Interview with Guido Preparata – by Neoliberal Feudalism

I’ve had the pleasure of interacting with author and professor Guido Preparata in a series of back-and-forth correspondences on the structure of the modern world, how information can be ascertained in this age, 9/11, Malthus, Ernst Jünger, transgenderism, and many other topics. I previously covered his worldview-changing Conjuring Hitler here (Amazon link to the book is here, or here for the newest edition) and his excellent Empire and Church here (Amazon link here). When it comes to geopolitical realities Preparata is top level. The following is an edited version of parts of our correspondences for clarity and (relative) brevity.

The power of the cabal

NLF: Another Substack author,

, covered Conjuring Hitler, which you might enjoy here.

GP: Interesting commentary.

The power of the so-called cabals, this writer says, is limited so these grand conspiracies cannot take place; rather, he seeks deeper explanation in (Satanic) “possession” and the forces seething in the “Urgrund”: truly, it is all one and the same. The (techno-fascist) power of the incumbent cabals is in fact total, and in their game of (praternatural) conjuration, they do indeed evoke forces “against time” (to use Savitri Devi’s expression), which they see fit to crush, still with the ease that befits exclusive circles with virtually unlimited power.

NLF: I can see it all being “all one and the same” with respect to actions within the material realm, but it seems like it would have spiritual and religious relevance if there are over-arching entities such as a malevolent Demiurge in charge of material reality.  Because every energy has an opposite, that would suggest that a Godly influence — perhaps just in the spiritual realm — does indeed exist.  What are your thoughts on this?  And given that everyone needs to find hope somewhere​ — being perpetually blackpilled is a route to madness — where do you find hope?

GP: As for the existence of God, vis-a`-vis the incumbency of a bad Demiurge, it seems that God is on holiday and that Mephisto is indeed in charge (and why that is is, clearly, a mystery: it’s also the gist of my short gloss and latest reflection Self-righteous Actors on Satan’s Stage). Where that leaves us, I am not sure… But it is certainly disquieting and demands of us an effort of imagination as to the eventual organization of dissidence, if we’ve ever had a chance at all.

You say “hope”; yes, I know, it’s easy to fall prey to the most profound state of despair and sensation of total powerlessness. That is when you have realized that you are living in a cage, in an ant-heap and that the grip (psychological and economic) of the parasitical caste is so complete that you do not see any way out. A great deal of us have reached that state (of reasoned despair); and we are seeking a way out. The ways of evading (or attempting to) require a separate discussion.

NLF: Deeper than the level of the total control of the parasitical class, the very nature of life within material reality requires predation on other consciousness/life in order to survive.  Even a plant seeks to grow/utilize its will to live/power, not to mention animals (and the human body is well attuned to meat, easily surviving on an all meat diet…).  This concept is nightmarish for those with internalized values of the Golden Rule and it is hard to see how a God of light and justice would have put it into place.  Schopenhauer wrote,

“As a reliable compass for orienting yourself in life nothing is more useful than to accustom yourself to regarding this world as a place of atonement, a sort of penal colony. When you have done this you will order your expectations of life according to the nature of things and no longer regard the calamities, sufferings, torments, and miseries of life as something irregular and not to be expected but will find them entirely in order, well knowing that each of us is here being punished for his existence and each in his own particular way.”  

You mentioned that you expected Conjuring Hitler to have a much bigger effect than it had when it came out, and that the number of actual dissidents is tiny.  Why do you think this is?  I notice the same thing, tiny numbers of dissidents.

GP: When I was young(er) I held this infantile imbecile view that the world is divided, 50/50 into good and bad folk, and that good folk vote on the Left.

Then you age and you realize that it’s more like a bell curve: a tail of faceless & powerless good souls that count for and can do nothing at one end, a tail of demoniacal and established controllers that nobody can see at the other, and the middle class of the bienpensants, a mass of cowering, craven sheep in the middling bulge. With such a set-up, what you could you possibly expect?

I did not know this when I wrote the book.

NLF: I like your analogy of humanity to a slave-making ant colony (and made a post about it here), but humanity only became this way 10,000 years ago during the neolithic agricultural revolution when it started having excess production, right?  So there was some interaction between humanity as subsistence-level egalitarian hunter-gatherers that combined with technology to produce this result.  

GP: I don’t know; possibly by uniting the slave-making hypothesis with the hunter’s archetype one could get a good model of the human type we’re dealing with. What is certain is that “science” (esp. “social science”) and  so-called “literature” is doing its very best to confuse, muddle, and blur the issue, the social issue for obvious reasons: you must be made to think along tracks that lead away from the truth of parasitism as fast and effectively as possible. Which makes one realize that 90% of what he’s read and “learned” is false and worse than useless trash. A dismaying yet exciting realization at the same time. It is a sign we have license to torch everything, so as to rebuild, hopefully, one day; but what will happen in between? Will we just sit and die out like worms, or react somehow? And if we do, what form will it take? And how far are we willing to go? By now, you easily see why those numbers are so tiny…The rebellious prospect becomes scary. The middle class bienpensant, we know it, has too much to lose. And yet the best of that stratum also recalcitrate, and that is why not few of them end up insane.

