This is a common feature of melting pots and provides a good contrast with homogenous 'traditional' societies.

Some examples will show how different melting pots create very different versions of this archetype.


The 'nouveau world' archetype involves a group of people trying to deliberately construct an opportunistic worldview to support themselves and their version of how facts fit into reality, against some weaker individual or group.

It's very commonly used at a local level by police and politicians.

Miriam Carey was a woman with a child who bumped a concrete divider with her car at a national monument in D.C. The police reacted aggressively and she tried to drive away and was killed.

In the first hours after the shooting it was reported that 'police had rescued a child', but details were sketchy. As authorities got more information they began to twist the story and give less simple factual information to the public.

The police knew that if they could get a 'critical mass' of publicity that supported the narrative that they had rescued the child, then most people would not research the issue and learn the truth.

Only after some complaints from members of her group was a small amount of truthful information released.

As in many similar cases, almost all of the top results on popular search engines still show versions of the story that try to paint the gunmen, who were federal police, in a positive light.

One common feature of these cases, when they involve police, is 'the injured officer'. Some time after the initial event, once it is clear negative publicity will develop, the police claim one of their officers was injured. The media reports the claim but information is either sketchy or dubious.

A more recent example of this last feature occurred a few weeks ago in New York. Police shot an unarmed man then claimed he had injured an officer and the officer was in a medically induced coma.

"leaving a cop fighting for his life from head injuries"

In that case, the doctors refused to play along and after two days the 'gravely injured' cop was told by doctors to leave the hospital.

"His recovery is described as nothing short of remarkable, considering his terrible injuries."

In the first case, involving the killing of Miriam Carey, the 'authoritative' source of information on the case, used for example by Wikipedia, is a 'Justice Department' document that has cleverly twisted the narrative to minimize harm to the credibility of police.

The 'Justice Department'  document is meant to help the police version gain traction, but all it really does is further discredit them.

A person can pretend the police are telling the truth when they lie, many people do that, it's up to an individual.

The doctor who told the 'gravely injured' cop to leave the hospital in the second case knew that he or she would face retaliation. There is no doubt that top NYPD 'leaders' have discussed 'punitive' steps to take against the doctor who made the decision and against the hospital.

In the past these petty actions by cops were largely successful.


The common idea behind this universal pattern is that a group of people can enforce a worldview. In other words if you can get 95% of people to say 'Mexico is better than Peru' then it becomes an essential fact.

The premise behind the idea is a combination of things, but includes that a) most people trust that opinions are based on experience, that they are not colored by other motives, and b) people usually want to be in the more common or popular group regarding opinions, etc.


One painful example from the news involves Israeli 'Hasbara'.

Here is an article in the news.

It's a straightforward article. A young man was jumped for political reasons, beaten etc. It happens in every country. More in certain ones.

One of the popular comments mentions an article about an Israeli pr app, a computer app that helps with influencing public opinion.

It's clear from the comedic tone of the comments on the Youtube channel that the people behind the app might be missing something obvious. In other words the 'hostile' commenters are addressing the threat as one posed by a less able adversary. Some of the commenters seem almost at a loss to express their criticism, and temper it the way a person tempers an attack against a weaker opponent, like a cat playing with a crippled mouse.

Israel is part melting pot and part traditional society, but mostly it is a melting pot. The idea of using calculated efforts, like an app, to influence opinion is a melting pot tactic. There are easy to find parallels in any melting pot.

The flaw in the concept does not specifically involve the motive, nor the technique, but the reasoning.


When you talk to a person from an utterly homogenous society you become aware that they have some hard facts in their world, and some opinions.

If you say something that contradicts one of their hard facts, they squint or are confused. If you say something that contradicts one of their opinions, they retreat to hard facts.

You can say upfront to a person raised in a homogenous society "Is such and such true?" and they will give a coldblooded yes or no, or 'I don't know'. They fully know what is true and what is not.

Melting pots, on the other hand, are built around clevernesses rather than truths. If you say to a melting potter "Is such and such true?" there are complicated cerebral circuits that process the question before it is answered. The truth they offer is weak and needs their cleverness.


In the melting pot, everything is negotiable. Something can be repackaged, redesigned, add some food coloring, and then it just has to be resold.

This leads to an increasingly extended position away from reality. If you talk to somebody who is too melting potted it becomes an exercise in trying to see through muddy water.

