Winter Oak

Winter Oak
28 Feb 2024 | 8:32 am

1. Poetically Dwells Man: Heidegger and Spiritual Rebirth

by W.D. James

…poetically dwells man upon this earth.

                           -Friedrich Hölderlin as quoted by Martin Heidegger

What if the gods returned? Martin Heidegger (1889-1976) spent more time than most pondering that and related questions.

His thought is notoriously (and justly) considered extremely obscure and dense. Yet, there is no one more important to read and to study. Heidegger provides the most profound critique of modernity going. His hints at what might be a way out have stirred the brains and imaginations of countless students of his thought. He would make pretty much everyone's top five list of the most important thinkers of the 20th century and many people's top 2 list. He occupies the top spot on my personal list. Here, we'll focus in mainly on his brief essay The Question Concerning Technology, to a lesser extent, Building    Dwelling    Thinking, and finally on one quote from a 1966 interview he did with the news magazine Der Spiegel.

A tale of two tables

Heidegger does not explain himself or give illustrations of what he is talking about: he just thinks and puts the ideas out there. I think it will actually go a long way to helping us get what he was on about if we start with an illustration, the significance of which will become clearer as we go along.

When I was a kid, Mr. Franzen was an old man and a master finish carpenter who went to the same church as my family. I forget for what purpose a small table was needed for the rear of the church, but I remember the table that he made. It was beautifully crafted, finely finished and had intricate inlays of varying color woods on its top. On the one hand, it was a simple piece of furniture and did not draw attention to itself. However, if you once noticed it, you would immediately know it was in fact an artwork produced by a master craftsman.

I am not a carpenter. Yet, I can well imagine the sort of process Mr. Franzen went through to produce this table. The essential thing is he had to work with the materials he used. Though he had to have an idea of the table he would make in advance, he also had to know a lot about wood. Which type wood would fit the purpose best: cherry, oak, poplar, ash? Once chosen, the type of wood would determine, to an extent, the rest of the process of making. Then once that was decided, he would need to pick the actual pieces of lumber to use. This one? What of that knot?

Image result for traditional wordworking tools

Having selected his materials, his tools too would have a say in the final outcome. The awls, files, chisels, and saws with which he had worked a lifetime. Each one had a personality known only to Mr. Franzen. This hammer for this purpose. This awl used with just this movement of the muscle and flex of the wrist.

In the example of Mr. Franzen's table we have an instance where the human artificer is listening to nature just as much as he is telling it what to do. His tools are virtually an extension of his body with which he has intimate relationships. The table itself is a thing of beauty as well as utility and is absolutely unique.

Now let's look at another table. This one sits in my home and a television screen rests atop it. This table was not made by a person; nothing less than a whole corporation could be responsible for its manufacture. I have no idea what the actual company is called, but let's give it one of those corporate-speak names: Wuudtech. To overcome the resistances Mr. Franzen encountered in the quality woods he worked with, Wuudtech just grinds a bunch of scrap wood up into pulp and using a bonding agent can form it into 'boards' of any dimensions it pleases. To finish it off, Wuudtech designs a faux wood pattern on a bit of CAD software and prints off plastic sheets of 'wood grain' veneer to glue on top of the pulp wood mess.

From a distance, the Wuudtech table looks ok. It serves its purpose, and absolutely nothing else. It was cheap to manufacture and cheap to buy. It was mass produced in the thousands and each unit was predictably and consistently of the same quality, size, and appearance. The Wuudtech people did not listen to nature. They told nature to shut up and lie down and then they did with her as they pleased and got what they wanted out of her. The tools used were large and largely automated. The worker (certainly not the craftsman) tending them served them, nearly as a flesh and bone appendage.

Mr. Franzen's table speaks of a way of being in cooperation with nature which is also a very human way of being. The Wuudtech table speaks of the domination and mutilation of nature and, though humans were absolutely in control of the whole process, it is an inhuman way of operating.


My project in what follows will not be to offer a full explication of Heidegger's thought or even a small bit of it. Instead, I'll seek to make a few core concepts intelligible while preserving a sense of the suggestiveness of his thought which is what makes the people who love it do so. Also, I'll weave a thread through those concepts to, hopefully, shed some light on what might be the central conundrum of our situation.

Heidegger seeks to show that technology is not just a matter of neutral tools. Modern technology represents a whole way of experiencing being (existence, nature). Hence, his account will also present a view of what is involved with the disenchantment of nature.

The core of his argument is that what was to be a means employed by humans has come to impinge on what it is to be human. The tool reshapes the user.

Modern Times (1936) - Turner Classic Movies

To get at just what he means, and to point to how deep existentially this goes, Heidegger will talk of how things present themselves to us as 'presencing'. Think of a river. To an iron age Celt, the river may have presented itself as alive, as the home of river spirits, or as something otherwise sacred. To us the river might present itself as a causeway for water traffic, a source of hydro-electric power, or at most a 'pretty sight'. Same river; very different ways of coming into the presence of two distinct humans.

So, when we approach the world, nature, with our ingrained technological mindsets, the world reveals itself to us differently than it did to our ancestors. Heidegger asserts "Technology is therefore no mere means. Technology is a way of revealing."[i] Further, when we approach nature in this way the revealing that occurs is a "challenging" and a "setting upon" of nature. This is how Wuudtech approached the tree: 'be what I want you to be, not what you actually are.'

This stance toward the natural world will make it reveal itself as "standing reserve." It is resources. It is nature as viewed exclusively in terms of its use value. And humans are not immune or exempted. Do we not speak of 'human resources'? So much labor power, so much cost, so much productivity.

So, far from being a mere set of tools, technology rebounds as it were, on the user, changing how we experience the world and, in the process, changing our relationship to the world. It changes our mode of being-in-the world. We exist differently in the modern world than our ancestors did.


At one level, the problem here is that nature reveals itself, when viewed technologically, as how it may be used, not how it is. That is, our knowledge of the world ironically becomes distorted. We no longer know the tree as tree but only as resource for wood. With the dominance of modern technology and science we know the world less well!

Heidegger says there is another way people have gone about making things in the world. He borrows the old Greek term poesis to denote this. Though this is the word from which our 'poetry' derives, it has a much broader meaning here. He translates poesis as "bringing forth" and says that "Bringing-forth brings out of concealment into unconcealment."[ii] That is, if we act 'poetically' toward nature, it reveals itself to us as it actually is. Think of Mr. Franzen's table. He never demanded that the wood be something other than it was. He wanted his table, but he adapted himself to the wood as it was. I think Heidegger would affirm that Mr. Franzen actually knew wood, as it is, better than the modern technologist or scientist. The person existing poetically can cooperate with nature, not domineer over it.

Heidegger goes on: "Always the destining of revealing holds complete sway over men. But that destining is never a fate that compels. For man becomes truly free only in so far as he belongs to the realm of destining and so becomes one who listens, though not one who simply obeys."[iii] We start to see why he has that reputation for obscurity and denseness. He's basically saying that how we exist-in-the-world will determine how the world will reveal itself to us; in the case we're looking at, either technologically or poetically. In the poetic way of existing and interacting with nature, we listen to nature, just as Mr. Franzen listened to the wood-what kind of table do you want to be? Which boards should I use? How should I proceed? Further, he connects existing freely with this ability and willingness to listen. That might sound very weird, but think back to our example: who was freer in their work, Mr. Franzen or the worker who was the appendage to the machinery?


'Dwelling' will be the special term Heidegger employs to denote our proper mode of existing on the earth. "We attain to dwelling, so it seems, only by means of building,"[iv] he observes. So Heidegger isn't suggesting that we can somehow not use nature at all. We are active beings meant to build things and we will use nature to do that. Yet, there is a way of doing that (poetically) that allows us to dwell, to be at home, on the earth and a way that alienates us from that (technology).

In contrast to the technological "setting upon" of nature, our proper mode involves a "sparing." "To dwell, to be set at peace, means to remain at peace within the free, the preserve, the free sphere that safeguards each thing in its essence. The fundamental character of dwelling is this sparing."[v] The "free" is the space that is allowed to continue to exist in which each thing can remain what it is. The tree can continue to remain a tree. It might get turned into a table, but it is still what it is. It never had its nature negated. The Wuudtech approach is the negation of the tree, mulch it up, make it be what we want it to be, not what it is.

The Critique – Reviewing The Legacy Of Heidegger

Hence, to dwell, to be at home, to be at peace, to be what we actually are, entails letting the rest of nature remain what it is. That is at least moderately profound. Further, we see more clearly that when we refuse to allow that space of freedom for things to be what they are, we to a considerable degree cease to be what we actually are and lose our sense of peace and of being at home in the world.

In the very next paragraph, not content with the level of (suggestive) obscurity he had thus far reached, Heidegger just dives right off the high board into an abyss of mysticism. When he does this, it's just best to take a great big old gulp of Heidegger and try to make something of it afterward. He is not thinking analytically and trying to break it down in little logical pieces is not the way to go. I will quote him at length. As Hölderlin says, "Man dwells on the earth". Heidegger elaborates, "But 'on the earth already means 'under the sky.' Both of these also mean 'remaining before the divinities' and include a 'belonging to men's being with one another.' By a primal oneness the four—earth and sky, divinities and mortals—belong together in one." The 'earth' he calls the "serving bearer" which is "blossoming and fruiting." The sky is the "vaulting path of the sun" and the course of the changing moon. "The divinities," he goes on, "are the beckoning messengers of the godhead. Out of the holy sway of the godhead, the god appears in his presence or withdraws into the concealment." The 'mortals' are we.[vi]

In this "fourfold" as Heidegger calls it, the mortals dwell in such a way as to preserve the unity of the fourfold and their manner of dwelling on the earth is to save it, to spare it: to leave it free to preserve its essential essence (to let things be what they are).

Ok, well that is pretty mind boggling and I'm sure it is meant to be. Really all Heidegger is doing here is putting in very simple terms what has always, until fairly recent times, been humanity's understanding of the world we inhabit and our proper place in it. The heavens above, the earth under our feet, with our fellows, in the presence of the gods. That can't help but sound weird to us moderns. Let's say two things. First, so much the worse for us perhaps. Second, Heidegger has at no point ventured to argue for the existence of gods or a God. He is exploring the human encounter with our world. Humans used to experience the divine around them: the sky god while on the sacred mountain top, the river dryads in the valley, perhaps faeries in the sacred grove, and perhaps demons in the deserts. Now we don't.

What Heidegger is wanting to insist upon is that both the pre-modern and the modern ways of being human and experiencing the world are factually both human ways of being in and experiencing the world. In both cases, being (nature) is revealing itself to us. In some (pre-modern) circumstances the gods were present. Nowadays (modern) the gods are gone into concealment. It is interesting that as a student of Nietzsche he is altering that thinker's famous proclamation that 'God is dead.' Heidegger is substituting 'the gods have withdrawn' which, as we shall see, admits of a little bit of hope. No matter how atheist we might want to consider ourselves, the concealment of the gods still haunts us. He or she who defines themselves  as an a-theist is still defining themselves in relation to the divine. We seem to understand that we can't quite fathom what the human is without reference to the divine, whether present or absent.

Further, I think we can get a better glimpse at what Heidegger is up to here if we look at a few more of the lines in Hölderlin's poem "In lovely blue," from which Heidegger had quoted the line about man poetically dwelling on the earth. He writes:

As long as friendliness and purity
dwell in our hearts, we may measure ourselves not unfavorably
with the divine. Is God unknown? Is he manifest
as the sky? This I tend to believe. It is the measure
of the human. Deserving, yet poetically, we dwell
on this earth. The shadow of night with its stars,
if I may say so, is no purer than we
who exist in the image of the divine.

As the darker night, with its lesser lights, might be thought of as the natural supplement, almost the reflection of the 'lovely blue' of the daytime sky, so might we be thought of as a reflection (an image) of the divine. Not equivalent to the divine. But not disconnected from the divine either.

I don't want to push this too far and make an argument where I don't think Heidegger has made one. He is attempting to show us something. As with Plato, who when he had pushed an argument as far as he felt reason would take it, but when there was yet something important to see, essentially said 'now, let me tell you myth.' I think Heidegger does a similar thing. He tries to point to a deeper or more fundamental truth that just can't be explicated in fully logical thought. We might take that as cheating by a philosopher. Well, nothing says existence has to be logical all the way down. If it isn't, then the actual truth-teller is the one who doesn't discount that which lies below or vaults above the logical and rational.

