Among our Germanic peoples, a caste of chosen warriors had to protect its honor with weapons.

This post is part of series drawing from the wisdom of Jan de Vries’ book “Die geistige Welt der Germanen”, or the spiritual world of the Germanic peoples.

This principle took a special place in Germanic society. The courage these men praised was that of the combative man, his fearlessness when faced with death, his defiant attitude toward fate.

But this didn’t mean they thought life was cheap. One can only give up life lightheartedly, with a lighthearted joke on one’s lips, when one has accepted death as one’s fate, and one has thus renounced life.

Courage grows to its highest perfection precisely in the face of death. This personal courage in that moment of highest danger was common to both men and women.

During the age of migrations, men moved their tribes around with women and children in tow, but when confronted by a superior opponent, the women defended themselves as much as the men did.

Tacitus, the Roman historian, wrote about how women would help men back on their feet who had fallen to the ground in battle, sometimes flashing their naked bosom to remind these men they should keep fighting to prevent their women from being captured by an enemy.

At the defeat of the Cimbri tribe in the year 101 BC, the women defended their wagon fort to the last drop of blood. When their men tried fleeing the enemy, as ranks broke down, they would beat their men, commanding them to return to the battlefield, and when all hope was lost, the women strangled their children and strung themselves up, because Germanic women knew it was better to be dead than a slave.

Now remind yourselves of today’s situation with the quarter million girls raped in the United Kingdom. With the mass invasion into our European lands. You all know where it stands.

Never lose your smile.

What are the highest virtues of the Germanic man? The answer is: Courage, loyalty, and honor. Of course, courage comes first. One must always be ready to secure life by fighting, spear and shield in hand.

This post is part of series drawing from the wisdom of Jan de Vries’ book “Die geistige Welt der Germanen”, or the spiritual world of the Germanic peoples.

Among the Germanic peoples, there is no distinction between civilian and warrior. In the old time, every man was expected to fight for his right. Even for the poet, wounded in battle, there was no greater end than to praise his King one last time.

Germanic song lauds the courageous test in battle, not the untiring work of the farmer. What counts are powerful blows, not the laborer’s diligent work.

Though slaves (thralls) were described as having a swarthy appearance, dirty black nails and bent backs from doing hard work, the free man was educated in the trades of a warrior.

As it was sung in the Rígsthula, or the Song of the Old, Wise, Mighty, and Strong:

There at home
Jarl grew up,
learned the shield to shake,
to fix the string,
the bow to bend,
arrows to shaft,
javelins to hurl,
spears to brandish,
horses to ride,
dogs to let slip,
swords to draw,
swimming to practice.

Free men are expected to develop their bodies for combat, and to never shy away from an opportunity to make use of their fighting will. The slave bows to his conqueror, whereas the warrior secures his freedom.

To my knowledge, the word Remigration officially means to remove asylum seekers whose application for asylum has been rejected by a court of law. But in many cases, such asylum seekers can easily stay in the countries they arrived in, illegally. Their deportation then becomes a voluntary act, and the authorities tend to tolerate such illegal immigrants occupying housing or even doing paid work.

But if we don’t expel people whom we have decided cannot be in our countries, then what is the value of our laws? If we cannot decide who enters our country to begin with, because no background checks are performed, and no assessment of skills and competencies is done, then we are blinding ourselves. It is ludicrous to think that the dwindling economies of the West can somehow accommodate a meaningful future, jobs, and housing for the surplus births of Africa, India, and the Islamic world. We cannot.

Therefore, we should be selective about who we let into the country. Even Europeans experienced exclusion from the USA. Of the 12 million immigrants who passed through Ellis Island between 1896 and 1954, about a quarter of a million were denied entry, sometimes on the basis of failing an IQ test. Indeed, in some cases, people with mental deficits could be grounds for deportation on the next boat back to Europe. Although just about 2% of these European immigrants were sent back, that, today, would invariably reap long and howling cries of racism if the immigrants had been Indians or Muslims or Africans.

It also points to a grave overreaction on the part of society. If we cannot even follow our own laws and remove people whom the courts have already decided have no right to live among us—such as people who lied about their identity on their asylum applications, or people who have committed crimes since arriving, or people who simply aren’t real refugees but rather regular labor migrants for whom there is no work and no housing—then we are collectively impotent. We have set up rules but we don’t seem to care about their enforcement.

When the odd migrant is, on occasion, set to be removed from a European country, it is usually paired with a highly scripted public outrage machinery fueled by the mainstream media, especially when deportations involve children.

In my country of the Netherlands, we had the case of an African youngster named Mauro who arrived in the year 2002. As a 9-year-old child, his parents in Angola had put the boy on a plane to the Netherlands, by himself, to come and live with his half-sister, illegally. At 10 years old, he reported himself to the police and was later placed in foster care. To prevent his deportation, his foster parents tried to adopt him, but because both of his parents were still alive and well in Africa, adoption was legally impossible. Mauro’s asylum application was then denied and the child was scheduled to be deported back to live with his family in Angola. In response, asylum lawyers, part of an asylum industry, managed to get Mauro a student visa, allowing him to stay in the country until age 18.

Approaching his 18th birthday, however, meant the deportation order was still in force and Mauro, finally, had to return to his parents in Africa. But of course, he never returned. The mainstream media picked up on the case and spread images of a tearful black boy to all outlets, accusing our White society of being racist. Our parliamentarians in The Hague ultimately decided the boy was now too rooted to be forced to leave the country and was allowed to stay indefinitely.

This apparent rootedness is a very interesting argument, for it somehow doesn’t apply to Dutch natives being uprooted by diversity and multiculturalism, whereas immigrants who have lived among us for several years are instantly rooted enough to never be returned to their home countries, despite having been born and raised there. I argue that no one can claim to be rooted in a diverse society. Rootedness implies relative homogeneity as it implies ancestral bonds to the land one lives on.

When deportations are enforced, and deportees are boarded on their return flights under police escort, this can still lead to the absurd situation, such as in Sweden in 2018, when a White female activist named Elin Ersson temporarily prevented a 51-year-old Afghan man’s deportation. She had boarded the same flight as the deportee and refused to sit down while live-streaming her protest on Facebook. The man she was trying to protect from deportation had been convicted and jailed for 6 months for abusing his wife and two children, among other things by whipping his children with a USB cable.

When the media systematically depict immigrants, asylum seekers, guest workers, or refugees as victims deserving our justice, they are misinforming the public. In my country, you only have to arrive at our borders and claim to be a refugee or an asylum seeker. No one checks to see whether you might be lying about your status. You are then given a right to live in an asylum center and, legally, within six weeks, you shall receive a subsidized housing unit including welfare benefits.

Our asylum centers in the Netherlands are constantly overflowing due to the obvious shortage of housing. In the run-up to his election, our present Prime Minister even promised to build 10 new cities in our already crowded-out country, but has since been forced to admit it is not going to happen in the foreseeable future. Native Dutch people, nevertheless, spend their twenties living with their parents, because housing isn’t merely unaffordable, it isn’t even available. As a result, working couples aren’t able to start having families, while, at the same time, families with foreign-born children are given priority access to subsidized housing, thus forcing natives to save up to buy a house that they cannot afford.

It turns out that many of our journalists and even our politicians have no knowledge of the facts surrounding the immigration debates. They don’t read the reports. They don’t study the crime statistics. I had a glance at the statistics on suspects and victims in the Netherlands and found out that for 2025, 65% of all suspects of all crimes were either first- or second-generation immigrants. These numbers have always been denied by our media and our governing authorities; however, the numbers have been known by our official national statistics office, CBS, for over 50 years.

Recently, in Belgium, the activist Dries van Langenhoven was convicted of having cited precisely such statistics. Though his claims were factually true, as admitted by the judge, he was convicted of stirring up anti-migrant sentiments among his audience. No one, of course, can ever be convicted of stirring up anti-White or anti-native sentiments, because European governments themselves are the greatest anti-White radical organizations on the planet.

Officials are blindly following orders, but they refuse to take any responsibility when things go wrong. For that is the benefit of modern democracy. When hundreds of parliamentarians vote on immigration, no one has to feel responsible for the practical outcome of their vote. There is no Great Leader, no King, no dictator to blame, just process. In China we blame Xi, in Russia we blame Putin, and we can even blame Trump in the USA, but who in Europe do we blame for the genocidal war crime that is mass replacement immigration from all over the world?

We can’t even vote to oust Commissar Ursula von der Leyen, because she was never elected to begin with. Recently, the European Union also launched an investigation into a certain right-wing faction of the European Parliament—the ESN, the Europe of Sovereign Nations—to have it banned on the grounds that the faction doesn’t support EU values. Then how can there be a democracy if we cannot even disagree with this apparent set of values no one ever voted for? Commissar Von der Leyen said in 2022 at Ben-Gurion University in Israel that “Europe is the values of the Talmud”. I’d say Europe is a totalitarian system that doesn’t allow dissent, so I hope she’s wrong about the Talmud.

AIVD & Narratives

Even though several European countries have, in fact, started openly remigrating more and more unwanted immigrants from their countries, in my country of the Netherlands, our secret services recently declared that mentioning the very word ‘remigration’ is somehow an act of normalizing the far-right. In that report, published earlier this year by our General Intelligence and Security Service, the AIVD, the service equates calls for remigration with calls for ethnic cleansing. They think that the goal of remigration was not to fix a broken immigration system that has been broken for almost 50 years, but to exterminate any and all minorities presently living in Europe who don’t fit the national mold.

What remigration really is about, of course, is the question of what to do when half of certain migrant groups remain unemployed for over a decade while siphoning wealth out of state coffers that was meant for natives’ pensions and healthcare? Or let me give you a reason why it’s so important to screen migrants at the border: In Germany, only about 34% of migrants arriving at the border are able to read the Latin script, since they either cannot read or are trained in the Arabic or other exotic scripts. 41% of adult migrants had left school without a secondary diploma, and 13% had no school education at all.

Yet, these are the people Germany says they need to bring in in order to save the economy from collapsing, and to start paying taxes for the pensions of the elderly?

So why on Earth would a domestic secret service want to stop normal and sensible numbers of legal remigration by equating the whole idea to calls for ethnic cleansing? We aren’t killing people when we’re sending them back. We’re literally sending them back to a more meaningful life that our nations cannot provide for them. You get the impression that many of Europe’s national secret services have, in fact, been captured by foreign adversaries, and that they are, in fact, directing the demographic destruction of Europe.

I say this because I can’t see any logic in the statements of the AIVD. They are either deliberately ignoring the reality of our failing immigration system, or they are too incompetent to figure it out after decades of trouble. This, to me, points to a deliberateness behind what is going on. One has the impression that Europe is a designated dumping ground for the world’s unwanted demographics.

And those who worry so much about ethnic cleansing should, perhaps, go for a brief walk through any diversely enriched city center of any EU capital such as Brussels, Paris, Berlin, London or Amsterdam, and try counting the number of indigenous European people you see there. On a good day, it’s maybe 40%. Replacement immigration isn’t some vague threat that will never happen. No, our urban populations have already been replaced. Amsterdam has about 47% native inhabitants, and London has about a 37% native White British population. The European capital of Brussels has fewer than 20% native Belgian people under age 20.

This isn’t the first time such a thing has happened. The Greek historian Polybius wrote about a time over 2,000 years ago when Greece was suffering from “a decay of population, owing to which the cities were denuded of inhabitants, and a failure of productiveness resulted…”. Polybius noted that people tended to reduce their family sizes “for the sake of leaving them well off or bringing them up in extravagant luxury.” Indeed, Europeans, too, are keeping their own family sizes small to keep their children relatively well-off, but at the same time, they are now also mass-migrating in the larger families of African, Middle Eastern and Indian mothers.