NLF: It seems to win in the material world one needs to put the pursuit of power above all else, but the pursuit of power comes with it the corruption of the soul via lies, evil, and destruction. But if you don’t try to win in the material world you get trampled on, a victim or pawn to these forces. As Julian Assange said, “I think first it’s necessary to have an understanding that one is either a participant in history or a victim of it, and that there is no other option. It is actually not possible to remove oneself from history, because of the nature of economic…and intellectual interaction. Hence, it is not possible to break oneself off…” This is a good sentiment, yet Assange rotted in prison, tortured and forgotten, for a very long time. Hence, the Demiurge as the creator of this imperfect reality…

GP: I don’t know; I think 99.99% of us are already removed from history, or rather, debarred from it since birth; that’s the whole idea; we leave no trace anyway; only the parasites and their vulgar chronicles do, with some exceptions that shine through (Bach’s music?). And Assange remains a mystery to me.

NLF: History is written by the “winners” and the winners seem to be those with poor morals and high aggression levels.  I investigated the Assange question previously…

Another question I had was: you mentioned elsewhere that the globalist founding fathers of the Trilateral Commission possibly forced out Nixon, but also focus on America’s desire for hegemony – to what extent do you see America’s actions as being directed by higher powers?  I saw a great org chart for our current system as follows:

GP: Cool chart. Some argue these supranational cabals that call the shots; I do not believe that in the least. All the more so as the system itself does everything possible to encourage such conspiratorial views. It’s along the same lines of “the Banks control the world,” which claim I think is utter nonsense. They are merely auxiliaries; and the various Bill Gateses, Soroses, etc are just Bond villains, cutouts, happy to lend their face to the role.

NLF: I agree with you that the level of Think Tanks and Global Representative Groups, as well as the Policy Distributors (as referenced on the above graph), as well as the major banks, have been made into cartoon villains for the public.  Soros, Gates, the WEF, etc. are not the source of the problem.  I do see the world’s central banks though as being owned, shielded and hidden, by a very small number of families (Rothschilds, Warburgs, Milners, Rockefellers etc) that coordinate with each other, and they basically act as a mafia to crush any and all dissent.  Do you see it differently?

GP: Yes a little differently to the extent that this cabal, which is real, in my view and despite its wealth, tenacity, and phenomenal resourcefulness, does not have the vision and the functional capability to govern the hive as a whole (and today that means the world): that is the role of rulers, governors and dynasts, who indeed recognize the importance of these auxiliaries and thereby delegate, subcontract to the bankers a crucial department (the economic/financial one) of the overall management program. Highly complex operation and highly complex organization but the seat of command remains where it always has been with the scepter of legitimacy held by the King, however the latter may appear on the stage.

On Trump

NLF: Do you view globohomo’s machinations against Trump such as the recent assassination attempts as one of our elites attempting to conjure a so-called “redneck rebellion” “against time” in order to then crush it and bring forth the next phase of their agenda?  I don’t see Trump as posing a threat to the system, but he represents as a symbol the very people our elites want to destroy.

GP: As for Trump, you know, everybody knows that he is just a pawn placed where he is to gauge how deep, wide, and problematic could potentially be the (rage and disillusion of the) domestic cohort of “lesser whites” sacrificed (over the last 30 years) by the hiring and propagandistic exigencies of the new, burgeoning world State, which is presently assuming the traits of Orwell’s “Oceania” in 1984. That is evident. The Trump operation has flushed out this potential “opposition” (as a factor of eventual disturbance on the home front) and shown that this cohort is, yes, fairly diffuse but not dangerous in the least; and this condition has been evident since the aftermath of 9/11: it was a shocker to me to witness at the time, in the face of this manifest, brazen coup d’état not so much that so-called “all-American heroes” (the ocean of right-wing, gun-toting machos) turned out to be a miserable pack of wusses, but that there never were “all-American heroes” to begin with. The true American resistance has to begin now: the human material, the lucidity, the courage, and the minds for that are certainly there, but (lurking) in very different places form those one would conventionally imagine.

On Peter Thiel

NLF: (I sent GP my post about humanity as a slave making ant colony and asked for his comment.)

GP: Regarding your post, among other things, I did not know about the Thiel “mansion.”

Weird thing this Thiel phenomenon: I’ve read one of his books. Everything about him is profoundly inane, downright irrelevant; like his remarks on Diversity (Only heard part of the podcast); I cannot find a single spark in him about anything. He and Musk, I mean, they’re Paypal: certainly a business achievement –but one that from the point of view of architecture & design, or even organization is bland at best (Ebay is far more genial, in comparison). And he is huge, some kind of prophet.