What he is drawing out, I think, is that we felt at home on the earth when we inhabited a life-world in which all four of these elements held together. For us moderns, the gods have withdrawn, the earth has been reduced to 'standing reserve,' and we 'mortals' remain: alone. That is not home and we are not ourselves.


Having outlined what living 'poetically' would entail, Heidegger points to what would constitute the universal human vocation. We are to live lives of 'care.' Heidegger unpacks this as follows: "The way in which you are and I am, the manner in which we humans are on the earth, is baun, dwelling. To be a human being means to be on the earth as a mortal. It means to dwell. The old word bauen, however, also means at the same time to cherish and protect, to preserve and care for, specifically to till the soil, to cultivate the vine. Such building only takes care—it tends the growth that ripens into its fruit of its own accord."[viii]

Heidegger has now shown us what he takes to be the means and end of proper human existence. We are to live poetically, listening to the world around us and cooperating with it. The aim of this life is to manifest care which allows the world around us to grow and be fruitful. Should we be surprised that Heidegger has come to the same conclusion as the early sections of the book of Genesis which express our vocation as living in the presence of God, tending the garden, and enjoying a way of being in which the divine, the human, and the natural all coinhere?


What does Heidegger mean by god (usually expressed in the lower case whether spoken of by him in the singular or the plural)? With the scheme of the fourfold (earth, sky, mortals, divinities) before us, I think the most obvious meaning would be that which is not mortal. It might not really be what is eternal either.  Perhaps we should be literal and leave it as the 'godhead' as Heidegger said above. The 'primordial', that which is 'always already' there is possibly near the mark.

When Heidegger does his god talk, we are on notably obscure and contested ground.  I don't think anyone has formulated what would count as the authoritative interpretation of this stuff. I think a reasonable way of thinking about this is that whatever the eternal is (TaoLogos, Being, or whatever) when we as a species are in proper attunement with the cosmos, we can discern this. That is what most religions and ancient philosophies teach. I would suggest that when we are in a position to listen to nature what we hear speaking to us from nature is what Heidegger calls 'god' or 'the gods'.

I think that is at least helpful in getting us to better understand what Heidegger is ultimately talking about. It will also help us work through the following famous (infamous?) quote from that late interview he did with the German news weekly (just imagine coming across something like this in Newsweek or Time today!!). There Heidegger said: "If I may answer briefly, and perhaps clumsily, but after long reflection: philosophy will be unable to effect any immediate change in the current state of the world. This is true not only of philosophy but of all purely human reflection and endeavor. Only a god can save us. The only possibility available to us is that by thinking and poetizing we prepare a readiness for the appearance of a god, or for the absence of a god in [our] decline, insofar as in view of the absent god we are in a state of decline."[ix] Oh, my. I think we have entered more than moderately profound territory.

Only a god can save us. If my above interpretation is correct or at least credible, that would mean that the only thing that can save us modern humans is if nature, or what is behind nature, Being, god/gods chooses to speak to us again. Heidegger is very insistent that we can't make that happen. To think we can is to remain within the technological mindset of making the world do what we want which then, of necessity, distorts and destroys. But we can prepare a readiness. We can attempt to return to poetic ways of living on this earth as the mortals we are which is characterized by cooperation with nature and care for her and our fellow humans. We can think. I will not have time to unpack that in this already too long essay. Suffice it to say that in "Building    Dwelling    Thinking" Heidegger develops a conception of what it is to think that is in accord with poetic building and dwelling upon the earth. He would intend for his thought to serve as an example, perhaps in its openness to listening, not commanding via argument.

So, we can do that. The gods may then return. This would constitute a re-enchantment of nature. If they do, we may again be at home on the earth. But they may not. We may never hear nature speak to us of our proper way of being again. In that case, we continue our decline.

[i] Martin Heidegger, "The Question Concerning Technology," in Martin Heidegger: Basic Writings, edited by David Farrell Krell, HarperSanFrancisco, 1977, p. 294.

[ii] Ibid, p. 293.

[iii] Ibid, p. 306.

[iv] Martin Heidegger, "Building    Dwelling    Thinking," also in the basic writings, p. 323.

[v] Ibid, p. 327.

[vi] Ibid, pp. 327-328.

[vii] In lieblicher Blaue – In lovely blue: A poem by Friedrich Holderlin – panathinaeos

[viii] Op cit, p. 325

[ix] Only a God Can Save Us (

Winter Oak
26 Feb 2024 | 9:12 am

2. Fake terrorism and the genocide agenda

by Paul Cudenec

The criminocracy is in danger of losing its carefully-constructed shield of invisibilty as it accelerates its deranged bid for total and permanent global control.

It is therefore obliged to ramp up its attacks on those who dare expose its existence, its crimes and its lies.

While Julian Assange is the most famous victim of its war on real journalism, another important case is that of Richard D. Hall.

Iain Davis writes: "UK independent journalist, researcher and documentary filmmaker Richard D. Hall faces conviction, sizeable damages and an injunction that could potentially end his career and his livelihood.

"The High Court of Justice has denied Hall the opportunity to present any kind of meaningful defence. This travesty of justice has potential implications, not just for Richard D. Hall, but for all journalists who dare to question power".

The overall situation is that Hall is being sued by two alleged victims of the 2017 Manchester Arena "bombing", which he convincingly argues was nothing of the sort, but a manufactured psy-ops.

In a recent video, Hall describes in detail the issues involved and wonders whether the case against him is really being instigated by the alleged victims or by other, hidden, forces.

He mentions in particular Marianna Spring, the BBC's first ever "disinformation specialist and social media correspondent", who has been actively seeking to discredit his work.

Kit Klarenberg writes on The Grayzone site that there are "troubling questions" about Spring, who appeared out of nowhere to take up the newly-created thought-police post in March 2020, at the tender age of 24.

She played a leading role in "diminishing and discrediting sizable anti-lockdown protests that engulfed the streets of central London" and depicted them as "comprised almost entirely of fringe lunatics", he writes.

Klarenberg points to Spring's links with the extremely dodgy "think tank" the Institute for Strategic Dialogue, which I described in this recent article.

As I explained, the ISD was co-founded by ardent Zionist George Weidenfeld and enjoys an "institutional partnership" with the even more ardently pro-Israel Anti-Defamation League.

A 2022 episode of the BBC's Panorama programme presented by Spring featured ISD boss Sasha Havlicek discussing "how and why people come to believe that terror attacks are hoaxes".

Hall's admirable forensic investigation into the Manchester event was presented as evidence of a supposed "mainstreaming of extremism, hatred and conspiracy", with Spring and Havlicek stressing "the impact these conspiracy theories have on the survivors of terror attacks".

The ISD's Zionist affiliations are particularly pertinent here, since the Manchester "bombing" is officially regarded as having been the work of "Islamic extremists".

Wikipedia describes it as "the deadliest act of terrorism and the first suicide bombing in the United Kingdom since the 7 July 2005 London bombings", also blamed on "Islamist terrorists".

The same familiar enemy is said to have been behind pretty much every big "terrorist" attack of the 21st century, starting with 9/11, and pesky "conspiracy theorists" have been asking questions about all of them.

There is certainly historical evidence to suggest that terror attacks are often not what they appear to be.

Gianfranco Sanguinetti wrote in 1980: "I have never said that the secret services were behind every single attack, given that these days even a Molotov cocktail or a workplace sabotage are considered to be 'attacks': but I have said, and I have been saying for nearly ten years now, that all spectacular acts of terrorism are either remote-controlled, or directly carried out, by our secret services".

He was referring to the terrorist attacks, in Italy and across Europe, which are now known to have been co-ordinated by NATO under what is often termed Operation Gladio.

The aim of that wave of killing – which was not faked but very real – was seemingly to push scared populations into the arms of the security state and to discredit radical groups falsely accused of being responsible.

The first of these aims is most likely still true today – who, since 2020, can seriously doubt that deliberate fearmongering plays an important part in keeping populations under control?

But the second aim must be slightly different now, because the "terrorists" involved are said to be "Islamist".

Why would the system feel the burning need, one might ask, to create fake or false-flag events to discredit Islamist groups that do not present an obvious domestic political threat to the governments of the various countries targeted?

The answer, I suspect, lies in the way in which our political institutions have been systematically captured by elements favourable to, and often funded by, Israel – a reality that has become all too obvious since the onslaught against Gaza began.

We might also consider a document published by Jerusalem Summit nearly 20 years ago. The Acorn reported in 2016 that the leadership of this Zionist organisation included Daniel Pipes, the pro-Israel and anti-Islam US commentator, and Britain's Baroness Cox, described by Craig Murray in 2014 as "a prominent supporter of organisations which actively and openly promote the ethnic cleansing of all Palestinians from Gaza".

The document in question envisages "relocation" of Palestinians from their homes in Israeli-controlled territory "to allow them to build a new life for themselves and their families in countries preferably, but not necessarily exclusively, with similar religious and socio-cultural conditions".

The United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) has been in the limelight in recent months, accusing Israel of crimes against humanity and, in turn, being depicted as a tool of Hamas by Israel and its supporters.

Interestingly, the archived Jerusalem Summit document declares that "the dissolution of UNRWA is an essential prerequisite for any comprehensive, durable solution of the Palestinian issue".

Also, crucially in the context of this article, it states: "The de-legitimization of the Palestinian narrative becomes a vital prerequisite to any comprehensive resolution of the Palestinian issue".

How exactly could that "narrative" be delegitimized – thus allowing the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians, by whatever means necessary, to go ahead without too much global opposition?

One way would be to associate Palestinians, in the minds of the international public, with terrorists who have been attacking their own communities.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has long been trying to make this link, claiming back in 2014: "ISIS and Hamas are branches of the same poisonous tree. When it comes to their ultimate goals, Hamas is ISIS and ISIS is Hamas. And what they share in common, all militant Islamists share in common".

He made the same claim in October 2023, declaring: "We have always known what Hamas is. Now the whole world knows. Hamas is ISIS… We will defeat [Hamas] precisely as the enlightened world defeated ISIS".

With many people pointing out that Hamas was created and propped up by Israel itself, insisting that ISIS is "a US-Israeli creation" and wondering if the October 7 attacks were a false-flag event, a disconcerting possibility emerges.

Could it be that all or most of the big "Islamist" terror attacks of the first two decades of this century were fake or false-flag events, designed to whip up hatred and fear of Muslims and thus of Palestinians, to demonise and dehumanise them in order to achieve the "de-legitimization" of their cause, as recommended by Jerusalem Summit?

Was this all part of a long-term plan to pave the way for the ethnic cleansing horrors that we have seen unfolding in Gaza since October 2023?

If so, is this why the Israel-linked IDS is so keen, through its boss Havlicek and her sidekick Spring, to shut down all investigation of the truth behind these events and the genocidal agenda they were designed to advance?

[Audio version]

Richard D. Hall's videos about the Manchester Arena "bombing" and other subjects can be viewed here.

Winter Oak
23 Feb 2024 | 8:26 am

3. Our Quest for Freedom: Meaning

by Paul Cudenec

[This is from my latest book Our Quest for Freedom and other essays]

Something that has disappointed me for many years now is the flatness of the language with which would-be radicals try to attract support to their cause.

One common type of article reads like a school essay, carefully shying away from anything that might sound like strongly-held opinion or emotion.

Another type is just stuffed full of jargon (whether woke or workerist) which is guaranteed to repel anyone who has not already been inducted into their particular agitcult.

I suppose this is because "radical" movements today are not really what they purport to be. The criminocracy has such enormous financial resources, in addition to its control of the state and its policing and intelligence forces, that it is quite capable of hijacking and then controlling any dissident movement that emerges.

Its representatives – full-time and trained for the task – will then be able to direct not just the content of the material published by the group in question, but also the tone in which it is expressed.

Flat, dull, lifeless prose, stripped bare of all poetry and dreaming, will only ever appeal to exactly the kind of flat, dull, lifeless individuals who are the perfect recruits for a movement whose aim is not to ignite revolt, but to bury it.