This doesn’t make any sense. Why, for example, were Dutch women of the 1990s sold the contraceptive pill to reduce their birth rates, while mass immigration subsequently skyrocketed? There’s that deliberateness again. Why are we telling native Dutch women that two children is enough, one is better, and three is a sin? One large African family arriving in the Netherlands recently received three subsidized homes in a row in order to accommodate their 14 children. Is this not an act of ethnic cleansing? Or don’t native European people have any rights?

If we want to protect ourselves from being demographically erased, then why don’t we call on the United Nations’ Indigenous Rights Act, which “establishes … minimum standards for the survival, dignity, and well-being of Indigenous peoples worldwide”? Ha! Because we can’t. Neither the European Union nor the United Nations recognize White people as indigenous to Europe. Apparently, we White people have no origins and no past. Both these institutions claim, namely, that only the people of Lapland are indigenous to Europe, but no one else is.

This is incredibly strange, since the Laplandish people are predominantly White European people who have some Siberian and East Asian admixture of up to 12-30 percent. However, their White ancestors are mostly descendants of the Western-European and Southwestern-European hunter-gatherers. These Western hunter-gatherers, as they are officially called, are also my own ancestors, but I, because I am Dutch, am not considered indigenous to Europe, even though the Laplanders, who also descend from the same ancestors, are.

The Asiatic ancestors of these Laplanders arrived only during the Bronze Age or early Iron Age, which means they arrived after my White ancestors had already populated Europe. So why am I not considered indigenous? Why doesn’t the European Union recognize and defend our rights to live on these indigenous lands? The answer should be obvious: Because the EU is not a defensive union. The European Union is here to help demographically replace us but to manage the process to prevent violent backlash. The European Union is an adversary of native White Europeans.

Kalergi & Geopolitics

By denying White Europeans indigenous status, there can be no legal battle over Europe’s intended demographic replacement.

Many of you listening to me today will already be familiar with the concept of the Kalergi Plan, and I will simply refer you to the book Practical Idealism by Richard von Coudenhove-Kalergi in which the plan is explained. The author, Von Coudenhove-Kalergi, was a half-Asiatic, half-Austrian nobleman who became the founding father of the precursor to the European Union, called the Pan-European Union. Former German Chancellor Angela Merkel, for example, was once awarded the European Coudenhove-Kalergi Prize for her contribution, in my view, to the destruction of native Europeans.

Published in 1925, Kalergi’s book became a best-seller among Europe’s ruling elites who then took up the task of demographically transforming Europe.

But why? This is a question many people always ask me: Why do our own ruling classes desire to demographically transform or even erase us with immigration from all over the world? Is it just for profit, to make money off of imported consumers? Is it because they hate White people?

The real reason may surprise you and it has something to do with the politics of empire, and with the West’s geopolitical outlook. We have to keep in mind that, for ages, the Russian Empire threatened to invade, capture, and control Europe, and our ruling European elites have never really figured out how to deal with these threats, especially not since Napoleon’s Grande Armée starved to death before Moscow, and Hitler’s armies froze to death before Stalingrad.

But I can give you the reason now as to why our elites embraced the idea of replacement immigration and of racial erasure: Europe’s ruling classes want to turn Europe into a mixed-race zone, because, that way, they hope to include India, the entire Middle East including Iran, and North and Central Africa into the European sphere of influence. By making Europe diverse, they hope to win the loyalty of several billions of non-Europeans, so that they will help Europe win wars against Russia and against China.

That doesn’t mean I agree with this plan and there are obvious other avenues that we could have pursued.

I will quote Kalergi on this, who said, “The races and classes of today will gradually disappear. … The Eurasian-Negroid race of the future, similar in its appearance to the Ancient Egyptians, will replace the diversity of peoples with a diversity of individuals.” First of all, that statement is factually incorrect, since the Ancient Egyptians did not have sub-Saharan Negroid admixture and would not have looked like a mixed Eurasian-Negroid race at all. They looked like heavily tanned or red-skinned Egyptians just as their murals show. But secondly, there is a geopolitical implication, namely that only Europeans should be mixed with all the races, whereas the rest of the world can still remain largely unmixed.

To me, it sounds as though the European elites have long given up on trying to protect their indigenous peoples, perhaps because they feel it is too expensive to do so, or that such protection might come with a loss of influence on the global stage. But let me be firm in my statement that I am not a globalist, and I am not interested in diluting our strengths and peoples merely to win the world’s approval. If this is where it stands, we should prepare to seek conflict.

They say borders are fascist, but actually, borders are religious. If you would visit a small traditional town anywhere in Europe around the time of Easter or Pentecost, you might witness religious processions through the countryside along the borders of the parish. These kinds of processions also occurred before Europe became Christian. They were meant to mark the difference between the inhabited world of the towns and villages, and the outside world of wild nature.

Marking the borders of one’s dwelling is a religious act meant to keep wild spirits out and safe people in. Doing away with borders is a literal act of Satanism meant to welcome evil in.

But there is a problem. The strategy of multiculturalism and diversity as a geopolitical weapon against Russia and China has already backfired. In the case of Russia, we see Putin is also increasingly welcoming Africans and Asians. Putin has also fully embraced his Islamic fellow citizens. It turns out that Putin is just as much a globalist as the EU leaders, and Russia is already successfully converting some African nations into supporters of Russia with the help of TikTok propaganda.

Diversity then becomes a self-defeating struggle. We cannot remigrate or reject immigrants coming to Europe because if word starts to spread that Europe is no longer handing out free houses, immigrants might then flee to Russia instead.

Questions and Counteraction

Indeed, the first black African and East Asian soldiers have already been spotted fighting for Russia in the war against White Ukrainians. And on the other side, dead White Ukrainians are already being aggressively replaced with men from Africa and India.

Are we really sure, then, that European, American, and Russian elites, under the unity of the Trilateral Commission, aren’t secretly working together to destroy all European people worldwide? Is the war in Ukraine perhaps meant to kill as many White men on both sides, so that the men lost can be replaced, in order to realize the Kalergi Plan of creating a Eurasian-Negroidal race? Is this why the small nation of Moldova with barely 2.7 million inhabitants is now receiving 300,000 Indian migrants? Or is it why Poland now has a birth rate of barely 1 child per White woman, but they’ll receive more non-European immigrants than children born each year? At this rate, White Poles will disappear even before White Germans do.

Is this also the reason that the United Kingdom refused to do a national inquiry into the Pakistani Muslim rape gangs, why British judges keep handing ridiculously lenient sentencing to rapists, or why black Deputy Prime Minister David Lammy recently suggested we should judge people up to age 25 as though they were underage, implying that males with the highest levels of testosterone may be free to enjoy rape, knowing that there are no consequences, and police officers will, in the worst case, offer them a cookie to go with their tea?

You all know the answers to these questions. We, indigenous Europeans, are the ones being genocided with migration, miscegenation, and rape while we are being called racist by the same people who want to see us dead and gone.

Our lack of defensive measures stems from our lack of spiritual resolve. We have become disenchanted people; we have lost our magic. If we had to blame anything, we should blame the course of Western philosophical thinking that diverted its course toward materialism a long time ago. We embraced the science of molecules and atoms, of materials and efficient logistics, of products and shipping, of laborers and migration. We began preaching the gospel of wealth and abundance, but all of it, we now know, was paid for with our survival.

Luckily, we are also finding out that diversity isn’t a strength. We are close to a breakthrough in the public discourse. Since our societies so heavily rely on economic growth and profits for the billionaire class, it won’t be long before even our most radical elites will have to admit that competence matters.

It was the American consulting firm McKinsey that once argued for making corporate boardrooms more diverse, citing all sorts of financial gains, but all of their bubbles have now burst. The reality is that having diverse executives only leads to lower overall competency, poorer communication and evaporating trust. Corporations that embraced diverse executives are the ones losing the most money today.

Researchers in many European nations have also come to the conclusion that only Japanese and American immigrants coming to Europe seem to have a net positive effect on the country’s wealth, whereas East African and sub-Saharan immigrants tend to pose a lifetime cost of up to a million euros per arrival. This is because low-cognitive, unskilled and often illiterate immigrants tend to dominate the markets for subsidized housing, welfare benefits, and medical care. And, most importantly, they don’t work. We have created lineages of people that solely continue to exist because of welfare.

Moreover, the White women of Europe seem to be quite uninterested in asylum seekers and refugees, according to a German study. It might be that White women physically outclass the immigrant male. An average woman from Croatia, for example, is taller than the average male from India, and the average White Dutch woman is about as tall as the average black African man.

This is the reality our political system doesn’t want you to know about. There will never be a Eurasian-Negroidal mixed race replacing all European ethnicities. Although there is race-mixing, it’s not happening at scale, despite Netflix fictions pretending otherwise, and by far not enough to erase White people from existence. Even Brazil still has a significant number of unmixed White people and they are that nation’s financial upper class.

That is why I suspect our governments are going to create more Ukraine Wars to try to kill White men off in the trenches, and why I think diverse police-forces-turned-rape-squads may eventually join in. If the race-mixing is not happening quickly enough, the Kalergi Plan cannot be completed. And so, we must prepare for the government attack on our peoples, for in their deranged, mouth-foaming madness, our ruling elites, who are unable to figure out what should be done, may simply try getting rid of us by having us all killed.

Finale

The real war isn’t the one happening in Ukraine. The real war is the war of the European people and their descendants around the world against the Trilateral elites. If we let them, they will forcibly fuse Europe with Islam and with Africa, erasing Christianity and European people in the process.

But there is another way, a way I have been promoting for many years: Namely, we can fight back. Fighting back will cost us. If we find in our hearts a willingness to let go of economic materialism in favor of a new spiritualism that might grow into an overwhelming force, then we can regroup as reinvigorated men and revived women. For we have a choice, now, here, to either sacrifice ourselves to save our economies, or to sacrifice our economies and save ourselves.

If I may paraphrase,

“As the [materialist] worldview loses its authority, the more menacingly will the blond beast be heard prowling about in its underground prison, ready at any moment to [strike] with devastating consequences.” [Carl Jung]

It’s time to stop being afraid of our criminal authorities, to stop being afraid of rising up, and to know that our victory over the world may be recorded as a string of losses, but that the record will say that we never went under for long, and we never went down for good, but that we always got up again, and we stood as one in defiance of tyranny, with the determination of a man who has known pain but who knows not to surrender.

We weren’t put on this earth to give up now. We are here to give birth to a new reality, a new world. When we are ready, we are going to prosecute and jail every liberal journalist, politician, and educator for their despicable crimes against humanity.

The tables are turning. The far-left and their henchmen will see prison.

Woe unto the vanquished!

The old German writer, philosopher, and World War I veteran Ernst Jünger has become a household name among the online right, especially in Germany itself.

Jünger is read by young people who reject modernity, especially because of his earlier writings on aristocratic masculinity, as in his book In Stahlgewittern (Storm of Steel), and because of his call to a guerrilla-style rebellion against democratic society such as in Der Waldgang (The Forest Passage).

But though Jünger’s call for a new aristocracy might sound archaic and romantic, his idea was actually ahead of his time, for he didn’t believe in a fixed hereditary aristocracy of long lineages of firstborn sons, but rather of an aristocracy in principle open to all and based only on one’s willingness and ability to offer protection to one’s people.

Today, indeed, such an elite willing and able to protect one’s own people is effectively non-existent. European nobility has traded away its duties for the spoils of globalist exploitation. The American corporate rich never had a reason to protect anything.

Whatever the present globalist elite thinks they are doing, they are effectively genociding native Europeans for the fictional belief in some kind of worldwide integration of all races and religions into one giant bureaucracy.

Now, I don’t know if we should call upon the living descendants of the German Emperor such as Paul Herzog von Oldenburg or the House of Hohenzollern. What matters at this point is that our peoples are in need of protection, so that we may together resist the excesses of globalism.

In my view, the Germanic world of Europe should find a way to break free entirely from globalism and become global integrations’ antipode. We should become a race of rural resisters, if you will, a people who start shunning big city life in favor of life in small towns.

