great again. He said he was a winner. “Under my presidency you will be sick of winning,” he bragged. Some hoped he would restore tradition. Some hoped he would defeat the Washington bureaucracy and “drain the swamp.” Millions were disenchanted with the bureaucratic state. There was disenchantment with open borders. There was disenchantment with leftist elites. Trump promised to take the country back from woke crazies and socialists. What began with applause will probably end in impeachment; for Trump partook of that same corruption afflicting the bureaucracy, afflicting society as a whole.
We are advised to see this situation as part of a larger crisis that civilization is passing through (i.e., the crisis of modernity). Max Weber said that bureaucracy is the exception in history. Patriarchal authority is the rule. You may have a Roman bureaucracy, for example, but without the fatherly figure of the emperor it disintegrates into feudalism (which is grassroots patriarchy). If patriarchy is swept aside and bureaucracy fails, you have an impetus towards charismatic authority, which can revive declining institutions, or modify them. Charismatic authority signifies a chaotic and revolutionary process. Its arrival coincides with the crisis of modernity. Trump’s fraudulence does not invalidate the need for renewal. Neither does it cancel the process of returning to patriarchy; rather, the election of Trump shows that a reversion to patriarchy is now inescapable; that Trump’s wickedness does not cancel human nature or the need to recover masculinity as a positive trait; that however many false starts and setbacks, patriarchy will return – in ten years or ten hundred.
How can this be validated? The authority of the man will return because this authority preserves the woman as woman. Therefore, it also guarantees the child (i.e., the future). Masculine authority is intrinsic to nature. It is written into religion. It is effective in war. The first and original form of authority is that of the man acting as husband and father. If our social engineers think they can destroy patriarchy without destroying themselves, watch how quickly their unnatural order crumbles in the midst of war and economic collapse. Nature always has its revenge on the unnatural.
In this context, Trump signifies an attempted return to patriarchy. Of course, it is a dysfunctional attempt because Trump is psychologically abnormal. Yet the country was receptive; so much so that Trump managed to stop feminism in its tracks on two notable occasions: first, when he stopped Hillary Clinton from being elected president in 2016; the second time, when he stopped Kamala Harris. In both instances a Marxist-feminist was kept out of the White House. The late Barbara Olson, shortly before dying on 9/11, wrote of Hillary Clinton,
“Once the headlines about the pilfered [White House] furniture, the ostentatious and unseemly giftfest, and the last-minute deluge of indefensible pardons receded from view … Hillary was anxious for the moment when she could reassert her position on the national stage, a position she seems to regard as hers by divine right.”[v]
It is also worth remembering how Peggy Noonan, writing in the Wall Street Journal, explained that Hillary was unstoppable:
“You lock the door and she comes in the window, you lock the window and she comes through the floor boards. This is like Alien – she lives in Tom Daschle’s stomach … and then she bursts out of Tom and darts through the room.”
By winning the election of 2016, Trump triumphed over a Gorgon, over a monster that had already burst out of the stomach of the Democratic leadership. Trump was like a mirror, reflecting and amplifying the Gorgon’s nastiness. Hillary Clinton looked at Trump and was turned to stone. Then came Kamala Harris, who burst out of Joe Biden’s stomach and darted through 2024. Trump dispatched this second Gorgon, whose signature laugh produced lethal “subsonic frequencies.” These frequencies did not affect Trump because he is an unnatural creature in his own right. In what does this consist? It is one thing to be a Gorgon, it is another thing to wish the Milky Way Galaxy renamed as the Donald Trump Galaxy.
In the last three elections society reached for a patriarch. Trump projected that image and was elected twice. Deep down America wants a patriarch, however inverted or perverted he might be. For those who remember the iconic television series Father Knows Best, there exists a recollection of what fathers are supposed to be. This ideal has been eclipsed by a distorted feminist portrayal of patriarchal authority as violent, tyrannical, and predatory. Yet even this distorted image of male authority is preferred by voters to the Gorgon. Trump is everything the feminists think of as masculine, having none of the qualities portrayed by the character Jim Anderson (played by Robert Young). Trump is too loud, too brazen, too combative to be like Jim Anderson, who was the mid-century American archetype of the idealized father: calm, self-sacrificing, deeply patient, able to de-escalate difficult situations, and rooted in traditional morality. Trump, on the other hand, is emotionally unrestrained, impatient, and always ready to escalate in a tit-for-tat situation. Jim Anderson never employed public shaming, name-calling, open mockery, or assigning nicknames. Trump constantly employs shaming, name-calling, etc. Unlike Donald Trump, Jim Anderson frequently apologized to his wife and children for his own shortcomings, or when his advice failed. His own flaws were used as a teaching tool. With Donald Trump mistakes are never admitted. Someone else is always to blame. During a campaign rally in Bullhead City, Arizona, Trump called himself a “freaking genius.” This is how Trump wants to be seen. For Jim Anderson it was enough to be a good father.
Trump’s more recent female antagonist, Marjorie Taylor Greene, is not a feminist in the conventional sense and represents a special case. She is no Donna Stone (the titular character of The Donna Reed Show). While Donna Reed represented the ideal mother of the 1950s, Marjorie Taylor Greene represents something different. Donna Stone’s strength was defined by her diplomacy, composure, and emotional intelligence. She wielded influence within her home and community through soft persuasion, wit, and by serving as a steady moral compass. Marjorie Taylor Greene’s political brand is built on unfiltered aggression and conflict. Rather than projecting calm, she projects grievance with fiery rhetoric and public confrontations with colleagues. Her strength is in her willingness to burn bridges.
If the German sociologist Max Weber were to analyze the shift from the 1950s TV archetypes (Jim Anderson and Donna Stone) to modern political figures (Donald Trump and Marjorie Taylor Greene), he might view it as a textbook example of a major transition or reversion by way of charismatic authority. It is a transition dictated by our “disenchantment with the world.” Out of this comes a new cult (i.e., the cult of Donald Trump). Traditional society is patriarchal. Charismatic authority is revolutionary. Trump mimics what is traditional, occasionally paying lip service to it. The same can be said for Marjorie Taylor Greene. Yet he overrides tradition even as he destroys the rationale of the bureaucratic administrators. The masses cheer him because they are dissatisfied with socialism’s bureaucratic engineers (i.e., the ruling mandarin class). Bureaucratic rationalizations are not as nurturing as a father’s love. Trump presents the image of a father who wants to “Make American Great Again.” At the very least he pretends to love his followers (though this love is transactional). According to Weber,
“The mere fact of recognizing the personal mission of a charismatic master establishes his power. Whether it is more active or passive, this recognition derives from the surrender of the faithful to the extraordinary and unheard-of, to what is alien to all regulation and tradition and therefore is viewed as divine – surrender which arises from distress or enthusiasm. Because of this mode of legitimation genuine charismatic domination knows no abstract laws and regulations and no formal adjudication. It’s ‘objective’ law flows from the highly personal experience of divine grace and god-like heroic strength and rejects all external order solely for the sake of glorifying genuine prophetic and heroic ethos. Hence, in a revolutionary and sovereign manner, charismatic domination transforms all values and breaks all traditional and rational norms: ‘It has been written …, but I say unto you….’”[vi]
To portray oneself as a prophet and hero, a leader must believe in himself, believe in his self-proclaimed mission, believe that he possesses godlike powers to achieve godlike ends. One must evangelize the masses, proclaiming not only the “good news” that salvation is at hand but that the leader is God (or God-like). One must have the nerve to take credit for everything and claim the power to do anything. “I alone can do it,” Trump has said.
