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

Ever since Biblical times, people understood the real-estate value of the territories named Israel, Palestine, or Judea. “Israel”, especially Greater Israel, captures many of the world’s important trade routes going from East to West, and North to South. Greater Israel can potentially link together the Black Sea, the Mediterranean Sea, the Red Sea, the Persian Gulf, and the Indian Ocean, also the rivers Nile, Euphrates and Tigris, Jordan, and Litini, along with overland trade such as the Silk Road and modern energy trade (pipelines and railroads).

I argue that this geopolitical value is what makes the Israeli-Palestinian territories so contested. It’s why everyone from Europeans to Americans and Russians, and Chinese, Iranians, and Arabs is so interested in capturing that part of the world. And by all means necessary.

Below, I offer a crude (and likely wrong on points) but brief version of Western history seen from the perspective of this interest:

Yesterday

• Bronze Age city states rule Judea (“Israel”)

• Ancient Egyptians rule Judea

• “Hebrew” Judeans ultimately come along, occupying the prime real estate for global trade, as in Genesis 15:18, “from the river of Egypt to... the river Euphrates”.

• The surrounding Empires want the same thing: Persian, Greek, Babylonian (ruled by Jews?) etc. and wage war on Judea.

• Moses comes up with the Old Testament, the Pentateuch, declaring themselves superior people, the Chosen Few who alone deserve to inhabit this land.

• Stories of the Exodus (which likely never happened) are mythologized.

• The Greeks counter with the New Testament, giving the supremacist Judeans their Messiah (Christ), whom they reject.

• Greeks rule Judea for some time for trade with the East.

• The Roman Empire runs off with Christianity and next dominates Judea for a while for trade with India.

• The Roman Empire splits into East and West; Christianity splits into Western and Eastern by 1054 AD or so, Catholic and Orthodox, causing division.

• Judeans meanwhile cleverly created or influenced Islam (founding documents have mysteriously disappeared), and used it to overthrow their rivals, supporting Ottomans against Greece, and Arabs against the Persians etc.

• Ottoman Turks rule Judea for some time, North Africa is Islamized along with Central Asian nations and ultimately Indonesia etc. — to capture global trade

• Islam succeeded in its conquests of Mediterranean Europe: Southern Italy, Eastern Europe, Southern Spain etc. fall to the Muslims. Rome and Athens are captured.

• European Christianity counters with the Holy Roman Empire and the Crusades to “liberate” (retake) Judea.

• At least for a 1,000 years (800 AD - 1800 AD) the Germanic Christians rule or influence Judea, once temporarily called The Kingdom of Jerusalem.

• Judeans start countering the Catholic Empire with Protestantism based on the Old Testament again.

• The mercantilists convert North-West Europeans from Catholicism to their Jewish faith (Old Testament, Calvinism, Protestantism), starting/causing the Reformation.

• Protestant nations such as The Netherlands and England break away from the Holy Roman Empire, later the Holy Roman Empire falls.

• Western European nations discover the Americas and find ways around South Africa to circumvent the Islamic powers. Europeans start doing trade with Indo-China again.

• The Protestant “Judeo-Christians” seize global trade over sea, ultimately also conquering the Middle East again.

• The British Empire (Protestant) reigns supreme for a while.

• Shit backfires: The Germans, now raised on the supremacism of the Old Testament instead of New Testament meekness, elect Hitler and seek to rule Judea again, among others.

• The declining British Empire manages to cut Hitler off from the Middle East (Serbian railroad sabotage etc.).

• After Hitler’s fall, the remnants of the British Empire installs Jews in Judea from 1948 onward, with the foundation of the state of Israel as per Theodore Herzl’s Zionism.

Today

• Zionists are in charge of Israel and dream of Biblical Greater Israel.

• Meanwhile, China backing Iran is looking to destroy Israel.

• Turkey dreaming of another Ottoman Empire also wants Israel gone.

• Russia having planted 1.5 million Russian speakers in Israel during the 1990s is dreaming of taking over, as well.

• The Arabs’ awakening self-consciousness has their sights set on Judea as well.

• The Americans ally with their Greatest Ally to try to protect their commercial interests (“let’s build hotels in Gaza”).

• Europeans have no clue what to do.

Tomorrow

What possibilities lie ahead?

• Russia seizes Judea, but Israel remains Jewish due to the Russian Jews’ presence. Zionism prevails, but different.