NLF: I read Thiel’s From Zero to One and his 2007 article on Leo Strauss.  If you read his leaked emails to Mark Zuckerberg they’re ridiculously sycophantic  – but I actually had an important takeaway from From Zero to One.  In it Thiel argues that companies always seek to achieve monopoly status because then they can maximize their profits; in a system of pure competition with undifferentiated products profits decline to zero.  So the goal of any company is to achieve monopoly.  If one takes this as true (and I think it is), then only a strong ruler can serve as a check on corporate domination, like we currently see in China to an extent with their crushing of Alibaba’s CEO Jack Ma when he got uppity…(This is part of why I think anarchism just doesn’t work as a system).

GP: He writes there that Zuckerberg is “the single person who gives voice to the hopes and fears and the unique experiences of this generation, at least in the USA.”

“Hopes & Fears”…And what would those be? I wonder, who are the millennials anyway and why do they matter? They seem wholly unsubstantial and insignificant shitheads, little encrustations in the bigger layers formed by their Elders, who remain solidly in command, I think. I don’t know, one goes through all this stuff, this verbiage, and there is absolutely nothing there. I mean, Facebook is in itself a completely nothing thing. It acquired relevance because it happened to afford the System a new marketing platform for targeting customers with more precision, right?

And also as a way of spying on them and corral them somehow — right? Not sure. But I never got this security/privacy thing (which is re-emerging with this Telegram scandal): I am with those who say “no, problem, spy away: I have nothing to hide: you want to see what I watch and what I buy, go ahead, I don’t care–Who would want to spend time prying at the little insignificant crap I do” –right?

As for spying on politicians, I don’t buy it either. As if they needed Facebook or email for that…Right?

The goal to monopolize one’s market is pretty straightforward: that is the essence of business; we didn’t need this airhead of Thiel to tell us that.

NLF: My understanding is that Facebook came online the very day that DARPA shut down their LifeLog program, which was basically the same program and which suggests the commonly understood story of how Facebook came about isn’t accurate.  This post goes into some of the details. The purpose was to map everyone’s social networks and yes, to spy on people.  The concern I have with the spying (which is quite intrusive as proven by Snowden’s Total Information Awareness leaks) is that I think our elites plan to use a woke AI to scan everyone’s electronic activity (including phones, internet, email etc) and assign social credit scores.  The WEF admits this is their plan by 2030. People with bad social credit scores will be locked out of life including access to bank accounts etc.  In this sophisticated, high tech manner, people will be increasingly programmed in certain negative ways which they must accept if they want to continue to participate in society.  I see our overlords having multi-decade or much longer plans, and Facebook was just one of the earlier steps in this direction (crypto and AI were/are the other necessary components).

On Malthus

NLF: You expressed contempt for Malthus’s overpopulation arguments in one of the Youtube videos.  Do you delve into why you don’t like those arguments anywhere? (I previously took the pro-neomalthusian position).

GP: It is the standard oligarchic intimation whereby poverty and exploitation are blamed on “Nature.” In our human version of the slave-making queens’ “chemical communication” (the gasses they emit when attacking a nest to sow chaos among the defensive lines), the suggestions are indeed very few: they’re all about labor and procreation. And Malthus, who plagiarized the main idea from a Venetian economist, Ortes, focused precisely on these variables. Not by chance that he was also a paid consultant of the East India company, the great corporate techno-structural mother.

NLF: It does make sense that Malthusian arguments are used by the elites in order to affect consumption by the masses for their own ends. My question though is more basic: do you think there are limits to worldwide consumption based on the availability of natural resources? When I look at the rates (or rather, the reported rates) of natural resource consumption, rates of species die-offs and loss of biodiversity, etc, it doesn’t look very long-term sustainable. It makes intuitive sense to me that on a planet of limited natural resources and parabolically expanding human population based essentially on oil that there are some inbuilt natural limits and we will hit them sooner or later, unless one believes in the infinite adaptability of human ingenuity. For example, it is estimated that no more than 3.7 billion people could be fed without just one synthetic nitrogen fertilizer input (derived from natural gas) boosting agricultural output. I particularly enjoyed this post.

GP: Yes, I understand those concerns and yes, I agree that in the name of green conservation, the fascists will want to turn the screws entirely on us. 

In that sense, these guys at the top and their screenwriters are extremely uninhibited with  changing narratives and “ism” when it suits them, machos one day anti-macho the next, Malthusians at heart and fair weather anti-Malthusians rolled into into one: I suppose the message the Earth is sending us is that she is indeed bountiful but there is an ideal stable limit we should strive for planet-wise in terms of family units and standard of consumption. Now it is all helter-skelter, and the parasites, who are fully responsible for the immense waste, pollution, and screaming disparities juggle the argument form both ends as they see fit.

