I want to say that this ‘West’ is not a thing to be ‘conserved’

 So if you ask me to help ‘defend the West’ now, I will reply that, though this place is my home and the home of my ancestors, I can’t avoid the reality that the modern ‘West’ birthed the Machine, and is building that inhuman future. Something in our way of seeing contained a seed that unmade the world. I have been examining this seed now for hundreds of pages. Do I want it to grow? No. I want to uproot it. I want to say that this ‘West’ is not a thing to be ‘conserved’: not now. It is a thing to be superseded. It is an albatross around our necks. It obstructs our vision. It weighs us down.

Sometimes, you have to know when to let go.

‘The West’ has become an idol; some kind of static image of a past that maybe once was but is now inhabited by a new force: the Machine. ‘The West’ today thinks in numbers and words, but can’t write poetry to save its life. ‘The West’ is the kingdom of Mammon. ‘The West’ eats the world, and eats itself, that it may continue to ‘grow’. ‘The West’ knows the price of everything and the value of nothing. ‘The West’ is exhausted and empty.

Maybe, then, just maybe, we need to let ‘the West’ die. Let it die so that we can live. Maybe we need to let this concept fall away. To let it crumble so that we can see what lies beneath. Stop all the ‘fighting’ to preserve something nobody can even define, something which has long lost its heart and soul. Stop clinging to the side of the sinking hull as the band plays on. We struck the iceberg long ago; it must be time, at last, to stop clinging to the shifting metal. To let go and begin swimming, out towards the place where the light plays on the water. Just out there. Do you see? Beyond; just beyond. There is something waiting out there, but you have to strike out to reach it. You have to let go.

Forget, then, about ‘defending the West’. Think instead about rebuilding a real human culture, from the roots. If we have gone down a blind alley, then we need to back up, to turn around and discover where we went wrong. We need a counter-revolution: a restoration. We need to overthrow the emissary and put the real master back in his place. If we are attending to the world wrongly—if our way of seeing is up the spout—well, then we are going to have to start seeing differently. But first we have to try and unmoor ourselves from this one.

Where would we start?

McGilchrist would tell us that we should start by changing our quality of attention. This may sound nebulous, but it is anything but. If our left-hemisphere-dominated minds cause us to pay attention to the world in one way, then we need to train them, bit by it, to pay attention in another. ‘Attention changes the world’, he writes. ‘How you attend to it changes what it is you find there’.

What would this mean in practice? I think we know already. It would mean attending to the ways of seeing that were central to past cultures, but that Western modernity relentlessly dismisses or downplays as unprofitable, unrealistic, romantic and all the rest. Perhaps central to this is an effort to see the world as an organism rather than a mechanism, and then to express it that way, through art, through creativity, through writing, through our conversations. The last part is the hardest, very often, but maybe the most important too. If we refuse to see the world or its inhabitants as machines, if we are suspicious of rationalisations and dogmatic insistence and easy answers and false divisions, even for a moment, then we are making a start.

This is in effect a rebellion against a whole way of seeing, but that rebellion is also well established by now. I think that, at some unconscious level, we want to win it. Emotional, cultural and spiritual resistance to the Machine has been going on for centuries, and the need for it only grows more urgent. We can take part by going outside and praying beneath the moon, or just sitting in the grass and really experiencing the rain. We can seek to be reasonable rather than rational, and to distinguish intelligence from wisdom.

Once you try to view the world through McGilchrist’s hemispheric understanding of culture, you will probably find that it looks quite different. Look at the world of politics, for example, and you’ll soon notice that both ‘left’ and ‘right’ are, in McGilchrist’s hemispheric terms, both very much on the left. Compare a modern skyscraper and an old cottage, or a Byzantine icon and a Picasso. Or consider contemporary language compared to its older equivalent: nature versus biodiversity, mothers versus chestfeeders, people versus human resources. Consider countries, religions, stories, communities or families from both right- and left-hemisphere viewpoints. How do they look? How do they feel? Like complex, delicate networks of relationship—or like mechanisms to be deconstructed and rebuilt at will?

The attempt to live without the rest of nature, to conquer the world, to rationalise and remake it from the top down and bottom up: this began here, in ‘the West’. So here’s a thought: the alternative needs to come from here too. We started the revolution, so we need to start the restoration. We understand the Machine better than anyone, because it’s in us. We unmade the world. Now we are going to have to remake it again.

We Western people: we have to learn how to inhabit again. We have to learn how to live sanely in our lands. How to write poems and walk in the woods and love our neighbours. How to have the time to even notice them. How to take an interest in the parts without detaching them from the whole. How to remember that the Earth is alive and always was, and that no ‘culture’ which forgets that can last, or deserves to.

Beyond ‘the West’ there might just be another way of seeing. An older way. Beyond the West, we might find Europe. We might find Albion. We might find Cockayne, or Doggerland. We might find the mind that painted the cave walls. We might find hunters and clear rivers and countries and saints and spirits and painted churches. We might find shrines and pilgrim routes and folk music and fear of the sea. We might find ourselves again.

Could we even find home?

Paul Kingsnorth

Against the Machine. On the Unmaking of Humanity 

From Winter Oak page

 

Elite pedophilia is the world’s best protected secret. And it makes sense, because the perpetrators need to ensure that you, the reader, will never focus on them. They prefer that we all keep busy with the many distractions they throw at us to keep us divided: dysfunctional siblings of the global family, with psychopaths and narcissists for parents. We should do anything but look to the source of Western society’s ills, which is the utter selfishness of the leadership, so extreme that it is an emotional disease, of which symptoms such as heartlessness and superiority turn its hosts into monsters. Those who do what it takes to belong to the power establishment are the most lost, the most emotionally infantile, the most broken, and the most evil among us. They do not deserve our trust, our confidence, our acceptance of their political savvy and expertise, or our admiration for their power or wealth—it is all smoke and mirrors. If we can absorb the reality that many of the most rich and famous rape and kill children with impunity, how can we possibly continue arguing and vilifying each other over differences of opinion?

from the book Quest for Love: Memoir of a Child Sex Slave
Anneke Lucas

All of us suffer, on a permanent basis, from the evil inflicted upon this world by the psychopaths in power. [1]

It is in the very air we breathe, the water we drink, the food we eat, the society in which we are caged.

