Permawar Analysis
Introducing Morgan Chase
I’ve found Morgan’s analysis of wars and false flags illuminating over the last few months. I’ve followed her for some time, initially on X, and more recently her long-form work on Substack.
Yesterday I had a two hour chat with her on Zoom. We had intended to record some of the conversation to feature on The New Era but, with one thing and another, it just didn’t work out.
Morgan, or Morgan Chase (to give her full social handle) is keen to keep her privacy intact by using a pen-name. After all, she needs to make a living, and some of her analysis tends to rub people up the wrong way. She has dipped in and out of Twitter spaces but, as she admitted to me yesterday, sometimes her active participation just results in a pile-on. More often she’ll sit-in and listen - particularly if the spaces feature celebrity mainstream commentators. This, she says, gives her the opportunity to invert everything they say as a starting point for her own research.
Recently, Morgan’s piece on the Strait of Hormuz - and the generally ‘fake and ghey’ war in Iran - resonated across the wider geopolitical analysis community. I recently mentioned her work in interviews with Ahmad Malik and Geopolitics & Empire. And I know that many have picked-up on themes that she has originally propagated.
But even before the resurgence of the Middle East forever-war, Morgan’s take on most high profile ‘events’ tends to focus attention more on the opportunities for fakery by usual-suspect propagandists to influence unthinking rabbles - regardless of their tribal affiliations. Her insight into the Charlie Kirk ‘assassination’ is a case in point.
When I reached-out to Morgan a couple of weeks ago to suggest a podcast for this site we exchanged some ideas about angles for the chat. I specifically asked her about developments in Iran, Israel and Lebanon. And she shared this perspective - and she elaborated, yesterday, in our long conversation. If you’re on Twitter/X I recommend a follow.
“I think what we’re seeing in the Levant, and what we saw in Ukraine, is a struggle over global hegemony. And beneath all the slogans and moral framing, a lot of it looks like an effort to make a very small group of people unimaginably wealthy at the expense of ordinary people. That’s the part I find most alarming.
“I do think these are deliberate efforts to reorient global trade and infrastructure in ways that benefit the top tier, the ownership class, the people who profit from corridors, reconstruction, energy flows, arms contracts, and financial control. But I also think it may be even bigger than simple greed. It’s about preserving power, managing decline, and restructuring the world in a way that keeps control concentrated in the same hands while everyone else absorbs the cost.
“The public gets war, displacement, inflation, instability, and propaganda. The people at the top get new routes, new contracts, new leverage, and another round of asset consolidation. That, to me, is the real pattern”.
I hope to record a podcast interview with Morgan in the coming weeks. I’m leaving the comments open on this conversation if you have any questions you’d like me to ask her.
Please do subscribe to The New Era. And, if you fancy some Summer reading you may want to buy a copy of my novel, South of Market. If you do read it, please do leave a review on Amazon or Goodreads.
Your question gets at something profound. Carl Jung would likely agree with much of what Howard Zinn said, though he’d frame it differently. Jung observed that when any idea, value, or system becomes too dominant in society—whether it’s technocratic control, bureaucratic “safety,” or a fixation on efficiency—its opposite inevitably rises with equal force. This is the law of enantiodromia: the pendulum swings. The more a system tries to seal itself off, the more the collective unconscious pushes back. What seems like closure today may actually be setting the stage for a strong counter-movement tomorrow. Zinn might say the same from a political lens: power feels most secure when ordinary people believe resistance is pointless. Jung would add that this very belief sparks the return of the repressed—the yearning for liberty, dignity, and real human connection that the system has tried to suppress. Both warn against fatalism. The current “closure” feels heavy because it’s so one-sided, but history and psychology suggest no such imbalance lasts forever. The resourcefulness of ordinary people—their refusal to be fully absorbed by the machine—hasn’t vanished. It’s simply waiting for the tension to snap. When it does, the opposite force Jung described won’t ask permission; it will just emerge. The task now is to stay aware, keep small freedoms alive, and be ready when the pendulum swings back.