Are black people today truly affected by the consequences of a mythical systemic racism? No. If anything, they are the beneficiaries of expensive government programs to help them advance. When provocateurs say that we should hand Africans all our wealth—plus more—as reparations for slavery and colonialism, our response shall be simple: We’re not going to do that.

We don’t owe anyone anything. Europeans and their descendants have spend many centuries working long hours for 40 or more weeks a year, at least since the Industrial Age. Most other races at the time were living a life of subsistence farming. Or they hunted for a meal and spent the rest of the day with friends talking about their dreams.

Read more

When I posted on X that only males such as Zeus or Odin become truly powerful because they renunciate love, half the internet pummeled over me with community notes saying I was wrong. I conclude that the majority of the critical commenters were men who are deeply in love with their mothers, and they cannot imagine being powerless because of it.

But they are. To soothe themselves, the intellectual babies counter-argumented that Odin was married to Frigg and he made love to Jord to create Siegfried, or that Zeus slept around with tons of females, even raping them. It's as though my detractors thought renunciating love meant for a man to become a sterile homo uninterested in women.

Read more

Yes, I too, was once a follower of Saint Jordan Peterson, the Canadian mystic. I initially fell for his message that people should be “radical individuals pursuing their rational self-interest”, which he sometimes also called the idea of the sovereign individual [source]. And then I got disgusted with it.

Some people don’t even believe that radical indiv…

Read more

One ancient Roman historian noted a case of a wild Germanic warrior who, frothing form his mouth, plunged alone into a Roman formation and was promptly slashed in the throat by several short swords. The anecdote served as a warning t…

Read more

The nationalists of the 19th century believed the Battle had taken place near Detmold, Germany, where they erected their memorial, the Hermanndenkmal. ‘Hermann’ is the modern German name for Arminius, the Cherusker tribe chieftain who united several Germanic tribes against Rome.

But the Detmold claim was controversial, as was the statue itself, showing t…

Read more

Over 2,000 years ago, a girl from the forests of North-Western Germany was arranged to be married to an ugly, fat, 50-year-old man from Syria.

He was general Varus, previously stationed in Syria, now commanding three Roman legions in Germany. The girl’s father, Segestes, wanted to forge a deal between the Germans and the Romans. And so, he handed off his daughter in exchange for a house in Gaul.

She was just 16-years-old, forced to live at the Romans’ encampment as a tribute. Her name was Thusnelda, as reported by the Greek historian Strabo, though he must have misunderstood her Germanic name, which was undoubtedly “Thuruzhilda”, or Thor’s battle maid.

She must have been seething with rage, as the Norse goddess Freya in the Lay of Thrym, whose angry neck burst her necklace, but who would save her?

A 23-year-old man named Arminius also lived at this Roman camp, his name referring to his fiery blue eyes. He was Germanic, like her, and had risen through the Romans’ ranks as a mercenary after his father’s death. Velleius Paterculus attests Arminis was with the Romans fighting Rome’s enemies in Pannonia.

However, upon learning of the Roman plan to subdue his sacred Germania, he devised a plot to thwart the Roman advance.

Under these circumstances, Arminius and Thusnelda fell in love. Just two years later, Arminius won the general’s trust and convinced Varus to quell an uprising in the territories of the Marsi and Tencteri tribes.

But it was a trick. And Varus took the bait. On that fated day, a long-winding colon of legionnaires could be seen marching through the Teutoburg forest. The soldiers took a detour from their planned route back to their summer camp along the well-known Helweg.

And then, for four consecutive days, the Germans ambushed the Romans, slaughtering not only the ~14,000 soldiers, but also their ~7,000-strong support staff, leaving not a single survivor.

At age 25, Thusnelda gave birth to Arminius’ only son, Thumelicus, before she was kidnapped and dragged off to Ravenna in Italy, after having been paraded through the city of Rome as a captive of war.

Separated, Arminius was eventually assassinated at age 37. But the couple’s lives had already changed the course of history.

These two, Arminius and Thusnelda, are why Germans today are still speaking German instead of vulgar Latin. Without them, the Reformation of 1517 would never have happened, and Protestant Germanics would never have left Europe to found the United States.

American commentator Ben Shapiro of the failing Daily Wire famously stated in 2017, “I don’t give a damn about the ‘browning of America.’ Color doesn’t matter. Ideology does.” But living as disembodied spirits that reject their bodies lies at the heart of modern despair. Besides, spirits are racial.

In fact, we would never have experienced diversity, multiculturalism, or equality if we hadn’t first undergone the surgical split devised by René Descartes, the French philosopher who posited that minds and bodies were separate from one another. And ever since, the West collectively dived into the madness of pure rational existence disconnected from physical experience.

Read more

“Maybe the Europeans should have thought about all that back when they were colonizing Africa in the 19th century." That’s what “British-American” broadcaster Mehdi Hasan responded when a random X user complained about the flood of black players competing for European soccer teams at the World Cup.

Hasan is of Muslim Indian heritage whose ancestors hail from the region of Hyderabad, a region that was conquered, colonized, and Islamized by Islamic forces during the 16th century and during the Deccan Sultanates centuries before. I.e., Hasan is himself a product of Islamic colonialism. Yet, he has a mouth full of European colonialism, aggressively claiming Europeans “should have thought about all that” (meaning, black mass migration to Europe).

Mehdi Hasan also posted on Jan 8th this year, “Make American Planes Crash Again”, referring to 9/11. He also called the British grooming gangs “unproven” just before it was proven that 250,000 White girls had been raped by mostly Muslim Pakistani child rape squads. Hasan is also known for repeatedly calling replacement immigration into Europe a “Neo-Nazi conspiracy theory”.