But most of us do not encounter members of the global mafia in our personal lives – they remain abstract, even slightly unreal, figures whom we merely read about.

This is not the case for Anneke Lucas, (pictured below) [2] a Belgian woman who, between the ages of six and eleven, was used as a sex slave by what she calls “the secret gang that forms the world’s elite, who put their own slaves and puppets in roles at the top of the global power structure of privilege and entitlement”. [3]

Her abusers were, she explains in her 2022 book Quest for Love: Memoir of a Child Sex Slave, “the most elite crowd in the country – aristocrats, famous politicians, doctors, judges, lawyers, top businessmen”. [4]

It cannot have been easy for her to speak about what happened, in view of “network rule number one: Never Challenge the Absolute Power of the Bosses”. [5]

Lucas and I were born in the same year, 1963, and so, while reading her account of events happening in 1973 or 1974, I pictured who I was and what I was doing at that age and at that time.

And the contrast between my own unremarkable English suburban upbringing – protected by the basic decency of all the adults around me – and her experience is, well… simply mind-blowing.

If I had heard her account a decade ago, when she first went public, I am not sure I would have believed her, so far removed is what she describes from anything I have personally encountered or imagined.

But in the meantime I have, like so many of us, become aware of the vast scale of systematic child abuse in this wretched world and the way in which it forms part of the system’s control of politicians and other key individuals.

I have read all about Jimmy Savile (pictured below on the left) – that great friend of the current British monarch – as well as about Ted Heath, Greville Janner, Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein, with his links to that same monarch’s brother Andrew. I have also watched, and written about, the 2024 film Les Survivantes, which includes Lucas’s testimony. [7]

THE REIGN OF THE BEAST →
https://winteroak.org.uk/2025/10/24/the-reign-of-the-beast/

What can we do when our societies have been taken over by a gang of murderous psychopaths who, rather than stalking the corridors of power, should be confined in padded cells in high-security mental institutions?

The first step is to tear away the mask of respectability, even “superiority”, with which they hide their true character and agenda from the rest of us.

Says Anneke Lucas, whose book I presented in the second part [1] of this trilogy: “If we see the insanity of what is happening in the world, we have a duty to also see the insanity of those who are behind it”. [2]

“We regard these people as either better than us or as powerfully evil, but both of these viewpoints give them power, and hide their utter insanity”. [3]

“They do not deserve our trust, our confidence, our acceptance of their political savvy and expertise, or our admiration for their power and wealth – it is all smoke and mirrors”. [4]

Andrew M. Lobaczewski stresses, in the book on psychopaths that I have already described, [5] that such manipulative people have a need for self-concealment: “The pathological face must be hidden from the world somehow”. [6]

BREAKING THE EVIL SPELL
https://winteroak.org.uk/2025/10/27/breaking-the-evil-spell/

Something is smelling decidedly ‘off’ in today’s world, with nauseating levels of corruption, mass murder, lies, hypocrisy and repression. These three essays are based on three books I happen to have recently read, each of which provides fascinating but necessarily limited insights into the reality of contemporary society. Placed alongside each other, however, they can help us to identify the source of the odour.

“The French government has been totally captured by Israel. The president behaves like a Zionist agent. The mass media are controlled… I am astonished by the power of the Jewish lobby. It practically dictates the Middle East policies of France and of Europe”. [1]

“Here are people who control most of the mainstream media, who have at their disposal intermediaries in the highest spheres of the state, not to speak of considerable financial clout, and they cannot tolerate the existence of a little rebel group… These people have decided to attack all forms of pro-Palestinian expression. They are everywhere, they are powerful and above all are diabolically efficient. They must certainly be working with intelligence services”. [2]

The two statements above are fictional. Or rather, they are fictional in that they have been put into the mouths of fictional characters in a work presented as a fiction.

However, author Jacob Cohen clearly does not want his readers to imagine that the contents of Le Printemps des Sayanim (‘The Sayanim Spring’) bear no relation at all to real life.

He chooses to describe his book as an “account” (récit) rather than a novel and his double-edged disclaimer declares: “Despite the troubling proximity to reality of the related facts, all resemblance to existing persons would only be the product of a coincidence”. [3]

One such coincidence concerns the central fictional character Youssef El Kouhen, the history teacher of Moroccan background who becomes involved in Freemasonry in France and whose support for Palestine provokes reprisals from the Zionist sayanim who play a leading role in the organisation.

No connection here, obviously, to Moroccan-born Jacob Cohen (pictured), with a degree from Science-Po in Paris, author of a book exposing the activities of those same networks.

Cohen’s “fiction” begins with a page of non-fictional quotes describing the existence and activities of the sayanim, a volunteer force of millions of Jewish Zionists across the world who are deployed by Mossad to defend and advance Israel’s interests.

Here former Mossad agent Victor Ostrovsky states that this is the Israel intelligence service’s key asset – whereas a branch of Russian intelligence in any given country might need a staff of at least 100 people, Mossad can function with six or seven, the rest of their personnel being from civilian sayanim. [4]

Cohen has his fictional alter ego muse over the psychology of these fanatic Zionists, for whom Israel is the most wonderful country in the world.