A return to tradition, indeed, but under the leadership of an elite who remember the words noblesse oblige, and who are motivated by winning victories greater than any bank account can contain, namely to rekindle our people’s innate vigor and to redraw the map of the world to our benefit.

German philosopher of history Oswald Spengler believed Western civilization was driven by the prime symbol of boundless space, a ‘Faustian culture characterized by a strong feeling for the infinite and a tragic striving for the unattainable’. That is why we explored the seas, the continents, the bottoms of the oceans, and outer space. But we have let small minds dictate our modern future in the form of the vague, senseless ideals of the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals. What we need is a return to the sort of Herculean works that favor Western people’s nature again. In order to achieve that, we need to become masters of space and time.

According to research by professor Philip Zimbardo, in his book The Time Paradox, Jews and Protestant Whites are the most future-oriented people in the world. It is no surprise, then, that White Protestant civilization captured the world, and that Jews are mightily successful within it. However, in recent times, globalist institutions such as the United Nations, the World Economic Forum, or the European Union have begun to steer our race’s destiny toward an intensely unwanted future. To prevent catastrophe, we shall have to seize the helm of this lost ship. And that means envisioning a better future.

Unattainable Goals

Other psychological research says that people will follow any leader who offers them any kind of vision, no matter how crooked. So, when you present people with a vision of gender confusion and teen euthanasia, many will blindly follow. Why does the European Union, for example, feel the need to aggressively crack down on the small nation of Hungary, a nation of barely 10 million, and with a seething hatred seek to acquaint Hungarian children with the gay and trans spectrum when hardly a child born in good health to supportive parents will naturally care for such perversities?

The great ideologues of our time have come to believe that their own perverse projections can be made into absolute reality, and must be enforced absolutely to impose them onto innocent, unsuspecting people. We see a similar rabid fervor among those who believe in the United Nations’ “SDG” or Sustainable Development Goals. Those goals are incredibly vague and subjective, open to interpretation and abuse, and could either be declared achieved today or not in a million years.

Take for example the UN goal to end poverty. One should be poor today without being able to afford a cell phone, but one should have been rich in the past if one had received an extra handful of grapes. Who decides what baseline of wealth is above the level of abject poverty? If the measure is material, then no one will ever have enough. If the measure is spiritual, then it is the populations of the West who are poor.

Moreover, the UN seems to think wealth is a sort of constant, when in reality, wealth fluctuates over time by nature: rural Norwegians of the 1960s were still starving in their valleys each year as the snow shut off road access to the outside towns. Norway was considered part of the Third World back then, though it is now, per capita, among the top wealthiest nations in the world. Yet, Norwegian wealth today cannot be compared to the situation in Africa, where men can roam free in light clothes every night of the year, whereas Norwegians stay indoors due to the cold at least 8 out of 12 months.

And this doesn’t mean that Norwegians will stay rich. Rather, we should understand wealth as a temporary benefit that needs to be put to use wisely for a harsher future coming our way. So, the Norwegian bet nearly all of their newfound oil wealth on the US economy by investing in American corporations—which I think is an incredibly stupid thing to do. Now, Norway will stand or fall along with whatever the Americans end up doing, and it might, in fact, be China that takes over the status of global superpower soon.

More problematically, in order to achieve the next goal of zero hunger, the United Nations apparently thinks it’s best to force all of humanity to eat vegan food. Bureaucrats want to deny all human beings the healthiest and most nutritious food, namely fresh cuts of fatty red meat. Starving people of animal fats and animal proteins is not the way to solve the problem of hunger, but it is a way of declaring the problem “solved”. Even so, as long as humanity continues having high birth rates in some parts of the world, those parts shall remain hungry. Logistics dictates that some regions will always remain poorly served. Will that require constant mass migrations from underserved to overserved regions?

My point is: the lofty UN goals cannot be solved practically because the problems themselves are subjective ideas untested with physical reality, logistics, and energy or materials constraints. They are the product of aloof minds.

The UN also wants to reduce inequalities within and among countries. How are we supposed to reduce inequalities within Western countries if we keep importing the poorest people from around the world, people who arrived without any savings and without any commercially viable skills? And even if the West were to import the best and most skilled foreigners, wouldn’t that drain their home countries of skill, so that those lands will stay poor and underdeveloped? Either way, by either robbing the labor or the brains of foreign nations, that can never solve inter-national inequality. It can only worsen it, widen the gap.

Also, will solving this problem of inequality perhaps require the total racial miscegenation of all people with all people, namely to redistribute potentially superior genes from one population to the world? Even so, this will not affect the many different terrains people have chosen to live in. What good, exactly, are genes that combat the cold when injected into a desert environment? Or are we going to practice climate Marxism, too, and turn the deserts and the arctic ice sheets into Nordic birch tree forests?

Or what is the purpose of Asian genes for digesting grains injected into people who cannot grow grain crops in areas with unpredictable waterflow? Indeed, pastoralists arose in those areas where it made sense to herd cows and sheep around from one pasture to another, chasing the sun and the rain. No amount of planning from whatever global government is ever going to solve inequality between nations. It’s not going to happen, because the inequality serve human survival.

The 17 Social Development Goals are the goals of naive people who have codified their feelings into policy without testing reality. None of the goals will ever be fully achieved, and most won’t be achieved at all, simply because the goals cannot be achieved due to logistical, material, human, and energy constraints. To think these goals were supposed to be achieved by the year 2030 signifies both a ridiculous amount of hubris among our globalist leaders, but also warns of a dangerous disillusionment that must be gripping the global elites when they find out that banning pastoralism means mass starvation for certain people, and that forcing everyone to eat grains will only introduce new logistical challenges.

I speak of danger, because how will the progressive-delusional complex respond when their goals cannot be achieved, not even remotely? We can predict their responses by reading about the history of the Soviet Union: people of the Free World will experience harsher repression, greater government control, and perverse erosions of personal freedoms. Until even those responses ultimately prove to be fruitless. And then what? Collapse. The collapse of the European Union is inevitable, as is the collapse of the United Nations, and of the globalized world. People will look back on globalism’s brief history as a time of delusion promoted by a deranged leadership.

Herculean Works

Instead of vague goals, we need Herculean works. We need concrete targets for practical men of action. Years ago, I did a brainstorm and came up with the idea for an Age of Herculean Works, but some of my ideas, though concrete, were floating on the wings of science fiction. I imagined racing solar-powered space-sailships on a mission to trapping planet Venus’s surface heat. Perhaps, someday, we will terraform Venus and Mars, but none of this will happen without a solid foundation for life on Earth.

Our reasoning should not begin with an outer space that our ancestors believed wasn’t a physical space, but a place for our souls to gather in after death. When we realize that we, and the majority of our race, are going to be living in Europe and North-Western Eurasia, then we know we will have to build functioning societies there. This implies we will need to conquer a fertile territory to defend, and that requires building defenses.

Reasoning from this angle, our concrete goals become clear:

1. We must reconquer Europe politically and oust the far-left neo-Bolsheviks presently in charge who are murdering our nations with mass Islamic immigration.

2. We may not be able to win this power back through elections, as though we might vote ourselves out of troubles we never voted ourselves into. And so, we shall have to build guerilla armies and wider support networks, to gradually grind the New Bolshevik machinery to a halt.

3. Living in Europe, we are stuck with the geopolitical threats posed by aspirations for a Russian Empire and by Ottoman dreams of White subjugation, if not also North-African attempts ate conquering Southern Europe. To pre-empt such threats, a German-led European unity might have to install its own leadership in both Russia and Turkey, either overtly or covertly.

4. The German and Germanic lands appear instantly as the center of White survivaldom, on the condition that we aggressively begin promoting White family formation and the mass remigration of unwanted people. To take back what is ours, at least during a brief period of time, our peoples shall have to take in interest in producing large families.

5. We shall have to drag the criminals who put us in this dire situation before tribunals, for their punishments should be so harsh that history will remember what they have done, for at least centuries to come.

6. For example, the industrial-scale attempt at making children gender-neutral by cutting of their genitals and feeding them hormone blockers must be punished as though it were a Gender Holocaust. Every doctor, physician, psychologist, politician, journalist, or related support staff member involved in administering genital mutilation or “gender-affirmative care” must be imprisoned for life, and we must investigate whether death penalties are more appropriate.

7. For the takeover to succeed, we must be ruthless. And in order to be ruthless, we must have trained men. In fact, we need men who are not only well-trained, but who are also capable of thinking independently of higher authorities, so that, in the case of ambushes or a breakdown of command, the lower-ranking outfits can still achieve local victories. We are no longer interested in dumb men following orders. We are interested in creating wolf packs that can defend their own survival independently of other packs.

Mastering Time and Space

Envisioning such concrete Herculean works (as mentioned above, along with many other goals) will not in and of itself mean that we are prepared to achieve them. This preparation begins by hardening the souls and the minds of men for the battles that may not be lost. And that requires a change of attitude toward the world. In fact, it requires that we, men of the West—White men—must adopt a much more independent relation toward the rest of the world.

Since the world wars, and especially due to decisions made by Winston Churchill (who made the British armies dependent on Arab oil), the West has become so dependent on foreign energy that, by default, we have succumbed to the demands of that foreign world, too. To secure our need for foreign oil and gas, without which Hitler (who needed the oil fields of Baku in Azerbaijan, and the oil deliveries from Iraq) was condemned to lose his, we have begun bowing our heads to the demands of the Third World. And what they demanded was “equality”, or rather: for them to turn themselves into us by erasing us from existence and from history.

We need a change of attitude. We need to find a way of removing ourselves from global supply lines while managing to thrive without having access to them. If that were not a possibility at all, then there is always the ultimate possibility of sabotaging the global supply system by attacking its chokepoints. Oar end game is to free ourselves from globalist constraint. Our mission, in this scenario, were not to conquer and control the Strait of Hormuz or the South Chinese Sea, but rather to make global trade impossible by other means, forcing the powers of the world to return to regional governance.

There are many ways to achieve the end of globalism. But there is only one way to inspire the men of our race to join in the tasks required. And that is: to instill a new faith in the hearts of our men, a faith that carries forth the strengths of our ancestors. When we begin seeing time not merely as a present moment but as a whole emerging from the past and flowing toward a future of our own choosing, then we can root ourselves confidently in such timelessness, and, without any doubting, expand the space that we inherited from our forebears.

Let us master time and space. Let us work to leave behind a world that both our ancestors and our future progeny can reflect upon with great pride.

Once upon a time, I attended an event with the British historian Tom Holland at De Balie in Amsterdam. I had taken an interest in the historian because of his Channel 4 documentary, Islam: The Untold Story, in which he questioned the traditional account of the Prophet Mohammed’s life and suggested that much of the Islamic origin story had never happened. However, I was unprepared for Mr. Holland’s apparent preoccupation with certain disturbed sexual themes.

During the talk, Holland appeared, in my view, to praise—indeed, to gloat over—the fact that Roman males engaged in intercourse with boys, emphasizing that it was a truly masculine act. He inserted these remarks into the middle section of his otherwise impressive and engaging hour-long discussion of how Christianity supplanted the Roman Empire.

Just recently, Holland made similar comments at another event:

“For the Romans, the [sex] binary was between the male Roman citizen and everybody else, and the male Roman citizen could do what he liked to everybody else. So you know you're a Roman slave owner, you can do what you like to your slaves sexually, any it doesn't matter what the gender of the slave is.”

Holland, of course, confuses legal permission with actual practice or widespread desire. Even if slave-owning Romans were legally permitted to act as they wished toward their slaves, that does not mean ordinary Roman males were commonly attracted to other males. Or is Holland subtly suggesting that homosexuality was the pagan norm, and that Christianity—now portrayed as ‘dark and evil’—wrongly suppressed a rainbow-sexual spectrum?