Read more

The case of Henry Nowak, the young man who was stabbed to death by a Sikh murderer, uncovered that British police officers hold strong prejudices against White people. It is no different in any other Western or formerly majority-White nation.

Where there’s smoke, there’s fire. A single accusation of racism lodged against our people by a malafide actor convinces the general public that something must be wrong with us. If this is the new reality, then how do we start defending ourselves when government, media, academia and education, police forces, and even archaeology and medicine have turned against our people’s survival?

It’s time to start pooling our time, effort, and money toward a globally operating pro-White organization that can move policy.

Legal Assistance in Hate Speech Cases

When Shiloh Hendrix caught a feral man preying on her child at a children’s playground, she came to her child’s rescue and called the man a Nigger. Being recorded, soon her “racist video” went viral for all to see, except for the part where her children were being harrassed.

Last month, a US court denied a motion to dismiss charges against ‘Rochester woman’ Hendrix. And the ADL, the Jewish Anti-Defamation League, warns of “White Supremacists” who helped raise funds to support the case against Hendrix. Some have even called for Hendrix’ children to be removed by child protection services.

As in the other case with Karmelo Anthony, it is blatantly obvious that a large group of people living in the West easily confuse reality with their desired version of it.

Some want White people to be the only problem in their lives, rather than the kind stewards of civilization we generally are. Cornered by diversity and mass migration, White people all too often find themselves with their backs against the wall, while those who depend on us for their survival threaten to overthrow us, against their better judgment.

Enough is enough. If we cannot speak out about both our experienced reality outside of the house, or about our interests at home, then we cannot defend ourselves. Defending our freedom to speak, then, becomes the main objective of any pro-White movement, even before we acquire land or political influence.

To secure a future for our people, we must offer them legal assistance. The idea is to organize the Reaction initially as an insurance association for members. In case a member comes under attack from the authorities due to speech transgressions, the organization should be able to provide support:

1. By paying for a lawyer, or perhaps by supporting a lawyer associated with the Reaction;

2. By running crowdfunds and use the Reaction’s (and members’) social media channels to draw attention to the case, and ask the general public for donations that may be used toward the defense case;

3. By influencing the media through interviews and debates;

4. By prosecuting those who attack White people and White interests, ‘ADL style’.

Effectively, we will do what so many ethnocentric associations out there are currently doing, namely defend our own, and prosecute the enemy.

If Shiloh Hendrix stands to lose her children due to the utterance of a single word, then, henceforth, anyone using the word ‘cracker’ in an anti-White context should stand to lose everything they own as well. We’ll be playing a game of tit for tat.

A Global Membership Association

Alongside the above developments, the Reaction strives to become a global membership association. Initially, as it is today, the Reaction will be a Substack platform where people can subscribe to a monthly payment. These subscribers will eventually be converted into founding members of the future membership association.

Now, our goal is not to establish physical clubhouses that are expensive real-estate to rent, and that require staff to clean toilets and lock doors. Instead, the association will cut such physical costs by remaining as virtual as possible, barring the need for office space in case employees need to be hired to run operations (such as membership subscriptions, or a members’ magazine).

As a mostly virtual yet global association, the Reaction can then operate globally with ease. We can then use the collected membership fees toward operations in Europe, the USA, Australia, South Africa, New Zealand or wherever there is a need for pro-White backing.

Branching Out into Politics and Physical Protection

The best way to deal with an attacker is to physically stop him. This is now an almost overlooked element of ‘real’ leadership, the kind that moves physical problems out of the way. In today’s world, too much of what is called political leadership revolves around changing words and definitions in order to deceive ourselves that a problem has been taken care of. For example, when we call migrant knife murders ‘youth crime’.

After establishing the Reaction as a pro-White legal defense and prosecution system, operating globally, our logical next step will be to support outspoken members’ bid for politics, and also to put our members high up in the hierarchies of militaries, police, and other ‘physical’ organizations. It’s important that we gain control of the systems now working against us.

Aside from that, a good portion of our activities shall involve the study of guerilla warfare and the training of modern urban and rural (drone) warfare tactics, so that we regain or maintain the upper hand over our enemies’ control of the globalist infrastructure.

I’ve spoken about the Germanic man’s honor, but then there’s also his loyalty. The purity of a man’s heart reveals itself best in his loyalty. But this loyalty is contrasted by the Germanic people’s notorious unreliability, as many foreigners including Julius Caesar were known to complain about.

When for example the Vikings accepted a treaty with Frankish king Carloman II, the Frankish people were deeply upset when, upon their king’s death in the year 884 AD, the Vikings resumed their raids into Frankish territory.

Why didn’t the Vikings respect the legal treaty anymore? From the Viking point of view, they had fulfilled their duties. They had, indeed, resisted plundering West Francia during the reign of King Carloman. But once he died, their oath was voided.

So this is how the riddle of Germanic unreliability is solved: Germanic legal loyalty is tied to living people, but not to dead treaties. When the British ultimately invented the Magna Carta and the rule of law that transcends people, mainland Germanics still believed in Herrschaft, or rather the rule of a Lord over his people.

When in the year 1066 AD the Norwegian King Harald, nicknamed the Hard One, died at the Battle of Stamford Bridge, the Danish King Sveinn instantly declared that peace between Norway and Denmark was now over, since the Norwegian King had died, and, therefore, Danish loyalty to maintain peace with the Norwegians had now ended.

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”.