NLF: This is a good point, it seems like the parasites can push against rational boundaries at any angle and twist them entirely out of proportion, much like we are seeing with egalitarianism within the West today, pushed far past sane and rational limits, twisted into a pretzel…It reminds me what Eustace Mullins wrote where he argued our financial overlords

adopted the Hegelian dialectic, the dialectic of materialism, which regards the World as Power, and the World as Reality.  It denies all other powers and all other realities.  It functions on the principle of thesis, antithesis and a synthesis…Thus the World Order organizes and finances Jewish groups; it then organizes and finances anti-Jewish groups; it organizes Communist groups; it then organizes and finances anti-Communist groups.  It is not necessary for the Order to throw these groups against each other; they seek each other out like heat-seeking missiles and try to destroy each other.  By controlling the size and resources of each group, the World Order can always predetermine the outcome.  In this technique, members of the World Order are often identified with one side or the other.  John Foster Dulles arranged financing for Hitler, but he was never a Nazi.  David Rockefeller may be cheered in Moscow, but he is not a Communist…a distinguishing trait of a member of the World Order, although it may not be admitted, is that he does not believe in anything but the World Order.  Another distinguishing trait is his absolute contempt for anyone who actually believes in the tenets of Communism, Zionism, Christianity, or any national, religious or fraternal group…If you are a sincere Christian, Zionist or Moslem, the World Order regards you as a moron unworthy of respect.  You can and will be used, but you will never be respected.

On Ernst Jünger

GP: Juenger wrote something very obscure and intriguing on capital punishment in Maxima Minima, his 1964 commentary on Der Arbeiter (the Worker).

See if you can crack this one. Here’s the English translation (from the original German):

“Being able to see blood” characterizes the butchers. That is their magical advantage, which, when they get their chance, paralyses even a thousandfold majority as if they were presenting the head of the Gorgon.

Here lies one of the secrets of capital punishment: the righteous man shows that he will not flinch. This is a message that penetrates into the darkest recesses of penetrates. It is not a question of “measure for measure”, but of homeopathic laws apply: the blood of one murderer can prophylactically outweigh the blood of a hundred thousand innocent people prophylactically. When the ancients said: “The blood must not stain the soil” – it was out of fear that murder could spread like an epidemic.

The relationship is also evident in the fact that pronounced Cainite regimes abolish the death penalty. It is opposed to murder less in terms of cause and effect effect than in its innermost principle. The murderer, where he comes to power, wants to kill at will; the law should not cut him off. The distinction of guilt and innocence is unimportant to him.

The attentat (attempt on s.o.’s life), on the other hand, remains unlawful; it has the opposite effect. It intensifies the suffering like a vaccine applied during the crisis.

NLF: The passage seems to contain two arguments if I am reading it correctly (please correct me if I am not): (1) if you let a (mass) murderer into power he will ignore the law to fulfill his murderous impulses (“The law should not cut him off. The distinction of guilt and innocence is unimportant to him.”), and (2) the government is the teacher of values and if the government commits murder, then the population will as well.   For point #2 it reminds me of Brandeis’s dissent in Olmstead v. United States where he wrote, “Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher.  For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example….If the government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy.  To declare that in the administration of the criminal law the end justifies the means – to declare that the government may commit crimes in order to secure the conviction of a private criminal – would bring terrible retribution.”  Perhaps there is an argument here to counteract the argument the deterrence argument for capital punishment (I am inclined toward the deterrence argument myself).  

For #1, though, does that mean that all capital punishment is wrong if a would-be mass murderer would want to abuse it?  That doesn’t seem a very strong argument; that argument seems to be more for keeping mass murderers out of positions of power. Can one be for capital punishment if one does care about guilt and innocence, i.e. applied in a measured capacity? 

What comes to mind is the character of Pyotr Stolypin, who I covered here.  Stolypin is known for his “Stolypin farms” which Lenin later wrote was the only true threat to communism in Russia because it offered the chance of material prosperity for the middle class.  Stolypin was later assassinated just as it was becoming successful.  However, before that happened he was also tasked with hunting down and killing anarchists who were planting bombs, undermining the Tsarist regime and murdering lots of innocent people in the process.  As Solzhenitsyn explained: 