• China alone seizes Judea, and forges an alliance with Israeli Jews instead of ousting them. Zionism prevails.

• China/Iran seize Judea, and supplant most Jews with Arabs. Jews move to Ukraine. Zionism survives.

• The Arabs seize Judea on their own (unlikely), with surviving Jews moving to Ukraine. Zionism survives.

• Ottoman revivalists (Turkey) seizes Judea with Russian support, but Jews end up running the place. Zionism survives.

• Europe, either backed by American Christians or on its own, counters all of the above with new Crusades and the foundation of a new Catholic Empire. Europe seizes Western Russia for resources and the Holy Roman Empire returns for another 1,000 years. Zionism dies.

With the loss of magical practices—denounced as either unscientific or superstitious—the West also lost its “magical shield”. Indeed, our sacred space has been invaded by hordes of foreigners under the guise of equality and diversity. I argue that we need to re-enchant the Western peoples, and their lands, as the crucial step toward warding off demons.

Fun fact: Borders used to be sacred. When ancient farmers decided to convert a patch of land into productive soil, a magician or priest would first circle the land and hallow its borders. The newly created agricultural land was then considered magically separated from natural wilderness, for example, to ward off invasive insects and crop diseases.

The modern movement against such borders constitutes a wholesale spiritual attack on the sanctity of exclusionary spaces. Such spaces that we can control and own are necessary for the survival of any people.

When Catholicism came to Europe, it relegated heathen magic to the realm of Devil worship. Catholicism, notably, didn’t deny magic was real. The Church merely tried to ban unwanted magic. Witches were burned, likely because the women were heathen seeresses and considered a threat to clergical power. Then came the Protestant Reformation which erased magic altogether in favor of rational sciences.

But if magic were harmless superstition, why did Europe’s profane rulers so aggressively hunt down and exterminate magic’s practitioners? Surely, the shamans and seeresses were thought of as a real threat against worldly power, not merely a cosmetic nuisance. And I think I know why: In heathen Europe, our brand of magic was commonly tied to the spoken word, much unlike the Asiatic shamans who practiced demonic possession while in a state of trance.

European magicians tended to exert power through prophetic poetry, chants, spells, and songs. I.e., the “freedom of magic” was as dangerous to political power as “freedom of speech” is today. In a way, freedom of speech is the freedom to practice magical incantations. Though only a few gifted people know how to wield words properly, those who do would have won immense influence. Free speech, like free magic, gives financially powerless individuals the power to influence political affairs. And that’s dangerous.

By purging magic, it was the Protestant Reformation that ultimately allowed for the Industrial Age to begin. The shift away from magic to religion (under Catholicism), and then from religion to rationality (under Protestantism), paved the way for exponential technological and economic growth. We hailed the newfound wealth the way Faust welcomed the Devil. We sold our souls to economic regimentation.

Magic, today, plays no overt role in ‘advanced’ Western society. Magical practices are looked down upon as children’s fantasy. German philosopher Martin Heidegger warned of such disenchantment in favor of “thingness”. We have become mere matter, he wrote, things, gears and levers to be turned and pulled. Rather than mortals, we have become employees occupying a giant gas station called Planet Earth.

Heidegger also spoke of the de-godding or the “flight of the gods” (Entgötterung), leaving humanity behind in a godless, calculative world, i.e., the modern world of so-called technological progress. But Heidegger and others saw technology as a threat. They accused Western man in particular of dominating the planet by holding Mother Earth captive through the use of machinery. Technology was man’s victory over the Earth’s resources, but at what cost?

Technological dominance, in my view, also implies the loss of magic which next exposed ourselves to primitive attacks. We’ve lost our reproductive vigor, for example. When we hail Poland’s recent economic boom, we ignore that native Polish women are now having barely one child per woman, thus opening Poland up for mass migration. What is really the point of technological progress if it exhausts one’s race? What is the purpose of generating wealth if it means to give it up to primitive invaders?

Does technological progress distract us from living a more meaningful life?

In James Cameron’s Avatar, the primitive blue creatures, guided by their spirit goddess Eywa, turn against the technologically superior humans whose endless-growth economies have nearly destroyed their home planet. In reality, we don’t need to wait for an alien species to come and teach us such a lesson. Our technological prowess will run out of steam long before we develop interplanetary space travel.

