Two facts stand before us the forces of capital are hegemonic and the cookie-cutter packaging of political right and left is falling apart. The point of view of the proceeding analysis is a Hegelian dialectical synthesis of right and left. For this paper I will take the ‘truth’ of the left to be its analysis of technology (anarchist/radical environmentalist); capital (anarchist/Marxist); the state (anarchist) and the ‘truth’ on the right being the analysis of individual choice theory (libertarians); biological realism on both ethnicity and sex (human HBD and the Red Pill); metaphysics (Christian/Philosophical/Western Tradition). I have yet to come up with a pithy name for this so a Hegelian Dialectical Synthesis of Right and Left or HDSRL will have to do for now.

Capital, or the bourgeoisie, represents the class of people who control and own the means of production (i.e., land, factories, mines, etc.) these people have names the Carnegies, Rockefellers, Du Ponts, Fords, Rothschilds, etc., these are the titans of finance and industry who more or less rule the world. The great challenge of the twentieth century was which political ideology would best serve the rising power of technology the “machine process,” as described by Thorstein Veblen, and “technique,” as described by Ellul. Three groups existed to lay claim to that mantle: Liberal Democracy (Bourgeoisie); Socialism (Anarchism, Socialists, Marxism), and Fascism (Fascism and Nazism). The first two were internationalist and the last two both socialist. This push to managed economies was primarily driven by the need to manage this machine process, which needs uniform standards of operation above all else. Rapid and sudden changes are highly destructive to this system.

Having overturned the old aristocratic and feudal orders in England, France, and the entire New World in the Bourgeoisie Revolutions, the global Bourgeoisie located in the City of London and New York City reached a detente with the Great Rapprochement, laying the groundwork for a unified front between the two main capitalist powers against the forces of German managed capitalism in WW1, German National Socialism in WW2 and the broader Global Communist challenge in the Cold War. Class and Ethnic interests dictated that the two great Anglo-Saxon nations should be allied together. The modern labor movement in both Europe and America was a result of the inhuman working and social conditions of industrial life in the industrializing world. In the case of the UK, the pressure for this was the centuries-long enforcement of the enclosure acts, which pushed the rural peasants and yeomen of England into the cities forming an urban proletariat. This organized threat in the working class was the major threat to the power and control of the bourgeoisie. Limiting ourselves to the US context, where the bourgeoisie has most deeply rooted itself, we don’t see large-scale success in union organizing until the 1880s with the Knights of Labor and the AFL. Before we go further we need to discuss the goals and means of each group Capital and Organized Labor.

Capital is rooted in the ability of its leaders to externalize the cost of all they do to everyone else. This is very well articulated in Frederick C. Howe’s 1906 “Confessions of a Monopolist”. The cost of protecting large land monopolies is the result of externalizing the cost to the taxpayers via a professional police force. They force you the taxpayer to pay for the security of their property. If they had to pay out of their own pockets for private security they would face downward pressures to sell or abandon land they held, being unable to protect it. They control all levels of education, finance, news reporting, and the government through a complex system of bribery, blackmail, pork-spending, manufacturing of consent, and mental formation through conditioning and education. The old right at its best, very nearly took the mask off with the Reece Committee (1952-1954) where it discovered that nearly all of the “agents” of civil society had been educated in universities endowed by the titans of Wall Street (captured intellectuals) or actively paid by them. Two good examples of this are the Rockefeller support of Alfred Kinsey’s Institute and his fraudulent research on Human Sexuality, see the works of Judith Reisman for more details. And the Rockefeller 1947 report where they plot to buy out the historical establishment to write only a corporate-approved history of WW2 and all subsequent history. Pressure from shadow forces shut down the investigation. Norman Dodd, who lead the investigation was interviewed by G Edward Griffin and Stan Monteith, discussed how the work was stymied. The powers of finance were already in control by this point. This is empirical verification of the Cash Nexus a concept originating with Thomas Carlyle and later picked up by Marx whereby all human relations are mediated by the flow of money. Guess what happens then? Everyone gets bought out! Their control of money comes from the Federal Reserve Bank and the inability of other people to mint, coin, or print their own money. While the bourgeoisie does use force in the form of strikebreakers, the police and the military, such force is comparatively less obvious than previous regimes. It has to use less force as it develops new material conditions that further atomize society. People have a harder time organizing in an atomized society. The last and major addition to capital’s arsenal is psychological warfare.