Because the socializing bureaucrats have affected a revolution in human consciousness through schools and university education, through legal impositions and influence over the media, their destruction of tradition has no enchantments. They have made themselves boring, doctrinaire, and their policies produce feelings of revulsion in the masses. “By contrast,” noted Weber, “the power of charisma rests upon the belief in revelation and heroes, upon the conviction that certain manifestations … [rest] upon ‘heroism’ of an ascetic, military … magical [kind], according to its revolutionary will.”[vii]
Weber’s sociological framework – specifically his theory on the three types of authority (traditional, rational-legal, and charismatic) – offers a profound explanation for why the idealized mid-century “patriarch” has been replaced by the modern “political combatant” and self-proclaimed savior. Disenchantment is, for Weber, an historical process where cultural life has become rationalized, calculated, and stripped of sublime, mysterious values. Weber would argue that characters like Jim Anderson and Donna Stone represented a highly manufactured, romanticized synthesis of traditional authority (i.e., parental authority). The natural hierarchy of the family has been, indeed, a fundamental building-block of society for thousands of years. But now the bureaucracy stands against this traditional form of authority so that the balance has tipped in favor of big government and its welfare state, with its rational-legal system of family courts and administrative law judges. In the 1950s people still believed in the family, in the authority of a father. But this belief has been undermined, leaving us in the bureaucratic “iron cage” (Stahlhartes Gehäuse) of a hyper-rationalized society that is, as Eric Voegelin argued, verging on absolute insanity. The quiet wisdom of a suburban father and the diplomacy of a caring mother are no longer idealized in our television dramas. Instead, we watch programs depicting female heroes beating men in hand-to-hand combat. This absurdity is repeated through the craft of television, rationalized by way of the egalitarian values taught in school. This perverse propaganda threatens to turn society into a fiasco. Women are now portrayed as the master sex. Sadly, there is nothing feminine in this mastery. Women have merely been masculinized. And just as a feminine man is ridiculous, a masculinized woman is also ridiculous. Only, we are not allowed to see how ridiculous this is. Even if mastery of the visual arts and related special effects gives feminist propaganda a lease on life, the ideology is nonetheless doomed. The lie continues, decade after decade, to the detriment of women; and this lie goes against the survival of the nation so that survival will one day assert its prerogatives. Then there is the unhappiness that results. As noted by Helen Andrews, “it would be hard to convince an impartial observer that boomer feminism has left women better off when one in five white women are on anti-depressants. Feminism … mostly meant channeling women into paid employment….”[viii]
Please remember that the bureaucracy has been the primary enforcer of feminism in day-to-day life; and there is no romance in bureaucracy, neither is there the love of father or mother. The nanny state is just a pack of nanny-bureaucrats. And who prefers the state as a parent? When people lose faith in the family, because it has been torn apart by a jealous bureaucracy, will they love and honor the bureaucrats? Charismatic figures like Donald Trump and Marjorie Taylor Greene now move into the vacuum. They personify father and mother. Our bureaucratic institutions cannot compete with these (and other) charismatic leaders, however dangerous or stupid they might be.
This is why Trump was elected president twice. When traditional authority has been eroded away, when rational-legal authority is in the process of discrediting itself, Weber suggested the inevitability of charismatic leadership. Here authority comes to rest on “devotion to the exceptional sanctity, heroism, or exemplary character of an individual person.” While Trump and Greene do not possess sanctity or exemplary character, they nonetheless show courage and the appearance of conviction. Weber said that charismatic leaders are fundamentally disruptive. They reject established rules, codes, and institutional decorum. Trump and Greene are classic examples of charismatic leaders who derive their power not from acting like “respectable” institutional figures but from their rejection of institutional respectability.
The supporters of Trump and Greene, though these two figures are now at odds with each other, do not want calm, soft-spoken Jim Anderson or a diplomatic Donna Stone to manage the “iron cage.” They want fighters willing to smash the cage. The public trade-off for this disruption is the acceptance of highly emotional, combative, and unstable political actors.
Having lost faith in the promises of bureaucratic authority, the culture has retreated from mid-century civility and rationalism, choosing instead to invest its faith in the raw, disruptive power of political warriors who promise revolution to an alienated populous. It is here, in the word “alienation,” that we find something more dangerous. The people wanting to escape from the “iron cage” of bureaucratic authority have lost patience. Trump and Greene were elected, in part, to break the power of the bureaucracy and to oppose bureaucratic socialism. However, Trump and Greene are not sophisticated enough to break the cage. Because of their ignorance, and because they have fraudulently laid claim to political competence when they are worth nothing, they cannot succeed. They are unable to follow through on their promises, even if sincerely made. They can, however, nurture a process that leads to violence. This violence will threaten until someone emerges with positive creativity and genuine competence. Of course, it is not easy to break the iron cage of an emerging socialist system. Max Weber famously wrote that the iron cage was the province of “specialists without spirit, sensualists without heart.” Only leaders with spirit and heart can overcome it. Yet the danger is great that false messiahs will emerge. We must remember that all revolutions devour their own children. Tyranny can emerge from the actions of charismatic leaders. Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn wrote,
“The Bolsheviks, for their part, quickly put the Russian character in irons and redirected it to their own ends. With their reverse selection, their deliberate destruction of all that was bright, remarkable, of a higher level – the Bolsheviks set about changing the Russian character root and branch, ripping, pulling, and twisting it.”[ix]
Rather than bringing about a better world, revolutions can make things worse. The socialist revolutions (Marxist and National Socialist) rule through a paralyzing fear, reinforced by a “revolutionary” bureaucracy. It was a fear not only of arrest, said Solzhenitsyn, but fear of an inescapable arbitrary power (i.e., bureaucratic power). Informants were everywhere. Secrecy and distrust were all-pervasive. Anyone who criticized the regime was viewed as an agent provocateur. According to Solzhenitsyn,
“[There was a] total, deafening indifference toward those who perished all around. An overwhelming plume of betrayal. It was unavoidable: If you want to survive, lie. Lie and pretend. In place of all the good that was dying away, ingratitude, cruelty, and a thoroughly rude self-centered ambition now rose….”[x]
Already, under the soft socialist banner – in the universities, in certain businesses – the socialists will destroy your career if you show any sign of active resistance or true independence (heart or spirit). The socialist bureaucrats have corrupted gender, education, science, and entertainment. You can keep your job if you go along and keep your mouth shut. And if you want a promotion you must pay lip service to socialist absurdities. In other words, you must lie and pretend. The emerging bureaucratic regime in the West is not as harsh as that of Lenin’s Russia, but the process of “reverse selection” is the same. Perhaps it is only a matter of time before American institutions become as tyrannical and bloody as the institutions of Soviet Russia, Red China, or North Korea.