THE STENCH OF THE SYSTEM: SAYAN
https://winteroak.org.uk/2024/11/04/the-stench-of-the-system-sayanim/

Paul Cudenec

Revised 2025 Definition of ‘Zionist’

i. A follower of the ethno-cultural nationalist movement that emerged in the late 19th century and aimed to establish a national home for the Jewish people.

ii. A person who today defends or champions the Israeli state.

iii. A person not resident in that state who nevertheless prioritises its interests over those of the country in which he or she resides.

iv. A person who maintains that Jewish people have the moral or historical right to occupy Palestine.

v. A believer in Jewish exceptionalism and/or supremacism.

vi. A person who defines opposition to Jewish 21 exceptionalism or supremacism as “anti-semitism”

vii. A person or group deliberately exploiting their Jewish identity and/or connections in order to advance their own economic or political interests at the expense of the public as a whole.

viii. A practitioner or promoter of so-called “Jewish philanthropy”.

ix. A person who considers it acceptable or even commendable for the Jewish 0.2% of the world’s population to wield disproportionate economic, cultural or social influence over the 99.8% non-Jewish majority.

x. A person who seeks to classify any criticism of activity dominated by Jews (such as banking, mass media or property development) as an “anti-semitic trope”.

xi. A person who seeks to censor criticism of the activities of certain Jewish people or families (such as the Rothschilds) on the basis that this is necessarily anti-semitic.

xii. A person who claims that any suggestion of a group of very rich and powerful people secretly controlling the world, whether or not a Jewish dimension is mentioned, is effectively anti-semitic.

xiii. A person unable or unwilling to explain why the suggestion, per se, of a secret group controlling the world should automatically be deemed anti-semitic.

22 xiv. A person who frequently warns of anti-semitism while not accepting the reality of Jewish prejudice against non-Jews.

xv. A person who insists that the deaths of Jews in Nazi-controlled Europe in the 1940s represents a totally unique historical event to which no other can ever be compared without committing an anti-semitic hate crime.

xvi. A person attempting to establish the events of October 7, 2023, as a lesser but similar “Holocaust”, any questioning of which should be regarded as anti-semitic “denialism”.

xvii. A person seeking to instrumentalise historical Jewish suffering in order to justify, promote or advance a contemporary agenda or project.

xviii. A person who claims that anti-Zionism, or indeed this current broader definition of Zionism, amounts to anti-semitism.

Having set this out, I now feel free to continue to refer to the single global mafia as Zionist.

[1]https://www.english-heritage.org.uk/visit/places/cliffords-tower-york/history-and-stories/massacre-of-the-jews/
[2] See, for instance, Mees Baaijen, The Predators versus The People, https://thepredatorsversusthepeople.substack.com/
[3] https://www.tribusconscientes.com/post/for-localism-and-the-love-of-humanity
[4] https://winteroak.org.uk/2023/08/25/phoney-anti-fascists-target-the-real-thing/
[5] https://winteroak.org.uk/2025/01/17/the-truth-about-davos/

ZIM Unzipped Investigating and Opposing the Zio-Satanic Imperialist Mafia 
Paul Cudenec

Authenticity: A Quality To Defeat Quantity

 

I use the word “authentic” quite a lot in my writing: it describes, for me, an essential quality that is at the heart of everything I consider good.

Like many adjectives, it means slightly different things in different contexts, but its most obvious use is as a synonym of “genuine”.

Its opposite, in this case, would be “fake” or “false” and so we might conclude that “authentic” relates mainly to veracity, to truth.

But there is more to it than that. If, for example, I bought some “farmhouse cider” and later discovered that it was produced in a large factory on an industrial estate next to the motor-way, I might judge that this was not authentic “farmhouse cider”.

However, what if the product was truthfully named “cider produced in a large factory on an industrial estate next to the motorway”?

Would that surprising veracity mean that the product was now authentic?

Not for me, no – so my understanding of authenticity evidently goes deeper than the truth-fulness, or not, of the label attached to some-thing.

It reaches, in fact, into that something’s origins, the source from which it has emerged.

An authentic folk culture, for instance, would be one that had been handed down from generation to generation and which, while it might have changed a little over the decades, represented an obvious continuity from the past.

Its opposite, a fake folk culture, would be one that had been cobbled together by the local tourist industry to attract visitors and sell trashy souvenirs.

While describing this pastiche version as real folk culture would obviously be deceptive, the actual core inauthenticity derives not from that deception but from the origin – the essence – of that so-called culture.

My dictionary tells me that “authentic” comes from the Late Latin authenticus, which in turn came from the Green authentikos, from authentes, meaning one who acts independently.

This provides an interesting insight into the spread of meanings associated with the word today. I would say that these are “trustworthy”, “first-hand”, “just” and “natural” – with the opposite concepts being “untrustworthy”, “second-hand”, “unjust” and “artificial”.

That set of negative qualities seems to me to very much describe the world we live in today, a world that is far from being authentic.

There is certainly no place in this society for “one who acts independently”: laws, restraints and obligations are imposed on us from the outside by a system that has deliberately made us completely dependent on it.

And much of our contemporary culture is every bit as inauthentic as the fake folk culture manufactured by the tourism industry.

This is because everything in our society has to serve the hunger of one sole god – Mammon.
Value has been replaced by price, creation by consumption, quality by quantity.

And, while some kind of weakness in the human mind must have allowed this situation to come about, it is certainly not due to a positive desire of the majority to live this way – it is not because we generally and instinctively regard material wealth and power as the most import-ant elements of our being.

Far from it. Many people are screaming out against the hollowness, the ugliness, the hope-lessness, of this society in which we are trapped and are yearning for a different kind of world.
This industrial society is not authentic, because its roots are not in our hearts, in our dreams, in the archetypal tendencies and desires that stir our blood and guide our tastes and pref-erences.

It is not authentic because it does not form part of the beautiful becoming of the cosmos, the harmonious symbiosis of all the living parts of the Whole.

It is, rather, an aberration – a civilisational wrong turn that has led to the construction of a massive prison-system, a world-occupying and increasingly “inclusive” work camp designed to extract wealth from enslaved peoples and from a violated Mother Earth.

We all know who the slave-masters are.

They are the psychopaths who have built a global empire based on war, crime, slavery, drugs, plunder, usury, blackmail and deceit.

They are a tiny group, with a twisted, callous, life-hating outlook, who have somehow managed to get a stranglehold on the whole of humankind.