Melting pots have thus come up with techniques to retreat from this dangerously extended position. These techniques always boil down to some variation of simply acknowledging facts. It might be a debate club in college, or an awareness yoga exercise like Vipassana, but the goal is to walk the overly melting potted person back to reality. A debate club focuses on creating partisan positions, which is the disease, but it then tries to test each position accurately, which is a cure.

The app mentioned above, and similar efforts, ignore the basic problem with overextending away from reality, and the Youtube comments are subtle recognitions of that.

The basic reasoning flaw involves whether a person is selling hard facts as opinions, or opinions as hard facts.

A hard fact can be sold as opinion. That's the opposite of bluffing. It's what cautious smart people do. The person has facts, reality, that is at least as strong as what they present.

An opinion sold as hard fact is for idiots. It can be a very short term survival tool, a bluff, but trying to use that as the basis for supporting your worldview makes no sense whatsoever unless you are both able and prepared to defend your deception, in which case it becomes a sort of criminal act, common though it might be. A step worse though is encouraging the misperception of facts on the grounds of defense. Encouraging a partisan view, as opposed to an accurate view.

So, for example, a person can read the article above and ask "Did a group of armed soldiers attack and harass an unarmed person?"

The simple answer is yes.

The pr version though tries to create a larger context, a 'worldview' or even a local situation, which explains or justifies the bad image.

In the case of Israel and 'hasbara' type things, it might be an appropriate skill for an individual who is aware that it creates a future cost, but it is silly to organize an effort to teach a group of people that bluffing or creative interpretation are defenses.

The irony in this 'hasbara' app though is the inability of its promoters to see its effect.

The third most upvoted comment in the Yahoo article is a person who provides accurate links to a pro Israel description of the app, and a photo from another pro Israel version

and then copies and pastes a quote from one of the pro Israel sites

“𝐂𝐨𝐦𝐩𝐚𝐧𝐢𝐞𝐬, 𝐬𝐮𝐜𝐡 𝐚𝐬 𝐅𝐚𝐜𝐞𝐛𝐨𝐨𝐤, 𝐫𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐯𝐞 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐭𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐟𝐨𝐥𝐥𝐨𝐰𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐫𝐞𝐩𝐨𝐫𝐭𝐬 𝐟𝐫𝐨𝐦 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐦𝐮𝐧𝐢𝐭𝐲,” Ben-Yosefexplains. “If there is only one person reporting it, he usually gets told by Facebook the content doesn’t meet the criteria for removal. 𝐈𝐟𝟑𝟎𝟎 𝐫𝐞𝐩𝐨𝐫𝐭 𝐢𝐭—𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐭𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐢𝐬 𝐫𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐯𝐞𝐝 𝐢𝐦𝐦𝐞𝐝𝐢𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐥𝐲. 𝐀𝐬 𝐬𝐨𝐨𝐧 𝐚𝐬 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐭𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐢𝐧𝐜𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐚𝐠𝐚𝐢𝐧𝐬𝐭 𝐈𝐬𝐫𝐚𝐞𝐥 𝐢𝐬 𝐩𝐨𝐬𝐭𝐞𝐝 𝐨𝐧𝐥𝐢𝐧𝐞, 𝐰𝐞 𝐬𝐞𝐧𝐝 𝐚 𝐦𝐞𝐬𝐬𝐚𝐠𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐫𝐨𝐮𝐠𝐡 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐚𝐩𝐩 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐚𝐥𝐥 𝐨𝐟 𝐢𝐭𝐬 𝐬𝐮𝐛𝐬𝐜𝐫𝐢𝐛𝐞𝐫𝐬 𝐢𝐦𝐦𝐞𝐝𝐢𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐥𝐲 𝐫𝐞𝐩𝐨𝐫𝐭 𝐢𝐭.” …" Emphasis and bold are copied from the comment. 

It is clear to any reader of the comment, aside from people blinded by their own versions of facts, that the commentator has 'taken possession of both sides', he or she is opposed to the worldview the app is selling, and has overpowered the app using the app itself. No spin is necessary.

There will certainly be cloistered people who don't see the subtext, and think the comment is promoting the app, until they notice the person's name is 'notanisraelitroll' and the profile picture is an Israeli flag with a red line through it.

It's normal for an individual to be stupid in some matters. A person can have an idea or a project that has major flaws, and it is not that unusual. But when a large group of people are involved in a project with major flaws it shouldn't be ignored.