Organized labor is the proletariat those people whose entire financial means of existence comes from their sale of labor and share nothing of the profits acquired by the capital they work. Their strategy is simple and was outlined by Georges Sorel in the National Strike. The idea is to have a national economy that is a closed system. By closed I mean there is little to no immigration into the nation, which fixes the supply of labor at any time ‘t’. Then for any given supply of labor at time ‘t’ you want full or near full employment. For any strike to work you cannot have a large surplus of labor since they can be used as strikebreakers and more importantly scabs. The lumpenproletariat (Thaddeus Russell’s “heroes” in a Renegades History of the United States) often supply the strikebreakers and ‘muscle’ to crush labor. Other laborers can be shipped to work. They have to work since the only way they exist is by trading their labor for wages. Full employment must then be followed by total or near total union membership. Once a sufficient amount of laborers are educated, trained, and aware of their material conditions and how to better them, they will be able to act in a united fashion to all go on strike at once. Then what? The system falls apart. The February 1917 Revolution in Russia was an example of this in practice. This is vastly easier if the labor force is all male and ethnically homogeneous. For two main reasons (1) no revolution was led and fought by women and (2) issues of trust. By the end of WW2, the labor movement in the US had been very successful at restraining the excesses of capital. The rollback of this success, I believe, shows that the Anarchist/Marxist critique of reformist unions was correct; as long as capital still exists in an entrenched form it will eventually mobilize its forces against you.

How did Capital work to destroy this threat? The exoteric story is the story of company goons and finks, the FBI, Red Scare, etc using force to break the unions, that failed. The real secret was the subtle use of subversion. In Geopolitics we have two valuable concepts for analyzing this process (1) frozen conflicts and (2) counter-gangs. Caleb Maupin has coined the term “synthetic left” to describe the modern ‘woke’ movement as an entryist movement in league with the security state to infiltrate the anti-war movement to subvert it toward imperialism. I find his terminology and categorization of said group of people helpful and will use the term throughout. He pinpoints the origin of the Synthetic left with the Congress of Cultural Freedom a CIA front group founded in 1950, to use cultural subversion to weaken Marxist parties around the world. I argue this process began much earlier. The earliest example I think we have is 1917 with the October Revolution in Russia. I believe this was a coup by counter-gangs to topple a true socialist revolution in February of that year.

The United States of the 1950s was relatively homogeneous and the differences in political opinions between liberals and conservatives were minimal. The key to rule is divide and conquer. The goal for the bourgeoisie was to create a series of frozen conflicts led by counter-gangs to manage the population. A frozen conflict is a conflict in which there are no active hostilities, but also no peace treaty, and active hostilities could break out again think the Korean peninsula. Counter-gangs are a concept used by Frank Kitson to break up the Mau Mau revolution in Kenya. The idea is to fund other revolutionary groups under your control to compete for the mantle of the true revolutionaries. This leads to the energy of the movement petering out and the threat being neutralized. This is the model I will use to view the US culture war. Constituent groups under control to keep the people fighting each other rather than their controllers.

The labor movement in the US was organized in the 1880s with the Knights of Labor and the American Federation of Labor these groups along with anarchists and socialists posed a grave threat to organized capital. The mood of the times was well described in Jack London’s The Iron Heel, a unique insight into socialism and pro-labor activism before the specter of Bolshevism arose. I think this specter is key, Noam Chomsky was on the record as saying that the USSR was a bogeyman whose pretenses to socialism weakened the movement in the West and gave legitimacy to the crackdowns on Labor and the Anti-War activists in the US. I agree with this claim. I think the historical evidence of a synthetic left, first appears with Western support for the Bolshevik revolutionaries. In March of 1917, Trostky on the SS Kristianiafjord was arrested by the Canadian coastguard and held in custody as an international terrorist until Claude Dansey from MI6 intervened on Trosky’s behalf and released him to help topple a friendly regime in Kerensky’s Russia currently at war with Germany. This is more or less a smoking gun as to British and US support of the October Revolution. Antony Sutton has gone into great detail showing how the Soviet industrial and hence military threat was from the very beginning propped up by Western Capital. The best explanation of the facts is that a truly socialist Russia under Kerensky and the economic potential that it possessed would be too much of a threat to Western capital and therefore had to be destroyed. Monopolist Albert Rhys Williams in the Senate Overman Committee says this: “This is speaking from a capitalistic standpoint. The whole interest of America is not, I think, to have another great industrial rival, like Germany, England, France, and Italy, thrown on the market in competition. I think another government over there besides the Soviet government would perhaps increase the tempo or rate of development of Russia, and we would have another rival. Of course, this is arguing from a capitalistic standpoint.” Now I am not saying that the USSR was “controlled” by the Bourgeoisie but that it was seen in the interests of Wall Street to form this totalitarian regime as a ‘fake’ socialism to use as a bogey man to smash labor at home. Stalin’s purges of party members might be reconstrued as purging these international financial elements to attempt to free the USSR from control. Trotsky and his stay in the US, who funded him, how did made a living in New York, and how he got a ship passage to Canada are all unknowns that are carefully guarded secrets, likely because they expose this connection. The best way to view the Cold War, in this context, is to see it as George Orwell portrays the world of 1984 military-industrial complexes feeding off the threat of each other to maintain social control at home. This is an expensive high-stakes game and Russia cracked first.