Our communication cannot remain on the surface of this society, trying to convince others on the basis of reality as defined by the system, using the system's logic, the system's language, the system's syntax.

We need to go deeper, speaking to our fellow human beings through the invisible, underground, mysterious nervous system of our collective organism.

We need art! We need poetry! We need music! We need myth!

We can talk without fear of interruption or censorship here because the system is too dead to understand this intuitive and intangible living language of the World Soul.

This is why, incidentally, it cannot allow a work of art to speak for itself and always requires endless words, from the artist or by critics, to reduce to its limited understanding something that could only ever be said otherwise.

When I say "myth", you are probably thinking of the ancient kind, which tell stories which apparently refer to persons and deeds belonging to the distant past.

But, in truth, these myths were simply formulations, in story form, of the archetypal needs and yearning of the human soul.

In different cultures, these naturally take on different superficial forms, but, as the likes of Carl Jung, Joseph Campbell and Mircea Eliade have shown, there are core themes that are universal.

Just as myths can take on different appearances depending on geographical or ethnic context, so can they take on different appearances depending on the era in which they emerge.

New myths are currently being born to carry us through the great battle for human freedom which lies ahead.

Fellow dissident thinkers like Crow Qu'appelle and W.D. James are telling us that we need these myths and they are absolutely right.

We need them in order to go beyond all the realising and explaining and proposing and to turn our yearning into doing.

Most of us are looking for a meaning in life and for many of us the contemporary "meaning" of material success, wealth or comfort just doesn't do it.

In the same way as we see this degraded modern world through the eyes of the archetype we remember within, so do we regard modern pseudo-meaning.

Without necessarily being able to identify this, let alone express it, what we want is the meaning inherent in the human soul, the meaning that has been choked and held down by all those layers of psychological control.

This is a meaning that lives in the very essence of our potential as an authentic human being.

This same meaning was, long ago, expressed, shared and handed down to future generations in the form of myths.

We can often recognise our selves – our deep selves, our lost selves – in these stories when we hear them today.

They are not set in the physical world we know, but in a world that at the same time belongs to the past and to eternity.

This archetypal reality, this mythological reality, can act as the template on which we can create meaning for our own lives.

Of course, this sort of thinking is very much frowned on in today's society, in which all sense and depth have been demolished and replaced with a postmodern shopping mall selling safe off-the-peg identities with which we can label and define ourselves in line with the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals.

All the more reason, then, to embrace it!

Our shared myth is the story of a people suffocated. A vast, odious, stinking giant has enslaved us, destroyed our land, consumes our children with barely-concealed sadistic delight.

The people are scared of the giant. When the earth begins to tremble with the sound of his approach, they scuttle into their huts and huddle together in silence, afraid of attracting his malevolent attention.

This sorry state goes on for years, and all the time the giant becomes worse and worse, fatter and fatter, uglier and uglier, as he tightens his control and exploitation.

Then, one day, a strange thing happens. A small girl suddenly can take no more. While everyone is hiding from the giant, as usual, she suddenly pushes her way out from under her mother's skirts and makes for the door of the hut.

"Wait! Come back!" call her parents, but it is too late.

She strides out into the village square, looks right up at the giant and, hands on hips, shouts as loud as she can: "Go away, giant! I hate you!"

What happens next? Does the giant crush her with his rainbow-coloured jackboots? Do other children, or young men and women, rush out to her defence, to join in this seemingly impossible act of defiance and resistance?

We don't know, because the story has not yet been written.

But, in any case, the small girl is a hero. And she always will be.

She has stepped out of the realm of archetypes, the realm of potential, the realm of right versus wrong and good versus evil, and she has incarnated the values of that realm – made them physically real – in the world in which she lives.

With that act, she has become something. She has become herself. She has become what she was always meant to be. She has become both truly human and truly alive.

[Audio version]

Our Quest for Freedom and other essays can be downloaded for free here or purchased here.

Winter Oak
22 Feb 2024 | 8:54 am

4. Martin Luther King, Tyranny, and Natural Law

by W.D. James

On April 3, 1963, Martin Luther King, Jr., with the Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC) and other civil rights organizations, commenced a planned campaign of civil disobedience aimed at targeting the segregation laws operative in Birmingham, Alabama, USA. The campaign would include lunch counter sit-ins, marches, and a boycott of downtown businesses. The civil authorities obtained an injunction against the protests. King and other leaders of the movement consciously chose to violate the injunction, risking arrest and incarceration in the process. Arrested protesters had their bond posted by movement funds until those were depleted. At that point, King and other leaders stepped up to violate the injunction, knowing that if they were arrested and jailed, they would be spending a considerable time behind bars. On April 12 King was arrested. It was Good Friday. What better day for a Christian minister to undergo persecution? Not bad messaging either. How stupid can tyrannical regimes be that they would provide their opponent such a gift of timing? They can be plenty stupid.

Natural Law

Bail money would be gathered for King's release by April 20.i In the intervening eight days, he penned the now famous Letter from Birmingham Jail, addressed to his "Fellow Clergymen." The clergymen in question were those calling for the protesters to obey the law (ie, stop the protests and acts of civil disobedience). This is a fine text, despite the conditions under which it was written. Or, perhaps, because of them—the number of great texts written while the author was imprisoned is remarkable. Perhaps the unhospitable circumstances and threat to one's future do something to sharpen one's ideas and facility of expression.

One can fruitfully approach the Letter from a number of directions. It is a key document in the history of non-violent civil disobedience, laying out a theoretical basis for it. I have taught the text as an example of political rhetoric; it could hardly be more masterful in addressing its targeted audience (though clearly it is also meant for a larger audience) with continual reference to intellectual authorities whom they are bound to recognize (including Martin Luther and Thomas Jefferson). Here, however, I would like to focus in closely on King's appeal to natural law theory.

The Western natural law tradition (there are others) developed out of classical sources like Stoicism and the thought of Aristotle and Cicero. It was developed further in the medieval period and largely brought to perfection in the thought of Thomas Aquinas. It continued on (in a somewhat thinned down version) in the Protestant 'resistance to tyrants' tradition and on into the modern liberal political theory of John Locke and the Declaration of Independence. In what follows, I will outline the basic structure of natural law theory as developed by Aquinas, then look at King's use of it, and finally, arc back to implications of the theory that I think King was well aware of but left unstated.

All law, for Aquinas, is an appeal to reason. It calls us to recognize just claims. That is, law for Aquinas never had the character of arbitrary command: it is always the voice of reason speaking to us at various levels of specificity. His natural law theory recognizes four basic types of law, all arranged in a hierarchy of authority. This point might initially concern some of us, but we'll see why it is absolutely necessary, and in fact serves the purpose of providing justification for resistance to unjust authorities (powers), like the courts of Alabama in King's case.

Let's lay out Aquinas' four types of law schematically, then look at them in more detail in turn:

Eternal Law The law as eternally present in 'the mind of God'
Divine Law The law as revealed by God in scripture
Natural Law The aspects of eternal law as grasped by human reason
Human (positive) Law The law as promulgated by political authorities

Eternal law is the fundamental rational ordering principle of all that exists. It is essentially the same thing that other philosophical traditions have called the logos or the Tao. As law it includes the most abstract moral principles conceivable such as good is good and we are to seek the good and spurn badness or evil. As we saw in my 'Deep Resistance' essays, it was faith in this that allowed the Stoics to trust that the cosmos was a cosmos and was providentially ordered to bring about the good.

Divine law has less of a correlation in the classical natural law tradition. It depends on trust that in sacred texts God has made his moral will known with greater specificity than in the eternal law. The Ten Commandments would be a prime example. Seeking the good and avoiding evil entails such things as respecting one's parents and not murdering. As the Greeks (and Confucians for that matter) demonstrate, you can hold to a natural law philosophy with this aspect of law left out. Aquinas was a Christian and he includes it.

Natural law is the level of law which is in principle knowable to our unaided human reason and which outlines what is required if we wish to fulfill our human nature. It includes things like self-evident first principles of practical reason (this is where Jefferson in the Declaration comes up with the language of 'self-evident' truths). This would include things like the propositions that it is good for human societies to reproduce the species, nurture and educate the young, and act justly within social interactions, including things like paying a worker a just wage. It will also contain natural rights, like Locke's rights to life, liberty, and property.

Human law, or positive law, is the laws written down or otherwise promulgated by political authorities such as obey the speed limit, murder is a felony, there will be a tax on tea, and blacks and whites in Alabama will operate under codes of racial segregation.

Now, back to that hierarchy of authority issue…. The cool thing about a natural law tradition is it allows one to make moral and legal challenges to human laws, the laws of governments. Each level of law in the above schema is dependent on the levels above for its legitimacy. If we focus in on natural law and human law (where natural law thinkers usually spend most of their time) we can see how this works in practice. Let's say there is some law of the government exerting power over us which we don't think is right. The very idea that we have a notion of 'right' that transcends the actual laws suggests there is in fact a natural law of which we are aware.

If we choose to do that, we can proceed in a couple of different ways. If we can argue that a given positive law violates a discernable principle of natural law, or a discernable natural right, we have an argument that the human law is unjust. Alternatively, we can rest assured that the natural law, by definition, is consistent with human wellbeing, human flourishing. So, if a given human law is not consistent with this overall function of natural law, we can also argue that it is unjust. Hence, any law that is oppressive or dehumanizing is by definition contrary to the natural law.

Within this tradition, human laws gain their legitimacy by being in accord with the higher forms of law (that is, by according with genuine morality and metaphysical reality, not at all because the government has the power to impose laws). Further, any human law which can be shown to violate natural law (which is in effect immoral) is no law at all.ii The government still has the power it has, but we have no obligation to obey it.

King's use of natural law theory

In response to his fellow clergy's admonition that we should obey the law, King reminds them: "There are two types of laws: just and unjust. I would be the first to advocate obeying just laws. One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws. I would agree with St. Augustine that 'an unjust law is no law at all.'" Notice what operating within a natural law tradition is allowing King to do here. He is not left with just saying 'I don't like that law' or 'that law is opposed to my interests.' He has an ethical and judicial basis from which to claim that the realm of positive law does not necessarily correspond to ethics, that 'lawful' does not automatically mean 'just'. Arguments will not always win the day. It is, nevertheless, good to have them on your side.

He goes on to explain his position: "A just law is a man-made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law. To put it in the terms of St. Thomas Aquinas: An unjust law is a human law that is not rooted in eternal law and natural law. Any law that uplifts human personality is just. Any law that degrades human personality is unjust. All segregation statutes are unjust because segregation distorts the soul and damages the personality."

Thus King the logician:

Human laws which violate natural law are unjust.

Segregation laws violate natural law.

Therefore, segregation laws are unjust.


Rock on Dr. King!

Now, let's notice a very peculiar thing about the overall structure of natural law theory in its political operations (as distinct from its use as a resource for structuring our own moral vision, conscience, and life path). Levels one and three of the hierarchy are meant to be coterminous with reason. Level one rests on the assumption that the universe is rationally and well ordered. Level three is meant to represent the voice of human reason as a manifestation of that overarching reason. Level two is fairly specifically Christian, but it too is understood as an expression of rationality (hence, revelation must be interpreted in ways consistent with rationality). Human laws will then be validated or invalidated based on the rational apprehension of their conformity to human nature and justice in general. Laws are not valid because they stem from a particular political authority or because they are backed up by power. So, on this scheme, governmental laws are always at the theoretical disadvantage. They must always justify themselves.

Let's look at that in practice and see how the metaphysical hierarchy in which natural law theory is grounded provides the basis for undercutting human hierarchies! Imagine the government issues a law which our reason, conscience, and natural moral intuition all approve. Will we have any problem obeying such a law or feel it is oppressive? Probably not. Really, if we're fairly reasonable and decent people we didn't even need it to be a law except for convenience sake (should we drive 20 or 25 miles an hour past a school while the kids are out playing? Well, just pick one and that's what we'll do). On the other hand, let's assume the government promulgates a law that is irrational, violates our consciences, and/or our innate sense of moral fairness? Well, natural law theory gives us good ground to stand on in opposing such a law. See what has happened? Natural law theory will tend to counsel obedience of those laws we already would have been fine with obeying (even without a law) and gives us ground to challenge all the laws which we would not be fine with.