If things get worse, people still crave meaning and moral purpose; but survival comes first, along with the desire to escape the iron cage. The rationale of socialist bureaucracy – gently or not-so-gently – makes its prerogatives clear. There are sacred cows and not-so-sacred bulls. Intolerance cynically wears the mask of tolerance for a season. At some point disagreement with the regime will be criminalized. Freethinkers and dissidents will then be dragged into dungeons and torture chambers.
At present we are pushed into the iron cage by Critical Theory and sexual warfare. Atomization, encouraged by the shopping mall regime, is exacerbated by the emergence of warring camps and mad narratives stifling individual reflection. How can a solitary person maintain his individuality under such circumstances? The imperative from every side is to join, to lie, to ignore those who are victimized by a process of intellectual unraveling. Unsurprisingly, this dynamic strips politics of its ethical center, normalizing bad-faith arguments and bad-faith leaders.
To break out of the iron cage we need truthfulness. Given the cynicism and corruption of today, where are we going to find honest people? What happens when honest people find themselves in a dishonest crowd? They are ostracized for the act of thinking. Say something truthful to people who are untruthful and you will find yourself persecuted.
***
Frankenstein and His Monster
The classicist Peter Kingsley wrote, “The spirit of the depths will always be at odds with the spirit of our time, just as … personality will always be in conflict with … superficial wants and needs….”[xi] The truth, which is far from being simple, is sometimes indigestible. Our hold on truth is always fleeting, always momentary in the face of wickedness and stupidity. America is in a crisis that began a long time ago; and the crisis is now intensifying, entering a more dangerous phase.
In a book about “the secret forces guiding human destiny,” religious studies scholar D.W. Pasulka has suggested “that humanity approaches an apocalyptic horizon in which technological power will confront us with the necessity of what some have called sanctifying grace.”[xii] Given all that has gone awry, something more fundamental than technology is at work. It is, rather, the perversion of the users of technology; especially, the perverse mentality of those who are developing our technology. Among the horrors they have summoned, scientists and biotechnology startups have successfully developed a process to cultivate living human brain cells. They have mounted these cells into silicon microchips and they have connected them to traditional computer networks in a field known as biocomputing or organoid intelligence (OI).
The cultivation process for organoid intelligence is to take adult human tissue – such as skin or blood samples – and using genetic engineering, revert them into induced pluripotent stem cells. These stem cells are then coaxed and matured into functioning human neurons or three-dimensional mini-brain tissue spheres called organoids. This is not hardware or software. It is “wetware.” Hundreds of thousands of these lab-grown brain cells are placed into microelectric arrays (MEAs). The electrodes send electrical stimulation directly to the cells where they decipher the electrical impulses of the active neurons. Because these cells are alive, they require a specialized habitat. The microchips are housed inside shoebox-sized units equipped with a perfusion life-support circuit that continuously feeds the cells a warm, nutrient-rich broth of sugar and oxygen while filtering away wastes. This technology is in the process of transitioning from pure lab experiments into actual commercial infrastructure. As a sidenote, organoids can live far longer than scientists initially expected. Their lifespan depends entirely on how they are used. A breakthrough study in Nature revealed that researchers at Harvard successfully kept human brain organoids alive in Petri dishes for between five and seven years.[xiii]
A serious question arises about these human organoids. As they are living things, do they possess consciousness? Can they form a real organism? Are we reaching the point at which man and machine is being merged? What, then, is the result? Will it offer certain people the option of transcending the human condition by merging their minds with robot bodies that could (in theory) prolong their lifespan? Do the developers of this technology see it as a foundational bridge to immortality?
The answer is YES. Organoid technology is being actively researched as a foundational bridge to merge human and machine intelligence. Rather than keeping machines and biological tissue separate, researchers are exploring ways to combine the distinct advantages of both into a unified, interconnected network. It is possible to set up a hybrid intelligence system where a computer and the human organoid would operate in partnership. This partnership can do what computers do best, storing raw data, executing flawless mathematical calculations, and transmitting information at the speed of light. At the same time, it would also do what human brains do best – learning new things instantly from very few examples, recognizing complex patterns in chaotic environments, and adapting organically without needing to be reprogrammed.
This is not science fiction. In current experiments like those conducted by biotech companies (see Cortical labs), the organoid tissue relies heavily on the machine to act as its eyes and ears. The computer provides the environmental data while the organoid provides the processing power to solve the problem. Meanwhile, companies like Neuralink are working to connect computers directly to living human brains (i.e., to the brain of a living human being). They are hoping to create a new hybrid entity that can think, learn, and solve problems in ways that neither pure silicon machines nor pure human biology can achieve on their own. Currently there are no laws restricting this kind of research. At the same time, the moral character of the developers has been corrupted in advance by the prospect of becoming something more than human. Organoids do not have legal status as persons and nobody knows whether these things, as living organisms, are conscious enough to count as a person. Furthermore, networks using human organoids need considerably less electricity to function.
Some tech billionaires dream of using this technology to merge their consciousness with machines to achieve superhuman status plus immortality. Some of Silicon Valley’s most prominent figures share a transhumanist worldview. For someone like Peter Thiel, death is no longer inevitable. It is a software bug that can be fixed. While this sounds like science fiction, several tech billionaires have poured hundreds of millions into technologies that are expected to bridge the human mind with digital frameworks to achieve “digital immortality.” These people also have the idea of uploading their consciousness into computers through whole-brain emulation. Their idea is to map the brain’s 86 billion neurons and trillions of synaptic connections and copy that data into a computer server. If successful, a person’s memories and personality would continue living digitally for an indefinite period. Of course, why would a mere copy of someone’s synaptic connections preserve that person’s consciousness as a living being? Only scientists holding to a materialist ontology would think of something like this.
There is willful blindness here that reduces the human soul to “data.” The project of merging man and machine emerges from a highly reductive view of existence. It treats the human soul and consciousness as nothing more than an algorithm. For this and other reasons “transhumanism” is dehumanizing. Furthermore, life is not code. Life is sacred. It is the experience of BEING. If there is the slightest chance that we might trap a living human organism within an artificial network, we should leave well enough alone. If we play God while showing a complete lack of reverence, there will be consequences. The desire for godlike status by way of technological innovation on the part of tech billionaires should be regarded as dangerously perverse. Only a fool could view death as a software problem. And it does not stop there.