There is nothing they despise more than the notion of authenticity, which describes everything they are not.

It has much the same effect on them as a clove of garlic waved under the nose of a vampire!
They are afraid of people who act independ-ently, who are genuine, natural and committed to justice.

They are even afraid of people who think in those terms rather than obediently adopting the anti-values of their rancid reign of quantity, those who understand that authenticity is the quality of belonging to the natural order which they have overturned and whose past and potential existence they deny.

This is why I think we need to adopt the value of authenticity as a pillar of our philosophy of resistance and renewal.

We need to speak again its good old language, shout out loud the words the slave-masters would rather we forgot.

Let’s call for magic and for mystery, for spirit and for soul!

Let’s share tales of our ancestors, our folklore, our myths and our dreaming!

Let’s talk once more about essence, instinct, intuition and the inborn!

Let’s cry out our love of truth and beauty, of honesty and humanity, of wisdom and withness!

Let’s sing the praises of the natural and the organic, the rooted and the real!

Let’s declare ourselves to be partisans for life itself and for the victory of its affirming authenticity over the grim grey forces of artifice and death!

Paul Cudenec

The Global Gang Running Our World and Ruining Our Lives

Hans Driesch

“The object is not the mere sum of its attributes: it is their unity – it is all the attributes together”

Hans Driesch (1867-1941) was a biologist who developed a humanistic and internationalist holistic philosophy in defiance of the Nazi regime in his native Germany.

His embryological research at the start of the twentieth century helped challenge the mechanistic model of life that had come to dominate Western thinking under industrial capitalism.

In a crucial experiment, he destroyed one of the blastomeres of a sea-urchin egg at the two-cell stage of development and found that what happened next contradicted the expectations of the machine model.

Instead of a half-animal developing out of the two egg halves, the half developed into a whole larva that was half the normal size.

Hans Driesch vitalismThis research led Driesch towards his influential theory of organisms as “harmonious equipotential systems” which adapted to the needs of a given situation via a purposeful teleological principle he termed entelechy.

He explained in The History and Theory of Vitalism that this was neither an energy nor a material substance: “Entelechy is an agent sui generis, non-material and non-spatial, but acting ‘into’ space, so to speak; an agent, however, that belongs to nature in the purely logical sense in which we use this word”. (1)

Entelechy allowed a possible happening to become real, he said, without itself providing the energy required for this to happen. “Entelechy only allows that to become real which it has itself held in a state of mere possibility”. (2)

His friend and scientific colleague Jakob Johann von Uexküll commented in 1908: “Driesch succeeded in proving that the germ cell does not possess a trace of machine-like structure, but consists throughout of equivalent parts. With that fell the dogma that the organism is only a machine.

“Even if life occurs in the fully organized creature in a machine-like way, the organization of a structureless germ into a complicated structure is a power sui generis, which is found only in living things and stands without analogy”. (3)

However, it was in opposition to Uexküll’s often-similar theories that Driesch established his own distinct world view.

Uexküll had developed a holistic model of animal behaviour that saw the organism and its environment as a single, integrated system, which he termed the Umwelt. This did not fit well with Nazi scientific theories, which focused on inherited traits and regarded all mention of “environment” as suspiciously left-wing and anti-German.

Uexküll shared the radical organic understanding of the way that natural communities had been replaced by artificial states, which prevented the proper functioning of human society. But his thinking did overlap with Nazi ideology in one area, in that he suggested that a healthy state, or a monarchy, acted as the necessary “brain” of a social organism.

Driesch spoke out against his old friend’s theory after Uexküll published his Staatsbiologie (Biology of the State) in 1920, and insisted that a state was not in any way an organism. It totally lacked the autonomous and creative sense of purpose, the entelechy, which animated living entities.

Instead, the only collective human organism that Driesch was prepared to recognize was a concept of humankind that recognized no national or völkisch boundaries. He wrote in 1922: “The fact that mankind can create states qualifies it to be in a certain sense a single ‘organism’; however the empirical individual states are, in their logical essence, much more like rocks than like some special construction in the context of the organic world”. (4)

Driesch maintained that the concept of wholeness, on which his philosophy was based, arose from pure logic: “For the object is not the mere sum of its attributes: it is their unity – it is all the attributes together”. (5)

entelechyBut he was criticised by Max Wertheimer, and others in the circles around Gestalt Theory, for what they regarded as the unscientific basis of his vitalistic biology. They objected to his idea of a non-spatial life force, entelechy, guiding the development of an organism. Wertheimer commented that Driesch had “gone over to the camp of the spiritualists”. (6)
At the Prague International Congress of Philosophy in 1934, he was attacked by Viennese logical positivists Rudolf Carnap, Hans Reichenbach and Moritz Schlick, who not only took issue with the concept of wholeness itself but also wrongly equated Driesch’s holistic organic vision with the fascism he so deeply opposed.

It is true that Nazi ideologists initially showed an interest in Driesch’s work. Anne Harrington writes: “During the early, most influential years of Nazi holism, Driesch was a consistently useful resource for a range of holistic scientists with Nazi nationalist leanings. Even those who rejected his vitalism could still hail him as a midwife to the new era of ‘ German wholeness'”. (7)

But this interest flew in the face of Driesch’s own emphatic opposition to the Nazi regime and his determination to forge a philosophy of vitalistic wholeness based on internationalism and humanism.

Driesch travelled extensively in Asia after the First World War, with the deliberate aim of widening his cultural horizons. Harrington notes: “He believed that studying foreign cultures could be an important avenue for discerning transcendent principles that united and guided all individual human communities, regardless of their surface differences”. (8)

In 1927 Driesch declared himself opposed to all “cults of statehood” (9) and in the years leading up to the Hitler regime he repeatedly spoke out against the rise of nationalism.

He used a series of newspaper articles to argue that entelechy recognized no national borders, that the only biological whole that we belonged to was the human species and that militarism and war were “the most terrible of all sins” against the vitalistic principles of life, holistic co-operation and higher development.