The mode of resistance to unjust law that King defends to his contemners is explicitly non-violent civil disobedience. I think King well knows that (partly for strategic reasons, partly out of an abundance of caution to not violate Christian moral principles, and partly out of the strategic objective of ultimately achieving a reconciliation with the segregationist white folks he and the movement are opposing) this places two restraints on their tactics that are not called for in classic, Thomistic (not to mention Protestant and classical liberal) natural law theory.

First, there is no prohibition on the use of violence. Within classical thinking (along the exact same lines as 'just war theory'), the main restraint on violence is that it be proportionate to the level of threat encountered so that the moral priority of life is preserved. If someone is threatening to take a small portion of my property and otherwise is not posing any danger to myself or others, I should only employ sufficient violence to dissuade them, but am probably not justified in taking their life. If someone is actively shooting all the kiddies in a school, I should use all the violence at my disposal to stop them, so as to preserve as much life as possible. By adopting non-violence as an overarching strategic principle King is limiting his movement's right to use violence beyond what is mandated by natural law theory.

Second, King has limited the scope of confrontation to civil disobedience (the non-compliance with an unjust law with the aim of bringing to public attention its unjust nature with hopes that society as a whole will wish to change it). Already, with Aquinas, in certain circumstances, natural law theory justified quite a bit more when confronted by a tyrant imposing laws that were unjust. Aquinas had justified, at an individual level, the right of an individual to kill a tyrant as a consequence of their right to self-defense. Further, he had justified the right of a group of people to engage in revolution if they were prepared to take on the legitimate duties of government to administer genuine justice.

Rock on Aquinas!

Aquinas had justified all of this in the 13th century. It is true that his overall philosophy is complex and there are virtually infinite qualifications one would need to apply in a given situation to determine what exact level of resistance was justified. Three or four hundred years later when we get slightly more militant Protestant theory and the theories of people like Locke who would play directly into our own American revolution, the main gain that I am seeing in the natural law tradition's theory of resistance to tyrants is the explicit right of preemptive action. If we see the tyrant preparing the chains with which to bind us, we need not wait till they are fastened upon us. Not to mention that much was lost by the Protestant and liberal turn toward metaphysical nominalism.

Nevertheless, rock on Locke and Jefferson!

Modern people have largely fallen out of love with natural law. I think the basic issue is that it entails the notion that there is a human nature and that right and wrong go deeper than what the positive law states. King's Letter helps us remember that natural law is a strong resource in opposing unjust positive laws and can provide a basis for a community to come to moral and legal agreement on issues.

i One assumes that if the primary national leader of the civil rights movement had wanted to be released more quickly, money could have been obtained. One senses that King meant both to lead by example (in that bail money for every possible arrestee could be gotten together so quickly and that the longer he was behind bars, the worse it looked for the authorities. Perhaps he only moved as quickly as he did because his personal appeal was essential to gaining donations to support the overall cause.

ii Over the past several decades, the US Supreme Court has explicitly stated that it will not entertain arguments from natural law in particular cases, especially cases related to gender ideology and sexuality. From a natural law perspective, the perspective from which our right to revolution and to establish ourselves as a separate people and country from Great Britain was justified, as soon as the supreme legal authority of a government states that its laws are beyond natural law, that government is a tyranny, by definition. Just saying.

WD the logician:

Positive law that is in accord with natural law is legitimate

Positive law is the will of a government

Therefore, if the will of a government is not in accord with natural law, it is not legitimate

Our government's will is not in accord with natural law

Therefore, our government's will is not legitimate


Rock on WD!

Winter Oak
20 Feb 2024 | 8:34 am

5. A crucial moment for humankind

by Paul Cudenec

I've lost count of the number of times that I have warned, especially since 2020, of the enormous danger currently staring us in the face.

Looking through the latest Acorn bulletin, published yesterday, I am struck by the realisation that the situation really is as bad as I have been saying, if not even worse!

There is Giovanni Pandolfini pointing to the "perverse and diabolical path" by which small farmers are being forced into debt and off the land in favour of the biggest, most capital-backed, hi-tech and predatory agri-businesses.

There is Escapekey explaining how the fake-green global "climate" operation is nothing other than fraud and theft, "a colossal public transfer to the privileged few".

There are Lynn Davenport and Alice Linehan pointing out that "investors" are making money from our children's schoolwork, thanks to software that turns educational data into yet another source of profit for the financial parasites.

Then there is Toby Rogers warning that "lockdowns" represent "the most extreme form of enclosure in human history"; Kate Mason describing how the "far right" label is being systematically used to crush dissent; reports that "rhetoric seeking to undermine confidence in solutions to climate change" is being presented as the latest variant of "climate denial" and news that draconian new legislation in France criminalises criticism of Big Pharma and its jabs.

We also learn that not only is the UK arming and approving Israel's genocidal ethnic cleansing in Gaza but that, as Lowkey reports, "pro-Israel forces currently have control of NHS, Foreign Office, Home Office and Ministry of Defence data".

I can only agree with Craig Murray when he says: "Sometimes the blindingly obvious is worth saying out loud. Whether I am fighting for Julian Assange, fighting to save Palestinians or fighting the massive wealth gap in western society, I always find I am fighting against precisely the same people and forces".

These people and forces are quite obviously currently making a big move towards their long-cherished goal of a totalitarian world state in which people and nature alike have been reduced to nothing but assets, owned and exploited by the sociopathic ruling class.

They are, to a great extent, throwing caution to the wind in doing so, and are arrogantly revealing their agenda in a way previously unimagineable.

This is the moment to act! We cannot let them get away with their twisted project, even though the vast reach of their corrupt power makes this a challenging proposition.

I have been discussing how we might best resist the criminocacy in my series of articles from Our Quest for Freedom, but here I'll leave the last word to our friends over at The Stirrer.

"One thing we are doing our level best to do is to encourage people to start quietly withdrawing their consent for the system to carry on functioning as it is".

[Audio version]

Winter Oak
19 Feb 2024 | 9:11 am

6. The Acorn – 91

Number 91

In this issue:

  1. An ABC for opposing the criminocracy
  2. The Great "Green" Fraud
  3. A story for farmers in struggle and the citizens who support them
  4. Smelling Flowers in the Rain
  5. John Ball: an organic radical inspiration
  6. Acorninfo

1. An ABC for opposing the criminocracy

by Paul Cudenec

If we wish to fully understand – and thus to effectively oppose – the global criminocrats, we need to stop thinking in terms of "politics" as currently known.

They couldn't care less about questions of political ideology and values, about "left" or "right", "red" or "blue", "capitalism" or "communism".

Yes, these are useful devices in their divide-and-rule strategies, but they have no interest at all in the political content.

This is because they are, quite simply, criminals whose sole aim is to expand and protect their own ill-gotten wealth and power.

They were just as happy to make money in the USSR and Nazi Germany as they are today in fake Western "democracies" or Eastern oligarchies, whether or not currently labelled "communist".

The only thing that matters to them is that the regime in question facilitates Business as Usual for their nefarious activities.

Basically this amounts to:

A. An ever-ongoing flow of money-making opportunities under the guise of "progress", "development", "innovation", "economic growth" or "modernisation". They lend the money to governments for allegedly crucial "infrastructure", they win the contracts, they exploit the labour, they supply the raw materials, they build the machinery, they sell the product, they rake it in. If this gravy train ever slows down a little, all it needs is a convenient war, "pandemic" or other "crisis" to kick it back to full speed.

B. A means of imposing their domination on the population. This historically means the state, which, by direct and indirect taxation, makes people pay for the mechanisms by which they are repressed. Police, government bodies and the military/intelligence forces are all there to protect criminocratic rule and racketeering from dangerous outbreaks of real democracy. As institutional power is globally centralised, international bodies like the EU, the WHO and the UN are also playing this enforcement role.

C. Ensuring their own invisibility. This is very important for the criminocracy because they are all too aware that they are a tiny minority – a few thousand core players against a global population of more than 8 billion. If large numbers of people understood that the criminocracy existed, and what it was up to, the resulting revolt could not be held down, even by the resources available to the criminocracy. A particular worry would that be individuals currently unknowingly working for the criminocracy might switch sides if they understood the real stakes. So the criminocrats encourage limited and misleading versions of history, tightly control media output and systematically deploy the term "conspiracy theorist" to discredit anyone who points in their direction, implying stupidity and borderline insanity with, for added effect, smears such as "extremist", "reactionary", "far-right", "fascist", "terrorist", "hate criminal" and "anti-semite".

In view of this, we can see, emerging from the fog of "political" confusion, the only dividing line that really matters.

Resistance to the criminocracy needs to involve:

A. Opposition to its money-making "development" racket.

B. Opposition to the institutions that impose its central control.

C. Exposure of the existence and activities of the criminocracy to as wide a global public as possible.

Any "resistance" not built on these foundations can achieve nothing.

[Audio version]

Back to top

2. The Great "Green" Fraud

by Escapekey

What you see happening around you has been planned for generations. We're now in the final stages, and the distractions will become increasingly outrageous.

Rather than get distracted, let me summarise what's actually taking place, on how they plan to wrap up their multi-generational efforts to impose a technocratic, global government.

It's about controlling the right to emit carbon dioxide. Because those who do, control economic activity without which you won't be able to do much. And, in this regard, the role of the Earth Summit in Rio in 1992 cannot be overstated.

There are two core components to this scam. The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and the Convention on Biological Diversity, aka the CBD. The former declares that we must not increase temperatures above a certain – arbitrary – threshold. To stay within said – as claimed by the UNFCCC – we have to control emissions. This creates a scarcity of carbon dioxide emissions, which can then be exploited financially.

When a farmer works his field to produce food, or a power plant generates electricity, both will soon be required to 'offset' their carbon dioxide emissions. In this equation, anyone emitting is considered a carbon source, and the flip side of that coin is called a carbon sink. Carbon sinks comprise anything that absorbs carbon dioxide; we here talk about the likes of forests, and wetlands like mangroves.

And while the UNFCCC creates the scarcity, the CBD's stated aim is to increase the pool of allowable carbon dioxide emissions – ie, alleviate said scarcity – through the restoration of biodiversity.

Consequently, when governments set out to spend trillions of your taxes to improve forests, mangroves and so forth, the stated aim is to improve biodiversity, which will lead to an increase in carbon absorbed by said forests, which consequently will increse the pool of (allowable) carbon dioxide emissions.

Carbon dioxide emissions, in this regard, are a type of 'ecosystem service'. And those are rendered by a 'natural asset'. You might have heard this expression before, likely due to the NYSE 'Natural Asset Company' rule change, temporarily put on ice.

These are a type of holding company which has lease on a sustainably exploitable resource, or in their terminology – an 'ecosystem service' – which futher count the likes of fresh water (think Nestle), Eco-tourism, or timber from a forest. However, this exploitation is only allowed provided that the 'natural asset' rendering said 'ecosystem service' is not damaged in the process.

This 'Natural Asset Company' will then in turn be floated on a stock exchange. Once floated, the imperative shifts exclusively to profit generation from the artificially scarce resource – carbon credits – translating into far higher prices for 'carbon sources' – such as farmers and power plant – who will have no option but to increase prices on the end consumer – and that would be you.

Large corporations and opaque financial constructs were in a rush to buy up aquifers and forests a few decades ago. This is why. Most of those investment opportunities were front-run, because the insiders knew where we'd be some 20 years down the line.

However, buying large tracts of land turns expensive, and consequently, under the guise of 'conservation', a great many nations set aside 'nature reserves', and submitted these to the UNESCO Biosphere Reserve program, which at present holds an area of the world comparable to the size of Australia. And these reserves span a great many forests, and other areas of considerable worth from the perspective of monetising carbon credits.

And that's where the Global Environment Facility enters the stage. What they do is to structure 'blended finance' deals for 'ecosystem services', using a 'landscape approach'. And while you should be aware of the former, the latter – the 'landscape approach' is a description of an arbitrary geographic range.

This, along with a duration – ie, a number of years – and the 'ecosystem service' requested, will be presented to the Global Environment Facility, who will structure a such-blended finance deal. The outcome is a lease for an ecosystem service, which will promptly be transferred to a holding company, and floated on the stock exchange as a 'Natural Asset Company'.