Oh, and then he added, “It doesn't matter what the age is.”

Tom Holland functions as a pedophilia apologist. Perhaps he himself harbors such desires—I cannot prove that—but he appears to leverage his extensive historical knowledge to normalize perverted inclinations by misrepresenting the moral norms of the past. Based on his public statements, I can only describe the historian as a sexually perverted man who seeks to persuade others that male sexual relations with boys and men are somehow “masculine.” In essence, he acts as a globohomo puppet master attempting to falsify European moral traditions.

We know, as a matter of biological reality, that men do not desire sex with other men or boys merely because of some pre-Christian moral hegemony. Christianity did not need to teach men to “act straight.” The majority of mammalian males do not engage in homosexual behavior. Apparent “humping” among wolves and lions typically serves to establish dominance hierarchies rather than sexual gratification; such acts generally involve no penetration or orgasm.

It’s the same with the bonobo, once hailed as the LGBT version of their more warlike chimpanzees’ cousins. But, as usual, scientists were only projecting their own perversions onto a race of animals they didn’t care to study well enough. Scientific observations indicate that bonobos do not primarily resolve conflicts through sex, nor do males routinely engage in homosexual intercourse. Adolescent males may engage in non-penetrative mounting as practice for heterosexual mating, not as an expression of same-sex orientation.

Thus, Tom Holland is not merely a pedophilia apologist; he is also advancing falsehoods. There was never a time in Roman history when males engaged in same-sex activity at scale. While a perverted element certainly existed within the Roman elite—including certain emperors—many lurid stories may have been exaggerated or fabricated by later writers to discredit unfit rulers, such as the story of the odd emperor who went out to “eat snail” by emasculating boys, eating theirs, and then raping them.

We, too, have a perverted elite today. Consider the “Pink Mafia” associated with figures such as Peter Thiel, or the Epstein network, which implicated individuals including Donald Trump and Bill Gates. Yet none of these behaviors reflect the broader sexual norms of our society. The notion that capitalist or Christian forces sexually repress the modern population is ludicrous. Never before have people faced such intense propaganda encouraging same-sex experimentation or surgical alteration of the body—and yet, participation remains minimal.

It’s as if people are naturally straight!

Even left-leaning women express shock upon learning of cases in which a baby cries for his mother while his two gay male guardians mock him for lacking one. A cited Biden-era survey suggested that thirty-odd percent of teenagers now self-identify as LGBT. In reality, such figures are inflated; many adolescents answer insincerely when asked provocative sexual questions, viewing them as “government crap.” Others who claim a gay identity may never act on it. Notably, self-identified lesbian girls in the West are disproportionately likely to become pregnant by men.

Historian Holland went on to say, “You can just treat [the slaves] as you want, and of course Christianity radically, radically changes that.”

No, Christianity did not radically overhaul human morality by converting innate pedophilic or homosexual tendencies into repressed heterosexual domesticity. It did not need to, because the majority of Roman males never exhibited sexual interest in other males or boys. Moreover, the slave-owning merchant class in the broader Mediterranean world included significant Semitic (Phoenician/Carthaginian) elements whose cultural practices differed from those of native European populations.

If anything, morality carries a racial dimension. Europeans may be slow to recognize this, but their adversaries understand it well. That is why mass migration of Semitic, Arab, and sub-Saharan African populations into Europe is pursued—so that “diversity” can erase the healthy, historically superior European moral framework by replacing the underlying people. Morality cannot simply be imposed through cultural hegemony, as Antonio Gramsci imagined. When Bud Light attempted this with Dylan Mulvaney, its core rural, straight, white male customer base rejected the campaign outright. It didn’t make anyone gay or trans-accepting.

Polygamy, for instance, remains widespread in North Africa, where married men often have three or four wives on average. This leaves a surplus of unmarried men whose sexual energies may turn inward toward other males and boys at home, or outward toward the women and children of host populations abroad. Videos on platforms such as TikTok frequently depict Muslim men and boys in cross-dressed performances suggestive of such dynamics.

That may very well be their racial morality, but it is not ours and it was not abolished by Christianity, only reaffirmed.

What figures like Tom Holland appear to advance is the imposition of a North African-style morality onto the West, allowing personal perversions to blend into the resulting cultural mixture. Transgenderism, overt homosexuality, and fixation on boys all reflect, in this view, elements of Semitic and Middle Eastern matriarchal influences rather than European patriarchal traditions.

It is time for the remnants of the European patriarchate to unite in moral outrage, regain motivation, and fight for what is right. It is time to end the imposition of these perversions. We have been humiliated long enough.

This process is called ODEH (Organ Donation after Euthanasia at Home) and works as follows. It does NOT mean you are euthanized at home:

• you are premedicated and sedated at home, i.e., you are NOT killed

• you are transported (alive but incapacitated) to the hospital

• your euthanasia is now “completed” by invoking circulatory death

• circulatory death means: they stop your heart for 5 minutes

• you are declared legally dead i.e. “brain dead” because blood is no longer flowing to your brain

• your still healthy and living organs and tissue are now removed: liver, kidneys, lungs, heart, pancreas and facial tissue

• now you die definitively because you no longer have organs

According to Grok, “As of the end of 2021, 286 ODE [organ donation after euthanasia] procedures had been performed across the four countries, yielding 1 131 organs transplanted to 837 recipients.” Most cases took place in Canada.

This isn’t made up “disinformation” or “misinformation”. It is documented by scientific reports on the practice:

• Organ donation after euthanasia starting with anesthesia at home is legal in The Netherlands, Belgium, Canada and Spain

• Organ Donation After Medical Aid in Dying: An Ethical Overview

• Organ Donation After Euthanasia: A Dutch Practical Manual

• Organ donation after euthanasia in a patient living with dementia: a landmark case report

• Organ Donation After Euthanasia in Patients Suffering From Psychiatric Disorders: 10-Years of Preliminary Experiences in the Netherlands

The idea that state actors have made guerrilla warriors obsolete because of drones is false. Rather, guerrilla warfare will co-opt drone warfare to create new opportunities. And it’s not about having access to the latest tech. It’s about mimicry, deception, and winning psychological battles.

How would it work, hypothetically, for a non-state actor (such as the infamous IRA) to take on a state military’s drone army? Though the presence of state drones in urban settings greatly diminishes guerrilla operations, it isn’t necessary to head-on confront the state’s drone operators. Rather, guerrillas can use the idea of drone warfare against the state.

Strategically, guerrilla actors best stay out of surveillance drones’ reach and simply remain unseen. Facial detection systems may be implemented by the state, so that once-exposed guerrillas can be targeted in a crowd. To avoid this, guerrillas will learn never to expose themselves as guerrillas in urban/civilian settings.

In recent years, former guerrilla snipers have become drone operators themselves, using commercially available "Temu" drones fitted with lethal explosives. Cheap drones have leveled the playing field. Yemen’s Houthi rebels (likely working under Iranian or Chinese command) have successfully used their much cheaper equipment against very expensive US-Israeli rockets.

Guerrilla drones, then, may be used in several ways:

• Cheap solution to the enemy’s expensive defenses.

• Precisely to keep guerrillas away from surveillance, by using drones to pester the state enemy.

• By repaying drone surveillance with guerrilla drone surveillance in order to scope out what the state actors are doing.

• By disguising deadly drones as commercial toy-drones, such as the ones commonly operated by kids, causing confusion in certain situations.

• By producing large numbers of ‘fake’ (flimsy, non-lethal) drones that look the part. Only including a small number of ‘deadlies’ among them, so that state actors are again confused.

• Imagine a drone swarm of 100 flimsy fakes, but there is 1 deadly, thus causing psychological problems for state actors dealing with the fakes (depleting their defenses while missing the deadly one).

• By making guerrilla drones look and sound just like the state’s drones, thus terrorizing the local population and blaming the state for these rogue drones.

• Using very small surveillance drones to find state drone operators, and attack operators using conventional (cheap) ambush or sniper methods.

• Using drones that only produce disorienting sounds effects, such as grenade explosions or gunfire to rattle state actors.

• Booby-trapped drones that look like state drones. When moved, they go off.

This is not an exhaustive list of ideas, but it is clear that urban guerrilla warriors can use drones for effective and affordable psychological warfare against a state actor in the region. If done well, the origin of the guerrilla drones should be kept unknown/secret, so that drone operators cannot be traced (no face ID).

Guerrilla drone warfare can work well in any settings, since the aims are the same as former sniper warfare: to cause psychological fear & debilitate the enemy's organization, for example by keeping the enemy indoors. Since drones can be operated relatively autonomously or even perfectly anonymously, guerrillas can blame the state for drone attacks, or at least convince the public thereof using media propaganda.

Keeping costs low may be the bottleneck for non-state actors. However, since the goal is to instill fear, you can imagine a cheap drone carrying the 3D-printed frame of an expensive professional drone. A fly pretending to be a hawk. Think of a fake flimsy drone that only looks and sounds dangerous. Just once in a while, you slip in a real dangerous drone to cause psychological damage. So out of 100 cheap fakes, only 1 is real and deadly.

On occasion, you could direct a cheap swarm of 100s of fakes, but only a handful are deadlies, used for targeting high-profile targets. This would destroy the state actors' morale.

Yesterday, the leader of Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu, gave a press conference, through from the looks of it, he was hiding somewhere in a bunker in Tora Bora, and said,

“Jesus Christ has no advantage over Genghis Khan. Because if you are strong enough, ruthless enough, powerful enough, evil will overcome good.”

Let’s not pretend that this is automatically true. Khan did not overcome Christ. No one today is a follower of Ghenghis Khan, but billions of people are still meaningfully influenced by Christ’s messages.

Some may want to point out that Netanyahu’s statement was supposed to be a reference to a line by American historian Will Durant, who actually said that “the universe has no prejudice in favor of Christ as against Ghenghis Khan”.

But Durant didn’t speak of some inevitability that a “ruthless enough” evil must consequentially always overthrow good. Will Durant’s quote was, in fact, preceded by the following words:

“Nature and history do not agree with our conceptions of good and bad; they define good as that which survives, and bad as that which goes under ...”

It was Ghenghis Khan who went under, and it was Christ, who, through his resurrection, survived.

More importantly, it is Christ’s legacy of which people speak favorably, whereas the Mongol invaders of 1240 AD are remembered unfavorably.

The English Benedictine monk Matthew Paris, a contemporary chronicler writing around the time when the Mongols invaded Poland and Hungary, described them as follows:

“an immense horde of that detestable race of Satan... thirsting after and drinking blood, and tearing and devouring the flesh of dogs and human beings indiscriminately”

Evil, then, cannot hide its face. And good does not go unrecognized, because people have memory, and what was good or evil will be remembered as such, regardless of which side prevails in history.

People will forever remember Israel as having started this war with Iran, upsetting the whole global economy by harming oil and gas trade, by bombing oil and gas fields, and by provoking their enemy Iran to do the same in retaliation, while lying about the tally of Israeli and American casualties of war, and denying responsibility for killing civilians.

Might we interpret Netanyahu’s words differently, namely as a veiled threat? Perhaps the leader of Israel fancies himself a Ghenghis Khan, harboring a desire to overcome the weak Christian Europe?

If only Israel were “strong enough, ruthless enough, powerful enough”, its soldiers might become “an immense horde... thirsting after and drinking blood”.

White American urban liberals may say they’re not racist because they voted for Barack Obama. However, had Obama spoken a thick ebonic dialect, raciolinguistics predicts that they would not have voted for Obama. Nor would urban liberals ever vote for a White Democratic candidate with a thick Southern accent. It turns out that race and language develop together in humans to cue who’s friend or foe.

The Doll Test and Its Flaws

We all know the infamous “race experiment”, the doll test, that allegedly proved that White kids are racist by age 3. The suggestion was that this is White parents’ fault, as though they had taught their children institutionalized racism. Alas, it ain’t so.