The lesson to be learned comes from Yemen’s Houthi rebels throwing sticks and stones at hi-tech drones. Think of the modern, rich, and powerful USA that is somehow unable to stop having its founding race from being replaced with low-IQ, third-world immigrants. When our magical defenses were broken down in favor of technology, we opened ourselves up for demonic destruction as well as endless mass migration.

It seems we have traded our spiritual energy away for temporary progress. Sapped and trapped, the sacred has been nearly devoured by the profane. We’ve sold our magic (our soul) to the Devil (technology). This removal of the “sacred shield” that was meant to protect and preserve us was, in fact, the first step toward our mental, moral, and techno-masochistic decline.

The Na’vi of Avatar’s Pandora are strong because they still have their magic, whereas the humans are weak because they’ve lost theirs. And so it is in the real world here on Earth.

In his book Anglo-Saxon Magic, author G. Storms mentioned many of the sort of charms and spells that the heathen magicians of North-Western Europe once cast. Most of these spells relate to protective measures against disease or theft, and also against one’s enemies. We find a good collection of spells in the Icelandic Galdrabók (the Book of Magic). Though heavily Latinized, the spells’ intents were still heathen. By and large, the heathen Nordic-Germanic magicians acted as spiritual generals and doctors, guarding the wellbeing of their people.

So, why did the West embark on this path, to give up magic for technology? Might one regard magic as a spiritual technology and modern technology as disenchanted magic? Why did Protestantism in particular favor technology over magic?

Well, for starters, Protestantism is based on the Mosaic prophets of the Old Testament (Moses et al.), whereas Catholicism is a New Testament Christianity based on ancient Egyptian magic. In a way, Protestantism is much more “Jewish” and mercantilist than Catholicism, which drove Jews out of the Church around the third century AD. When there is talk of “Judeo-Christian values” (a literary invention of the late 19th century), we are perhaps looking at a geopolitical construct meant to help get American evangelicals behind support for Israel.

The two branches of Western Christianity (Catholic and Protestant) might as well be called different religions, for one still wields magic, and the other denies magic is real. Importantly, Protestantism became the religion of the Freemasons. Catholics and women were initially barred from joining. Masonic lodges spread across the globe along with the spread of the British Empire. And so, Protestant Freemasons became the world’s secret shadow elite.

It has led some to comment that, perhaps, Protestantism was a Judeo-mercantilist invention meant to overthrow the still magically oriented Catholicism. Under the British Empire, this mercantilist empire, many national populations were subsequently converted into consumers and, later, into expendable assets.

Remember what Heidegger said? He warned that technology would turn the whole Earth into a standing reserve, a giant gas station meant for consumption. In The Wealth of Nations (1776), Adam Smith summarized it as follows:

Smith called Britain a nation of shopkeepers but failed to mention that the British elites, at the time, were influentially Jewish or had, at least, adopted Jewish mercantilism. It certainly weren’t the heathen Celto-Germanics who had abandoned their magical ways in favor of global consumption. An alien race had turned Britain into a shop, and would later turn America into a mall.

Malls and shops are famously open to members of all races and religions. Magical boundaries, such as those once set by the ancient priests, were now considered economic nuisances. The world was forced to open itself up to commerce and trade, to the benefit of certain global elites.

Subjects of the West ceased being purposeful mortals and became products of the technological age. No longer were we growing food to feed families, but rather, we started breeding families in order to sell more food. We started diluting food’s nutritional contents in order to sell more of it, while teaching people to “drink more water” to help them flush minerals out of their bodies, forcing people to eat more. In line with this, the Ozempic medicine, which is supposed to reduce one’s fat contents, perfectly help sell more food again.

Food has lost its magic. No longer is food a substance meant to nourish both the soul and the body. Modern food only nourishes the body, but barely, while depriving the soul. Selling more food (and clothing and houses), as you will understand, became one of the drivers behind mass migration. Once poor nutrition killed a population’s will to reproduce, mass immigration became required to continue the scheme.

We need to put a stop to this development. What we need is an overturning of modernity.

Icelandic language still betrays the importance of the magicians, who were called the “megttugaste”, or the mightiest of men. Though Iceland’s magicians were generally considered lower-class, namely financially poor, they were frequently literate. The history of Iceland’s magicians shows that magic was not reserved to the elites, who sometimes practiced it, but to anyone with the right spiritual skillset.