To put it another way, when a group is creating, fabricating, a worldview that is widely perceived as flawed by outsiders, but the members of that group do not perceive what the outsiders perceive, it should set off alarm bells.

This kind of creating a 'new world' out of whole cloth is usually not so poorly grounded when educated people are involved, and it's difficult to find a similar example, except in history's graveyard.

Jews in Europe were persecuted largely for their vulnerability. You can look at all sorts of sociological reasons why one group is preyed upon by others, but it always boils down to vulnerability. People eat cows and chickens, not alligators.

In the case of this 'hasbara' app, it is sort of like a major European country displaying its inability to perceive things others perceive i.e., displaying its vulnerability.

When facts fight facts the better facts win. But when facts fight fictions the vultures win.


The United States, and many other countries, tried many times to confabulate some worldview using brute force, or cleverness, in the past, but there has always been a critical voice of reason that provided a reality check.

During the McCarthy era, the 1950s, a small powerful group managed to hijack the perceptions of many people and create a new world for their followers, their victims, in which the normal world of facts was subordinate to 'survival' because of a threat that needed to be crafted, explained, by experts.

Throughout that time there were people who disagreed mildly, but the quiet counter reaction slowly grew stronger until the little crafted world was shut down with just a few words.

This is a common feature of the 'nouveau world'. It seems to grow stronger and stronger, it's followers more and more confident, until a critical mass is reached and it shuts down almost spontaneously, either quietly or with a sudden flash. When a 'nouveau world' seems to survive that final process it actually is only waiting for a final convulsion.

Another partial example of the process, equivalent to the above 'McCarthy' video with the 'at long last' pending, not yet delivered, is

But in this case 'McCarthyism' is the British royal propriety, decency, which has been compromised by opportunistic profit. Historically, when the totality of British Society functioned on the basis of morality, propriety, the prince would have been telling an 'enforceable' truth and the story would have supported the monarchy.

Very similar is the moral equation "Gentlemen do not read each other's mail." It is something children don't understand and terminal groups of adults don't follow, but which nature enforces vigorously. A 'propriety' that is not born out of thin air but based on enforceable rules of survivability, it also becomes a natural trap for those who try to profit by violating it.

The Soviet Union was a prime example of a 'nouveau world' crafted out of fictions. What made that case unusual was that Russian leaders recognized their path was off and retreated to a survivable position voluntarily.


Another interesting example of the 'nouveau world' archetype involves the 'splitting' of psychology into a) the continuation of the path of analysis and b) the 'new' or opportunistic path of pharmaceutical and cultural psychiatry.

John Delay was the first president of the organization that became the World Psychiatric Association. In that era, there was some public dissent or question regarding the motives behind the divergence into two 'psychiatries', and some force, or authority, was required to maintain it. One group felt 'psychiatry' was trying to leave medicine and join law enforcement.

Notice that the opponents of the new fake psychology are referred to as foreigners

"In May 1968, a group of about five hundred revolutionary student followers of Leon Trotsky professing antipsychiatry attacked his offices. The students felt that chemicals were straitjackets and demanded that psychiatry be removed from medicine. Within two years they forced Delay's retirement. He decided to work on literature, which was his first love."

The second president of the World Psychiatric Association was Donald Ewan Cameron, who was involved with various politically motivated projects.

"During the 1950s and 1960s, Cameron became involved in what has later become known as the MKUltra mind control program, which was covertly sponsored by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and which eventually led to the publication of the KUBARK Counterintelligence Interrogation manual. Cameron's work was funded under MKUltra's subproject 68."

"Several of the children who Cameron experimented on were sexually abused, in at least one case by several men. One of the children was filmed numerous times performing sexual acts with high-ranking federal government officials, in a scheme set up by Cameron and other MKULTRA researchers, to blackmail the officials to ensure further funding for the experiments."

The 'nouveau world' created by hijacking legitimate analytical psychology and replacing it with pharmaceutical or cultural psychiatry is like other examples of this archetype in that it requires an ongoing, and ever increasing, investment by the melting pot to maintain. In other words, although it may seem profitable in the short term, ultimately it is not sustainable. It would require an eventual renunciation of natural facts, an enforced blindness across the melting pot, which could only succeed if there were a single melting pot. A single melting pot is the 'knot' of globalism. It can only come about when every last indigenous group which could survive as a genetic rival has been exterminated. There is an ongoing game amongst powerful local versions of the melting pot to be 'the last melting pot', the one that consumes all the others. There is no other issue more likely to lead to the end of the human race.

