2500 words, 10 minute read
1. Preamble: Leftist Theory
3. Sovereign Power
4. Disciplinary Power
6. Pastoral Power
1. Preamble: Leftist Theory
“Foucault? That Marxist, Postmodernist, pedophile degenerate?!”
Yep, that weirdo. Leftist theory is helpful to read from a know-thy-enemy perspective but it can occasionally contain some astute observations. Foucault’s analysis of power is leagues ahead of most Leftist theory and, with the accelerating global technocracy and the rise of transhumanism, its relevance is ever-increasing.
That being said, if you don’t have a decent grasp of history, general political theory, and a solid Right-Wing worldview, then you should be careful reading Leftist theory. It’s intentionally obtuse and convoluted, designed to prevent the reader from filtering useful information out of their schizophrenic ideological nonsense.
The vast majority of Leftist political “theory” consists of pointing at objectively good or natural things and then pathologizing them as immoral and bigoted. The basic formula is as follows:
- Point out a societal disparity.
- Claim that this disparity is caused by “oppression.”
- Demand that the “oppressor” cedes power and/or resources to the “oppressed.”
If you ignore all of their stupid rationalizations and solutions (so, everything except their observations), then a lot of what they’re saying is true. Here are a few examples:
- Earnings gap between sexes: True.
Why? Because women have babies and due to differences in male/female behavior (e.g. men are more aggressive).
- Black overrepresentation in the prison system: True.
Why? Because they commit more crimes, largely due to racial differences in behavior (e.g. lower impulse control).
- Jews are a historically “persecuted” race: True.
Why? [Your account has been suspended].
Critical Race Theory is probably the best example. It claims that the West is systemically biased in favor of Whites, which is 100% true (or it was true until anti-White politics were legally enshrined by the “Civil Rights” Revolution). The West was founded by White people, for White people, and inhabited near-exclusively by White people until after the Second World War. Western pro-White bias is perfectly natural, just as Japan is systemically biased in favor of the Japanese, Nigeria in favor of the Nigerians, and so on.
The logical conclusion is that all human societies benefit their founding group to the detriment of outsiders and that this is how humans naturally organize. This tribalist behavior is found throughout the animal kingdom, from ants to apes.
However, Critical Race Theory instead pathologizes this natural behavior in Whites, while glorifying it in non-Whites. Critical Race Theorists declare that because White people benefit from a society that was created by White people, then the “concept” of “Whiteness” must be “destroyed.” This equates to erasing White history, culture, religion, and ethnically cleansing White people via mass migration.
Critical Race Theory takes an objective analysis of human societal organization and twists it into a justification for genocide, while painting the aggressors as victims. This is Left-Wing politics 101.
Power is a central theme throughout the works of the Postmodernist  philosopher Michel Foucault. He produced numerous genealogies exploring how rulers have maintained and expressed power through history and how “power” has evolved alongside systems of governance. Foucault investigated various aspects of society, such as the prison system (in Discipline and Punish) and sexuality (in The History of Sexuality), using them as proxies for how rulers and societies express “power” as a whole.
Foucault’s conception of power diverges from classic definitions, such as:
- Power is institutional domination (a typical Liberal definition of power)
- Power is systemic oppression (a typical Marxist definition of power)
- Power is submission to rules or law (a typical Psychoanalytical definition of power)
Although Foucault did acknowledge that these are forms of power, he claimed that “power” is not held by one individual or group, but expressed in every aspect of society. Micro-level “force relations” are the basis of Foucault’s conception of power: Somebody has power over you when they can force you to do something against your own will.
Combining this idea with the Oppression Olympics concept (where being more “oppressed” translates to having more systemic power) provides a pretty good overview of the power hierarchy in the Postwar West:
- A White woman has power over a White man.
- A Black man has power over a White woman.
- A Black woman has power over a Black man.
- A White transgender individual has power over a Black woman.
- A Black transgender individual has power over a White transgender individual.
- A physically disabled Black transgender individual has power over an able-bodied Black transgender individual.
- The Oppression Olympics continues until we finally reach the top of the power pyramid, where we find Those Who Must Not Be Named.
Foucault was particularly intrigued by how power is expressed in contemporary “democratic” societies, in which there are no publicly visible sovereigns who wield absolute power, as there are in monarchies, dictatorships, and so on. Power did not magically disappear during the transition from monarchy to democracy, nor was it handed to the masses, who have far less power today than they did under monarchic rule. Democratic society merely conceals power and expresses it via different means. Foucault identified four modes of power in modern society, which operate in conjunction with one another:
- Sovereign Power: The power to kill and take.