In her book, Pasulka describes computer software designed to comfort the bereaved by pseudo-resurrecting deceased loved ones via chatbots. There is a growing industry in digitally simulating deceased persons. There is even something called “séance AI” which “invites users to converse with the dead in an explicitly necromantic register,” noted Pasulka.[xiv]
On top of this, there are those who believe that humanity must colonize other worlds, if only to escape an extinction-level event here on Earth. In the thinking of these science fiction aficionados there is a refusal to accept man’s bounded dominion on Earth. They are supposedly willing to live in a space suit, crawling through a desert that has no breathable air, with temperatures that can melt plastic during the day or make a sea of liquid nitrogen by night. Combine this kind of adventure with transhumanism and a question arises: What does it profit a man if he loses his soul for such a world?
And if we chanced to find a habitable world, what nightmare attends contact with alien organisms? What new bacteria would we encounter? And what would be the spiritual consequences of intruding on someone else’s world? What calamity follows interactions with beings so trespassed against? And then there is this strange circumstance we have discussed before: Our radio telescopes have found no civilizations emitting radio signals after listening to 30,000 to 50,000 worlds. Enrico Fermi, one of the most brilliant physicists of the twentieth century, formulated his “paradox” on the following basis: Since the universe is unfathomably old and contains billions of stars like our Sun, countless civilizations should have already come into existence throughout our galaxy. The galaxy should show us many signs of life. Where are these signs? The solution to the Fermi Paradox leaves us with two pessimistic choices: (1) that no intelligent species survive for long the advent of radio technology (because this technology coincides with technologies of self-destruction); or (2) other lifeforms have already traversed interstellar space and, finding it full of danger, hide from each other in radio silence. In light of this, it is strange to see that we are so bold as to broadcast our position every day, every hour – the interstellar equivalent of blood in the water for interplanetary sharks.
Technology is dangerous in ways we have not thoroughly considered. Our own outsized egos, our personal fear of death, our overestimation of rationality, has driven us toward a kind of madness. And here is a real danger; namely, that technological madmen now have a share in political power. What crazy schemes, what mischief awaits? What means will be excused to realize a hopeless tangle of misguided ends? Whereas the liberals and socialists have made themselves ridiculous by attempting to eradicate war and poverty, the new tech billionaires have shown themselves utterly insane by attempting to reach immortality and celestial empire in the airless beyond.
Our limitations define us. This is how we know who we are, and where our destiny lies. To imagine we can become the immortal masters of the universe is to deny who and what we are. It is the denial of our history, of human nature and our intended purpose. These strange new ambitions indicate the opposite of self-knowledge. Here is the hubris of ignorance and willful self-deception. And yet, this hubris characterizes our technological elite today.
What does it mean to dream of colonizing other planets when Earth is itself disordered by wars of crime and folly. It is strange, as well, that we have condemned imperialism on Earth while preparing to embrace interstellar imperialism. If intelligent creatures exist in outer space, would they find us to be peaceful neighbors? Or would they find us untrustworthy and murderous? I think we know the answer to this question.
The pre-Socratic philosopher Heraclitus of Ephesus wrote, “War is the father of all things.” While Heraclitus was undoubtedly using war as a cosmic metaphor, we may nonetheless admit that war marks the beginning of every nation and every advanced society. Even more disturbing, long periods of peace breed moral corruption and neuroticism in humans. Peace also fosters a soul-destroying hedonism. Such paradoxes point to the tragic nature of our existence, which cannot reach perfection through technology any more than through liberalism or socialism. For that matter, what peace could there be amid all this humbug, in a country that elected a perfidious egomaniac because the alternative was so terrifyingly worse?
***
Monsters Who Need Monsters
Are the Luckiest Monsters
Ideologists say the capitalists are to blame, the Military Industrial Complex is to blame, the white race is to blame, toxic masculinity is to blame, the Jews are to blame!
In the mind of the masses, history is something that did not happen told by people who were not there. In terms of history, therefore, any lie will do. Imagine the ideologist’s Frankenstein monster – built out of old dead things. And then comes Bram Stoker’s Dracula, a blood-drinking amalgam of Hitler and Stalin. In keeping with the season of Halloween, monsters are everywhere. The future will grant us an acceleration of vampirism; but for now, the old washer woman from Monty Python’s Meaning of Life (played by Terry Jones in drag) faces the camera with her mop and bucket and says, furiously, “It’s the Jews!”
Consider the provocation of 7 October 2023. That horrific terrorist atrocity, carried out against Israel, was a birthday gift to Vladimir Putin. And now, with tankers being attacked around the Strait of Hormuz, that gift to Putin is the gift that keeps on giving. The troubles grow, the conflict enlarges, the strategists in Moscow and Beijing rub their hands. Next comes the unravelling of Donald Trump followed by a new lease on life for the American left (wearing new Stalinist undergarments).[xv]
One should not, however, take one’s eyes off the far right. Even as Americans collaborated with Moscow in the 1930s, there were Americans who also collaborated with the Nazis. And just as happened in August 1939, we should not be surprised to find the far right and far left engaged in joint projects. Back then they called it the Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact. Today’s version will acquire another name, another set of ideological justifications, while serving the same old purpose. Power intermingles with power. and those who crave power are drawn to sacrificial fires lit for the Great Scapegoat. Embarrassment always follows, to some extent. Secrets must then be buried along with the scapegoated victims, staring up from the rubble, bewildered by the furious irrationality of malevolent stupidity, wondering why God allowed it. Evil is never quite done with us. A volcano may seem dead, but it can come back to life. It waits on its turn to resume. The volcano of Hitlerism has waited a long time. Many thought it perished in the Führerbunker – but a cyanide capsule and a bullet cannot kill an idea (however crazy it might be).
Broadcasts and Podcasts
Support JRNyquist.blog by sending donations to PayPal for the account JRNyquist@aol.com
Links and Notes
[i] Max Weber, Economy and Society: An Outline of Interpretive Sociology, Chapter XII (Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1978), p. 1006.
[ii] Eric Voegelin, Modernity Without Restraint, Vol. 5 of the Collected Works of Eric Voegelin (Columbia and London: University of Missouri Press, 2000), pp. 104-105.
[iii] Weber, p. 956.
[iv] Xenophon, Memorabilia 1.7.5
[v] Barbara Olson, Hell to Pay: The Unfolding Story of Hillary Rodham Clinton (Washington, D.C.: Regnery Publishing, Inc., 1999), p. 319.
[vi] Weber, p. 1115.
[vii] Ibid, p. 1116.
[viii] Helen Andrews, Boomers: The Men and Women Who Promised Freedom and Delivered Disaster (New York: Sentinel, 2021), p. 4.
[ix] Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, The Solzhenitsyn Reader (USA: ISI Books, 2006), p. 477.