Notice the similarity between the then Soviet relationship with the World Psychiatric association and the current relationship between Chinese political leadership and western geopolitical strategies.

"In February 1983, the Soviet All-Union Society of Neurologists and Psychiatrists resigned from the World Psychiatric Association. This resignation occurred as a preemptive action amid a movement to expel the Soviet body from the global organization due to political abuse of psychiatry in the Soviet Union. The Soviet body was conditionally readmitted into the World Psychiatric Association in 1989, following some improvements in human rights conditions, and an intensive debate among the association's delegates, in which the acting secretary of the Soviet delegation issued a statement conceding that "previous political conditions in the U.S.S.R. created an environment in which psychiatric abuse occurred, including for nonmedical reasons."

The Soviets accurately understood the 'psychiatry' framework to be political opportunism. They understood it as an offer of collaboration among melting pots. "Let us all agree to create this fictional paradigm, and we will all profit" was their understanding of the new paradigm but they made the common mistake of the naive.

The Russians are not fools of history though, and are probably happy to have paid a small price for a big mistake.

This trickery, U.S. colonialists trying to lure Russian colonialists into joining a massive deception involving the science of psychology, is part of the paradigm of 'melting pot cooperation', which is a trap for idiots. Less bright melting pot 'leaders' are lured into cooperation and their 'countries' eventually become food for the trickster melting pot. The Russians/Soviets were initially lured into the trap and eventually figured it out.

To clarify the trick, since it's interesting. The United States figured out at some point that there was not a pacific way to assimilate indigenous Americans, Natives. Ultimately violence was the only way out, but physical violence would have been difficult. There was no way in the 1930s or whenever to physically start exterminating the remaining Native cultures.

There was a diverse set of 'psychiatric roots' in academia at the time. Any influential group of people could pick and choose between hundreds of 'plausible paths', and cultivate a new pseudoscience which would be tailored to a specific goal, in this case the goal was the promotion of a specifically western science.

So, a novel technique was used, an opportunistic paradigm. In this paradigm the true natural science of anthropology as it applies to psychology, in other words the commonality of certain psychological things, was made subordinate to a 'new' psychology or 'psychiatry' which was politically useful.

This new psychiatry was carefully furthered in the United States and slowly exported to other melting pots.

The Russians in that era had their own melting pot. They painted it with glorious nonsense, just as the U.S. painted its melting pot, but the Soviet Union was really just the same as the United States, a core power group trying to consume weaker groups under cover of benevolence.

The Russians, or 'Soviets' who were vested in their melting pot instinctively understood the ruse. Psychiatry could enable them, just as it had enabled the Americans, to criminalize resistance or 'foreignness' within their group.

The U.S. wanted a European, or more specifically British, mind to be a collective part of the U.S. nation. The Russian wanted something comparably Russian for their wider Soviet fictional nation.

To a person cloistered in any privileged world, there is a sort of blindspot regarding sciences. Any logical flaw can be 'overcome' through collective thinking. Psychiatry was no exception, and while many western psychiatrists were literally unaware of the ruse, the Russians figured it out.

Unfortunately the Russians did not quite understand the nuance of the crime and they just started to say to protestors 'You have mental illness' instead of 'you are acting irrationally and terroristically, we will try to help you by diagnosing your problem and giving you medicine'.

Every person has their own psychology, and of course certain kinds of behavior are the criteria for criminality, but if a person or group wants to scam larger society by combining politics and law and psychiatry, they must do it with subtlety, and the Russians initially didn't understand that.

The 'new' psychiatry is brilliantly constructed. It evolves alongside the societies it corrodes, though ultimately it will give way to real psychology. At great expense.

In the U.S. there are still a few tiny pockets of Natives who try to avoid the danger. They recognize the 'archetype of the trap' even if they are clueless about its details. They ban white people from their villages and keep their Native languages.

When psychiatry or Christianity or soldiers make adequate headway with those few remaining holdouts, the U.S. will be safe from indigenous threats within its borders, but the premise of European indigenousness within the new world will then start to face threats from the vast indigenous populations in Latin America which the U.S. has been desperately trying to conquer, destroy, exterminate for generations.


A similar ploy is used by the Chinese and Indians in places like Ladakh.