In the light of this, it is not surprising that Driesch was among the first non-Jewish German professors to be forcibly retired, at the age of 66, when the Nazis came to power in 1933.

After this, he received no more invitations to speak or hold seminars within Germany. He continued to hold occasional lectures abroad until the spring of 1935, but then all public speaking and travel privileges were taken away from him for the rest of his life.

In 1985, historian of psychology Eckhart Scheerer wrote that Driesch had identified “the biological necessity of reason” and added that his entelechy hypothesis had “made it possible for him to fill his theoretical biological-holistic world view with humanistic spirit”. (10)

1. Hans Driesch, The History and Theory of Vitalism, trad. by C.K. Ogden (London: Macmillan, 1914), p. 204.
2. Driesch, The History and Theory of Vitalism, p. 205.
3. Anne Harrington, Reenchanted Science: Holism in German Culture from Wilhelm II to Hitler (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1999), p. 51.
4. Hans Driesch, Philosophie des Organischen (Leipzig: Engelmann, 1922), p. 573, cit. Harrington, p. 61.
5. Driesch, The History and Theory of Vitalism, p. 189.
6. Harrington, p. 124.
7. Harrington, pp. 189-90.
8. Harrington, p. 190.
9. Hans Driesch, ‘Zur neueren Vitalismuskritik’, Biologisches Zentralblatt, 47, 1927, cit. Harrington, p. 190.
10. Eckhart Scheere, ‘Organische Weltanschauung und Ganzheitsspsychologie’, Psychologie im Nazionalsozialismus, ed. by Carl F. Graumann (New York: Springer Verlag, 1985), p. 40, cit. Harrington, p. 190.

https://orgrad.wordpress.com/a-z-of-thinkers/hans-driesch/

Your government wants you dead

On the very first day of 2025, The Acorn warned that the British population was under attack from Keir Starmer’s regime, which even appeared to want them dead and was poisoning their food, freezing them to death, polluting their water, bombarding them with radiation, jabbing them to death and encouraging them to commit suicide.

Half way through the year we see no reason to change our minds!

For instance, the UK Parliament, which is under the control of the zio-imperialist mafia, has just approved the legalisation of “assisted suicide”, aka euthanasia for non-profitable units of human capital.

Commented blogger and former lawyer Clare Wills Harrison: “We are a failed nation whose NHS can’t even offer adequate care. Now it is to offer death as a service”.

One citizen journalist remarked: “No joke here. Keir Starmer is a psychopath and he is doing Aktion T4”.

This refers, of course, to what Wikipedia defines as “a campaign of mass murder by involuntary euthanasia which targeted people with disabilities and the mentally ill in Nazi Germany”.

If you doubt whether the “involuntary” element is relevant here, take a look at the chilling list of amendments to the bill that were rejected during its passage, as compiled by that same amateur sleuth, “eyuplovely”.

https://x.com/eyuplovely/status/1936788757727895645/photo/1

This shows that Parliament rejected amendments which would have ensured “doctors only discuss euthanasia if the patient explicitly requests it first”, would have insisted on “proof of non-coercion” and would have introduced the eminently sensible safeguard of allowing family or next of kin to challenge the state-sanctioned killing “if they suspect coercion”!

When you add to this the fact that MPs rejected the idea of excluding from the suicide scheme “those who might choose euthanasia due to financial hardship”, we are looking at something very dark and ugly indeed.

This all seems to be part of a convergence between ZIM’s pseudo-democratic fiefdoms and the openly totalitarian ones that it created and ran in the 20th century, such as Nazism and Soviet Communism.

Meanwhile, MPs have also voted to decriminalise abortion up to full-term pregnancy.

Ben Rubin of UK Column went online to say this was undeniably giving the green light to the killing of viable human beings – of children in fact.

Condemning the “hideous agenda” of what can only be described as a death cult, he declared: “These people are pure evil… We are ruled by soulless demons, psychopaths, who place no value whatsoever on human life”.

When tyranny is disguised as moral necessity

Satanic inversion is a key aspect of the brainwashing and gaslighting techniques used by the ruling criminocracy to control and manipulate us.

From its Commonwealth operation’s mendacious self-depiction as “a compelling force for good” to its US branch’s absurd claims to “defend democracy” across the world, its language is never far from the Orwellian satire of war being peace and slavery being freedom.

What has been less obvious to most of us is the way in which the system has been gradually manufacturing a highly complex totalitarian apparatus around its inverted notion of ethics.

Fortunately, the blogger known as Escapekey (whose work featured in The Acorn last year) has been on their case and explaining, in some depth, what they have been up to.

In a key June 2025 essay entitled ‘The Complete Architecture’, he says he has discovered “deliberate replication of governance mechanisms that defined the worst totalitarian regimes of the 20th century”.

But, he adds: “The difference is scale and sophistication: where Hitler, Stalin, and Mao operated at national levels through crude political apparatus, this system operates globally through technical expertise and ethical mandate, making it far more insidious and potentially irreversible once fully activated”.

He says that in this globalist mechanism, “science” is positioned as the source rather than subject of ethical frameworks across all aspects of human experience.

Non-compliance with this false god of “science”, creator of all ethics, becomes literally unthinkable, with dissent and resistance appearing not just wrong, but immoral.

The “ethical” framing also gives enforcement bodies “moral” authority to destroy careers without legal process, he stresses.

And he notes we saw this in operation during Covid, when refusal to toe the line was represented as some kind of moral failure.

“Healthcare workers were fired during COVID-19 not for illegal activity, but for ‘ethics violations’ — questioning vaccine mandates, discussing alternative treatments, or prioritising individual patient assessment over standardised protocols”.

Likewise, he observes, scientists face “ethics reviews” for challenging the official climate narrative.

We might add that opposing the official pro-Israel line or the power of the transgender industry is also presented as “hate crime” and thus an ethical “offence”.