[x] Ibid.
[xi] Peter Kingsley, Catafalque: Carl Jung and the End of Humanity (London: Catafalque Press, 2021), p. 72,
[xii] D.W. Pasulka, The Others: UFOs, AI, and the Secret Forces Guiding Human Destiny (New York: St. Martin’s Essentials, 2026), P. 11.
[xiii] https://phys.org/news/2026-08-oldest-human-brain-cells-grown.html
[xiv] Ibid, p. 169.
[xv] See Thomas Carlyle’s book, Sartor Resartus: The Life and Opinions of Herr Teufelsdröckh in Three Books.
281 responses to “The Monster We All Want to Be: Trump as Disruptor”
Jeff sorry not related to the article, but what is your take on the new Annie Jacobsen book succinctly titled Biological War? The world as we know it devolves in one week. If you have covered this in a previous post, my apologies.
I have lost interest in Jacobson’s work. She does not understand the context of the prospective users of the weapons. Her nuclear war book is cheap journalistic nonsense. Confused facts may be worse than no facts.
Jeffrey Nyquist, please accept my apologies—that was a translation error; I didn’t express myself the way I intended, and I certainly didn’t mean to offend you. I don’t know English well, and there are nuances in Portuguese that don’t always translate directly. What I meant to ask was whether receiving contributions from your followers might make your work easier—I know you have expenses that could potentially hinder your efforts. In Brazil, when someone begins a research project, they incur costs—buying books, purchasing cameras for recording podcasts, and so on. I was simply thinking that if you were able to dedicate more time to your work—if you had more time available—it might help, as I imagine your current commitments likely take up a great deal of your time and perhaps even interfere with your research. My apologies.
It is difficult to do the work, and I do not like asking for support.
Hello Jeff, I would of asked on the Youtube Channel on Thursdays, my new Job I have work then. I wanted to ask you please these few things if you don’t mind please:
Correct me if I’m wrong, I think you said Months ago, you had a Debate with Ron Paul 20+ Years ago. If I’m correct, do you know where I can find the Debate to listen to it? I used to Support him, I mean I support Austrian Mises Economics, but Ron Paul has his head somewhere when it comes to the Communist Threat.
There is a really good Book not sure if you ever heard of it called: Theodore Roosevelt, the Progressive Party, and the Transformation of American Democracy by Sidney M Milkis. It showed that 100 years ago, that the Progressives(Socialists), used State Rights, to Transform America . Can our Side implement Freedom like Nullification(No Succession as we need a Fed Gov), to help Save America?
Lastly for now, I have been listening to your Friends and Enemies Podcasts, you spoke about UFOs and stuff. With UFOs, the Advanced Technology our Government has, along with the Missing Scientists the past few Years. Do you think this whole UFO/Alien thing, is from our Government? That wants to fool China and Russia? That might be a good thing, because we are not just fooling them, but keeping secret successfully for once, and that our Government can use that to fight back againt China and Russia.
I do my best, to post, along with tell as many People as possible about your work.
I’m sorry for the million questions, thank you so much Jeff and God Bless you!
(Jerzeys2finest89 on Youtube)
I did not debate Ron Paul. I had coffee with him. He is a doctrinaire libertarian. He knows everything from a few premises; that is, he thinks he knows everything that is worth knowing about politics. He was not interested in a word I said about Russia or China or Iran. He told me that America was the big threat. Russia and China, he said, were good capitalist countries. It was five months before 9/11. One might have a better conversation with a belt buckle. At least it buckles.
Actually, Biblical thinking has few premises, and they seem to work fairly well.
1. Go to the source. In theology, that means study the Bible itself. Don’t rely on tradition or what others say. In science that led to a study of nature itself, directly, not studied through books written by others. The theology led to the Copernican revolution. Luther himself was indirectly involved with Copernicus. In politics and economics, keep one’s eyes open and watch what happens.
2. Be ready to change one’s mind when new observations show that previous understanding was mistaken, or that one had misunderstood previous observations.
Those two premises seem to work pretty well. Not perfect, because of the limits of human observation and understanding.
The problem with Ron Paul, and I have seen plenty of other similar examples, is that people start with theory, not observation. They are so convinced of their theories that they refuse to deviate, even when patently false.
R.O., Mr. Nyquist has asked that commentators refrain from religious discussions, yet here you are teaching Sola Scriptura. I have one question: tell me chapter and verse which passages in the Holy Scriptures teach Sola Scriptura. On the contrary, many passages contradict it such as the following “And he was returning, sitting in his chariot, and reading Isaias the prophet. 29 And the Spirit said to Philip: Go near, and join thyself to this chariot. 30 And Philip running thither, heard him reading the prophet Isaias. And he said: Thinkest thou that thou understandest what thou readest?
31 Who said: And how can I, unless some man shew me? And he desired Philip that he would come up and sit with him. Acts 8:28-31. “And account the longsuffering of our Lord, salvation; as also our most dear brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, hath written to you:
16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are certain things hard to be understood, which the unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, to their own destruction.” II Peter 3:15-16. This was a prophecy in regard to Luther as he did exactly this perverting what he read in the Epistles of St. Paul to his own perdition. I shall leave at this as I know you can dish it out, but you can’t take it and I wouldn’t want to upset you too much as I unfortunately did with one of my previous comments.
comfortsa792793ebe2: There are two ideas that are here:
There is no such thing as a statement that is not religious. Most of the time the religious aspect is rather buried. My purpose here was merely to show that one needn’t have complex premises. Secondly to show the historical roots of workable, simple premises.
Religious discussions can be carried out without polemics. Notice, I attacked nobody. You did, with a polemic that offends. It is the offensive polemics that both Jeff and I want to see stopped.
Fair enough. Reconsidering it I admit it would have been better not to have written what I did in the deleted comment, It would probably be better to emulate the example given by St. Francis de Sales in his discussions with the successor to Calvin, Theodore Beza. In dealing with certain persons in my family who are Prots I became accustomed to answering the ceaseless calumnies against the Church and incessant mockery of Catholics in a certain way which is not always the best. I’ll refrain from doing it again. Here are some more passages that refute Sola Scriptura: “Therefore, brethren, stand fast; and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word, or by our epistle.” II Thessalonians 2:14 By word as well as by Epistle. Also there is the Gospel of St. Matthew 2:23 “And coming he dwelt in a city called Nazareth: that it might be fulfilled which was said by prophets: That he shall be called a Nazarene.” There is no prophecy written in the Old Testament that specified that Our Lord Jesus Christ should be called a Nazarene. This was clearly an oral tradition and yet it was fulfilled proving that the Jews did not adhere to the doctrine of Sola Scriptura, neither is it to be found anywhere in the New testament, rather there are passages which contradict it as in the passage given above.
First of all, I didn’t mention “Sola Scriptura”. I merely mentioned going to the source, which is the Bible. Your responses go to the same source.