Throughout the pre-Christian European age, master magicians and high priests generally ranked above worldly leaders such as kings and princes, and below only the gods. The rich used to bow before their priest, and emperors needed their magician’s approval for war.

The peoples of the West need a spiritual renewal that begins with the embrace of magic. We cannot possibly defeat diversity and multiculturalism until a new generation of priests and magicians is allowed to hallow our borders and sanctify our exclusionary spaces again. We shall fight globalism not with more technology, but with magical incantations.

A young man asked me what is still worth living for? My response was to do whatever you need to do to make the money required for living, but to remain emotionally entirely detached. As minorities in our countries, we are now soldiers hiding in enemy territory (our former nations). For the sake of our survival, we must embrace the doctrine of Radical Death.

‘Radical death’ is a concept I conceived from the writings of Martin Heidegger, Ernst Schertel, Carl Jung, and others. Radical death means to embrace one’s end already in the present moment, as though one were already dead. Imagine it as though our societies had already crumbled and fallen.

This living death echoes the mythological state of Odin’s armies of the dead, but leads to the Christian concept of resurrection. When we imagine death has already come to us, then nothing can hurt us anymore. We are without worry. As the designated scapegoats of diversity, we must stage our death so that we may resurrect ourselves, later, as our nations’ sovereign rulers.

White Scapegoats

To explain why radical death is the answer to our problems, let me describe to you the behaviors inflicted upon scapegoats. A ‘scapegoat’ used to be a literal goat in Biblical lore upon which all blame and curse was placed, so that, upon its slaughter, the goat and all of society’s problems would die.

However, in our modern time, the educated classes of the West have made White people—and in particular, White men—the scapegoat. Instead of standing up for ourselves and defending our nations against the war by mass migration, against Islam and Judaization, Western educated circles have chosen the path of submission and surrender.

To secure a place in the world for themselves, the educated Western classes have begun scapegoating our race’s children, in particular, White boys. The way to understand this phenomenon is to see diversity and multiculturalism as a war being waged by one’s own leaders against one’s own children, in order for the do-good elites to secure their survival by allying with the enemy.

Elite Treason

I.e., we are living through an age of extreme betrayal. The treason has assumed the form of “progressive advances” that are, in fact, the chosen modes of butchering our designated scapegoats (White men and boys) in order to accommodate the invaders.

It went like this:

First, the educated White middle classes began scapegoating the White lower classes. The working men and women were pictured as ‘indecent’, as ‘unmannered’ and, above all, as ‘xenophobic, racist, and fascist’. White working men were the first to be faced with near-total replacement immigration, as male immigrants from rural (low-IQ) areas of Eastern Europe and from outside of Europe began pouring in by the millions since the 1960s. But by the 1990s, White working-class people’s children had already become minorities in most working-class schools.

Today, post-2020, White working classes have nearly disappeared in larger towns and cities. However, to further preserve the educate elite’s status and position, the scapegoating circus began targeting all White people in general. By disassociating themselves from their own race of people, the ugly, intellectual, academic-minded “laptop class” could perhaps win the favors of the newcomers. In other words, after the lower classes, now the lower middle classes were going to be sacrificed on the altars of diversity.

Western farmers have also come under attack as yet another designated scapegoat group. As diversity intensifies, more and more groups of people will discover that they are being elected for “removal”. So this process isn’t at all over yet, and will continue until only the top tiers of the White upper middle and upper classes are left standing.

Our greatest enemies, then, are the snobbish traitors we find among our own.

The Scapegoating

We can now discern clearly what sort of scapegoating tactics are being used against us:

• Children as young as 2 years old, and many teenagers, are confronted with gay lifestyle propaganda to “help them explore their sexuality”. It’s called “sexual education” but is really infertility propaganda.

• After the gay circus, children at every earlier ages are now proposed to go down the route of transgenderism. Hormone blockers help stunt healthy teens’ physical growth. It is sold as “self-expression” but is really child castration and mutilation.

• Not surprisingly, all so-called “progressive” Western nations have begun normalizing and even promoting suicide for teenagers, and even for children. Suicide is no longer a Christian sin, but a viable option for teenagers unable to start life (because they are being scapegoated!). Again, it is sold as “healthcare” but is really child sacrifice and ritual child murder (by driving children to suicide as their only option).