Escapekey writes: “Information control operates through the weaponisation of ‘fact-checking’, ‘content moderation’, and ‘media literacy’ frameworks.

“Alternative perspectives are eliminated not through overt censorship but through ethical frameworks that define dissent from expert consensus as ‘misinformation’ or ‘disinformation’“.

He explains that the model for all this is the “clearing house” one, first perfected in the British banking system – providing an obvious clue as to who is behind it!

This involves a deceptive veneer of decentralisation, while in fact power is controlled at the centre – such as “local” banks being subservient to clearing banks, which themselves are subservient to the central bank (the Bank of England).

He writes: “The pattern was methodically exported: the Federal Reserve replicated the British model in 1913, the Bank for International Settlements scaled it globally in 1930, and the same template now governs virtually every aspect of modern life”.

And he warns: “The systematic merger of law and ethics represents the completion of a governance model that defined the worst totalitarian regimes of the 20th century.

“Hitler’s dictum that ‘the total state must not know any difference between law and ethics’ was implemented through identical mechanisms under different guises across Nazi Germany, Soviet Union, and Fascist Italy — despite their supposed ideological differences.

“The pattern was consistent: undermine existing institutions, attack traditional sources of authority, create permanent crisis requiring expert management, replace legal frameworks with ethical mandates, eliminate dissent as moral failure rather than legitimate disagreement.

“The result was arbitrary rule disguised as moral necessity — exactly what we observe today at global scale”.

https://winteroak.org.uk/2025/06/30/the-acorn-104/

Electoral fraud: the illusion of democracy

With big elections looming up all over the place, I thought this would be a good moment to remind people of what a fraud they are, on many levels.

i. Captured parties.

It has become very obvious to very many people, particularly since Covid, that the main political parties everywhere are all controlled by the criminocracy. No politicians are allowed anywhere near power unless they are signed up to the whole agenda of totalitarian “sustainable development”, public-private “partnership”, pouring money into Ukraine and pretending that Israel is not carrying out mass murder in Gaza. Control of the political parties has been in place for a very long time indeed, not just by means of bribery and blackmail but also through infiltration by the public-funded “intelligence” services set up to serve the criminocrats’ interests. Even the smallest and most insignificant political group is targeted and it is only a matter of time before any new initiative, no matter how genuine, will be taken over. If it cannot be successfully turned in a direction that suits the powers-that-shouldn’t-be, it will be destroyed from the inside by bitter disputes and splits, playing on existing fault lines and personal weaknesses.

ii. Why parties anyway?

A month or two ago, some friends and I secured a meeting with our local deputé (member of parliament), who is in the main left-wing opposition party, La France insoumise, to ask him some questions. High on our list was the threat of the WHO treaty, giving unprecedented control to a global body in the case of a future “pandemic”. Since he hadn’t even heard of the issue, one of our group explained it all to him and then asked him whether he agreed with us, in principle, that this was a worrying prospect. He wouldn’t give a personal opinion, insisting that he was committed to a collective outlook and that, basically, he would have to go and find out what the party line was before he could answer. This raises the question of to what extent an MP belonging to a political party really represents the people who elected him, or whether he in fact represents the party whose line he defends and which is in turn controlled by other interests. What is the purpose of the party system if not to prevent representatives from speaking and voting from their own convictions, or in response to the views of their constituents?

iii. The problem with representation

A deeper problem here is that of representation itself. When a population accepts to be “represented” by a politician they are essentially handing him a blank cheque to act as he (or his party) sees fit. He is under no legal obligation to carry out the promises on which he got elected and, when some new issue arises, is not expected to return to his constituents to seek their opinion. This clearly does not amount to democracy. One of the big demands of the Gilets Jaunes here in France in 2018-19 was for citizens to have the right to call for a referendum on important issues, with the direct voice of the public thus taking precedence over the indirect filter of the controlled “representative”.

iv. The shaping of opinion

There are issues even with this notion of direct democracy, though. One of these is the way that public opinion is itself moulded by mass media that are owned by the same criminocrats who control the political parties and, thus, the elected representatives. Covid showed us how effectively the majority can be conned by constant full-spectrum propaganda. These techniques could equally be used to sway a referendum. At election times, “opinion polls” relayed by corporate media form part of the manipulation, their real aim being not to reflect public opinion, but to shape it. If, for instance, a “problem” party was doing well and clearly had a chance of coming to power, the polls would announce instead that they had virtually no support and that people would do better to vote for one of the lesser-of-two-evils options. No real democracy seems possible without an independent media to properly inform the public.

v. Centralised society

A further barrier to democracy is the centralised nature of our societies – centralised nationally, transnationally (such as Europe) and globally. Power flows from the top downwards, not from the people upwards, as would be the case in an actual democracy. Agendas are imposed, institutionally, and elected representatives on any level can do very little to affect them, even if they wanted to. The prime example of this is the “development” and “economic growth” which is the motor of the criminocracy’s expanding wealth and power. The “need” for this has been written into the structure of our social organisation to the extent that public opposition to some new proposed monstrosity will always come up against a centrally-imposed brick wall. (For more on this, see this article). Real democracy would involve the localisation of decision-making, the end of global corporate imperialism and the restoration to communities everywhere of the right to shape their own destinies.

vi. A rigged game

Given everything I have been describing, do the criminocrats ever need to physically “fix” an election? I don’t know, but I am sure that if they felt the need, and had the ability, they would do so. We should not be so naïve as to imagine that they would simply stand back and watch, with a wistful shrug, if a population anywhere voted in a government that represented a genuine threat to their power and interests. If the worst comes to the worst, there is always the option of assassinating troublesome political leaders. Or of declaring yet another “emergency”, suspending elections and switching to the kind of direct authoritarian rule favoured in Nazi Germany or the USSR. At the end of the day, their “democracy” is merely a device with which to distract and control us and, while it has served their purposes well, they do not consider it indispensable.

https://winteroak.org.uk/2024/06/25/the-acorn-94/

Paul Cudenec 

The Rothschilds - Putting Themselves Before Others

The Rothschilds have always evidently been proud of their family’s financial and social success and they have not been shy about building monuments to their own glory.