2 Thessalonians 2:15 Paul wrote to people with whom he had had face to face discussions. Here he reminds his readers of those discussions. The Greek original of the verse doesn’t mention “traditions”. Rather that which was delivered to them, in this case his face to face discussions.
The name of city of Nazareth has the same root as the word for “shoot” or “branch” with an emphasis on one that is special. Matthew knew Hebrew language, so made a reference to Isaiah 11:1. Matthew originally wrote in Hebrew, but only the Greek translation survives. We lose that linguistic reference in the translation.
The problem with tradition is that it changes. It’s based on memory. I read that there’s an old Chinese proverb that says that the palest ink is stronger than the strongest memory. That’s why some people don’t trust tradition.
Getting back to what I wrote concerning premises, is the willingness to change one’s mind upon receipt of new information. I remember the Sino-Soviet border conflict of 1969 and believed at that time that is showed real hostility. Information that came out later claims that the conflict, which killed real soldiers, was staged to fool the West. I was fooled. But afterwards have changed how I view the event. Apparently there are some people who are still fooled.
You must first have the Church before you can have the Bible. Who determined which books are canonical and which aren’t You wrote in an earlier comment that you believe that corruption had set in even during the time of the Apostles themselves. If this were so, then how can you trust that the books you believe constitute the Scriptures given by God really are so? After all it was the Church that determined the Canon and that not until centuries after the deaths of the Apostles. The greater part of mankind until the last couple of centuries has been illiterate. Add to that the fact that before the invention of the printing press a copy of the Bible took years to produce and cost the equivalent of thousands of dollars today and you have a situation that would if it were true make God cruel in the sense that He would have expected men to save their souls using means which were beyond their reach. An illiterate Egyptian peasant of the 3rd century or a Lombard of the 7th century could never have afforded a Bible, and even if he could get a chance to look over a copy he wouldn’t have been able read it. He could however have gone into a Catholic Church and upon hearing a sermon preached have thereafter received Baptism and begun to learn more from the priest ordained by a Bishop who in turn had been ordained by another Bishop and so on going back to the Apostles themselves.
About the UFO thing. Yes, I am beginning to think there is a real weapon there. Not sure if it is fully developed. Not sure where the tech is actually from. Is it a bluff? I wish I had proof. But there is more and more testimony. Something has been in the works a very long time.
Jeff, although you think Trump is some type of Russian agent, do you think his moves on military defense or hypersonics accelerate the timeline for Russia and China at all? I heard they contracted with a smaller company for cheap mass production of hypersonic missiles. Or his moves on the missile shield project? Surely this would actually interfere with the main plan, no? Anything which would hamper or interfere with the missiles coming through the air must concern them, no?
Colonel Stanislav Lunev explained to me that an American president can never be a Russian agent. But he can be a friend of Russia, and the Russians put great care that former agents or “special friends” appreciate this friendship. One of Trump’s advisors told me the plan is to align America with Russia and against Europe. This shocked me as it probably shocked others who heard it. The administration evidently backed away from this, but I believe the intention is still there. American hypersonic weapons are entering early mass production right now (late 2026), but achieving full, widespread combat readiness will take between 1 to 4 years depending on the branch of the military. This is good, but strategy depends on foreign policy. An operational space shield will take between 4 to 9 years to build, depending on whether you follow the White House timeline or independent defense experts. Yet war is upon us in the Middle East and Europe. Flipping alliances may be in process. The importance of weapons and our ability to use them depends on the diplomatic context. If our alliances flip, then flip again, will we have the economic viability to deploy any of this in coming years? Will we be isolated and strangled? Events are developing rapidly.
Very true, there is a long window of vulnerability.
Did this advisor say what the reason was for why they would do this realignment? What would the incentive be?
I wonder if his advisors and his circle and maybe Trump himself have bought into this false idea of Russia as some type of “conservative traditional bulwark” against European leftism. Big disaster if so.
He said the Germans were not the kind of allies we want. Russia, he said, was a much better ally against China.
Ah, the traditional “Sino-Soviet split” fallacy, still paying dividends after all these years.
The communists have confused everyone about their own history, about their strategy, about their objectives, about their infighting. Since most people never rethink anything, the deception is set in stone.
Jeffrey Nyquist, in your view, what is it that today’s analysts lack—what prevents them from understanding reality the way you do? Is it a failure to seek the truth? Or perhaps a deficient intellectual foundation? If someone aspires to become an analyst—based on your perspective and experience—what steps should they take?
I wont answer for Jeff, but there are several high level premises that, if believed, lead to blindness. One is the belief that the Soviet Union collapsed, that the US won the Cold War. Another is a fundamental misunderstanding of what communism is, the belief that it is just an economic philosophy. This is not even counting if they believe any aspects of the major “mainstream” leftist ideology, which are all designed to produce the incorrect orientation.
Jeff, have you seen the 2 executive orders they have issued in regards to the power grid?
One is declaring a state of emergency in 27 states due to the load placed on it by data centers.
The other was in October and regards foreign equipment in the grid.
It seems as if they are worried there are kill switches in the grid.
As a side note, what is your opinion on AI? My most conspiratorial thinking says that if it was planned properly, it could create a very short window where the grid would be under extra pressure and therefore maybe be more vulnerable to some kind of attempt to shock it or bring it down.
The other thing is I don’t know if the entire thing is just a con by China. I remember very early on there was this young Chinese ceo who runs some company in Silicon Valley pushing the line that we needed to “beat China to AI”. It made me think maybe it’s possible that it is an operation to drain massive wealth into a diversion, along with this power grid play.
And there are reports that if it is a bubble and pops, it could cause big damage to the economy.
And I am not sure. It is clear that AI provides some benefit: how much I am not sure, and I am not sure it is worth all the hype.
The one thing that is interesting is the physics discoveries it is making and how certain “math orgs”, led by Terrence Tao, are pushing back on this. They do not seem to like its physics discoveries.
Do you have any thoughts on that and the executive order regarding foreign components in the grid which was issued this month? Combined with the project fortress thing and the 90 day grid warning, and the Japanese disaster warning about the grid, it is odd.