In that doll test, children are shown images of various other children of different races and asked who they would like to play with, or who they like the most. Invariably, White children will choose images of other White children.

The first issue with the experiment—apart from criminalizing toddlers for a crime they didn’t commit—is that black children also prefer other black children to play with. It’s not just White kids. It’s everyone preferring their own.

The second, more fundamental issue with the experiment is that children will modulate their choice if they can hear the other children’s voices.

If American White children discover that another White playmate is speaking Polish rather than American English, they will prefer to play with a black kid who speaks fluent American English.

I.e., the discovery was made that language supersedes race. People of all races prefer hanging out with their own kind, however, all people will also prefer people who can speak their dialect well to people who don’t.

And so, when White Southerners in the US started moving North, they were discriminated against by White Northerners. Southern Whites were called “dumb”, “criminal”, or “untrustworthy”. Northerners would rather employ black people who could speak the Northern tongue. And so, we discover that a lot of race posturing has to do with other in-group cues: language includes body language and to a strong degree also dining and clothing habits.

Do I Sound Like My Race?

This insight has been a revelation to me, and you can read a lot more about it in the 2019 book Looking like a Language, Sounding like a Race: Raciolinguistic Ideologies and the Learning of Latinidad by Jonathan Rosa. In that book, the author discusses the situation in Latin America, but the insights apply to all over the world.

I was born in the Netherlands to Dutch parents, but in the early days of my life my mother spoke a thick small-town dialect of Dutch, which was in some ways grammatically broken compared to the official “ABN” or “General Polite Dutch”. At one day old, I was moved to Antwerp, Belgium, where my father had found a job. My parents were renting an apartment there.

I went to my first school in Belgium, as a 2-year-old preschooler, where I picked up the local Flemish-Dutch accent and dialect. At age 3, my parents return to the Netherlands. When I returned to kindergarten at age 4, I was considered an outsider due to my still lingering Flemish accent.

Not only didn’t I feel welcome, I wasn’t welcomed. Though initially accepted based on my blond looks, shame was thrusted upon me as soon as I opened my mouth and kids laughed. I was an outsider because of my odd Flemish accent mixed with mom’s broken dialect. But of course, I didn’t know that at the time, and I wouldn’t figure it out until now, at age 45.

Yes, I soon adopted and began speaking the local dialect—Brabantian Dutch, which is, once more, somewhat different from “ABN” or polite standardized Dutch.

By age 5, I had now been exposed to my father’s fairly neutral Dutch accent, my mother’s thick rural dialect, to Flemish Dutch, to Brabantian Dutch (which has its own thick working-class dialect variant), and “ABN”, which I consumed mostly through television and radio. Technically speaking, the ABN or standard Dutch was the Holland dialect of the TV elite.

Naming the ABN dialect a standard, of course, was power-posturing: the financial elite of The Hague and Amsterdam made their dialect the standard. This is all the more interesting since, historically, before the age of European colonialism, Brabant used to be the center of Dutch power. Indeed, our Brabantian Dutch accents was once “the standard”, but gave later way to the dialect of the seafaring merchants of the West, whose accents became very much influenced by the English, the most important trade partner.

Small-Town Dialects

In my home country, with a little exposure to people from across the lands, people can quickly learn to pinpoint where other Dutch people were born. There’s the Zeeuws or Zeeland dialect, there’s the dialect of the province of Limburg and of Brabant (my Brabantian Dutch), the Frisian of Friesland, and the Nether-Saxon of the Eastern provinces, and so on, and so forth.

There’s also the royal Dutch dialect, and the thick political “Hague” dialect spoken by ambassadors and CEOs. And there’s the unique accents of inner-city Amsterdam and Rotterdam as spoken by their urban lower-classes. Still, the urban lower-class dialects hold greater prestige than thick rural dialects.

I haven’t even told you about the many other versions of Dutch dialects spoken by immigrants. A Moroccan immigrant ending up in Friesland, ends up speaking a Moroccan-ish Frisian, but there’s also a Moroccan-ish Rotterdamese. Or a Hungarian-ish Limburgian, and a German-ish Brabantian. And then there are all the thousands of local variations that change from town to town.

Yes, the small country of the Netherlands is an e-nor-mous-ly diverse linguistic hotchpotch, and, in fact, I would argue that most of Germanic (North-West) Europe is like this. The Germanics par excellence are a decentralized race that prefers moving in their small circles of equals, without too much need for supranational governing structures imposed upon them. Of course, the Roman and Slavic territories each have their own linguistic diversities.

The Linguistic Hierarchy, a Caste System

You can imagine how, in a small country of the Netherlands, speaking one dialect among others quickly leads to situations of exclusion and diminishment. As a Brabantian Dutch speaker, in adulthood, I was not going to be treated an equal by the people of Holland, but I could afford myself to look down upon Frisian speakers and thick rural speakers. However, as a lone Brabantian among Frisians, I would find myself excluded again.

There was, and still is, a massive hierarchical ordering based on the dialects we speak in the Netherlands, with the royal accent ranking up top, followed by the “lackey tongues” of the political elite, then the “fortunate rich” TV dialects just below it, and the “Amsterdam rich kids” accents in fourth place. Rural dialects tend to rank bottom.

You have to understand, above all, that many of these dialects are so different from one another, that we would need subtitling to understand each other. This is the reason that the national government began pushing for standardized Dutch in education, so that the people of the provinces had a way of communicating with one another.

Americans may find this difficult to grasp, since your nation started out as being an English-speaking nation. Other speakers were forced to adopt English, although there are still pockets of German and Swedish, and so on, that survive here an there. In most European countries, the standard national language had to be imposed upon the population, such as “High German” or “polite Dutch”.

Indeed, a person born in Amsterdam may not be able to understand the Zeeland, Limburgian, Frisian, or Flemish dialects. And likewise, people from those provinces will, initially, not be able to understand the standard polite Dutch spoken by our TV elite!

Personally, as a native Dutchman, I have been the victim of dialect-based discrimination much more than a polite-speaking African has been based on his race. And yet, media and government consistently pretend that dark people are victims of some institutionalized racism, while non-standard speaking White people are the more frequent victims of institutionalized linguistic discrimination.

Personal Backstory

As an individual, I can (and have) acquired the ability to move between dialects, and I could do a pretty fine impression of a polite Holland-Dutch dialect, or even an Moroccan-Amsterdamese accent thrown in for fun.

In fact, I eventually acquired the ability to speak English really well (by Dutch standards) as a form of revenge, for when I speak English nowadays, my fairly neutral accent sounds a lot better than the thick Dutch-English or (Dinglish) of my compatriots. I speak English better than our Dutch Prime Ministers, CEOs, and ambassadors.

This means a lot to me. English being the language of power, I have outclassed the polite-speaking urbanite Dutchmen who would have otherwise put me down for speaking my Brabantian Dutch dialect.

It matters to me because I am undeniably intelligent and my thoughts deserve to be heard, but speaking Brabantian-Dutch, everything I say would be dismissed as the ramblings of a lesser person. Not so on the international stage. Speaking in English, my thoughts and insights are now quite respected, and sometimes quite influential, as they deserve to be.

As a Dutchman from the province of Brabant, I had to learn to speak English in order to be respected, heard, and understood.

Exposure to Dialects

Exposure to the Dutch dialects works unidirectionally: It is the kids from the provinces who learn to understand, and speak, the Holland polite Dutch variant, but not the other way around. The kids from the big cities (in the West of the Netherlands) never get much exposure to the provincial and rural dialects, such as my Brabantian, and will, therefore, fail to understand us.

This has consequences. The people of the cities, as I’ll call them, controlling most of the nation’s wealth (from sea trade), will dismiss provincial Dutch people as being stupid and incompetent, as less trustworthy. And yes, they will prefer to cohabit and work with dark-skinned, racially alien foreigners who happen to have picked up the correct urban Dutch dialect.

All this has led to the following:

• Rural and provincial White dialect speakers are systematically excluded from TV and radio shows.

• Their accents and dialects are considered so undesirable that they are barred from political debate participation.

• Of the 150 Dutch parliamentarians, you will find almost none who speak a dialect, and most are recruited from the urbanized provinces of the West. There is almost no rural or provincial representation.

• Of the top newspaper columnists in the Netherlands, most speak (and write) the standard polite Dutch, and half of them are recruited from Amsterdam alone.

• My province of Brabant supplied only 1 national columnist, some of the time. Proportionally by population size, it should have been 14-15% of all columnists.

• Most government subsidies are spent on the urban populations of the West of the Netherlands: the spenders and the recipients speak the same dialects, so they “like” each other!

• People who speak dialect are more likely to be convicted of a crime and are more likely to be given longer sentences, even more so than dark people speaking the correct standard dialect.

• People who speak dialect are less likely to be accepted into universities (at equal ability).

• Migrants who ended up speaking the polite Dutch dialect are invited to all of these opportunities, more so than the native White dialect speakers.

• People who speak dialect are considered less intelligent and less trustworthy. We are dehumanized as outsiders, as out-group members.

• And yet, the combined people of the dialect-speaking provinces pay the majority of the taxes.

What to Do?

So, when White provincial Dutch people started noticing that dark-skinned migrants living in the urban provinces were being given preferential treatment, the provincials responded by voting for right-wing parties. The urbanites responded by calling the provincials “racist”, despite actively discriminating against provincials due to their dialects.

Here lies a difficult but very interesting problem to solve: How can we unite the diversity of dialect-speaking White people against the monolith of urbanites and their polite-speaking slaves?

When we solve this problem, we can overthrow the central state, and usher in a new era.

I went live on X and spoke about the situation in Iran. Below are some of the topics I discussed:

• US military commanders referring to Book of Revelations, saying this is the apocalypse war, the end times, Christ’s return?

• AI propaganda: can’t tell if conflict videos are real, fake rockets in the sky?

• Starmer appearing in Cyprus to support troops while at home he said UK wouldn’t be involved

• Germany’s Merz at the White House while Trump denounced Spain

• Was the attack on the girls real or not?

• The Final Boomer war, but what’s the alternative?

• The European Union’s late response

• How effective have the attacks been (Iran targeting radar, Arab missile defense)?

• Khamenei death, staged, natural death, martyred by Americans? Cancer, 86yo

• Regime firmly in the seat, not overthrown, no regime change, since didn’t depend on Khamenei

• Reza Pavlavi, the Western Shah puppet can’t be installed, people don’t want him?

• Europe’s energy crisis: buying oil from Russia? Strait of Hormuz?

• Iran selling to China 14% of China’s oil imports, but so is Saudi Arabia, so why?

• Venezuela oil had to be controlled before attack in middle east, since Iran could blow up oil sites

• Saudis have indeed closed down some oil site, and Qatar closed down gas

• Europe’s gas prices exploded, diesel, fuels too?

• Why energy in Europe, such as car fuels, ar so much more expensive? Almost 3x as expensive compared to USA

• Should we fear attacks in Europe? More from lone terrorists inspired by the Fatwah

• Can Iran bomb Europe’s diverse cities full of Muslims?

• Why are we even fighting Iran? Wolfowitz Doctrine, Greater Israel versus Persian Empire

Catholic primary school taught me about the Dark Ages, but little did I know that our Dutch Calvinist curriculum was peddling anti-Catholic propaganda. Did Europe really fall under the “night of superstition” during the 5th through 15th centuries AD until the Protestant Reformation came and paved the way for the Enlightenment?

Not every country teaches kids about any Dark Ages. Italians call it La Decadenza, and it refers to the decadence of the late-stage Roman Empire before the fall. But the image of Europeans groveling like animals in a hellish darkness cast upon the earth by a Satanic papacy—well, that’s Protestant propaganda. It never happened.

According to the Google Ngram Viewer, occurrences of the phrase “Dark Ages” didn’t become popular until around the mid-18th century, and its popularity dropped starkly after the 1830s. From 1740–1780 AD, the British evangelical Methodists established themselves and began exporting their new brand of Christian faith to the USA as well. Indeed, it was this evangelical movement that first popularized the idea of the European “Dark Ages.”