By the end of the 19th century, the family owned, or had built, at least 41 palaces, “of a scale and luxury perhaps unparalleled even by the richest royal families”, [19] as Wikipedia puts it.
Ferguson comments: “They were advertise-ments for Rothschild power, five-star hotels for influential guests, private art galleries: in short, centres for corporate hospitality”. [20] Writing in 1836, Heine described James de Rothschild’s house in Paris as “the Versailles of the absolute sovereignty of money”. [21] In London, Alfred Rothschild had his own personal train, a private orchestra, a circus of which he was the ringmaster and a carriage pulled by four zebras. [22]  Such was the family’s status that the Metro-politan Police ensured that their carriages had right of way as they drove through the streets of London. [23] The Rothschilds, who had achieved noble status both in Britain and in Europe, became known for their lavish entertaining and fancy high-society balls. [24] For millions of people across Europe and North America, the 1930s meant misery, as they were plunged into desperate poverty by the Great Depression, for which the banking dynasty must bear some responsibility.

“Venal parliaments and gold-hoarding central banks bear at least some of the blame for the 1929-32 world crisis: the French Rothschilds were represented in both”, [25] comments Ferguson.
But all was hunky-dory for the family them-selves, as he explains. “For Guy [de Rothschild], the 1930s meant golf, American cars, dancing at Biarritz and baccarat at Deauville. Philippe [de Rothschild] built himself a seaside villa at Arcachon, the better to entertain other men’s wives, and helped his father to squander yet more money by building his own theatre in the rue Pigalle (a suitably louche location)”. [26] Inevitably, perhaps, their ultra-rich lifestyle was increasingly accompanied by a certain sense of superiority, even arrogance.

Remarks Ferguson: “Having risen so far by their own efforts the Rothschilds considered themselves in many ways superior to the aristocracy, not least in financial terms”. [27] In France, Maurice de Rothschild stood for election using the slogan “my name is my platform” on his posters and letting voters know that governments could do nothing without his family, who were in fact “the real” finance ministry. [28] The Rothschilds were generally indifferent, even hostile, to the little people, way below them in the social pecking order.

For instance, they argued against land reform to increase the number of small proprietors in the British Isles [29] and Natty Rothschild sneered at “the much pampered and not over-worked British workman”. [30] Alphonse de Rothschild made this unfortu-nate family trait even plainer when he declared in 1897: “I am sure that, generally speaking, working people are very satisfied with their lot... “One has to distinguish between good and bad workers. Those who demand the eight hour day are the lazy, incapable ones. The others, the steady serious fathers of families, want to be able to work long enough to provide for themselves and their family. “But if they were all compelled to work only eight hours a day do you know what the majority of them would do? Well they would drink!... What else would you expect them to do?” [31] Open racial and religious prejudice was very widespread in the 19th century, as the Rothschilds had themselves discovered to their cost. But they were not immune to the same failing themselves.

Alphonse de Rothschild, asked by a friend in March 1866 why he worked so hard to make more money when he was already enormously rich, replied: “Ah! You don’t know the pleasure of feeling heaps of Christians under one’s boots!”.

[32] In 1876 public opinion in Britain was out-raged by the “Bulgarian atrocities” in which up to 15,000 Bulgarian Christians were killed by Turks. [33] Ferguson remarks: “By its very nature, this appeal on behalf of the Balkan Christians was of limited interest to the Rothschilds”. [34] Indeed the family regarded the Slav nation-alist cause as in contradiction to the interests of their fellow Jews and Lionel Rothschild was scathing about “all these public meetings” [35] about the plight of the Christians. This is not to say that the Rothschilds’ relationship to other Jews was straightforward.

Not only their wealth but their genealogy set them apart from the rest of European Jewry.
For many generations the family followed a 8  policy of deliberate in-breeding, marrying not just within their own faith but within their own immediate kinship group.

Of 21 marriages involving descendants of Mayer Amschel Rothschild between 1824 and 1877, no fewer than fifteen were between his direct descendants. [36] This meant, for instance, that when Natty Rothschild married Emma Rothschild, he was marrying the daughter of both his father’s sister and his mother’s brother. [37] The mentality of the family is well illus-trated by Charlotte de Rothschild’s reaction on hearing of her brother’s engagement to their cousin’s daughter: “My good parents will certainly be pleased that he has not chosen a stranger. For us Jews, and particularly for us Rothschilds, it is better not to come into contact with other families, as it always leads to unpleasantness and costs money”. [38] The Rothschilds took on the role of leaders of the Jewish community, even “Kings of the Jews” [39] – a position later reinforced by their key role in the Balfour Declaration which paved the way for the state of Israel, with the 1917 document being addressed to, and apparently also drafted by, the family. [40] But, at the same time, their aristocratic and quasi-royal status, along with their vast wealth, separated them from the mass of Jewish people, with whom they had little in common and to whom they considered themselves altogether superior.

For instance, Mayer Carl Rothschild showed little empathy for his fellow Jews when he told German Chancellor Otto von Bismarck in 1875:

“As for anti-semitic feeling the Jews themselves are to blame, and the present agitation must be ascribed to their arrogance, vanity and unspeakable insolence”. [41] One group the Rothschilds particularly disliked were the nouveaux riches – “Jewish bankers and businessmen who had made their fortunes more recently than the Rothschilds”, [42] as Ferguson puts it.

Another was the Ostjuden, eastern Jews, of whom 2.5 million fled anti-semitic repression and pogroms in Russia and elsewhere from the early 1880s and sought refuge in Western Europe. [43] The Rothschilds did not welcome the arrival of these co-religionists and actively took part in organisations which raised funds for their return to Eastern Europe or their onward emigration to South Africa, Canada or Argentina. [44] And their strong public opposition to the Tsarist regime’s anti-Jewish policies did not prevent them from playing a central role [45] in the Franco-Russian entente of the 1890s. For the Rothschilds, matters of solidarity always came second to their own personal pecuniary interests, as can also be seen from their initial rejection of an approach by Viennese playwright and journalist Theodor Herzl, in the 1890s, for help in funding a new Jewish state.