That was the beginning of the notorious Stolypin terror – a phrase so persistently foisted on the Russian language and the Russian mind (abroad it was worse still!) that even now the image of a black era of cruel excesses is seared onto our eyeballs. Yet all the terror amounted to was the introduction of field courts-martial (which operated for eight months) to deal with especially serious (not all) cases of looting, murder, and attacks on the police, on the civil authorities, and on peaceful citizens, so as to bring trial and sentence closer to the time and place of the time. (Urged to hold terrorists already under arrest hostage for the actions of others not yet captured, Stolypin of course rejected the idea.) Dissemination of subversive ideas in the army (previously practically unimpeded) was made a criminal offense. So was praise of terrorism (in which Duma deputies, the press, and indeed the general public had hitherto indulged unhindered). Bomb throwers were now subject to the death penalty, but those caught making bombs were not treated as actual murderers. Meetings organized by political parties and societies, provided they were not in public places and there were no outsiders present, or only outsiders belonging to the educated classes, did not require administrative supervision. These draconian measures aroused the unanimous wrath of educated Russian society. There was a spate of newspaper articles, speeches, and letters (one from Lev Tolstoy) arguing that no one should ever dare to execute anyone, not even the most brutal of murderers, that field courts-martial could do nothing toward the moral rejuvenation of society (as though that was what terror was doing) but could only further brutalize it (something which terror did still more effectively)….Anyone who did not loudly approve of revolutionary terror was regarded by Russian society as a hangman himself. Yet, whether Stolypin was brutalizing Russia or not, terrorism decline from the moment the field courts-martial was introduced.”

In other words, Stolypin applied capital punishment but he refused to do it on a collective basis, even though there were calls for him to do so.  The results were a marked decrease in terrorism.  Was he wrong to do so?  To what extent do we need to engage with results in the real world?  Is total withdraw and pacifism the way, or there is a middle ground balancing the spiritual and the temporal?  Setting the “right example” doesn’t usually work as we can see with what happened to the Cathars…

GP: The piece by Juenger has put me in a spin:

First of all, most (foreign) books translate Schlachter as “butcher,” but he means Executioner (the word’s second acceptation)– and I have been brooding for some time on the significance and existential functionalism of this character, which is essential in my view. And Juenger is right again to focus on him as he dwells on the transition from the sovereign, pre-modern ways of the blood (in war, torture, and justice) to the aseptic mass-murdering ethos of modernity — passo obbligato. But there is something missing, something is missed in this crucial observation. Cannot quite put my finger on it yet~

For a moment, I even wondered if by der Gerechte he provocatively meant the criminal himself.

But if Der Gerechte is the sovereign, then it means that if this sovereign by means of his castigating extension, the executioner, will not shrink back from striking the culprit (i.e., to prevent holocausts from spreading by way of imitative frenzy –and this point, too, would require an essay in itself, because that would nullify the premises by making monsters of all humans, which is a good starting hypothesis: no such thing as a culprit);  if the king will not hesitate to scourge the criminal, this means that pre-modern Systems, despite the carnage on which they throve, were more righteous than our “Cainite” epoch, in whose regimes the death penalty has been virtually abolished because psychopaths have come to enthrone themselves kings and as a result (one of many), the justice apparatus has been transformed into a blind machine that mows victims by decimation and indiscriminately (criminals and average Joes alike, both being, as moderns, equally culpable, equally useless, equally monstrous), without, however, no longer allowing society to shed blood ritually (as in the old days)–blood, which nonetheless is still “offered” yet in a more haphazard fashion via the channels of crime (jn times of peace) or terrorism (in times of civil strife), and “the attentat” (his final segment) issues from this second avenue.

I don’t know– still turning it in my head…

On Phantasmagoria

NLF: I finished your book Phantasmagoria (which argued that the real purpose of the invasion of Afghanistan was to secure the worldwide heroin trade) and enjoyed it.  As with your other works, you have a poetic eloquence which is a pleasure to read, and the length made it a shorter, easy read.  It wasn’t as earth shattering as Conjuring Hitler because, as you’ve argued, everything since 1945 seems like it’s been more or less a mop-up operation.  

GP: Sean Stone, Oliver’s son, said virtually the same when I asked him for feedback.

Personally, I am very proud of this booklet, which is not yet getting the love I had hoped; for me 9/11 was the shattering event that triggered my “awakening” and has been an obsession for these past 2 decades because I could not formulate till the very end a compact working hypothesis with which to (begin to) explain it all. And now I believe I finally have such a thing. But for some reason it does hit the reader with the bang I was expecting.

NLF: I’m especially intrigued with your argument that little to nothing exist in the realm of political facts unless our global overlords want those “facts” disseminated and that we’re left merely debating these “facts”.  How, then, is one to make sense of reality if these “facts” are just force-fed to us?

GP: There no longer is a political reality of any kind anymore (Geopolitics is dead): as Orwell explained, such a “reality” needs to be “produced” daily so as to entrance people who, apparently, cannot be controlled and manipulated in any other way. It is terrifying but highly revelatory.

NLF: That is terrifying.  If we cannot rely on the so-called “facts” that are offered to us via the spectrum of propaganda outlets, on what basis are we to learn about on-going developments in the world outside of our direct observation?  Or is it simply not possible?  My own approach has been to try to develop a predictive model for the world and to the extent things develop in a surprising way, I try to update my models recursively…that has led me over time to this point..

GP: There is no reality; or rather the reality is merely the tale of  a caste of parasites intent on commissioning screenplays for the next Orwellian shenanigan with a view to staying in power, a caste ever prone to annihilate us in droves should this be required by its nutritional requirements, give the technological constraints. One has to piece it together like in a mystery novel through a sheer effort (sometimes exploit) of imagination.