The evangelicals juxtaposed these Dark Ages with the “light” of the Reformation. They spoke frequently of “popish darkness.” This makes perfect sense geopolitically, for the Anglo colonization of the Americas gave Protestants (the Atlantic nations of Britain and the USA) the power to push back against the Catholic Holy Roman Empire.

Talk of the Dark Ages dissipated after the 1830s—because that’s when the last Holy Roman Emperor, Francis II, died, after having abdicated in 1806. With the emperor gone and without a continuation, Catholic power diminished, and Europe was blinded by the Reformation’s light.

In a livestream episode (The Great Johannes stream #64), I explored at length the unintended consequences of the Reformation. According to author Brad S. Gregory in The Unintended Reformation, religious fragmentation turned our societies into the woke dystopia. Individualism, consumerism, moral and cultural relativism, the excesses of capitalism, pluralism, diversity and tolerance, and scientific atheism all emerged as consequences of the Protestant Reformation.

Johannes MK's Newsletter

The Unintended Reformation [stream #64]

Watch on YouTube »…

Listen now

a year ago · 1 like · Johannes M. Koenraadt

The Protestant propaganda stuck because Europeans, having a guilt-based morality, need to have something to feel bad about in order to feel good. We need to paint the past as backward so that we may cast the present as having progressed toward something better. If the past hadn’t been exactly dark and gloomy, then we can’t really claim to be progressing. And so, Catholicism was now evil and the Enlightenment’s science was now good.

Dig deeper and you’ll find that these Dark Ages never happened. Enter the Phantom Time Hypothesis by German author Heribert Illig. He claims that about three centuries (297 years to be exact) were inserted into the Western timeline—namely the height of the “Dark Ages” from 614–911 AD—for political reasons: to place the reign of Holy Roman Emperor Otto III in the year 1000 AD.

That year, Otto III, supported by Pope Sylvester II, made a pilgrimage from Rome to Aachen (Charlemagne’s alleged birthplace). The idea was to revive the Catholic Christian “Holy Roman Empire,” i.e., to sell it to a larger audience. The Pope, the Emperor, and their intellectual henchmen were able to pull off this time heist because the people of Europe were largely illiterate and mostly didn’t know what year it was.

Archaeology backs it up: We find few to no artifacts from the alleged Dark Ages. Illig points out that we also found almost no corpses from that period. Another pointer is that there is no discontinuity in German poetry from the 6th to the 10th century AD, as though there was no stylistic break.

In conclusion, the Dark Ages weren’t dark—the Dark Ages never happened. The phrase “Dark Ages” says more about Protestant Enlightenment propaganda than it does about history. It served to help transfer religious power away from Catholic Europe to the new Protestant transatlantic realm.

And that process is something The Reaction intends to reverse. With the decline of globalism, the Anglo-American Empire is expected to wane, and with it, the ideals of the Enlightenment (individualism, materialism, robots, AI) shall disappear.

The light from the shadow shall renew Europe’s soul!

Join the Reaction!

This limited edition reprint was produced and shipped in 2009. It comes with the original shipping container, including the Danish postage stamps, with the reprint still curled up inside. It has never been put on display in a frame. The reprint has been stored inside the original shipping container since it arrived.

Starting bid: €15,000 (to make a meaningful contribution to The Reaction)

• The reprint (#212/1,000) curled up inside the container

• The original shipping container with postage stamps etc.

Inquiries: mail@thereaction.org

We need to bring back ideas that are doable, feasible, realistic, practical, and achievable, such as building housing for young couples in Europe. Or think of building a New Holy Roman Empire using horses and carts. But please forget about nonsense sci-fi that you see in Star Wars or Avatar. None of that will (likely) ever happen.

See also the following two articles:

I suggest that we may be living in a universe that was always there, that the body is the key and the solution to the Cartesian split (or so-called mind-matter dualism), and that the post-Heideggerian Western philosophical focus on Being has been an enormous mistake, for Being is a sterile intellectual concept without any bearing on reality. Instead, we should be looking toward what I call the unbound Sensing, of which Being is a limitation. I argue that anything rational is a chain holding back the irrational, that physical reality ought to be regarded as a limitation of the spiritual, and that “somethingness” is a limitation of “nothingness.” Sentient minds, in other words, invented the illusions they later fell for.

On the Beginnings

Have you noticed that the abiogenesis theory explaining the origins of life, the scientific “universe from nothing” also known as the Big Bang theory, and the Christian Genesis all presuppose a beginning? Once I realized this, I began to wonder about a universe without an origin and whether that was physically possible.

It is. The modern universe is said to be governed by the laws of thermodynamics (TD). However, magnetohydrodynamics (MHD) theory offers a physical alternative: a universe that was always there. In this so-called Plasma Universe, pioneered and coined by Swedish physicist and Nobel laureate Hannes Alfvén, time and space may have existed for all eternity, without a beginning and without a Big Bang.

But I’m not particularly interested in the physics of a possibly eternal universe. I’m interested in its practical implications. You see, a universe with a beginning can theoretically progress away from it. In the Darwinian sense, life can start with simple beings—single-celled organisms—that then evolve, through natural selection, into more complex beings such as humans. This is, in fact, the premise of modern materialist science: that the simple (an atom, a cell, an individual) can evolve into the complex (a molecule, an organism, a society). Moreover, this materialist conception posits that increased complexity is superior to simpler orders. Progress is a good thing. Utopia is near.

In an eternal universe, however, we are left wondering why Utopia hasn’t arrived yet. If the universe has always existed, why did anatomically modern humans allegedly arrive only 100,000 to 300,000 years ago? Why not far earlier? If the universe is infinitely old, we might suspect that progress either leads nowhere, doesn’t happen at all, or that its results are always erased, forcing development to start over. Aristotle, for example, believed animals evolved from humans who had failed in life and reincarnated as lesser beings.

So it matters whether we live in a universe with a simple beginning (the tiny singularity that became the Big Bang and then the universe), evolving toward greater complexity, or in a steady-state universe that was always there and is not progressing toward anything. My eternal universe may still display change, and some of that change may be experienced as progress from time to time. I might fantasize, for example, that human beings have always existed, that an infinite number of societies and civilizations have come and gone, and that—as we can observe—the socialist-Marxist utopian dream of equal material wealth for all hasn’t arrived yet, despite an eternity of waiting.

In my fantasy universe there will never be a utopia—only eternal struggle against the elements, against time, and against nothingness. One peculiar thought experiment is that an eternal universe without a beginning might still have been “created” or have “come from nothing,” namely with an eternal history pre-attached to it. As alien as it sounds, a philosopher should explore this possibility. I can imagine several bizarre scenarios: an eternal universe that came from nothing, springing to life on the eve of 1952, with everything pre-configured, set in motion, and supplied with an infinite history—including human belief in Christian Genesis or Lawrence Krauss’s “universe from nothing.”

Absurd! Yes, absurd—but not as absurd as one might think. For if we accept that universes can come from nothing, we must accept that time and space can come from nothing too. And if time can come from nothing, so can history. And if history can come from nothing, then we have no way of knowing whence anything came or when. The universe might be continuously recreated in the present moment, opening yet another array of bizarre possibilities, such as discontinuous time—i.e., the next present moment “stitched” to the previous one with a completely falsified history or a changed past that we, in the present, would never notice.

Indeed, such strangeness implies a force at work that science and theology happily deny, but with which the philosopher should not be satisfied. He or she should want to know all the possibilities in order to draw several truths from them:

• We don’t know anything about the universe’s origins, for those origins may have come into being as a falsified history that we can neither prove nor disprove (for example, the cosmic microwave background radiation that allegedly proved the Big Bang may also be reinterpreted as a phenomenon unrelated to any such beginning);

• We cannot prove or disprove the Big Bang, the origin of life, abiogenesis, the beginning of time and space, Christian Genesis, or any other historical beginning for the aforementioned reason (we weren’t there, and even if we had records, those records could have been falsified—e.g., a fossil record planted by a playful god);

• As philosophers we can only assume the universe has a beginning, and when we do so we may likewise assume the possibility of progress (technological, biological, social, etc.);

• We can also assume the universe is eternal and was always there, in which case we cannot assume the possibility of lasting progress (e.g., everything always reverts to a mean, though fluctuations above and below are possible);

• The fact that we experience progress temporarily—technological progress since the Industrial Age, say, or Western philosophical progress since Heraclitus—does not prove that this type of progress will last forever, that its results will remain with us forever, or that the changes perceived as progress were actual progress;

Most importantly, why do all thinking men and women look for a beginning outside humanity itself? It sounds strange to believe that the universe was born of humanity rather than the other way around, but as a philosopher I want to entertain the freakish possibility that the human body is the only “real” universe and that the material world we experience around us was created as a backdrop to support our bodies.

I say this, indeed, because I saw it on TikTok. Let me explain: having browsed TikTok videos for several hours a week for several years (to my embarrassment), my pattern-seeking brain found a pattern. The vast majority of TikTok videos I ever consumed featured one or more prominent human bodies moving before a backdrop called “the world.” What we commonly call the world—its etymology coming from wer-ald, meaning “man-age” or the age through which human souls pass—is described as a physical place (when the word actually suggests time): the planet Earth, the galaxies around it, buildings, architecture, infrastructure, and all living or reproducing nature. Yet TikTok videos suggest that all of this “world” is merely backdrop to present the human body. The majority of media content people consume is about other people.

Of course, people are most interested in themselves—but the suggestion remains that the world is a time rather than a place. If the material world is mere backdrop, then humanity—especially our bodies—is its center. This brings me to the question of incarnation. How exactly did human beings receive a soul, free will, consciousness, the ability to move, etc.? Science denies many of these things, but even science must admit that (human) beings can move around in the world. What is the source of that motion?

On Being

Philosophers talk a lot about Being—after Parmenides, and especially after Martin Heidegger, who famously rebooted the question of what Being is (die Frage nach dem Seyn). Heidegger said we had forgotten Being in favor of beings (Seiendes). But I’m not really interested in talking much about Being, other than to say that I think the philosophers have got it all wrong. “Being” is a sterile intellectual concept with no bearing on reality, like a mathematical idea without application. The fact that we can think it does not make it real—not without incarnation, not without birth into flesh.

I emphasize the flesh because, as I’ve said, the body is the key and the solution to mind-matter dualism. The world is neither purely real nor purely ideal. Both realist materialism and German idealism got it wrong. The world is neither only physical nor only mental in origin. Though I believe it came from a mental origin, it is now materially real. It was materialized—but not without the help of flesh. I do not believe that human beings, or any beings of flesh and motion, evolved within the world; rather, the world around us evolved as a backdrop for the flesh. The world is not pure will nor pure matter. Not all matter is conscious or panpsychic. Rather, the human body localizes the spiritual (the mind) at a certain place in the world, while the world offers the body possibilities.

Many Western thinkers conceived of God (in their view, pure Being) as an unchanging, immutable, purely rational entity (see Philo of Alexandria), but these are merely the desires of overly intellectual men who hated their bodies—likely because most philosophers were physically inept men forced to think because they couldn’t get laid. In fact, I know exactly what sort of men most philosophers have been: untouched children who grew up without bodily affection. Heidegger was different; he famously slept around with many women, which is why we find some appreciation of the body in his work—the man who told his students to bring their skis on trips around the Schwarzwald.

Being-in-the-world requires a body. That’s what it’s for. That’s why the eternal bachelor Schopenhauer believed the world was purely immaterial—as though he had to rely on sexual fantasies to get the women he wanted, because he was physically unable to attract any. The character of the philosopher matters; it informs his thinking.