He fumed that the Rothschilds were “vulgar, contemptuous, egotistical people” and “a national misfortune for the Jews”, calling for a mobilisation of the Jewish masses for “a battle against the powerful Jews”. [46] The problem was that, as well as potentially calling into question the Rothschilds’ long-cultivated national loyalties, Herzl’s plan for a Jewish state featured proposals for controls of the banking system which did not in the least appeal to this family of financiers. [47] Herzl was not the only prominent Jew to harshly criticise the Rothschilds. In 1839 the Allgemeine Zeitung des Judenthums launched a bitter attack against the Rothschilds, accusing them of positively harming the cause of Jewish emancipation.

This Jewish newspaper wrote: “Well we know to our dismay that the repulsive attitude towards the Jews in Germany, which had almost disappeared completely at the time of the Wars of Liberation, increased with the increase in the House of Rothschild; and that the latter’s great wealth and [that of] their partners have adversely affected the Jewish cause, so that as the former grew so the latter sank all the further... We must sharply separate the Jewish cause from the whole House of Rothschild and their consorts”. [48] And in the 1870s the Jüdische Zeitschrift in Vienna even accused the Rothschilds of employing anti-semites in preference to Jews.

[49] The most shocking instance of Rothschild contempt for the little people of their own faith came with their reaction to the Jewish refugees fleeing the horrors of Nazi Germany.
In France, Robert de Rothschild declared in 1935: “Immigrants, like guests, must learn how to behave and not criticise too much... and if they aren’t happy here, they’d do better to leave”. [50] And Victor Rothschild told a meeting of the Earl Baldwin Fund for Refugees at the Mansion House, London, in December 1938: “In spite of humanitarian feelings, we probably all agree that there is something unsatisfactory in refugees encroaching on the privacy of our country, even for relatively short periods of time”. [51] As will already be becoming clear, self-interest has always sat at the core of the Rothschild family project, with political and cultural allegiances regarded as matters of expedience rather than articles of faith.

Nathan Rothschild is described by Ferguson as not being “the kind of man to turn down good  business on ideological grounds” [52] while Anselm Rothschild, when chided for being “too devoted an Austrian”, replied that he was “far more a devoted pro-Rothschild”. [53] Stockbroker Ernest Feydeau wrote of James de Rothschild: “He kept abreast of the slightest pieces of news – political, financial, commercial and industrial – from all quarters of the globe; he did his best to profit from these, quite instinc-tively, missing no opportunity for gain, no matter how small”. [54] Bouvier explains that the Rothschilds, unhampered by ideology, had no ethical problem with backing any kind of regime.

“For them it was above all a matter of using political circumstances so as to extend and consolidate their network”, [55] he writes.

“The Rothschilds did not want to run any risk. It wasn’t political principles that they defended, but their own security”. [56] On a personal level, this cynicism meant that they regarded even their own social ascent as a mere tool, says Ferguson. “Titles and honors were ‘part of the racket’, helpful in giving the brothers access to the corridors of power. Playing host was an uncomfortable duty, to the same end: much of it was corporate hospitality, as we would now say”. [57] On an international level it meant they never had any qualms about backing both sides in a conflict, as Bouvier sets out in relation to the 19th century clash between Italy and imperial Austria.

“But what was it all about, other than to conduct business? Who cared whether this was with Turin or Vienna?... The Rothschilds quite naturally pursued an ‘Austrian’ policy in Vienna and an ‘Italian’ one in Turin”. [58] The rights and wrongs of the conflict were of no interest to them, he says. Their sole aim was to profit from the situation in as many ways as they could. [59]

[19] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rothschild_family [20] Ferguson, p. 47.
93  [21] Bouvier, p. 276.
[22] Bouvier, p. 277.
[23] Virginia Cowles, The Rothschilds: A Family of Fortune (London: Future Publications Ltd, 1973), p. 153, cit. Docherty and Macgregor, Hidden History, p. 22.
[24] https://therake.com/stories/icons/party-animals-the-rothschild-surrealist-ball/0 [25] Ferguson, p. 464.
[26] Ferguson, p. 467.
[27] Ferguson, p. 250.
[28] Ferguson, p. 463.
[29] Ferguson, p. 427.
[30] Ferguson, p. 426.
[31] Ferguson, p. 337.
[32] Ferguson, p. 228.
[33] Ferguson, p. 305.
[34] Ferguson, p. 306.
[35] Ferguson, p. 306.
[36] Ferguson, p. xxvi.
[37] Ferguson, p. 244.
[38] Ferguson, p. 12.
[39] Ferguson, p. 252.
[40] Jim Macgregor and Gerry Docherty, Prolonging the Agony:
How the Anglo-American Establishment Deliberately Extended WWI by Three-and-a-Half Years (Walterville, OR: Trine Day, 2018), pp.
400-401. [41] Ferguson, p. 271.
[42] Ferguson, pp. 271-72.
[43] Ferguson, p. 272.
[44] Ferguson, pp. 278-79.
[45] Ferguson, p. 409. [46] Ferguson, p. 280.
[47] Ferguson, pp. 281-82.
[48] Ferguson, p. 21.
[49] Ferguson, p. 262.
[50] Ferguson, p. 474.
[51] Ferguson, p. 473.
[52] Ferguson, p. xxiii.
[53] Ferguson, p. 149.
[54] Ferguson, p. 57.
[55] Bouvier, p. 70.
[56] Bouvier, p. 79.
94  [57] Ferguson, p. xxv.
[58] Bouvier, p. 193.
[59] Bouvier, p. 193.

Enemies of the People
Paul Cudenec