Blended finance deals are named as such, because they comprise public (taxpayer), private (billionaire class), and philanthropic capital. Thing is, however, the latter contribute virtually nothing. Their inclusion appears entirely motivated around taking credit.

The private invests 5-20% depending on interest on offer, also depending on geographical region. In Africa, for instance, they have little to no interest, and consequently, the taxpayer contributes practically all in this regard.

What this does, however, outline is that there is fundamentally no reason why the private investor should be involved whatsoever, because their meagre contribution could just as well be picked up by the public (taxpayer).

That's where the structure of these deals enters the stage. Because in spite of being much smaller, the private is 'senior' to the public, meaning in the event of bankruptcy, the private is in effect shielded; the public taxpayer will lose their money before the private will lose a penny. Think 2008, and CDOs – but this time, with your taxes as the sitting duck. Typically, this additional level of risk is compensated for through a higher interest rate, but not so in this regard.

In fact, per GEF itself, it is not uncommon to find the private investor receiving 2-3x interest rate – while, as said, simultaneously running much less risk. In short – all of this is a colossal public transfer to the privileged few. It's a way to continuously squeeze every nation, and every person and business into bankruptcy, one after another, leaving only a few standing at the end. And all of this, under the guise of 'saving the planet'.

And the central banks are in on this. Those CBDCs they currently seek to push through in an obviously coordinated manner? Yes, an increasing amount of documents outline how these will be coupled with carbon emissions down the road, meaning that almost certainly, you will receive the same 'carbon credit allowance' as everyone else, much like how the economy broadly worked – or rather, didn't – in the Soviet Union. This approach is furthermore clearly outlined by One World Trust's 'Charter 99', where said OWT was founded in the wake of WW2, and included the likes of Clement Attlee and Winston Churchill.

Thing is, the whole thing is based on fraud, and that is no exaggeration. There's a large reliance on the 'Contingent Valuation Method', which in no uncertain terms means asking a range of people what they would pay for a given item, and then valuing said on that account. Yes, really. But not only does this 'ecosystem service valuation' depend on this utter guesswork, but assigned values include deeply subjective values, such as valuing a stroll in a forest, regardless of how completely absurd that might appear.

The sheer quantities of information, further, is practically unlimited. To solve this problem, they propose a range of 'approximations' in a way comparable to improving neighbouring squares to cities, when playing a game of Civilisation on your PC.

We can then consider assigning carbon credits to a forest in the first place, which is nothing short of pure guesswork, and highly likely to be distorted in the direction of those insiders attempting to push through this system in the first place.

And then there's the carbon consensus itself. No such existed in 1979, but was the result of a handful of ICSU cherry-picked climate scientists, clearly evidenced by the resulting conference proceedings hinting at extraordinary levels of bias, plus the long-term planning of society in general clearly laid out through said proceedings.

In fact, the quantity of papers pertaining exclusively to carbon dioxide itself was in a minority, which safe to say is a little odd, given that the event took place just 3 years after Bert Bolin – a primary driver of the narrative – unilaterally declared in front of the US Senate that the only thing they knew for sure, was that an increase in carbon dioxide led to increased plant growth. When asked if this led to global warming, he added this was 'his personal opinion only', and he further concluded by stating that professional climate scientists are the least likely to make predictions.

But, of course, as soon as this carbon dioxide narrative was established, annual temperatures suddenly went from being completely unpredictable, to rising in an almost linear fashion. This narrative was fabricated along the way with help from the ICSU and associated scientists, and their committees, which include the likes of SCOPE (Scientific Committee on Problems of the Environment).

Incidentally, it was also SCOPE which set the course for the global surveillance they have progressively rolled out since 1972. But though that's a story in itself, it does deserve a mention as this initiative – through GEO BON and GBIOS – will be used to uphold the Convention on Biological Diversity's centrally stated purpose. Restoring biodiversity.

Which private actors then turn around and monetise.

Back to top

3. A story for farmers in struggle and the citizens who support them

by Giovanni Pandolfini

A few years ago I found myself talking to a farmer, a colleague, who ran his family cereal farm in the fertile and flat lands of the Milan-south park area. He was very concerned about the future of his business, which had supported his family economically for several generations.

The accounts no longer add up, he said:

"Expenses are always rising, as are bureaucratic obligations, tax obligations, workplace safety regulations, environmental sustainability regulations, regulations for upgrading facilities, regulations for purchasing and maintaining the machinery needed to work the land, for seeds, for cultivation treatments (herbicides, fertilisers and pesticides) and for the transport of products, not to mention the cost of energy, agronomic, legal and commercial advice that I absolutely need in order to work and to feel at least in order and not to take risks. "

Complaining further, he added:

"On the other side of the costs there should be adequate revenues but the harvest raises prices that barely cover current expenses when everything is running smoothly, without considering the thousands of possible hiccups that are becoming more and more frequent, new adversities such as invasive pests, particularly strong fungal attacks, damage from game such as ungulates and many others, long dry periods without rain, periods with too much rain and floods, hail and heavy storms with destructive winds, unusual temperatures with daily temperature ranges of around 20° and many others, our only salvation is CAP subsidies and concessions for machine purchases such as capital grants from the psr (i.e. non-refundable, non-returnable) and conduction credits such as agricultural promissory notes that banks renew without too many demands.

"The trade association advised me to specialise, to modernise my company, to innovate my equipment, to invest more decisively in my business, to believe in myself and to rely on them for financial advice, to untangle the jungle of contributions and the swamps of legal obligations.

"On the other hand, they are always the ones who have the cooperatives and consortia that sell me everything I need and then collect the product from me in their processing and storage centres, so I cannot disregard them.

"Of course, in order to benefit from the subsidies, which they always help me to obtain, purchases for innovation and development of my farm must strictly be made with new, increasingly expensive and sophisticated machines. In the past, I used to repair tractors and equipment myself with a small workshop, a welder and a hose, but today mechanics has merged with electronics and I have to turn to specialised workshops that cost a fortune.

"The bank has granted me loans, overdrafts, and advances on invoices because I make the money go round, but now they are telling me that my business is no longer all mine but a little of theirs, and so if I really believe in my business, as they have believed in it, I cannot refuse to sign a guarantee with my real estate, house and land, everything we have, everything my family has built with so much work and toil over time.

"My hands are tied. I don't know what to do anymore, I have to work more but I need more land, I have to increase my business and contributions".

At the end of his reasoning he came to a conclusion :

"I only have 150 hectares, and today with 150 hectares of arable land you can't feed your family, you would need at least twice that amount to be able to live comfortably."

Incredible and completely absurd. By what contortion of thought can one arrive at such a conviction?

The reasoning of the poor modernised, specialised, industrialised agricultural entrepreneur who is more or less in step with the minimum degree of 'legality' required for his activity, is more or less this:

In order to work the land, service the crops, harvest and store the products I obtain, I need to activate many investments. Their amortisation costs me disproportionately to what I can achieve by selling the fruits of my labour on the market, at current prices (assuming everything goes well and with the risks borne by me). My activity only becomes 'possible' if to the saleable product I add a share of subsidy from the agricultural incentive system put in place by the European Community with its complicated allocation mechanism.

And since the main delivery mechanism for CAP funds refers to a premium per hectare, I need a 'minimum' surface area to make my enterprise economically profitable. One understands that those who own an area of land below this limit cannot meet their production costs and if they have not already done so, they have to stop, close down their business; those who are close to this limit risk a lot, work a lot and earn little, while those who own ten or twenty times this limit have much more peace of mind and profit entirely provided by the European community drawing on the tax levy of millions of workers.

Have you ever seen a more unfair mechanism?

I need such an area that allows me to invest more and more in technological innovation and greater use of energy and cultivation inputs so that I can get the most I can out of my land as quickly as possible, while at the same time drawing on the investments that the system offers the most profitable at the time.

Have you ever seen anything more dangerous for the environment and the healthiness of food?

The level of this minimum amount of land required for this type of survival is extremely variable from year to year with the tendency to increase and to favour large companies to the detriment of smaller ones.

A perverse and diabolical path destined to lead to the ruin of almost all practitioners in order to make only a few emerge, the most structured, the most capital-backed, the already large, the most predatory, to the detriment of all the others.

This relationship between surface area and economic sustainability is most evident on cereal or fodder specialisations, but we can extend it to all other more intensive agricultural specialisations such as horticulture, fruit-growing, viticulture, etc. etc., up to animal husbandry with its mega-industrial farms.

Intermediaries and the large-scale retail trade have everything to gain from such a system, and the agricultural producer, who will invariably find himself with a large mass of almost always perishable product at a precise and limited time of the year, is the weakest link in the whole system.

Have you ever seen anything more dangerous?


150 hectares are, for those unfamiliar with the proportions of cultivated areas, a field of 1 km by 1.5 km, roughly equal to 215 football fields.

How is it possible to argue that with such a large area of good fertile lowland land with sufficient water in a temperate climate such as ours, albeit a changing one, one cannot achieve sufficient income to feed a family?

In 150 hectares, approximately 180 to 200+ people could live and work and produce food for themselves and 800 others, with minimal mechanisation and almost complete self-sufficiency in energy and raw materials.

This would only be possible by practising agro-ecological peasant agriculture .

With a system of local and direct distribution of one's own products, without intermediaries, without consultants, with the direct assumption of one's own environmental and social responsibilities, with a simple and effective mechanism of participatory guarantee of the healthiness of one's own products at a local level, with a self-managed credit system, with the possibility of transforming and preserving one's own products in small artisanal plants, with rules different to those of the agro-industry, one could also obtain a decent income without too much effort and without self-exploitation.

What has happened and what is still happening in our countryside? Why does a farmer go so far as to sustain the paradox that he cannot feed himself and his family on 'just' 150 hectares?

It is useless to ask and demand more investment from the institutions, more attention to the workers in the primary sector, more dignified sales conditions for their products, an income sufficient to their expectations and needs – they will always respond with more bureaucracy, more technology, more specialisation and more subservience to their system.

It is necessary to get out of the condition of agricultural enterprise in a globalised market and build a local and decentralised community fabric that can autonomously dispose of its territory, control it and defend it.

A thousand and one village autonomies that through the production of their own food can represent the most economically and ecologically sustainable and humanly pleasant way of being in this world.

Have you ever seen anything easier?

Back to top

4. Smelling Flowers in the Rain

A dystopian future is depicted in a new film due to be released in June 2024.

A trailer for Smelling Flowers in the Rain, a Spy My Studio production, can already be found on social media.

The story, set in 2040, explores the rise of an extraordinary young man (Flynn Faroe) amidst a background of repulsive realities and raw repression that leaves him no alternative than to rise up and revolt.

Explain Spy My Studio: "No path to emancipation is ever easy, it's built on the bones of the brave and the bold. Flynn Faroe dreams of utopia but lives in dystopia, something has to give, and it will.

"He gets his kicks from downing drones and bashing bots. It is a spontaneous naive reaction to his cards of life. Just when he thought life could not get any worse, it does as he becomes an unwitting victim of the tongue of treachery.

"Flynn Faroe has a choice, get out of Thraldom or face a fate far worse than death. But how to escape from the most surveilled confinement city in the empire?

"His face adorns electronic billboards across a city where many would gleefully turn his carcass in for less than the price of a chemical coffee. Few could remember a manhunt of this intensity.

"The stakes are high. His antagonist, the sinister Chief AGI who was programmed by a sadist, is chomping at the bit to get him strapped into his dreaded interrogation chair.

"Infamy has a price to pay. It also opens unexpected doors that lead to unimaginable outcomes… and Melissa Moore.

"In a plot with more twists than a hangman's noose, the protagonist navigates an uphill battle against all the odds to finally discover a Utopia actually exists but its days are numbered, unless…"

More info here.

Back to top

5. John Ball: an organic radical inspiration

The latest in our series of profiles from the orgrad website.

John Ball

"When Adam delved and Eve span, Who was then the gentleman?"

John Ball (c. 1340-1381) was a wandering radical preacher, a "hedgerow priest", who came to the fore in the medieval Peasants' Revolt in England.

He was thrown out of his job as a priest in Colchester in 1366 and started travelling around medieval England, spreading the word of revolt. He was thrown in jail on several occasions.