If there is a God, he is not just “out there” or above us but within us. God is the ebullient Sensing and Sensation from which everything flows. What material scientists call nothingness is concentrated desire, emotion, and feeling. Out of this desire and feeling the nothingness created something more: the physical. Notice how our skin delimits our bodies, demarcating us from the rest of the world and from other bodies. Does this not look like a budding-off from the central source of all things? The same with the mind—trapped in a brain wired throughout the body yet hidden inside the skull. The brain that sees everything is itself the hardest thing to see. Our faces and skulls hide what is there. It is the nothingness itself peering into the world it first created.

As I wrote in my book The Ignorant God, “God does not know He is God.” God is rather the sensing that senses the world through our senses—seeing with our eyes, smelling with our noses, touching with our skin, hearing with our ears, tasting with our tongues. The nothingness, so desperate to be something more, accepted imprisonment in the physical world as the price for existence—the price for Being-there, Being-for-itself, Being-in-itself, and whatever other qualities of Being philosophers invent.

Human beings are incarnations not merely of rational minds but, even more, of bodily feelings. When I prepare for sleep at night I return to the nothingness. I do my nightly rituals, lie down, rest my body, close my eyes. Slowly my senses fade, and I no longer attend to the outside world. My room is dark and quiet; I retreat within myself. My thoughts become my focus until I fall asleep and am no longer aware of them. For a while it can be said that I do not exist at all—until REM sleep produces dreams I may partially remember upon waking.

We should care to know why human beings spend about one-third of their lives retreating into nothingness. Physiologically we do it for replenishment, rest, bodily cleaning, and mental maintenance. I say we also do it to release the soul trapped inside our bodies back into nothingness—for the same reason we cannot sit in airplane seats longer than about 16 hours. Prolonged immobility gives us cramps. Imagine, then, an immaterial soul trapped and localized inside a physical body. Would it not also need a “stretch”? Whether you believe this or not, sleep gives the soul the opportunity to escape.

Bodily feelings are commonly ignored by intellectual men precisely because they are invisible, subjective, and hard to put into words. I might feel angry yet be unable to explain why. I may desire revenge without knowing why or against whom. Moreover, intellectual men find feelings disturbing. Rational thought is like writing computer code or doing mathematics; these processes are interrupted by the body’s needs for food, exercise, sleep, and maintenance. This is why upper-class people call lower-class people “emotional”: the upper classes have become society’s limiters. They control and coerce common people toward economic activity, war, and (sometimes orchestrated) famine and death—“in an orderly fashion” that benefits the elite. The elite are society’s prison wardens; they control the military and police, and the people are in many ways their prisoners—often because the common people do, indeed, lack self-control. One needs self-control to control others.

I would say that elites function as society’s skin the way our skin keeps our organs in place. Yet this ordering principle is a limitation that does not exist in sleep. And yet I rarely, if ever, dream of my organs falling out—as though my sleeping soul has no concept of the internal body anyway. The academic philosopher, like the material scientist, logician, and mathematician, deeply hates and despises bodies for this reason. They wish they could die and think rationally forever. Medieval Christian scholars thought that is exactly what they would do after death: all think the same “correct” thoughts. It worried some of them about their individuality! Luckily, I know the purpose of thinking is not to be correct. It is to be wrong a million times.

Being is a sterile intellectual concept that means nothing. I get it: I see a red apple. The apple “is” red. Then I want to know what “is” means. What does it mean to be? What is Being itself? This Being is an intellectual concept that does not exist in the world. Heidegger was quite wrong to speak of “Seynsvergessenheit,” for nothing was forgotten. Something that is nothing cannot be forgotten. Yet he did ask the right question: “Why is there something rather than nothing?” There is something because it serves the body. The world is the backdrop—remember, TikTok proves this. People and their bodies largely exist for each other; everything else serves to make the experience more interesting.

The eternal nothingness that desired to feel was incarnated into our bodies so that, through our flesh, it could experience touch. Imagine how mad you would be if you couldn’t feel anything. That is the state of nothingness—forever. I would transform myself into a Big Bang too if I were that nothingness. I would willingly accept imprisonment in a body of flesh so that, at least, I could feel and express myself.

God is not the unchanging but the changing, not the rational but the irrational. Of course, intellectual men disagree; their minds cannot classify or make sense of the irrational. They cannot contain it in formulae or facts. They cannot analyze the invisible and unlocalized. They cannot master what they cannot understand. So they turn away from it. The Western materialist tradition since Democritus and the atomists was a big joke: intellectual men running from their senses, bodies, and feelings because feelings interrupted their holy thinking.

“Being” is an empty fiction. The real God is the Ektropic—the overflowing, self-regenerative source of everything, wild and unrestricted. The moment you introduce order, logic, and reason you have already diminished God, for these are the chains people cling to in the physical realm. God is not Unbeing nor Nothingness but pure Unrealized Potential whose first act was Incarnation: pouring itself into flesh. God no longer exists separately but is here with us, hidden inside our bodies. This Ignorant God does not know He is God. Our senses are God’s senses; through us, God lives. It is not atoms or thought-particles that govern the universe but a continuous feeling, a restless desire driving us toward an infinite array of impossible experience.

To live is to experience. The rational, logical, and mathematical are tools for the economic maintenance of the materialized Ektropic—to give it ability, to allow it to grow, and to prevent abuse and collapse. Rational thought is not the highest form of thought but merely a tool in the service of the Ektropic. The infinite Potential, the pure Ektropic Force, had to pay for its physical appearance with physical restrictions.

If men aren’t doing well mentally, it’s because of learned helplessness. The cage is no longer there, but you are still hiding in it. Life feels lived by others telling you what to do. Talking about your feelings won’t cure the depression. Transforming your body in order to behave differently will. The solution lies in self-empowerment, in putting yourself back in charge.

Cleaning your room to please your mom or spouse won’t heal your depression. However, the road to salvation lies in adopting high-status behaviors, combined with the frontstage persona of a man in charge, while simultaneously improving your backstage skills and competencies.

Overcoming Feminist Society

But first, we must equate modern Western ‘feminist’ societies to a narcissistic household that intentionally scapegoats boys and men. Feminists like to scapegoat men in order to diminish male power. They target boys, because boys don’t yet have the proper psychological defenses. Much of progressive society functions to prevent boys from developing into high-status men.

Self-empowerment thus starts by identifying your real self, not the role you were taught to play. It means beginning your proper self-differentiation, which means seeing yourself as separate and different from your society as a whole. As a man of power, you were never meant to be a member of the human herd, but rather a shepherd. You’re not turning your back on humanity, but you will lead the herd.

Healing male depression requires you to increase your self-worth. No one but you can do this. To achieve it, think of the IKEA effect. When people put together their Billy bookcase, they have mixed some of their time and creative effort into the end result. Now imagine supporting yourself in a similar manner. By putting some time and creative effort into sculpting your body, your skills and your personality, you are going to understand that you have value.

Invest in yourself to increase your sense of worth. Personally, I increased my sense of worth by acquiring all sorts of skills: practicing ice skating, playing the trombone, learning how to draw, boxing, pimping my mountainbike, going to the gym regularly, managing to do one-leg squats, and so on. These are small improvements requiring basic effort, but putting them all together improved my self-confidence. I learned that I can just do things.

The escape from women’s society also requires that you learn to live more selfishly. Women’s society has a tendency to employ males as servants. My old-time neighbor was quite a domineering old woman. She got several guys down our street to help fix her front yard for her—free of charge. Guys who don’t learn to say no to a bossy woman will invariably end up being her unpaid slave.

In fact, I overheard one wealthy woman call such helpful men “dogs”. She called them dogs because they help her business out for free. Why should she respect them? The lesson learned is that you shouldn’t want to be a dog to women who don’t care about you. To earn society’s respect, you’re going to have to offer some healthy opposition to it.

A man who beats women goes to jail, but a man who occasionally yells at a woman gets laid. Opposition is necessary and healthy, and productive, whereas willing servitude is counterproductive.

The Fisherman and His Wife

Christine Lawson wrote a book called Understanding the Borderline Mother. In it, she describes the sort of devouring mother who has become a witch. In particular, I believe the story of Western civilization is comparable to the story of the Fisherman and His Wife. Lawson retells the story (originally by the Brothers Grimm) as follows:

A poor fisherman catches an enchanted flounder (a prince) and releases it out of kindness. His wife forces him to summon the flounder repeatedly with escalating demands: first a cottage, then a castle, then to become king, emperor, and finally pope. Each wish is granted, but the wife’s greed peaks when she demands to rule over the sun, moon, and heavens like God. The flounder responds that she already has what she deserves, and the couple is returned to their original miserable hovel, symbolizing the destructive consequences of boundless entitlement and the enabling compliance of those around her.

Western women, in my view, are like the fisherman’s wife. Their material greed knows no boundaries. No matter how much White men conquered for her, it’s never enough. Even when White men had mastered most of the world and transferred most of the world’s wealth to the West (the USA), White women could not be satisfied. When the flow of wealth started slowing down, White women immediately dismissed White men as being ‘no longer good enough for them’.

This has left White men deeply scarred with a sense of inferiority, though totally unjustifiably so. It is important that White men learn to distance and separate themselves from women’s greed. We must recognize that their dissatisfaction is not a reflection of our worth. Not only have we been the most successful males in human history, we have suffered the greatest rejection for it nonetheless. It is time to guard ourselves against this emotional transference. Women’s dissatisfaction with their civilization is not our problem.

High Status and Dominance

Acclaimed improvisation theatre director Keith Johnstone was no right-wing reactionary, perhaps more of a Marxist, but his famous work on status play, in the book Impro, offers us insight into the behavior, mannerisms, and mindset of “high-status” people.

Johnstone was just shy of calling “high-status” people dominant, for dominance is what is supposed to be a man’s foundation. A dominant man is not an aggressive man, nor a flying monkey. In fact, the monkeys in the jungle that enjoy flying from one branch to the next have the lowest rank and the lowest testosterone. A dominant person doesn’t need to show off, for his position is already secure.

Dominant people display effortless self-control, and have a low fear of social evaluation. They don’t care too much what people think of them. They have a willingness to bear some social risk, and they don’t mind making people feel slightly uncomfortable around them. They know that most people respond to such discomfort with submissive or pleasing behavior.

To be dominant means to have low stress, low cortisol levels, and a high baseline testosterone, likely from proper exercise and ample rest. Indeed, high-status people get to have good sleep, for they don’t need to fear attacks. Their status naturally protects them (you’d have to be insane to attack a high-status person in their sleep).

Most importantly, the dominant person is in charge of time and space. They believe they deserve attention and access to scarce resources, and they will fight for these resources when necessary. Low-status people are much more likely to concede resources to others. In the grand scheme of things, White colonial men have indeed been the dominant ones taking others’ resources. There’s just nothing wrong with that.

The dominant has a sense of entitlement, and breaks the rules when it suits him.

In terms of speech, dominant people speak slowly and pause often. They lower volume and pitch to draw attention, or to emphasize what they’re saying. They speak in full sentences, but delay responses by 1-2 seconds. They’re not eager to give answers because they’re not trying to prove how smart they are. Most peculiarly, dominant people speak with a falling intonation at the end of sentences. They also use up to 40% fewer words than the person they’re talking to.

Johnstone listed a large number of physical mannerisms that accompany high-status individuals. So no, money is not where it starts, though the high-status person may end up acquiring a lot of money. It turns out that the most dominant person in any room is the one who moves his head the least. This person almost never nods or shakes his head rapidly. He rarely smiles, and when he does, he does it slowly. His hands don’t touch his face, neck, or crotch. He keeps his hands comfortably by his sides, or on the table when seated.

In terms of behaviors, dominant people rarely feel the need to explain themselves. They don’t argue with the trolls. They tease people or put them down with light insults. They respond calmly to challenges, avoid hurry, and don’t ask for permission. They make others wait, and they walk toward the center of a room after entering. They touch other people’s stuff to move it out of the way.