- Disciplinary Power: The power to regulate behavior.
- Biopower: The power to control biology and life.
- Pastoral Power: Power generated through coercive nurturing.
Each mode is summarized below in layman’s terms (omitting Foucault’s Leftist gobbledygook), with a few examples of how they relate to our current circumstances.
3. Sovereign Power
Sovereign power has been the primary method of societal control throughout human history. It is the foundation upon which all other modes of power are reliant: Centralized state power, emanating from a single sovereign individual or group, who maintains order via domination and physical violence. This is best visualized as a pyramid: The sovereign (e.g. a monarch) sits at the top, the public masses at the bottom, and those who enforce the will of the sovereign are distributed in various ranks between the two poles. In the Postwar West, this pyramid may look as follows:
Sovereign power is “subtractive,” in that it takes life, wealth, labor, etc., but does not control or regulate them, as seen with other modes of power. Under sovereign power alone, the public masses are largely free to manage their own daily affairs.
Before the Enlightenment, European societies were ruled near-exclusively by sovereign power. The masses were duty-bound to serve a monarch, who in turn was duty-bound to protect the public. A monarch’s perceived legitimacy was based on their ability to fulfill this duty. Therefore, any criminal activity was viewed as a direct attack on the sovereign themselves. Criminal punishment did not seek “justice” for those who were wronged but aimed to deter future crime while reinforcing the sovereign’s divine right to rule. Punishment in sovereign society consisted of grand public spectacles, often involving gruesome methods of torture and execution.
Although this method of control was evidently effective, as proven by its longevity, it was inefficient and led to two major unintended consequences. Firstly, the grand public spectacles elevated criminals to the status of minor celebrities, while the brutality of the punishments frequently outweighed the crimes committed. As a result, the public often sympathized with the punished, which undermined the authority of the sovereign. Excessively brutal or tyrannous rulers were at risk of provoking revolutions. Secondly, there was no ambiguity of power within sovereign society. Rulers were held directly responsible for all of the successes and failures of their kingdoms. When things went awry, the public knew exactly whose head had to roll.
Although sovereign power was largely phased out and replaced in the West, it still exists beneath the surface of democratic society. However, it is rarely expressed, as direct state violence tears down the cheap façade of Western “democracy,” as witnessed with the recent COVID tyranny.
4. Disciplinary Power
Disciplinary power, a far more refined and effective method of societal control, arose during the 18th and 19th Centuries, as European rulers attempted to resolve the flaws of sovereign punishment. The gratuitous brutality of public execution was gradually scaled back, until it was eventually replaced by hidden, private executions, utilizing “humane” killing methods, such as the guillotine.
Unfortunately, this shift led to a surplus of petty criminals, who would otherwise have been executed but still required punishment. This issue was resolved via forced labor and mass incarceration. Although imprisonment had existed for millennia in various forms, it was not until the age of Enlightenment that incarceration was implemented on an organized, industrial scale.
The development of Western prison systems drew inspiration from a combination of Enlightenment philosophy and Christian morality. They increasingly focused on reforming criminals to be “fit for society,” transitioning away from physical punishment and towards the regulation of behavior via psychological discipline. This new method of control, identified by Foucault as disciplinary power (or disciplinary punishment), had largely replaced sovereign punishment by the mid-19th Century.
Western prison systems regulate behavior via a three-prongued disciplinary process: Normalization, Observation, and Examination. They enforce predefined behavioral standards via constant surveillance and rigorous examination, grading inmates’ behavior relative to the normalized standards. This process has been implemented throughout modern society and can be found in every major institution: The military, the police, schools, colleges, hospitals, even run-of-the-mill workplace appraisals mimic this process.
According to Foucault, the quintessential disciplinary institution was developed in the 18th Century by Jeremy Bentham, a utilitarian philosopher: The theoretical Panopticon (“All Seeing”) prison was designed to be “humane” while maximizing efficiency. It was perfectly cylindrical and featured a single guard tower in the center of the building. From this position, the guards could theoretically observe every single prisoner at all times. However, the inmates would have no idea whether or not they were being watched. This ambiguity would compel the prisoners to regulate their behavior as if they were constantly surveilled, even if the guard tower was empty.
Using constant surveillance to socially engineer self-regulating behavior is the defining characteristic of disciplinary power, and it currently permeates every aspect of society. Every square inch of every city is blanketed with CCTV. Smartphone owners are plagued by constant device monitoring, location tracking, and data harvesting. Citizens are actively encouraged to spy and snitch on their friends and family; the FBI and CIA asked children to turn in parents who attended January 6th protests, and Facebook has encouraged “extremists” to report themselves to “experts” for “deradicalization.” Even our architecture places us in a constant state of surveillance; consider open-plan offices and glass buildings. The list is endless and the Panopticon is inescapable.