In 1381, when 100,000 rebels marched into London, capturing towns and castles on their way, they freed him from prison.

Ball preached to the crowds at Blackheath and it is here that he asked the famous rhetorical question: "When Adam delved and Eve span, Who was then the gentleman?"

George Woodcock identifies Ball as one of the figures of the English and German peasant uprisings who first voiced "the kind of social criticism that was to end in anarchism". (1)


The fragment of his speech which was preserved for posterity by French chronicler Jean Froissart "attacks both property and authority and implies a link between them that anticipates the arguments developed by the nineteenth-century anarchists", adds Woodcock. (2)

Ball said: "Things cannot go well in England, nor ever will, until all goods are held in common, and until there will be neither serfs not gentlemen, and we shall be equal.

"For what reason have they, whom we call lords, got the best of us? How did they deserve it? Why do they keep us in bondage? If we all descend from one father and one mother, Adam and Eve, how can they assert or prove that they are more masters than ourselves? Except perhaps that they make us work and produce for them to spend!" (3)

Ball told his medieval contemporaries that their serfdom was unjust and that the time had come when they could "cast off the yoke they have borne so long and win the freedom they have always yearned for". (4)

Ball's radicalism was very much inspired by the dream of a Golden Age, the idea of a natural, organic, egalitarian society which had been stolen from the people.

Talking about the weeds ("tares") in the Bible that had almost choked the good grain, he declared that the tares were the great lords, the judges and the lawyers. They all had to go, so that the people could all enjoy equal freedom, rank, and power, and share all things in common. (5)

When the authorities had crushed the revolt, Ball was tried and executed in the presence of Richard II.


Ball has been an inspirational figure for countless generations of English radicals. He appears, for instance, as a character in an anonymous 1593 play called The Life and Death of Jack Straw and would have been familiar to Gerrard Winstanley and the other radicals of the 17th century English Revolution who took up his call for an England where all things were held in common.

In 1888 William Morris published his novel A Dream of John Ball, in which a time-traveller updates Ball on the end of feudalism and subsequent rise of industrial capitalism. The radical priest realises that his hopes for a free and egalitarian future have yet to be realised, five hundred years after his death.

In 1999, an article in Green Anarchist declared that Ball's message was "not of moderation, not of putting limited demands for financial improvement, but of the revolutionary desire for authenticity and true human community that underlay them, of the courage to fight for ourselves and our visions". (6)

Video link: The Thoughts of John Ball (5 mins)


1. George Woodcock, Anarchism: A History of Libertarian Ideas and Movements (Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1979), p. 38.
2. Ibid.
3. Woodcock, p. 39.
4. Peter Marshall, Demanding the Impossible: A History of Anarchism (London: Fontana, 1993), p. 91.
5. Ibid.
6. John Connor, 'John Ball – Primitivist: The Peasants' Revolt and the State of Nature', Green Anarchist #57-58, Autumn 1999.


Back to top

6. Acorninfo

"Pro-Israel forces currently have control of NHS, Foreign Office, Home Office and Ministry of Defence data. Your data". Some shocking revelations from rapper and journalist Lowkey in this must-see 8-minute video.

* * *

"The day will come when everyone will deny they were a Zionist. They will say it was a difficult time, and how could they have known about the horrors it caused. Zionism has had its day. A truly awful ideology that shames everyone who supported it" – so says UK artist and dissident Daniel Fooks. Meanwhile, for anyone who wants to take action against companies in the UK arming Israel's genocide, Campaign Against Arms Trade (CAAT) has released an interactive map of locations where F35 jet components are made.

* * *

"The United Arab Emirates is not just a totalitarian state, but part of a new imperial axis with the Zionist state", warns academic and journalist David Miller. He adds: "Part of the reason some anti-imperialists still cling to outdated ideas of the Zionist project and Gulf states as simple US satellites is this major blind spot about the importance of the UAE-Israel relationship and how its black ops are changing the world around us, from Europe to Africa to India".

* * *

An extremely sinister new law was agreed on February 14 2024 by the French state, aimed at criminalising opposition to Big Pharma and its jabs. Article 4 of new legislation, previously dropped because of its controversial nature, creates an offence of "provoking the abandonment of medical care", carrying the possibility of three years in jail and a fine of up to 45,000 euros. President Emmanuel Macron is a former Rothschild banker.

* * *

"Are you questioning the Climate Change modelling, the measures governments are putting in place under the guise of Net Zero, or that enormous amount of money that is going into global corporate hands? You're a Far Right Extremist!" Kate Mason writes from Australia on the way that the "far right" is being used by the criminocracy as a device to justify totalitarian crushing of all dissent. All across the world, they are using the same trick. The global thought police have even apparently decreed that a new variant of "climate denial" has emerged – merely involving "rhetoric seeking to undermine confidence in solutions to climate change". They really can't stomach us questioning their racket!

* * *

"What appears to be the case is that important decision-making positions within a government or a public sector body can now be occupied by people who are working for private interests". Sophie Cooke writes on the Real Left website about corruption, BlackRock and the 'public private partnerships' that are the basis of criminocratic rule.

* * *

"Sometimes the blindingly obvious is worth saying out loud. Whether I am fighting for Julian Assange, fighting to save Palestinians or fighting the massive wealth gap in western society I always find I am fighting against precisely the same people and forces". Former UK diplomat Craig Murray draws attention to something many of us have noticed…

* * *

Winter Oak's Paul Cudenec has been busy sharing his views in recent weeks and can be seen and/or heard talking to William Ramsey Investigates, Grimerica Outlawed and Rick Munn of TNT radio.

* * *

"It's up to the 'progressive left' to start actually listening to what people outside the M25 (London's ring road) and the ideological walled gardens embodied in places like The Conduit are actually saying. Not what they think we are, based on polling and prejudice". Ben Rubin's video report from the pavement outside a London event is well worth watching.

* * *

"Are math software programs in place to teach our kids math, or to monetize their scores for expected outcomes investors are looking for? Interestingly enough, investors are making money on their scores. Within this shift away from a focus on reading, writing, math, and history, to formative assessments that monitor children through every click, data is collected and sold". This Social Impact Podcast with Lynn Davenport and Alice Linehan is very useful for anyone trying to get their head around the criminocracy's impact slavery scam.

* * *

"What's significant about Covid is that it represents the most extreme form of enclosure in human history… Lockdowns are a form of enclosure — putting an imagined fence around your home and turning it into your own personal ghetto", writes Toby Rogers on his Substack blog.

* * *

"One thing we are doing our level best to do is to encourage people to start quietly withdrawing their consent for the system to carry on functioning as it is". The Stirrer points to the way ahead in a February 14 article.

* * *

"Antifa are not anarchists", explains this clear-thinking British YouTuber. "They want to be able to silence free speech and they're against bodily autonomy. They're authoritarians".

* * *

Acorn quote:

"Corporations seek not only to influence legislation and regulation but also to define the agenda – what it is legitimate for government to consider and what can be discussed in the political arena – thereby rendering those groups who have other agendas ineffective". Sharon Beder.

(For many more like this, see the Winter Oak quotes for the day blog)

Back to top

If you like this bulletin please tell others about it. Subscribe by clicking the "follow" button.


Back Issues

The Acorn 90

The Acorn 89

The Acorn 88

The Acorn 87

The Acorn 86

The Acorn 85

The Acorn 84

The Acorn 83

The Acorn 82

The Acorn 81

The Acorn 80

The Acorn 79

The Acorn 78

The Acorn 77

The Acorn 76

The Acorn 75

The Acorn 74

The Acorn 73

The Acorn 72

The Acorn 71

The Acorn 70

The Acorn 69

The Acorn 68

The Acorn 67

The Acorn 66

The Acorn 65

The Acorn 64

The Acorn 63

The Acorn 62

The Acorn 61

The Acorn 60

The Acorn 59

The Acorn 58

The Acorn 57

The Acorn 56

The Acorn 55

The Acorn 54

The Acorn 53

The Acorn 52

The Acorn 51

The Acorn 50

The Acorn 49

The Acorn 48

The Acorn 47

The Acorn 46

The Acorn 45

The Acorn 44

The Acorn 43

The Acorn 42

The Acorn 41

The Acorn 40

The Acorn 39

The Acorn 38

The Acorn 37

The Acorn 36

The Acorn 35

The Acorn 34

The Acorn 33

The Acorn 32

The Acorn 31

The Acorn 30

The Acorn 29

The Acorn 28

The Acorn 27

The Acorn 26

The Acorn 25

The Acorn 24

The Acorn 23

The Acorn 22

The Acorn 21

The Acorn 20

The Acorn 19

The Acorn 18

The Acorn 17

The Acorn 16

The Acorn 15

The Acorn 14

The Acorn 13

The Acorn 12

The Acorn 11

The Acorn 10

The Acorn 9

The Acorn 8

The Acorn 7

The Acorn 6

The Acorn 5

The Acorn 4

The Acorn 3

The Acorn 2

The Acorn 1

Follow Winter Oak on Twitter at @WinterOakPress

Winter Oak
16 Feb 2024 | 8:58 am

7. Our Quest for Freedom: Explaining and Proposing

by Paul Cudenec

[This is from my new book Our Quest for Freedom and other essays]


As well as describing to other people the horrific reality in which we find ourselves today, we also need to explain to them how it was that we got here.

It is astonishing how many simply imagine it has always been like this.

The system fosters historical ignorance and even a falsified history that depicts the encroachment of criminocratic domination as a positive phenomenon.

We are told that everything that has happened to us was somehow inevitable and right. 2024 could only ever have looked the way it is today and 2050 can only be the way the criminocrats tell us it is going to be.

Over the last decade, I have tried to shed some historical light on how we came to be where we are today, particularly in The Stifled Soul of Humankind (2014) and The Withway (2022).

The key, indisputable, fact is that humans were once free, in the way that all wild living creatures are free.

The condition into which we have sunk does not really show humankind as being the cream of creation or the peak of evolution.

Animals often eat each other, of course, and can take a primal pleasure out of killing for the sake of it. Let's not romanticise them.

But have you ever seen a fat adult crow sitting on top of a tree, having his food brought up to him by a dozen other birds who seem to feel the need to obey his commands?

Have you ever seen a young deer frolick happily through the sunlit woods but then suddenly stop short, check the time on its digital antlers, and go trotting glumly back to a dark cave to spend the rest of the day tapping figures into a computer database?

Have you ever seen a fish in the water approached by burly fish bailiffs and told that if he doesn't cough up the river-rent he will thrown up on to the bank to die?

Layers and layers of control have been built up over the years to crush the human spirit, layers which are not just physical, but psychological.

We find it quite normal that we are slaves, cut off from our natural and communal belonging and at the complete mercy of a gang of powerful criminals.

We regard it as quite acceptable that any signs of resistance to that state of affairs are quickly hammered into invisibility by the iron fist of illegitimate "authority".

We consider it inevitable that future generations, our offspring, will continue to be herded and prodded and abused and milked and medicated and culled and consumed by those with all the power that money can buy and all the money that power can provide.


Once we have explained to people that our freedom has been stolen from us, it seems logical enough to propose that we take it back!

But it only works in that order. You have to dig the foundations before you build the house.

When we have realised what kind of world we are living in, and heading further into, when we have remembered that notion of a different way of being and felt our yearning for it, when that has prompted us to expose the ill-doing of power and to share the history of how it came to dominate us, then – and only then – can we suggest that we do something about it.

Otherwise, what sense does any of it make? How can you ask someone to help make a better world if they have not understood what is wrong with the world in the first place and what factors were responsible for that?

Change for the sake of change is not good change. Change for the sake of change is often the kind of change favoured by the criminocrats themselves.

The tightening of their control is always a "reform" and they know no better way to grab more power than by means of a "revolution".

Our quest for freedom does not start in mid-air, or in the pages of some dry book of theory masquerading as radical truth.

Our quest starts from our guts, from our souls, from our memories, from our brains, from our hearts.

What we propose is a return to freedom which is not a turning-back in time but a rediscovery of the way we are meant to be, the archetypal way of being.

We propose the pursuit of our yearning, a nostalgic search for a future we had and lost, a deep desire to live once more in line with everything we know to be right and true and natural and beautiful and just.