The 'hostilities' initiated by the Chinese portray Ladakh as 'Indian territory attacked by China', rather than 'Ladakhi territory occupied by India'.

This narrative, created by the Chinese at small cost to themselves, incidentally legitimizes Ladakh as Indian territory, but also serves to legitimize Chinese conquered territories like Tibet, and legitimizes future Chinese claims toward places like Taiwan.

This narrative is recognized by people who look at the region strategically, including 'generals' on both sides, and results in a gentleman's agreement over the outcome, even before any wider conflict starts.

United States strategists, of course, see the conflict as legitimizing U.S. claims to Indigenous American territory.

At this point new weapons are being introduced.


A component of this paradigm is the generally silliness that 'empires' have some rights to their empire, analogous to 'a person can eat an animal, but an animal cannot eat a person'. It requires a circular logical stupidity to justify, but most individuals will accept it when it is presented, as long as it profits him or her. Here is an article by a western melting potter trying to indirectly walk the Chinese into a variation of the previous trap.

The irony at this point is that the Chinese easily see the trap and U.S. melting potters don't. It has become a psychological riddle that nature itself has created. Chinese strategists bank on the Chinese power as a traditional tribal society, while using their melting pot appearance as a sort of counter trap. The obvious end is a continual weakening of western melting pots, followed by a dissolution of the broader Chinese melting pot into a much stronger group of tribal societies.

The rational solution, the 'balanced' path that would minimize future harm, is a retreat by the United States to parity with 'Asian', i.e., Native American, territorial interests, which is discussed on other pages of this website.

In this last issue, the root of the imbalance can be seen in Europe's expansion into Asian territory, for example the Opium Wars, colonizing the Americas, etc.

The expansion could have continued into the Americas successfully only if the original inhabitants, Native Americans, had been exterminated down to the last individual.

In other words Europe was using a historical method of expansion that reliably worked in the past in many places, but they ignored one of the necessary features of success.

The net result was a necessary continuation of generations of western politicians who vaguely understand a historical bill, a cost, is coming due, but feel it is necessary to postpone payment.

Asians, including especially Native Americans but also notably Chinese, Japanese and Koreans, have been learning Western language, logic, science etc, without a reciprocal learning on the other side. The hope initially among Western strategists was that these groups would reach a point eventually from which they could not retreat to tradition.

The western view has always been that the rationale is simple western superiority, i.e., 'we will teach them our superior ways and they will humbly become our followers, our global servants.' 

Unfortunately it is extremely difficult to convince a drunk person to give up their bottle for a short while, and the west has little inclination to surrendering their superiority, while the east has little reason to surrender their growing advantage.

The economic independence of regions, something external groups are trying to engineer in the U.S. through Trump and his minions, is a very tiny step in minimizing catastrophe, but it is not likely to have any useful effect until there is substantial Asian i.e., Native American, territorial tribal independence and sovereignty in North America to balance European intrusion.

The growing effect of Bolsonaro and company in Latin America appears to be an unrelated defensive 'second wave' by people who do not understand the points made above.

Unless there are hard steps taken soon to balance territorial problems in North America, the cost to Europe will be quite substantial.


A worst case scenario for Europe would be a war that largely led to the near extinction of Western Europeans, except as small groups and bloodlines from Europeans who have intermarried with cultures further east.

This would be preceded by a growth in power of Central Europeans and West Asians, and it's obvious already that some countries in that region are instinctively preparing for that expansion.

The net result would be weak, widely dispersed European 'tribes' that would 'develop' under Asian domination. Lather, rinse, repeat until enough people figure out the cycle.

The 'red line' that makes this point in the cycle timely is in part the dangers that have come from population growth, and partly the advances in technology that will make the next contraction phase historic.

Two easily viable options are ether a) a rapid advance in ai networks which empowers isolated language groups, or b) a rapid advance in weapons systems that give easy military power to small groups. Many websites, including this one, probably will focus on either or both, as appropriate.

Ai networks would rapidly grow sciences needed to open up outer space as real estate, providing 'living room' for various cultures. This is not likely to happen for various reasons though. Space that opens up soon is not likely to lead to a long term extension of humans into outer space unless changes happen.

Weapons advancement and proliferation would give a defensive capability to races that are facing the short end of the next contraction phase in the 'colonial' cycle, and provide space in some sense, until the dominant cultures took overwhelming technological advantage.


In Progress 




Police shoot a child. Instead of saying they made a mistake, they fictionalize.