Developing a predictive model for the world is one way of doing it; my approach is roughly the same thing.

NLF: I found Eric Wilson’s forward to be initially confusing because of his use of the term “gnosticism”, which he uses as a smear against our elites.  He seems to mean it as a kind of secularized, blind devotional religious energy whose elite adherents believe that, with the correct understanding or outlook, they can bring Heaven to Earth materially.  But “gnosticism” seems to be an umbrella term with multiple meanings; at least one of its other meanings (which you seem to be sympathetic to and I am as well) is that gnosis is the understanding that this material realm is controlled by the Demiurge and that by adopting an attitude of asceticism and philosophical pessimism one may hope to spiritually ascend from this realm either on earth or at least in the afterlife.

GP: Yes, that’s exactly it.

NLF: I understand that Wilson stated that Carol Quigley was one of your primary sources for your worldview.  Have you read G. Edward Griffin’s The Creature from Jekyll Island?  You may enjoy it if not…

GP: Yes I read it; not uninteresting, but too dilettantish.

NLF: It wasn’t clear how large the Afghan heroin trade was or how control of that trade and the dollars within could have bailed out major banks during the 2008 financial crisis.  

GP: True. And the point is essential. But there are no data of course, and yes, I did not attempt a deep statistical dive and extremely ambitious move to estimate what this outflow of greenbacks would have in been in light of Wall Street’s fueling needs — that would have been a triumphal result. It is something  I have done instead, a few years ago, in a very important essay (directly related to this insight & topic) undertaken to explain how America manages Empire financially, which is indeed cited in Phantasmagoria.

So, I made the choice of putting the thesis out there, basically unsupported by numbers, just connecting the dots hoping it’d be sufficient, and for me it is; it all (sufficiently) adds up.

NLF: It seems that, more than just control over the Afghan heroin trade, the “forever war” of Afghanistan was used to justify washing hundreds of billions or trillions of U.S. taxpayer dollars into the hands of the transnational security elite indefinitely, as eloquently explained by Assange in this brief clip: 

 GP: Intriguing, but I do not at all understand what “washing” means here.

NLF: Much of the equipment supplied by the military-industrial complex would be diverted off and sold elsewhere if it was ever produced at all.  For example, the Pentagon has never passed an audit and in 2013 it was estimated that $8.5 trillion dollars of Pentagon funds had been “lost”.  In Ukraine only 30% of the equipment being sent ever reached the final destination according to a CBS documentary that was immediately censored and withdrawn (not for inaccuracy).  And that’s after​ the hundreds or thousands of percent price upcharges by contractors on each of those items… In addition there is the massive so-called “foreign aid” that purportedly goes to these countries but very little seems to reach the final destination.  It’s likely that the local politicians take a small fee and then return most of it to the powers they report to…It looks like these “forever-wars” are mere excuses for the Pentagon to demand funds from the U.S. taxpayers after which it mostly just disappears forever, “washed” back into their own pockets…

Also interestingly, NFL player-turned Army Ranger Pat Tillman may have been murdered to prevent him either from becoming an anti-war icon or from exposing details of the heroin trade; he was killed from close range and his diaries were burned/lost.

GP: Interesting; that supports the thesis.

NLF: The timing of the Afghanistan withdrawal after 20 years, a mere 6 months before the start of the Ukraine/Russia “war”, seems like a continuation of the military/industrial complex washing of foreign aid and U.S. taxpayer dollars back into the hands of the U.S. security elite.  I’m glad you mentioned the “coincidental” timing of it in the conclusion.  I see the Ukraine war as being fake and controlled from both sides, although the dead bodies are real…

GP: Precisely, Orwellian scenarios are sutured with snuff movies.

NLF: I would love to see more on the exact mechanisms for how our elites control China and Iran.  

GP: Me too — but there is no doubt they do; who else has the theatrical infrastructure to keep it all going exactly as it is meant to unfold in a Hollywood TV show?

NLF: Russia is controlled to a significant degree by its western-controlled central bank, but the mechanisms for control of Iran and China seem more opaque and less clear to me…

GP: Opaque ok, but straightforward nonetheless: 1) China as we now know it was Nixon’s idea (the greatest of all American emperors) and in 2001 the project came to pass with the country’s induction in the WTO with US patronage; Iran…Obvious, no? First they topple Mossadegh (1953), then they handle Iran to Khomeini (1979), much like the Brits handed Russia to the Bolsheviks; it’s a game. You may come across Persians steeped in conspiratorial literature that’ll tell you modern Iran is entirely ruled by the US within these Orwellian configurations. And that is clearly the case.

On immigration

NLF: I liked that you mentioned how Islamic immigration into Europe is being used as a divide-and-conquer strategy both to suppress domestic nationalism and to serve as justification for increases in the security state and corresponding decreases of freedom.