[Audio version]

Our Quest for Freedom and other essays can be downloaded for free here or purchased here.

Winter Oak
14 Feb 2024 | 9:52 am

8. Enemies of the People: Profiteering from War After War

We are meant to believe that history unfolds randomly and chaotically. But, if we look closely, we can see certain repeating patterns reflecting the way in which major world events are frequently manipulated behind the scenes. As the drums of war grow louder in 2024, we present, by way of warning regarding the agenda concerned, this chapter from Paul Cudenec's essay on the history of the corrupt Rothschild empire.

There was a period in the 19th century when the Rothschilds gained a certain reputation for defending the peace in Europe, but with hindsight this appears to have been yet more expediency on their part.

When their self-interest in the form of their investments required stability, they were against the disruption caused by war, but this was never a moral principle.

Indeed, the whole success of their dynasty was founded on the way in which they exploited the opportunities presented to them by the wars that followed the French Revolution of 1789.

Ferguson writes that "the Rothschilds were presented with undreamed-of business opportunities by the revolutionary wars", [60] while Bouvier defines the Rothschilds as "that family of merchants made rich by the long European war of 1792 to 1815". [61]

According to historian Egon Caesar Corti, "it was in the profits made from war at that time that we can find the real origins of the subsequent enormous fortune of the House of Rothschild". [62]

The Rothschilds made money out of war in a range of different ways, not all of which were entirely legal. "The disruption of established patterns of trade and banking created room for ambitious risk takers", as Ferguson puts it. [63]

In their home city of Frankfurt they took advantage of food shortages and spiralling prices to operate on the black market and sold provisions to armies at a considerable profit. [64]

From 1808 onwards, Nathan Rothschild (pictured) exported English guineas to the continent. Ferguson describes this as a "lucrative line of business" [65] and Bouvier adds that "the profits were no doubt proportionate to the risks". [66]

British goods, including cotton fabric, sugar, indigo and tobacco, were also transported across the Channel, via the Rothschilds' warehouses, in defiance of Napoleon's blockade. [67]

Close to Wilhelm IX, the Elector of HesseKassel, Mayer Amschel Rothschild was involved in his purchase of thousands of mercenaries to join the British-led fight against the French forces. [68]

Wars are expensive affairs and the financing has to come from somewhere. "As the scale and cost of the conflict between France and the rest of Europe rose, so too did the borrowing needs of the combatant states", says Ferguson. [69]

"The defeat of France in the Napoleonic Wars had been financed to a large extent by British loans and subsidies to Austria, Russia and Prussia. With their establishments in Frankfurt, London and Paris, the Rothschilds had been in a uniquely good position to facilitate these transfers". [70]

He says that their activities at this time ushered in a new era in financial as well as political history.

"The Rothschilds stretched their credit to breaking point, sometimes losing sight altogether of their assets and liabilities, gambling everything they owned for the sake of governmental commissions, interest payments and speculative gains from exchange rate and bond yield fluctuations. In 1815 alone, Nathan's account with the British government totalled close to £10 million, a huge sum at that time". [71]

Particularly striking is the way in which Nathan Rothschild used funds entrusted to him by Wilhelm IX as if it was his own capital, investing in hundreds of thousands of pounds worth of British government bonds and thereby securing the proximity to the British state for which his family is still known. [72]

The Rothschilds' network of agents across Europe also famously enabled them to be the first in London to have news of Napoleon's final defeat at Waterloo in 1815, which, says Bouvier, perhaps enabled Nathan Rothschild to pull off a spectacular coup at the Stock Exchange. [73]

Writes Ferguson: "The Rothschilds emerged in 1815 as sterling millionaires. Almost at once, Nathan embarked on perhaps the most successful transaction of his career: a huge investment in British government bonds (consols) whereby he rode the upswing caused by the government's postwar financial stabilization, taking his profits just before the market peaked. This was Nathan's supreme Meistergeschäft, realizing profits of more than £250,000 at a stroke". [74]

Financing wars became something of a speciality for the Rothschilds; they loaned £1 million to Brazil to fund its war with Argentina and Uruguay in 1851, for example. [75]

A couple of years later, they were back in action floating the British Government's Crimean War Loan, [76] a reflection of the near monopoly enjoyed by Rothschilds over British war finance. [77]

Their involvement in this 1853-1856 conflict torpedoes the idea that they had a vested interest in maintaining the peace.

Ferguson insists: "Far from weakening the Rothschilds' position, the Crimean War had precisely the opposite effect in that it emphatically reasserted the Rothschild houses' primacy in the field of public finance.

"Indeed, it demonstrated that the Rothschilds had for years been exaggerating the financial dangers of war. In reality, wars – and especially short wars of the sort which characterised the period from 1854 to 1871 – created financial opportunities which they, with their distinctive multinational structure, were especially well placed to exploit". [78]

As well as lending Britain a total of £26 million for the Crimean War, which was added to the £782 million existing national debt subsequent to the Napoleonic Wars, [79] they also lent money to France and Turkey. [80]

While those two powers were both British allies in that conflict against Russia, between 1859 and 1870 the Rothschilds "would find themselves repeatedly on both sides of decisive conflicts which were to recast the map of Europe", writes Ferguson. [81]

"The wars of the 1850s and 1860s were fought by states which were, by and large, strapped for cash; this more than anything else explains the importance of the role played by bankers in the period – and the substantial profits they could make". [82]

He adds that their internal communications reveal that the Rothschilds "were calculating carefully to ensure that both sides in the conflict paid them for their financial services". [83]

Ferguson stresses that it would be absurd to argue that there was no connection between the overall profitability of the period for the Rothschilds and the recurrence of military conflict.

"Far from damaging their position as the world's leading multinational bank, the wars of the mid nineteenth-century generated unprecedented business for the Rothschilds, just as fifty years before it had been war which had set them on their way to fortune and notoriety". [84]

I will mention later the political Rothschild-linked machinations behind the outbreak of the Franco-Prussian War in 1870, but suffice to say here that they were involved with both sides and as a result their power in France and Europe was further enhanced. [85]

Having been lured into launching the war, which they lost, the French were landed with hefty reparations.

Of course, the Rothschilds were on hand to provide loans to the French state to pay off Prussia.

"It was, quite simply, the biggest financial operation of the century, and arguably the Rothschilds' crowning achievement", [86] writes Ferguson.

"As a percentage of GDP, French public debt was already 44 per cent in 1869, before the war, and 59 per cent in 1871, before most of the indemnity had been paid. So the total internal and external debt burden in 1871 was in the vicinity of 80 per cent of GDP". [87]

It was an "immense risk" [88] for the Rothschilds in France to be identified with paying such large sums of money to Berlin, he adds, and it is "extraordinary" how little criticism was levelled at Alphonse de Rothschild for his "great operation", as the family termed it. [89]

"Great racket" would be nearer the truth!

I have already described [90] the Rothschild connections to South Africa, where the Boer War of 1899-1902 was essentially a grab of gold and diamond resources for Rothschild interests including De Beers.

It is worth recalling that this conflict saw the first use of concentration camps, in which the families of Dutch-origin settlers were shockingly imprisoned.

A few years later the Rothschilds semi-secretly helped finance the Japanese in their war against Russia in 1904-1906 and then openly loaned a further £48 million issue to help build back the post-war Japanese economy. [91]

They performed the same role on the other side of the conflict, when "Russian industry recovered spectacularly thanks to the Rothschilds and other international bankers who poured massive loans into the country", [92] as Docherty and Macgregor note.

The Rothschilds' role in the conspiracy to start and prolong the First World War is of utmost importance, but since I have already examined it in detail elsewhere, I will not repeat myself here.

I will simply remind readers that the Rothschilds and their associates were able to profit from the bloodbath in multiple ways – through loans to finance the war and subsequent "build back better" projects, yes, but also very directly through their heavy involvement in the arms trade.

One important player in this respect was wealthy international arms dealer Basil Zaharoff, deeply involved in both munitions and international politics at the time and "a Rothschild man", in Docherty and Macgregor's words. [93]

By 1914, Zaharoff sat on the boards of Vickers and Le Nickel, both Rothschild-financed and influenced. [94]

He would no doubt have agreed with James de Rothschild, who proudly told his nephews in 1866: "In a war there is money to be made from having money". [95]

[Audio version]

See also: A Crime Against Humanity: The Great Reset of 1914-1918

[60] Niall Ferguson, The House of Rothschild: The World's Greatest Banker 1849-1998 (New York: Penguin, 2000), p. xxi.
[61] Jean Bouvier, Les Rothschild (Brussels: Editions Complexe, 1983), p. 14.
[62] Egon Caesar Corti, Les Rothschild, volume 1 (Paris: Payot, 1929) p. 31, cit. Bouvier, p. 23.
[63] Ferguson, p. xxii.
[64] Bouvier, p. 23.
[65] Ferguson, p. xxii.
[66] Bouvier, p. 41.
[67] Bouvier, p. 34.
[68] Bouvier, p. 25.
[69] Ferguson, p. xxi.
[70] Ferguson, p. 455.
[71] Ferguson, p. xxiii.
[72] Ferguson, p. xxii.
[73] Bouvier, p. 46.
[74] Ferguson, p. xxiii.
[75] Ferguson, p. 68.
[76] Ferguson, p. 40.
[77] Ferguson, p. 73.
[78] Ferguson, p. 72.
[79] Ferguson, p. 73.
[80] Ferguson, p. 75.
[81] Ferguson, p. 89.
[82] Ferguson, p. 94.
[83] Ferguson, p. 98.
[84] Ferguson, p. 94.
[85] Ferguson, p. 190.
[86] Ferguson, p. 205.
[87] Ferguson, p. 205.
[88] Ferguson, p. 209.
[89] Ferguson, pp. 211.
[90] Paul Cudenec, 'A Crime against humanity: The Great Reset of 1914-18',, October 2022.
[91] Takahashi Korekiyo, The Rothschilds and the Russo-Japanese War, 1904-06), pp. 20-21 cit. Gerry Docherty and Jim Macgregor, Hidden History: The Secret Origins of the First World War (Edinburgh & London: Mainstream Publishing, 2013), p. 93.
[92] Jim Macgregor and Gerry Docherty, Prolonging the Agony: How the Anglo-American Establishment Deliberately Extended WWI by Three-and-a-Half Years (Walterville, OR: Trine Day, 2018), p. 442.
[93] Macgregor and Docherty, Prolonging the Agony, p. 331.
[94] Macgregor and Docherty, Prolonging the Agony, p. 331.
[95] Ferguson, p. 149.

Winter Oak
12 Feb 2024 | 8:55 am

9. Our Quest for Freedom: Exposing

by Paul Cudenec

[This is from my new book Our Quest for Freedom and other essays]

We are not going to achieve our quest without persuading others to join us.

The initial task presented to us – one which many of us have long embraced – is to expose the existence of a global ruling system and, at one and the same time, expose its essential wrongness.

While people may well have that feeling of things not being right of which we have already spoken, it usually takes more concrete evidence to move them to action.

Their initial action will probably, indeed, be to share the information that we have brought to their attention.

It is relatively easy to find and communicate information that undermines the current system.

This is because of the very nature of the system and of those who have constructed it and who control it.

If we were living under some imaginary feudal tyranny, this approach would not necessarily work.

The question would ultimately be one of allegiance. A prince or king claims authority over the land and exercises it in the way he sees fit.

While his means may be cruel and his motives less than pure, there would still be some who supported him.

He's our king, they would say. He's a strong leader, we respect him, we love him.

An old-fashioned king doesn't even pretend to represent the interests of the serfs. He relies on a shared view of the world in which he is in charge and they simply follow.

Today's criminocrats are different, partly because they insist that they are "democratic". They have invented an elaborate coded language of virtue-signalling to dress up their agenda of control as sugary benevolent gifts to the population.

They cannot simply declare a kingly right to rule ('constitutional' monarchies don't count, here!), because they do not even own up to being our rulers.

There is thus an essential hypocrisy which is ripe to be exposed – the hypocrisy of tyrants who pretend they are something else.

A second way in which today's criminocrats are different is that they are criminals. Real criminals. Their power has been achieved through lying, cheating, stealing, murdering, threatening, blackmailing, bribing and concealing.