I had assumed the 90 day fortress thing had to do with an escalation of conflicts with Iran and/or Russia. Supposedly the escalation applies to all U.S. military bases. Probably, because there is an increased threat of military escalation at this time, and an increased threat of EMP or terrorist attacks on the power grid, precautions are being taken. America is extremely vulnerable and as we threaten to wipe out Iran’s grid, they are probably taking aim at ours. At least, we should assume that is the case. Americans are not used to thinking about themselves as vulnerable. There is a mentality here which assumes we are not vulnerable. Perhaps 9/11 gave us the wrong idea because only three thousand deaths occurred, while an attack from a peer adversary could be killing millions if not hundreds of millions. The attack of 9/11 did change security on airline flights. But the truly devastating attacks that could be launched against us could kill up to 80 percent of the country. Some privately say 90 percent if the grid went down for 11 months. People do not like to talk about this, and what they do not like to talk about is generally ignored. Nothing has been done in all these years since talking is the first step in fixing. So we have dithered. And now we are in a war with Iran, and a potential nuclear conflict with Russia, and we are not ready, and the White House wants to show it is doing something. Are they doing enough? Is it an effective doing? I am skeptical of the U.S. Government when it comes to defending against WMDs and EMP attacks. Civil defense is a complicated issue. It is so complicated that the Federal Emergency Management Agency does not realistically prepare for a nuclear war. Our response to the pandemic was badly done, as everyone could see. We overreacted and adopted responses that harmed the economy and probably cost more lives than the lives that were saved. In Russia they put a great deal of effort into this area, but the officials in charge are corrupt and my impression is that they have stolen a lot of the materials and food needed in the shelters. If Putin has started jailing or executing officials for doing this, they might have a tremendous civil defense capacity in Russia. Even with the corruption, many will survive because of the tunnels and underground bunkers. It seems that the leaders in Russia, China, and the USA, are not normal people. Everything is harder to understand because so many people lie nowadays.
The notion that the USSR merely feigned its own collapse—and that it is actually behind the entire destruction of the West, with groups such as billionaire globalists, Islamists, secret societies, and even occultists having been infiltrated by Moscow and China—is so deceptive that it remains unthinkable to most people. I, for one, only learned of this through the work of Jeffrey Nyquist, who brought it to my attention. Olavo de Carvalho, a Brazilian author and friend of Nyquist, did not believe that Moscow was behind everything; he argued that there were three distinct power structures with an equal capacity for domination: Islam, the Russia-China axis, and billionaire globalists. He—along with everyone else I know who studies geopolitics—rejected the idea that the Russians and Chinese posed the true, overarching danger, or that they had deeply infiltrated and were manipulating these other groups. Even those who acknowledge the threat posed by Russia and China still leave room for the influence of billionaire occultists. Thank God I discovered the work of Jeffrey Nyquist.
Please. I never said Moscow was behind EVERYTHING. The fact that they infiltrated everyone, does not mean they control EVERYONE. Nobody controls history. Russia and China, as communist powers, represent a new kind of power with remarkable resources for influencing and subverting other countries. That is what people have to understand.
I can answer some questions concerning AI.
I have two sons who use AI for their work. There are even AI models that can be downloaded and run on your personal computer, provided that you have enough RAM. My computer has only 24 Gig, which was the maximum I could buy at the time, which allows only for some of the simpler models to run. Yes, my sons induced me to download one of those simpler AI models.
Without AI demands, a 15 year old computer with only 4 Gig of RAM is sufficient for most of my work. Yes, I still have one of those computers that I still use.
Whenever I buy a computer, I buy the maximum RAM that is available. Another limit today, how much I can afford. AI demands are driving up RAM prices.
One thing that my sons report is that one cannot trust AI. When it works, it’s a real aid in their work. What they have to double check is that did the AI give the correct answers to their prompts? Another question that companies who signed up for online AI are now asking, is AI worth the cost? All too often it isn’t.
As for physics, does AI work with the correct model? Einstein’s theory is based on the presupposition that the speed of light is a constant. The speed of light is not a constant. Measurements from the 20th century show that the speed of light varies. The variance in the speed of light is slight, but measurable. To deal with that, physicists changed the definition of a meter from a physical object stored in Paris, to a measurement of light. Now, when the speed of light varies, so also does the length of a meter.
Physics is one area where people are so enamored by theory that they refuse to entertain alternate explanations of observations. A physicist who does not kow tow to Einstein’s theory will find himself drummed out of the physics community. Einstein’s theory is based more on mathematical modeling than observation. AI is good with mathematics, how much does its math reflect the real world?
Outside of mathematics and programming, AI is more problematic. The “training” can give it false information. Then there’s the problem of AI “hallucination” where it makes up stuff that doesn’t exist. I asked an online AI a question concerning language, and the answer I got was recognizably false. I then asked for the documentation to back up the claim, and was told about a document that doesn’t exist.
Bottom line, is AI worth it? I have found for my uses—no. Others find it very useful. Depends on your needs. Is it worth the massive outlays of money and resources that are demanded of new AI centers? I don’t think so.
As for the economic model, it appears that AI is in a bubble.
Yes. The speed of light is not a constant. This remarkable fact was described in detail by Rupert Sheldrake, in his book titled “The Science Delusion.” It is a very surprising story how he learned of this.
Jeffrey Nyquist, there is great anticipation that Trump might help Flávio Bolsonaro and oppose Lula and the Workers’ Party (PT). Flávio Bolsonaro posted a statement on social media claiming to be the true president of Brazil; he later changed it, declaring himself the “leader of Brazil” and removing the word “president.” Meanwhile, as one might have expected, Trump has stated that he likes Lula. Ultimately, those who follow your work know that Trump is pro-Russia and pro-China. Unfortunately, the Brazilian right views Trump as a bastion of the global right—why do they fail to see his actual actions? Right-wing, pro-Bolsonaro politicians are already acknowledging the election results; they are afraid, and so on.
I am providing you, Jeffrey Nyquist, with updates on events in Brazil, from the perspective of a Brazilian reader who follows your work. God bless you.
Thank you, Antonio. What is the situation today? Has Bolsonaro been arrested? Has he left the country? Are people still afraid to protest?
Jeffrey Nyquist, Bolsonaro the father has already been in prison for months and cannot run for office; he has put his son, Flávio Bolsonaro, forward to run for the presidency. Flávio Bolsonaro is currently in the U.S.—he fled there. Honest right-wing politicians have remained silent; some have even recognized the election results (out of fear). Lula has stated that he intends to regulate social media—proposing updates four times a week—but I believe he will actually use this to suppress the right-wing within WhatsApp and Telegram groups, as well as on other social media platforms, to prevent protests like those seen in 2013 and 2014. They have already suppressed the politicians, and now they are moving to suppress the people’s ability to protest. I suspect that within six months, politicians in general will be brought under control: those who were elected but intended to betray their base will reveal their true colors, while the honest ones will either remain silent or, despite their silence, end up being rendered ineligible. Lula will wreck the economy in less than two years, leaving the population so impoverished that they will lack the strength to fight back. Some will continue to believe in Lula, but by the time they realize the truth, it will be too late—the level of poverty will be devastating. Poor people do not revolt; it becomes far more difficult for them to do so. Meanwhile, the Brazilian right still believes that Trump is the bastion of the global right—little do they know who Trump truly is or what lies behind him. May God have mercy on us all—Americans and Brazilians alike. God bless you, Jeffrey Nyquist.
