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.
Spot on analysis. Very excellent. Thank you.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Both your main and alt Twitter accs have been banned it seems, are you going to make a new one anytime soon?
LikeLiked by 1 person
I would suggest he make an account on FreeSpeechExtremist. It’s far better than twitter when it comes to social media. Twitter is good for seeing what’s going on, but not actually posting things.
How the Elites control analysis is good on it’s own, but there’s another piece of the puzzle to explain it further. For example, why the establishment is so keen of the Holocaust, is there some risk for them losing that narrative a danger to their legitimacy?
As we have seen the ADL and the Government react with controversies by Whoopi Goldberg and school districts restricting children of seeing MAUS (Graphic Novel) because it’s too obscene. You might have to research how the Holocaust created the post-war order.
LikeLiked by 1 person
he would problaby get banned if he said a thing about that thing, now in why they are so keen in defending it is because its the foundational mythos of the post-WW2 west, there was a good redpill talking about it, IIRC. every culture has a foundational myth that justifies its acts and thoughts, be it the greeks, the romans, the christians ETC, the point being is that every myth has three things: an evil monster that represents everything bad (satan in christianity, Hitler in the post-WW2 west) a sort of fire baptism (the noah flood in christianity, the holocaust now) and a sacred thing that cannot be objected or insulted (jesus christ iand the holy tryinity in christianity, “god’s” chosen people now)
keep in mind this has mistakes but it a vague idea of why they are so defensive when the holocaust gets into play, they spent your entire school years brainwashing you about it but not a single second talking about the genocides of communism like holodomor, the great leap forward or the red terror
LikeLiked by 1 person
Since the plandemic started I have been doing research about all of this. But what can I do against this? It’s unstoppable? I’m in my 20s so it’s really hard for me thinking I will have to see everything unfold, when I think about the future I feel defeated, I guess that’s exactly what they want..
Hi Ana Try not to feel defeated. For now be sure to use the knowledge to make better executive decisions. I wish I had done so long ago. However I had very little opportunity to stumble across this except occasionally in college days…the saying ‘better late than never” seems to apply there. Much of these things are disturbing – if you would like to find kinship I welcome you to message me
LikeLiked by 1 person
Does anyone remember what older homes, even down to suburban architecture was like, even down to the most modest of suburban dwellings? Are many of our structures going to be devolving into panopticons..?Look at the interior of modern homes, buildings, hotels now. I often felt less comfortable in the most modern of structures. Now this connects the dots as to why. I read of Foucaults’ Panopticon in college and was fascinated, but equally horrified. I figured it was some obscure theory and probably applied to some severe commie led nations, and or some prison systems around the world at best. Never realising one day it would be a blueplan for our own societies at a basic structural level. Growing up, I remember a friends dad would tinker in his garage and sip his martini while working on some small carpentry projects (prior to the man cave concept becoming a thing) and another friends Mom would permit herself a cigarette while assembling ingredients for a baking project(turns out later she switched to the kind without nicotine as she was quitting the habit) But what they both shared in common was the joy of a level of privacy – structurally speaking. The garage was separate from the rest of the home, despite that is was colder or hotter depending on the time of year. And the neighbors moms kitchen – (it was not open concept back then) and she said she liked how no one could see the mounting dishes that needed washing whilst she did other tasks. Only the older homes – despite their smaller sizes had more privacy features. The new ones the McMansions as sometimes referred to are interesting in that some of them are just big wide open barns. The first glaring feature being the ‘open concept kitchen’ More rarely, tho Ive even seen clear showers and doorless bathrooms (has not really become much of a trend until ppl are willing to not pee in private.) Even pets prefer privacy when relieving themselves!
I honestly consider you a Gem and am so glad I discovered your work in the last 6 or so months. I was just wondering if you ever have done a post on the now infamous ”Cheddar man” as I recently heard an argument from shitlibs that even though he wasn’t African & was most closely related to modern Northern Europeans he still ”looked Black” just as Aboriginals look Black to the common, untrained eye despite obviously not having West African admixture or being African.
They claim Mr Cheddar ”passed” as Black.
Is there anyway to refute this???
Yeah there are a lot of ways to refute it, I’ll write an article about it at some point but I wanna publish it on a different platform, something more normie friendly
It would be nice if you publish the article on both sites. This blog is fine, you could post the same article, but with a different title.
Thanks so much for the response and really glad to hear you will eventually write on it – you’re an absolute legend. I only recently heard of the Cheddar Man Aboriginal comparison argument so thought I’d bring it up.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The Cheddar Man didn’t look black aka Negroid. He had wavy hair, blue eyes a Caucasoid morphology. At best yoU can argue that he would resemble some Indians. Besides, what do you expect fom shitlibs aside from talking BS and crawling behind wokness and anti-racism to sell their drivel as a morally superior thing? Tell the shitlibs that the Cheddar Man who’d have rather resemble strongly tanned Europeans than a black African.
La Brana is like the Cheddar Man a WHG and he doesn’t look Negroid or so-called black.
plus the same study that called cheddar man “black” also called loschbour man, verbatim, a “light skinned (white) individual”
it’s not possible for two people from the same homogeneous ethnic/genetic group that evolved in isolation for thousands of years to have such divergent pigmentation
these scientists are using a fraudulent pigmentation prediction model called hirisplex which misclassifies people with intermediate (white) skin 75% of the time. it’s all a scam
Hi, Thule, have you seen how the media again misleads the masses by misrepresenting the new genetic paper on Europeans?
On daily mail Steppe/Yamnaya pastoralists are being deliberately mislabeled as “Asian nomads” who are responsible for the tall height of Europeans. And now gullible European believe that they owe their tallness to short East Asian/Chinese people instead of the Caucasian Steppe pastoralists from Russia.
Besides, the journalists on daily email often refer to Russia as the “Pontic Steppe” or “north of the Black Sea” when presenting genetic papers, since they know that their readers are clueless about the fact, that these regions are located in Russia. The anti-Russian hatred among Western journalists is real. Once again, the so called journalists want to deceive Europeans by making them believe that short East Asians are responsible for their tall height, instead of Russian Steppe herders. Prior to that, they wanted to trick them into thinking that the Cheddar Man and the WHGs were black Africans. Of course, all this lying to and misleading the masses are being excused and justified with “fighting racism and white supremacy.” The woke elite and the corrupt left-wing media are intensifying their war against Europeans and their identity.