The next phase of the synthetic left is the combination of the National Security State, in this case, the CIA and the Congress for Cultural Freedom) and Corporate Interests (the Kinsey-Rockefeller connection). Libidinal forces of drugs, directionless violence, and sex were all channeled into the Labor-anti-war movement to subvert it. James Kunen in the Strawberry Statement states that he was offered Esso (Rockefeller money), the goal was to prop up a very extreme and violent left to scare normal people into accepting the “moderate” leftwing positions of the Rockefellers. Phil Ochs claimed that Timothy Leary and the advent of the drug culture severely harmed the anti-war movement. Drugs are a form of social control as Aldous Huxley in Brave New World tells us. Timothy Leary specifically references the CIA as a factor in the rise of LSD use. Second-wave feminist icon Gloria Steinem was a CIA asset. Aaron Russo, the director, claims to have had a conversation with one Nick Rockefeller who stated the goal of women’s lib was twofold to allow the other half of the population to be taxed and to indoctrinate children in public schools. Needless to say this also puts downward pressure on wages and women are natural finks as stated by Aristotle; George Orwell and Bob Black. The biological limits of women have been magically transcended by technology and that was the buy-in for them. Now they are stuck and as the New York Times tells us “The future is no longer female” some proverb about making beds and sleeping in them comes to mind. So from the 1960s until 2011, we have two lefts working in tandem in the US the organic labor-anti-war left and the synthetic cultural left. The two coexisted until 2011 when the major hostile takeover occurred in the decade after. Now we even have anti-war folk singers from the ’60s supporting Biden’s escalation of tensions with Russia, go figure. All of these destructive libidinal forces were released and captured in a controlled system that allowed Wall Street to reap the profits, continue the wars, and leave everyone exhausted and debilitated and their crowning achievement is wearing the skin of the left as a trophy. The social left was always a front for subversion, at least they were open about that.

Liberal immigration standards can only help the bourgeoisie. Their goal is to prevent full employment and a potential national strike, how do you do that? Keep the cost of labor down and you do that by increasing the supply of labor. How do you do that? Traditionally immigration. Marx said in his 1882 Russian Preface to the Communist Manifesto: “How very different today. Precisely European immigration fitted North American for a gigantic agricultural production, whose competition is shaking the very foundations of European landed property – large and small. At the same time, it enabled the United States to exploit its tremendous industrial resources with an energy and on a scale that must shortly break the industrial monopoly of Western Europe, and especially of England, existing up to now. Both circumstances react in a revolutionary manner upon America itself. Step by step, the small and middle land ownership of the farmers, the basis of the whole political constitution, is succumbing to the competition of giant farms; at the same time, a mass industrial proletariat and a fabulous concentration of capital funds are developing for the first time in the industrial regions.” Simply put immigration destroys small-scale economic activity in favor of large-scale combinations. How do you perform the magic trick of turning the labor movement, historically anti-immigration, into a pro-immigration movement? Through the magic of the synthetic left. You turn the immigrant into a victimized person of color or sexual/gender minority and voila you turn a scab into a victim group and labor activists into strikebreakers, all while these dopes think they are fighting capitalism. The bourgeoisie is playing higher-dimensional chess. Immigration also leads to the overall population becoming more heterogenous and therefore less cohesive. Manipulating diverse workforce is a control strategy of the money power that goes at least as far back as Carthage, as is described by Polybius in his account of the Mercenary War. Organizing became impossible and the movement more or less collapsed.

After WW1 the major success of propaganda in whipping the US population into support for a war with Germany was not lost on Madison Avenue. With the aid of Edward Bernays, they used these psychological warfare tools to manipulate customers into buying what they didn’t need. This idea of psychologically manipulating consumers and playing on their fears was outlined by Paul Mazur, an agent of Lehman Brothers, in his American Prosperity. In that work, he argues that the idea of fashion needs to be produced to stimulate demand in the consumer for things they don’t need. This is done by playing on fears of sexual inadequacy and death. The goal is to avoid overproduction. When you can saturate a market with consumer goods, what do you do? Turn off the factories until the goods are used up? That means a loss of profits, no you get people to buy stuff they don’t need through psychological warfare. With the US military in the Cold War, we get MKULTRA where the use of drugs as a form of mind control was tested, insert Timothy Leary, and Operation Mockingbird where the Security State sought to manipulate the media for propaganda purposes. Now we live in the modern deterritorialized simulacra reality of Deleuze, Guattari, and Baudrillard.

In conclusion, the bourgeoisie consolidated its power by creating a managed monopolistic society in the United States, aka a captive market, and then produced captive markets all over the world. This led to blow back from the labor movement and the petite bourgeoisie. To break the labor movement a synthetic cultural left was created that focused on distractions of libidinal deviance such as sex, gender, identity, race, drugs, etc. Investigation into non-profits was shut down as the work of kooks and crazies, hence the popular image of the Birchers. The USSR was propped up as a bogey man to scare Americans into supporting draconian measures against labor. Through the formation of victim narratives around women, sexual and racial minorities scabs became victims and labor activists became strike-breakers all working to keep capital ensconced. The Cultural War was formed as a series of frozen conflicts led by counter-gangs. The mass of the US population was exposed to mental manipulation techniques via drugs, operant conditioning, and ad campaigns. The great coup was accomplished and capital can now count on the support of the traditional elements of the left for support in its wars of imperialism to spread gay rights to Russia and the Middle East.

Subscribe