You may wonder whether adopting such behaviors is really the “trick” to become high-status. Indeed, Johnstone taught his improv students precisely to do these things and the effect was a total transformation of a low-status person into a high-status one. It can begin with mimicry. And by adopting the behaviors of a high-status person, you may end up believing it.

Frontstage and Backstage Persona

Erving Goffman was a sociologist famous for writing the book The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. I found it to be a bit of a technical read, but the gist of it is that we all play a role during the day.

Goffman separates our lives into backstage and frontstage settings, as with a theatre. Backstage, we can relax and be among friends and family. We don’t need to watch our words here. We can be a bit more radical and unpredictable, for we know our friends will tolerate it.

It is backstage, however, where we also develop and train our skills. Here we practice how to be when the show starts and we need to know our lines before a live audience. This carries over into psychology. At home, in our bedrooms, we can practice what it’s like to be confident outside. We can close our eyes and make our bodies big and tall, and gently experience the feelings we would have if we were confident.

Myself, I like the comparison to learning how to swim. We teach children swimming on land first. On dry land, lying on our bellies, perhaps on a bench, we stretched our arms out and tried mimicking the teacher, who showed us how to cup our hands and turn our arms, and how to kick our feet and bend our legs. Once we mastered the correct motions, we tried it in water.

This, too, is how dominance and confidence are learned: by practicing in your bedroom how to move dominantly and confidently. Women may have an advantage here, as they can practice “walking like a model”, which is essentially performing a confident walk. For men, we walk differently, more slowly, with less sway from left to right, but with relaxed arms and hands swinging by our sides.

Walking outside, I noticed that I kept my arms too tightly by my sides, and I wasn’t swinging them casually with the rhythms of gravity. It gave me a somewhat restricted overall appearance, as though I were afraid of bumping into someone due to my wide frame. By practicing “the walk” at home, I was able to pinpoint this flaw in my walking. I taught myself to feel more relaxed when walking, now with loose arms.

Not only did my walk become more energy efficient, my sense of confidence outside rose along with it. In fact, I started walking with such confidence that people coming my way started lowering their heads or moving out of my way. When, in the past, I had to let people pass an obstacle first, now they were letting me pass first. Not only that, some began apologizing for the obstacle.

Becoming a dominant man of action is a self-reinforcing attitude. The more you succeed in being confident, dominant, and in charge, the more people will allow you to be.

Felt Transformation

There is, of course, more to being a dominant person than just mimicking dominant people’s mannerisms. I already alluded to the necessary fundamental transformation, namely to start seeing yourself as more valuable. People who wake up feeling valuable are naturally more dominant, as they are much less likely to take flak from others. A valuable person won’t allow others to diminish them.

True transformation comes down to a physical transformation. You have to change the way you feel about yourself. If you feel diminished or small, you’re going to have to create the necessary bodily changes that make you feel big and large. This can be done through physical exercise such as weightlifting, but even more so through a review of your fundamental bodily feelings.

In the book Focusing, the author Eugene Gendlin explains that most psychotherapy doesn’t work, and most therapists are paid friends who’ll milk the relationship with their patient for as long as possible. Change is not achieved analytically or rationally. “Talking about your feelings” in the way of a researcher presenting a paper will never help you heal from depression.

Real healing, however, is possible, as some patients do change. Gendlin explains: The patients who heal successfully (from depression or mental illness) are the ones who become aware of the corresponding bodily feeling that is the source of their problem. By focusing on this “felt sense” in the body, they are then able to change it.

Personally, I wasn’t feeling too well for a long time. With Gendlin’s approach, I realized that I don’t feel in charge. I have a strong desire for autonomy and for being in charge. Absent this, I was living in retreat, always backing away from situations where I could have taken charge, because I didn’t think I was worthy.

Once I understood this, I instantly felt a change in my mind, body, and heart—like an epiphany—because the solution to all my problems now lay within reach: I began looking forward to putting myself in charge.

A man who puts himself in charge is a dominant man. And such a man does not suffer from depression any longer. He has cured himself.

Is there a mind-body problem? Or is there rather no such problem? Famously, René Descartes created this Cartesian split. But in hindsight, it seems that the French philosopher was trying to cut the mind out of the body in order to do away with the latter.

It's glaringly obvious that the body is the key to solving the spirit-matter problem. The mind inhabits the body, and the body inhabits the world. We are incarnated minds, embodied beings. The flesh of our body is very distinct from trees and rocks and metals.

The body is the center of our personal universe. It awards one the gift of motion. The body in motion acts as the gateway that seamlessly links one’s thoughts to actions. The body is the tool to help materialize one’s dreams. It is also the house in which the mind or soul lives.

The blood in one's veins is brought to life by the heart pumping it truth the lungs, mixing blood with air, invisible spirit that we all breath. The blood in men becomes their semen, and in pregnant women blood becomes the milk, to create and feed babies with liquid life.

Blood is thus, in every way, a life-giving force. It is no wonder that ancient Celtic and Germanic magicians used to sprinkle animal blood onto their congregation during rituals. To give life to the community. Christians today still consume the bread as though it were Christ's body, and the wine as though it were Christ's blood. Again, all meant to keep the religious people vigorous.

Read more

In his book Monsters (2015), Ed Regis coined the term pathological technology. It refers to, for example, the zeppelin programs of the 20th century. Prior to the infamous Hindenburg disaster, the global airship craze ended in over thirty fiery explosions and many hundreds of civilian deaths. The British and Americans had their own airship programs with even more disastrous results than those recorded on the German side. Ed Regis calls such technologies “pathological” because they are 1) big, 2) driven by emotion, 3) costly, and 4) have their risks frequently downplayed. Modern examples of pathological technologies would be robotics and AI.

Reading Regis’ book, it came to mind that the temples of ancient Mayan and Incan societies were also pathological technologies. They were 1) big pyramids, 2) laden with an emotional death cult, 3) costly to erect, and 4) their obvious deadly nature—the ritual killings of civilians—was downplayed as part of some necessary religious lore. But such technology that only serves to drain a society’s resources while adding little in return has re-emerged in the modern age, namely in the form of massive data centers to host artificial intelligence and robotics.

Don’t say these technologies are harmless, for many a person around the world has already overdosed on the wrong AI chat advice, or committed suicide, or has been referred to mental institution to heal from AI-inspired visions of grandiosity.

The greater insight is that these technologies are extremely wasteful. Though unmanned drones have killed many on the battlefield and at home, the real pathology behind Amazon’s robot delivery and self-driving delivery vans is that the push to robotize everything renders human beings obsolete. Instead of spending money on families of blood and flesh, we invest in technology that mimics human beings. At the same time, a third of pregnancies in countries such as the UK now ends in abortion. That means we’re back at 1800s levels of child survival rates, since back then only about 50-70% of children made it to age five. With modern abortions, only 70% makes it to day one.

So, I argue that modern societies are no more ‘advanced’ than primitive ones. We have merely become equally primitive but on a larger scale. We have adopted a cult of economies of scale, whereas the ancients were still rooted in rural traditionalism. Nonetheless, our kind of economic progress hasn’t led to utopia as much as the ancient Pharaohs never arrived at their privatized heaven. The pyramids of Egypt, of course, were also pathological technologies that bankrupted the Old Kingdom. In fact, the internet itself may be, at least in part, a pathological technology, such as in the form of dating apps that remove physical encounters but return only unstable hookups. Or think of a Facebook that prevents people from meeting new people because the app keeps people trapped in their existing circle of friends.

Cryptocurrency technology that still hasn’t found the problem it’s supposed to solve certainly is another pathological development. In fact, I will offer to simplify Ed Regis’ definition of what a pathological technology is. I say it is any technology or economic activity that is 1) extremely wasteful of resources and 2) continues to be wasteful despite offering no meaningful returns to humanity. Bitcoin fits that bill. Its mining operations have been extremely wasteful and have only become more wasteful without offering clear or meaningful returns to humanity. So far, Bitcoin has seen the largest speculatist wealth redistribution since socialism. Bitcoin effectively redistributed wealth from the FOMO crowd to early and patient investors, i.e., from weak hands to steady hands, but it has done so at the expense of wasting planetary energy for no other reason.

Yeah, crypto is a pathological technology. But so are over-the-top makeup tutorials that turned women into painted clowns. Transgender surgery and ‘looksmaxxing’ procedures are also pathological technologies. In the case of Clavicular, an insecure teenage boy trying to look “hot”, it’s clear that the plastic surgery industry has found a new market for insecure boys, to lure them into for-profit surgery. It serves no other purpose than to transfer wealth from ugly boys to creepy surgeons. As you might tell, a lot of modern advanced culture is just as primitive—and deadly—as the death rituals of ancient Latin America.

The Large Hadron Collider is another pathological technology, especially since it continuously arouses in scientists the desire to build an even bigger collider. The Tokamaks or nuclear fusion engines—which are very likely a total scam meant to draw government subsidies—are also pathological inventions.

What are the reasons that ancient and modern civilizations all end up developing the sort of pathological desires that ultimately kill themselves off? After a period of sustained growth, the machinery simply runs out of steam and begins digesting its people. May I make a first prediction: AI and robots, and in particular their data centers, will become so costly, yet so perversely funded, that they will eventually kill all of modern civilization. In particular, I envision data centers growing so hungry for energy that they will be starving entire cities of water and energy.

The idea for pathological technology, of course, is as old as the Biblical story of the Tower of Babel. A people no longer interested in ordinary life begins the challenge of building a tower to reach the heavens. That’s what NASA did with rockets. And it’s what Elon Musk wants to do, too. I’m saying that none of the present space programs will achieve their goals, and that all of them will collapse like the Tower of Babel. And I’m saying that the point was never to achieve the goal but to deflect people’s attention away from the reality of an already collapsing civilizational economy. People can’t afford having children anymore, but they can still afford to have hobbies.

The difficulty in recognizing pathological technologies is that, as with many aspects of human cultures, the truth keeps changing shape. At first sight, a tower, a temple, a zeppelin, a large hadron collider, or a data center appear as distinct as they could be from one another. Yet, the fundamental principles behind these technologies driving them forward are equally the same: 1) big, 2) emotional, 3) costly, and 4) their risks downplayed. Or as I would say, they are 1) wasteful, and 2) continue being wasteful without offering the dreamed returns.

We, the people of the latest craze, are tasked with the mission to begin seeing the truths that a changing human culture always tries to hide from us. This is the task for a magician. The task to dream of a new beginning to prepare ourselves for the next craze.

In my earlier article on Re-Enchanting the West, I introduced the notion of sacred space. Borders used to be sacred, hallowed by priests. But the de-sacralization of Medieval space that happened after the French and Industrial Revolutions closed heaven’s doors. It condemned humanity to hide itself within the cyberspace of internet technology. It’s time to break out of the machines holding us captive.

In 1999, BBC 4’s Melvyn Bragg hosted a podcast titled Space in Religion and Science with British theologian John Polkinghorne and Australian science writer Margaret Wertheim. They had a lively debate about the meaning of this new thing called cyberspace. It was a place that early internet lovers said could perhaps, one day, host their souls.

Back in the day, in movies such as Tron or The Lawnmower Man, the ancient cyberspace was being portrayed as a possible heaven for humanity, a place to transcend the limitations of our physical bodies, perhaps even to do away with physical reality altogether. Some saw in cyberspace the potential to create a ‘real’ heaven, unlike what the Four Horsemen of Militant Atheism (Dennet, Dawkins, Harris, and Hitchens) would call religious dogma.

This was a time when people started fantasizing about the possibility of using computer technology to create new universes. To create our own heaven with the use of technology in the hands of ordinary man—that was the goal! Men were going to be gods. We were going to live forever after uploading our minds to the internet, hosting our souls on data centers (coincidentally controlled by “job-creating” capitalists), as a promise sold to us by commercial marketeers.

You just had to imagine it.

Read more