They have never altered this behaviour to reflect the fact that they have achieved the power they were originally seeking. They have never decided to become benevolent rulers acting in the general interest.

And they never will, because they are nothing but liars, cheaters, thieves, murderers, intimidators, blackmailers, corrupters and concealers. They know nothing else.

There will always be some ill-doing of theirs that can be exposed because their whole existence is based on doing ill.

And there will always be evidence to be had of them concealing their ill-doing, because concealment is part of their culture.

As well providing a constant source of material for those exposing their activities, our rulers' criminal nature also amplifies the deeper impact of such revelations.

For the vast majority of humankind, activities such as engineering wars to make money, deliberately poisoning people or trafficking children for sex are utterly beyond their acceptable moral limits.

In fact, we can find it unbelievable that other human beings could sink so low as to behave in such a way.

This is because our innate sense of how we could and should be living includes a moral code, a natural sense of right and wrong, which precludes this kind of behaviour.

The criminocrats have no such ethical code: they have cut themselves off from goodness and their only guiding star is their own callous self-interest.

When we become aware of this enormous divergence between our natural way of seeing things and our rulers' corrupted one, we are still further alienated from the system in which we live.

Now we know why we do not feel right in this world. It has been built according to a morality that is entirely alien to us, to our innermost beliefs.

And yet it hides that rotten core behind a glittering facade of "progressive" do-gooding.

It's those adverts on the TV again – a smarmy, smirking besuited liar holding a knife behind his back, beckoning us into a planet-sized prison sprayed with gold paint and bedecked with rainbow bunting.

What are our guts telling us about him?

[Audio version]

Our Quest for Freedom and other essays can be downloaded for free here or purchased here.

Winter Oak
9 Feb 2024 | 9:25 am

10. Forest Rebels (Deep Resistance Part 6)

The final essay in a six-part series by W.D. James, who teaches philosophy in Kentucky, USA.

Where have all the rebels gone?

Hiding behind computer screens

Where's the spirit, where's the soul?

Where have all the rebels gone?

Why don't they come out of the woodwork now?

One for the money, two for the show

It's not very rock and roll

– Van Morrison, Where Have All the Rebels Gone?i

It's now friend-enemy all the way down.

– Anonymous

Increasingly our politics devolve to the level of stark enmity and the exercise of openly repressive power. The 20th century legal theorist Carl Schmitt famously analyzed this sort of situation in terms of the friend-enemy distinction.ii Two groups opposed to one another in a posture of existential threat. A fight is in the offing and the stakes are high.

The Enemy

Who is the enemy we contend against? At this point, it would be pretty accurate to just say 'the Elites'. However, it is helpful to define who that is with more specificity and to understand why our contemporary elites are who they are and what situation they find themselves in.

I believe when the economic and political super-elite look out their windows, they see a scary world:

  • The global economy is largely stagnant, with negative forecasts for the near-term;
  • The global financial structure is in a protracted crisis that central bankers have proven powerless to correct;
  • The central banks have been able to keep the profits of private corporations high, but only at the cost of amassing staggering public debt, which cannot continue indefinitely and also contributes to the overall instability of financial markets;
  • It is increasingly clear that our industrial practices have wrecked the planetary environment and massive economic costs and disruptions will necessarily follow within the foreseeable future;
  • Reserves of fossil fuels are becoming increasingly expensive to access and 'renewables' incapable of replacing them to meet our existing and growing demands for energy;
  • In a world of decreasing resources and opportunities, elite interest can only be won at the expense of the rest of us. This is not a win-win situation.
  • Large numbers of people across the globe are actively resisting the maneuvers of the elites.

They are like powerful but wounded and cornered animals. Their strategy has to be to manage the inevitable decline in overall wealth creation, and the social and political turmoil that that will generate, while maintaining their own dominance and security.

Who our enemy is becomes clearer. It is all those at the very top of the current world system who can't help but see their interests as being aligned in the face of the challenges confronting them. The super wealthy of all nations; the political establishments of the wealthy nations; the heads of global financial institutions; the heads of the giant tech and other companies; the propaganda apparatus of these institutions, the mass media; the managerial class of all these same institutions: these comprise an increasingly self-aware network of interlocking global elites.

Their strategy relies on the implementation of expansive technological control of the world's populations. Through the elimination of privacy and the integration of all individuals into systems of surveillance and control, the elites hope to administer the decline in standards of living and growing scarcity while preempting any rebelliousness on the part of the plebs.

This is accompanied by an ideology of social fragmentation, disassociation from reality, and control through the manufacture of fear. The years 2020-2022 saw the crystallization of this ideology with the orchestrated response to the COVID pandemic, the acceleration of social fragmentation and societal self-destruction represented by the corporate and governmental cooptation of identity politics movements, and the adoption of the transgender issue (the tip of the transhumanist spear) as the litmus test for compliance with manufactured 'reality'.

The Friends

Our friends are all those who oppose this global elite and resist its machinations of technological enslavement and ideological hegemony. Hence, we are, at present, defined mainly in negative terms of what we oppose rather than in the positive terms of what we offer. However, in general, we love certain things that are under threat and, so, a positive aspect is still present within our resistance. Again, broadly speaking, we are all who:

  • Intend to and insist upon acting as political subjects; we do not plan to go quietly into the night; we insist on remaining agents of our futures, not objects of administration;
  • As opposed to the global focus of the elites, we are tied to and committed to various forms of localism; we care about where and with whom we live; we want local control over our own lives;
  • We love and intend to preserve our freedom;
  • We will not be dominated by ideological insanity and fear; we will maintain our sense of humor and foster a million little joys in our lives.

Before the watershed year of 2020, we would have found ourselves divided and spread across the political spectrum: from libertarians to anarchists, from family-values conservatives to feminists, from nationalistic patriots to left-wing populists. We saw ourselves more divided by race, gender, and nationality than by economic class. Increasingly though, we start to recognize one another as friends.

Forest Rebelsiii

In the preceding five essays, I have tried to show how the ancient philosophies of Cynicism and Stoicism provide resources for making us the sort of people capable of resistance. Among modern writers, the most insightful person I have come across in this regard is the German novelist and social theorist Ernst Jünger.

Jünger was concerned with how to preserve the human in the face of modernity's anti-human development. He did this through an analysis of several ideal-types of the individual as enframed by modern technology. He was a highly decorated and oft wounded storm trooper in the First World War. His experience in the mechanized slaughter of trench warfare formed the basis of his analysis of the 'front-soldier'. Between the wars, in the society of the total mobilization of production, he analyzed the 'worker.' After World War Two he developed the type of 'the forest rebel' and, later, the 'anarch'.

Even in the 1950s, Jünger felt that all modern states, even liberal democracies, were essentially totalitarian and aimed at controlling their populations through propaganda, automation, and statistical surveillance. Digital technology exponentially magnifies that potential. Through its intrusive mechanisms he felt that the state sought to interrogate and ultimately objectify the individual 'soul.' If an individual were to choose to resist the state, by cultivating a space of interior freedom, they would by this act constitute themselves a 'combatant' in opposition to the state. The type of the 'forest rebel' is meant to be broad enough to cover both an individual who seeks to remain below the radar of the state in a lonely act of resistance and actual forest rebels along the lines of an armed insurgency.

Likewise, the 'forest' might refer to an actual hinterland where an insurgency might form or to primordial spiritual reality outside the state's realm of control where the would-be rebel repairs to in order to marshal their strength. While it remains possible that the forest rebel may inaugurate an overt rebellion, the fundamental nature of the rebel, for Jünger, is that they maintain their interior freedom while contesting and subverting the symbols and values of the regime, and offer up alternative, antithetical, symbols and values.

At root, the struggle the forest rebel undertakes is a spiritual battle. To enter into the 'forest passage' is to engage with what Jünger calls "supra-temporal being". Metaphorically, the forest is the realm of freedom and anarchy (think of Robin Hood and Sherwood Forest). Jünger accepts that within the realm of time and space, a totalitarian regime can wield control through indoctrination, punishment, and fear. The rebel must ultimately access the deep roots of being, beyond time and space, the source of all religion and spiritual being, to regain authentic freedom.

Jünger holds that to escape the regime's matrix of control involves playing a "higher game;" that is, to enter into a spiritual struggle against the always essentially materialistic values of the regime. This entails what he calls an "initiation" into primordial being which, like all traditional initiations, involves a confrontation with and moving beyond death. For Jünger, genuine rebellion must stem from these deep places. Rebellion entails at least the possibility of martyrdom; but ultimately, as history bears witness, the cause of the martyrs often triumphs.

This is heady German Neo-Romantic stuff. I'm not really going to try to simplify his ideas and we really have just scratched the surface of them. However, I think several salient points ring true:

  • Our resistance is, at root, a spiritual resistance. It is a battle of values and different conceptions of existence.
  • As the regime perfects the technological means of control it can produce increasing conformity.
  • The sources of authentic counter-values are deeply rooted in being, in nature.
  • One must have an authentic encounter with these primordial realities.
  • This is the metaphysical root of true freedom.
  • The truly free and spiritually enlightened person is prepared to act without fear of the regime's power in defense of the genuine values they have discovered.
  • Further, movements of resistance are ultimately spiritual movements.
  • Anything short of this and one's capacity for resistance is proportionally diminished.

Spiritual Preparation

We have looked at how the ancient Cynics and Stoics might help us to prepare for a life of resistance. Jünger has wanted to look more deeply. He explicitly says the martyr is more powerful than the Stoic. Jünger is probably right. And, he can speak like that. He had evidently faced death many times in his combat experience and probably in covert opposition to the Nazi regime, though his participation in high level opposition to Hitler within the traditional German officer corps is not well established. However, the Cynics and Stoics were not mere wimps. I think Jünger is probably speaking the truth, but the truth of the Cynics and the Stoics is probably more attainable by folks like me.

However the details turn out, resistance to power always carries consequences. Some people will be prepared to bear those consequences and others will not. We will make ourselves more prepared if we intentionally engage in a process of spiritual preparation. The Cynics and Stoics can help us do that. They can help us learn to see through the screens of elite ideology. They can help us look within to our own souls, and outward toward nature and the spirit animating it, to discern genuine life-affirming values; what have been called 'the permanent things'. Further, as practical teachers of what Hadot calls a 'way of life', via their 'spiritual disciplines', they can help us grow stronger and freer.

As Paul of Tarsusiv once reminded his followers in the city of Ephesus, "For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places."v Our real struggle is always a matter of fundamental values and orientation; in short, a spiritual struggle.

As Van Morrison chastises in the lyrics quoted above, where have all the rebels gone? COVID was a trial run for the Great Resetting Elites and for the Great Resistance opposition. According to Jünger, if even 1% of a population became committed forest rebels, that would be a sufficient cadre for the building of a regime-destabilizing movement. Let's hope.

i Listen to Van's glorious track here: Van Morrison – Where Have All The Rebels Gone? (Edit) (Official Lyric Video) – YouTube

ii For a detailed presentation of Schmitt's concept, see my essay "The Mortal God Drops Its Mask": The Mortal God Drops Its Mask – by W.D. James (

iii In what follows, I will largely be paraphrasing, not quoting Jünger. Given the style of his thinking and writing, pulling quotes out of context would usually be the opposite of illuminating. All the ideas I discuss are presented in Ernst Jünger, The Forest Passage, translated by Thomas Friese, Telos Press, 2013 (original German edition, 1951).

iv Guy Davenport, our translator for Diogene's Fragments, detects Cynic influence in Paul's thought and states there is evidence for the presence of Cynics in Tarsus.

v Ephesians, 6:12

W.D. James's essays on Egalitarian Anti-Modernism have now been brought together in a 118-page pdf booklet, which is available to download for free here. Our complete collection of free books can be found here.

Text to Speech by: ResponsiveVoice-NonCommercial licensed under 95x15
strona nie używa cookies, nie szpieguje, nie śledzi
do obsługi strony sprawdzamy:
kraj: US · miasto: North · ip:
urządzenie: computer · przeglądarka: CCBot 2 · platforma:
licznik: 1 · online:
created and powered by: - profesjonalne responsywne strony internetowe
 proszę czekać ładowanie danych...