The final key aspect of disciplinary power is the control of knowledge. Basic day-to-day information has a huge impact on human behavior. Consider the ‘food pyramid,’ for example. What may seem like innocuous health advice has transformed the once-healthy Western masses into heart-attack-ridden behemoths.
Today, the masses are perfectly aware that they are being watched and know that they must self-regulate, but how do they know which behaviors to imitate? The normalized standard is enforced by a relentless bombardment of propaganda from every information source imaginable: Radio, TV, cinema, music, art, literature, education, academia, corporations, advertising, and so on. Meanwhile, forbidden knowledge is brutally suppressed via “cancel culture,” “de-platforming,” “hate speech” laws, etc.
Biopower — the power to make live or let die — aims to control life and biological functions. The distinction between disciplinary power and biopower seems to be somewhat blurred. However, Foucault states that while disciplinary power focuses on the individual, biopower expands the same theories of control to society as a whole. The result is near-omnipotent population micromanagement via the control of behavioral norms, demography (health, birth, death, etc.), and strict regulations on how life may be lived. The fundamental aim of biopower is to mold the masses into a homogenized, compliant, and docile herd.
Although Foucault claims that biopower began in the 18th century, with the rise of Darwinism and racialized colonial politics, modern systems of biopower are a direct result of the postwar policies implemented by Leftists/Globalists (same people), alongside the Digital Revolution (1950-1970), which facilitated the rise of the mass society.
Two obvious examples of biopower are birth control and abortion: State policies (which are duplicitously marketed as “individual liberties”) that allow for industrial-scale control over life and death in the most literal sense. Other examples include the wider sexual revolution, culminating in transgenderism and transhumanism; the “food” industry (making the masses too fat to revolt); miscegenation propaganda (attempted control over the genetic makeup of society as a whole); and the mental “health” industry (using drugs to warp people’s minds until they can tolerate societal conditions that would otherwise be intolerable).
Biopower is a proactive, world-spanning system of ever-increasing meddling and manipulation. Unfortunately, we are yet to witness its true horrors, which will be unveiled in the coming decades via the transhumanist revolution.
“The Fourth Industrial Revolution will lead to a fusion of our physical, digital and biological identities.”
— Klaus Schwab
[Note: Click here to read my longer article on the overall NWO agenda, which features Fourth Industrial Revolution and more].
6. Pastoral Power
Pastoral power frames rulers as parental figures, who only exert power to nurture and care for the masses, as a shepherd cares for his flock. The fundamental goal of pastoral power is to create dependency upon the state or the ruling class. It occupies the same societal role as religion, offering salvation to individuals and often incorporating some sort of eschatological mythology. Rulers who attempt to utilize pastoral power may be required to “self-sacrifice” for their flock, in order to gain their trust.
The police force is often cited by Leftists as an example of pastoral power in action, but Leftism itself provides a far better case study:
- The Left’s self-proclaimed mission statement is fighting for “the oppressed” (by which they mean anyone who isn’t White or straight).
- Leftists commonly engage in acts of self-sacrifice and self-flagellation, performative or otherwise, to win over their would-be flock of “oppressed” peoples.
- Fundamentally, Leftism is based on the messianic belief that humanity is “progressing” towards a utopian endpoint — a worldwide Heaven on Earth, free from regressive bigotry — which will be achieved via a permanent World Revolution of the “oppressed” peoples, guided by “enlightened” Leftists.
- Leftist ideology is driven by numerous eschatological myths, such as the “climate change” or COVID apocalypses, which serve as excellent tools to rally their flock.
- Leftism also features numerous salvational aspects: Pay your “carbon taxes” and chastise yourself in the church of LBGTPOC to be freed from the original sin of “Whiteness.”
By granting positions of power and influence to society’s outcasts, losers, and freaks, the Left nurtures an incredibly loyal flock to function as a middle-management caste; the flock knows fine well that they would be powerless without their Leftist shepherds.
 If you aren’t familiar with Postmodernism, it’s essentially an offshoot of Western (“Cultural”) Marxism and Critical Theory. The central ideas of Postmodernism are that everything is a “social construct,” everything is relative, and, most importantly, that there are no absolutes, fundamentals, or objective truths whatsoever. “Truth” is whatever the individual interprets it to be. Postmodernists conveniently exclude “things that oppress marginalized people” from their rejection of objective reality: “Race” may be a social construct but “racism” is very real, “sex” is a social construct but “sexism” is real, and so on, and so on.