GP: Immigration: yes, that is a big item on the “globalist” agenda: it’s a top US priority for Italy (sub-colonial status); it is dismaying: for decades, we have been losing hundreds of thousands of graduates and professionals every year to foreign labor markets (US-UK, Germany etc.) but take in just as many useless desperadoes from the Third World in the name of diversity and declining fertility (the New York Times agenda, in short): most Italian commercial ads now feature Non-Whites as a matter of course. It is a highly insidious operation: they allow in western societies –i.e., in highly racist and classist hives in which integration is ipso facto impossible and work (of the semi–decent sort) is to boot non-existent– trickles of immigrants from the Third World, cramming them in poor neighborhoods where they come in potential conflict with the disenfranchised hordes of the host population. All one needs then, when the situation demands it, is to light a match. The Left and the Church are working assiduously in this direction — you dare to say a word against this, and you are immediately tagged as a Nazi. 

On The Political Scripting of Jesus

NLF: It was interesting reading in your book The Political Scripting of Jesus about the Catholic perspectives that were deemed off-limits by the CDF between 2000-2005, either for blending Christianity with insurrectionist Marxism (Sobrino) or for trying to skinsuit Catholicism into postmodern, pluralistic globohomo (Haight, Phan).  Given the recent actions of Pope Francis that tilt toward the latter’s direction, do you think that the Church’s stance against Haight and Phan is or will change?

GP: Glad you liked it. Good question. I do not know what happened to them under Francis. They’re both old now and it’s not clear what the magisterium of the Church is on this subject. The masses are not ready for this. But it might be the case that in a future conciliar maneuver of sweeping range their work will be respectfully and duly referenced. Who knows. By then folks, like Anatole France’s Pilate, will have forgotten altogether about this Jesus guy. It makes no difference anyway, as it doesn’t now –and I wonder if it ever did. All religious cults are fabrications, like the News: fiction blended with fact; but it is very hard to discriminate one from the other.

NLF: There were certain other passages that stood out to me: I have not read Robert Graves yet (p. 49), but the arguments you summarized were interesting to me.  I know that Gore Vidal had used Graves’s novels on Claudius and Belisarius as inspiration for his wonderful novel Julian (reviewed here).  

GP: Vidal’s Julian, of course — I have my father’s copy and still have not read it…Will have to asap…

NLF: I should read Graves… Your comments on him brought to mind certain arguments made by Nietzsche and historian Tom Holland about the geopolitical situation at the time of Jesus as well as how the inversion of Roman values was used to rile up, in early Bolshevik fashion, the masses of disaffected women, slaves, the and the poor, which I delved into here.  You made a similar point on p. 180 (“From the standpoint of the local elite, the service of these compassionate interlopers can be insidious because it weakens the bond of obeisance that permits the absentee owners to exploit the productive backbone of the country….”)  Have you covered Nietzsche in your writings?

GP: No I never covered Nietzsche– somehow he does not interest me in the least; he is too inflationed and overhyped in my view; I’ll side with Tolstoy on him: I find him trite and distasteful. Irrelevant, yes, more than anything. But I know I am wrong because Nietzsche has significantly occupied the thoughts of many a good thinker, including Bataille…An yet, he, like Marx (and many others of these so-called “greats,” great Masters of Flatulence, really, like Hegel, too, without whom according to our founding fathers the West could not have articulated thought, and if so, poor West, poor “thought”), in my world simply does not exist.

I enjoyed your erudite essay – It would require a long and very engaging discussion. In a nutshell, I see things from and IngSoc (English Socialism’s social engineering) perspective and concern myself solely with what the power apparatus seeks to achieve through this sort of surreal politics considering –and this is the important point– that it is the selfsame rulers who were ridiculing the transsexual yesteryear: so they changed stance; change everything so that nothing changes. Yesterday it was macho is cool & reproduce; no longer: today macho is super-uncool (read: useless) and for the love of God, do NOT reproduce, hence all this delirious politics of gender and weird sexual management. A Malthusian tantrum, yet again. So I go back to my beloved slave-making ants and termites, which allegedly have a system of determining the new breeds’ sex in keeping with the nutritional requirements of the nest. That’s what is happening, but it is filtered by surreal discourse. Our rulers and their divine protectors are phenomenal not just in their parasitical idiosyncrasy but also for their gusto for twisted and not wholly intentional absurd theatrics.