I think we have seen that Trump likes for his friends to make money from deals in various countries. Whether it is Venezuela or Russia, the communists are willing to accommodate Trump’s friends and family. Perhaps Trump likes Bolsonaro being an irritant because it puts him in a better position for getting money out of Lula. I think we will have to wait and see. If Trump says Bolsonaro is a looser and unworthy of support, he will do nothing to help. What has he done so far? It is not a consistent record.
It makes sense—Jeffrey Nyquist is using Flávio Bolsonaro to pressure Lula. As U.S. President, he is sacrificing the future of millions of Americans—and, by extension, billions of human beings—for his own personal gain; after all, if he has the leverage to exert such pressure, it implies he might also have the power to prevent Lula and his associates from wielding so much influence. I believe the Brazilian communists are afraid of him and the United States—I think so, too.
Possibly.
History is full of people who do not think about the common good—people who cannot reconcile their personal objectives with the greater good, and who fail to consider that their decisions have consequences that can impact the lives of billions. Individuals like Trump are one example; in Brazil, most people are like this. In the U.S., there are still decent people, but here, Brazilians have an inherent tendency to think only of themselves and their own families, showing no concern for their fellow human beings. This trait has been present since Brazil’s colonial period—it is a quintessentially Brazilian characteristic—which is precisely why we end up with a creature like Lula.
Brazil is going to change a great deal, Jeffrey Nyquist—and much faster than we can imagine. I know this, and I know that the Brazilian people—accustomed to a certain level of prosperity for about 30 years—will see their standard of living drop significantly. It is terrible, but every nation reaps what it sows and gets the government it deserves, as a matter of God’s judgment and justice.
Jeffrey Nyquist: new, recent information—Workers’ Party (PT) deputies are calling for the seizure of passports belonging to pro-Bolsonaro lawmakers, who happen to be the most-voted-for parliamentarians in Brazil. They won’t last six months.
Is there a lot of fear?
Yes, there is a great deal of fear among those who truly understand what the Lula administration is. Personally, I feel that fear, though I don’t show it; I know what is going to happen, and I know that, before long, the Brazilian population will realize it—too late, obviously, but they will.
The segment of the Brazilian population that truly understands what Lula is actually about, as well as what genuine right-wing politicians represent, consists of several tens of millions of people.
Jeffrey, what would you advise the Brazilian right wing to do in the current situation, given that the communists have taken power?
I have no advice. What everyone needs in such circumstances is courage. To pull through you need temperance and prudence; and finally, justice. If you have these virtues, and God is with you, then freedom will be restored.
How true this is. I heard someone say once that there are no political solutions to a spiritual problem. If only mankind would practise these virtues and submit to the Law of the Gospel, then a state of affairs would come to prevail which would approach as near to a terrestrial paradise as is possible, but most people would much rather be trousered monkeys. For them it is much better to ook and eek and throw their own dung at one another than to restrain their bestial appetites and passions in any way whatsoever, even if doing so would mean they could live in a society wherein one wouldn’t have to be armed at all times and keep everything under lock and key.
I read once that Schopenhauer loved his dog and hated humanity, and while to be really and truly a misanthrope is a sin, I can’t but sympathize with the sentiment of preferring the company of a creature who really is a faithful friend loyal unto death to that of people, who too often have what I like to call a reptilian mentality. They slither along looking upon their fellow beings as potential prey, just as a snake looks upon a lizard or a mouse. It would seem that their train of thought upon seeing a fellow man goes along the following lines: Is this thing a danger to me? If not, can I eat it, and is doing so worth the trouble? By eat I mean use or exploit in some way, though if society collapses in the event of a nuclear war or other cataclysm it might well become literal. Sin is its own punishment, and I can’t help but think that being ruled by Communists is more or less what such wilfully worthless people deserve. It’s too bad that they pull the few good persons left down with them, like the suction of a sinking ship dragging those who didn’t get far enough away in time to the bottom.
Mr. Nyquist, the US until now has not recognized the results of Brazil’s election, this is unprecedented!
Perhaps Trump is waiting for a bribe.
Jeffrey Nyquist, has Ukraine been making progress? Is Russia still mobilizing 1 million soldiers?
Ukraine is killing more Russian soldiers than in previous months. The 144th Russian Motorized Rifle Division was reduced to a couple of battalions in one battle. Russian casualties will be spiking until winter slows the action at the front. About 43,000 Russian casualties are expected by month’s end. If the intensity of this loss of life continues, Russia will have 500,000 casualties for year 2026 alone. Russia is also losing ground on the main front. If memory serves, 36 Ukrainian villages have been liberated in October.
Jeffrey Nyquist: Are Poland’s judges the problem?
I think the problem is the former communists and Tusk’s hidden agenda.
Jeff, I too would like to hear what you think is happening in Poland.
I have only heard that the Prime Minister has launched a coup while the President and Foreign Minister are out of the country. Tusk is a person I have grave reservations about. As someone on the left, he may have old allegiances to the former communist system.
Dear Jeff, you are right. Tusk and his cohort attempted to launch the political coup against Nawrocki why he was on his way to Senegal. Tusk attempted to install an illegal judge for the Polish Constitutional Court and use this way corrupted CC to remove Nawrocki from his office.
Tusk’s armed thugs in police uniforms surround the CC building and refuse the legally installed CC judges to enter it.
Tusk perfidiously used the absence of Nawrocki in Poland but also a moment, the 1st November which is a special moment for the Poles. This day is called the Holiday of All Dead and is a Christian celebration of the dead members of families. All the Poles visit the cemeteries to pay the homage to them and their thoughts are turn away from the matters of this world both material and political. Tusk clearly counted on the passivity of the Catholic Poles.
However, as the news about coup is spreading ever increasing crowds of patriots are gathering and surrounding the CC building. Also, Nawrocki returned now to Poland and is mixing with the crowd trying to prevent the further grab of the power by Tusk and his cohort. Equally, all the major political figures on the Right are now arriving in Warsaw and joining the protest.
It seems that this act of political hooliganism from Tusk has, finally, united the Polish quasi conservatives as the conservative faction was fracturing very rapidly.
There is a rumor circulating among the people that Tusk has brought the German police units as the thugs surrounding the CC building are totally masked and nobody knows their origin.
It is also increasingly possible that, in emergency, Nawrocki could mobilize the Polish army to quench the coup. At least, the same rumors are circulating among Poles. Nawrocki is hugely popular with the army so Tusk cannot count on army’s loyalty if thing really go out of hand.
On the other side, Tusk enjoys support from the BEAST from Brussels and in the past, he signaled that in some extremal circumstances he would use the external forces, most probably Germans, to deal with opposition.
Things could get really out of hand and very bloody.
Regards – Bogdan
What kind of Germans is Tusk using? Surely these are not from the German government. Some regional people who believe in the AfD? The German Chancellor is a conservative. How could Berlin interfere in Polish politics? It would be very destructive of NATO unity, and seems the opposite of what the current Chancellor would want.