NLF: Your comment on page 187 about “loving the neighbor” brought to mind Carl Schmitt’s thoughts on the subject.  Per Concept of the Political, section 3:

“As German and other languages do not distinguish between the private and political enemy, many misconceptions and falsifications are possible. The often quoted “Love your enemies” (Matt. 5:44; Luke 6:27) reads “diligite inimicos vestros”, and not “diligite hostes vestros”. No mention is made of the political enemy. Never in the thousand-year struggle between Christians and Moslems did it occur to a Christian to surrender rather than defend Europe out of love toward the Saracens or Turks. The enemy in the political sense need not be hated personally, and in the private sphere only does it make sense to love one’s enemy, i.e., one’s adversary. The Bible quotation touches the political antithesis even less than it intends to dissolve, for example, the antithesis of good and evil or beautiful and ugly. It certainly does not mean that one should love and support the enemies of one’s own people.” 

But I suppose Schmitt’s argument feeds back into the Law of Violence…

GP: Yes, it is an apodictic almost too embarrassingly obvious, infantile statement thereof. Schmitt, Schmitt’s fame is funny like that. Bodies of “scholarly work” to “explore” and plumb the statement that 2+2=4, but maybe that is because we all pretend to live on a Euclidean plane, when in fact everything is curved in a weird way and none of those axioms apply. The Elements after all were conceived as graphic designer’s manual. 2D illusion. It figures. So when, after staring for centuries, you “detect” a inkling of curvature, you jubilantly exclaim: it is not level! Right, it never was. Funny how America’s priestly caste does not have the courage to say so, to acknowledge the horror of the obvious: they do it, coyly and in hushed, sanitized tones via a German midget that had, like Benito Cereno, to compromise with Nazism…The surreal again…

NLF: You wrote on p. 188 about most people being utterly unable of being truly religious.  I’m not sure I would want to sacrifice myself, my family, fatherland, and all of humanity in order not to act against the Law of Love.  I do try to treat others with respect, including others of different backgrounds, but there is a balance that occurs in each interaction.  But you also wrote “the best one can do now, individually, is to attempt to revert/correct/redirect the process and, while at it, grow spiritually, if at all possible.”  This struck a chord and it’s why Jünger and his concept of the anarch is pulling me toward reading more of his work…

GP: Yes, but the anarch is an aesthetic figment –the protagonist Manuel Venator in his fabulous Eumeswil: he’s not real, and moreover to be able to survive as the tyrant’s cup-bearer ensconced in the brushwood of internal dissent (Waldegang — I deal with all this in The Ideology of Tyranny) is something very, very few independently wealthy people can attempt — so basically a minority of a very small minority to begin with. Hardly a path, hardly a solution.

On The Ideology of Tyranny

NLF: In your book The Ideology of Tyranny: Bataille, Foucault, and the Postmodern Corruption of Political Dissent you delve into the idea of gender erasure being pushed onto the masses. Do you think it’s simply about depopulation, or what other angles do you see?  It brings to mind the Calhoun mouse experiments — put mice in a utopian environment and their population eventually grows to fill every social niche, then they developed increasing deviances until their population imploded entirely.

GP: That experiment was indeed fascinating.

The attack on heterosexuality, which is modulated, is partly a fertility ploy, but it is more complicated than that, I think. They are pursuing a sophisticated, articulated agenda: one the one hand they reversed the Roe v. Wade 2 years ago, and on the other they had the head of the Olympic Games proclaim with regard to the controversy surrounding the Algerian pugilist that “it is very difficult to distinguish a man from a woman,” which is a weighty statement, to put it mildly. The Question is, “what are they seeking to implement through this?”

The phenomenon of men transgenedered into women that now go on to populate female swimming teams across the US is already established: so there is a lot going on: what is it? Western technocracy is using this to erase females altogether, or, rather working out a social order where fertility is relegated to the poorer (lesser) races (in India & Africa, as surrogates), and mid-stratum whites –undifferentiated men & women– are turned into asexual, sterile workers, or what? This, on the other hand, would jive with the idea of a social dividend (Silicon Valley’s Universal Basic Income), coupled with digital currency: $2,000 for life to everybody for life (and, as the other side of the coin,  2 zillions guaranteed no questions asked for the members of the elite), offspring being managed in communist fashion, Spartan style? 

I don’t know yet –it is puzzling and deeply disquieting.

NLF: You raise good points — I see it as our upper elites intend to wipe out western civilization because they view it as a threat – or as revenge, or they hate it – after which they plan to reduce worldwide population to 500 million with an average 80 IQ to be permanent slaves to the central bank owning elites and their top allies, and use the population for medical experiments like they just did with the COVID mRNA fraud (what else do they do with the “useless masses”, per Yuval Harari?) so that the elites can genetically engineer themselves into a different race.  They are importing young, male illegals to terrorize the existing western populations and to vote for liberal parties to more than counter-act any rise in public consciousness as their plans become more and more visible…

You can find Preparata’s books on Amazon here and his website here. I highly recommend his work – he’s one of the very few authors who understands the nature of the modern world, how evil it is, and who writes in really beautiful and almost poetic prose. His oeuvre is one of the very few authors whose books are worth engaging with in their entirety.

You can also find many video interviews with Preparata on Youtube by others here.

Thanks for reading.