• Past suicide, countries such as the Netherlands are readying laws to allow under-12-year-olds to opt in to having themselves euthanized. Soon, even without having to inform parents. You could have yourself euthanized by the school doctor, for example. Euthanasia, once meant only for the terminally-ill old, is now being sold as “a human right” to 9-year-olds suffering tinnitus or bad hair days. It is really state-sanctioned mass murder.

• The totally fake wars in Ukraine and elsewhere serve to cull the White populations of their men (ages 20-40), and soon also the young White men (ages 15-20), whereas women are propagandized to mate with African, Arab, Hindu or other Asian immigrants. This is sold as “diversity” or even “necessary to prevent extinction” (as per one Danish commercial mocking a White couple), but it is really systematic genocide of White people.

• The housing and job markets entirely favor immigrants. Why hire a member of a scapegoated class? Accusations of “historical colonialism and racism” only serve as justifications to sacrifice the designated scapegoats.

• Then there’s the matter of the Covid vaccinations, which were globally administered to mostly Western and Chinese populations, whereas Muslims and Africans arriving to the West have generally not been vaccinated against Covid. (I also didn’t take the jabs.) What was sold as healthcare may, in fact, have been another act of medical genocide.

• The attack on meat and dairy foods may be sold as “necessary to fight climate change”, but if you factor in that meat and dairy are mostly eaten by people of European descent (since Asians are grain and rice eaters, and black Africans naturally prefer fruits and starchy roots), then veganism explains itself as an attack vector on White people’s food supply, leading to more genocide by starvation (starving us of the animal fats and proteins needed for our reproductive vigor). Some White parents happily try to raise their babies on vegan diets, which has already led to deaths (White babies starve on vegan diets, and survivors tend to have stunted bodies and brains).

Living in a State of Total War

All of this scapegoating is, of course, presented as progressive. You are either with the scapegoats (fascists, racists, etc.) or with the good people (minorities, women, etc.)!

The mass societal scapegoating exercise takes the form of do-goodery and emphasizes equal rights, but these are excuses to effectively enact a mass murder plot to wipe out people of European descent. The scapegoating may take the form of “meat production is bad CO2,” but it really means, “White men eating healthy food are bad”. It may say, “suicide is a human right,” but really reads, “we must purge more White children”.

And so, we who are under attack must change our attitudes toward the world. This world is hostile and it wants us dead. Our White educated classes and our ruling elites have decided to sacrifice their own in order to maintain fictions of power and relevance. The so-called progressive policies really serve to scapegoat White men, boys, and to some extent even women and girls (who are told to do porn or mix races).

Winning the War

This war cannot be won in conventional ways. There is no physical front line. There are no bombs and bullets. It is a cultural war that is being waged primarily at a psychological level, namely by getting people to go along with their planned demographic suicide.

This psychological war, however, can be won by accepting the outcome upfront—namely, the death of our civilization. By accepting that Western (White) civilization as we know it is coming to an end, we may now choose to kill the civilization in order to save the people, rather than sacrificing the people in order to save the economy!

Our goal, then, is the resurrection of our race, not the preservation of our finances. We shall have to accept that no amount of money or material wealth can deliver us from the evils of diversity. Only when we accept the death of our societies do we win the possibility of resurrection.

It is toward death, then, and through death, that we must live in order to win. Though naked near the end, we shall arrive at our vigorous new beginning.

In an era where tech titans pour trillions into artificial intelligence, promising a utopia of effortless prosperity, the real story unfolds not in silicon valleys but in crumbling civic norms. This essay argues that economic vitality hinges less on raw intellect – whether human or algorithmic – and more on collective self-control: the quiet discipline to labor steadily, respect shared spaces, and curb impulses that erode trust.

Economies depend on millions of ordinary people showing up on time, paying their fares, refraining from petty theft, and accepting unpleasant but necessary work. When large segments of a population lose these habits, no amount of computing power can prevent decline. The evidence—from long-term psychological studies, economic history, and current fiscal data—consistently places self-control above cognitive ability as the primary predictor of individual and national prosperity.

The Economic Evidence: AI Spending Is Masking, Not Creating, Growth

Capital expenditure on AI infrastructure has become one of the few bright spots in otherwise weak economies. In the United States, the large technology companies are on track to spend more than $600 billion in 2025 alone on data centers and chips. This spending has kept headline GDP numbers respectable and supported a narrow band of suppliers. Remove those expenditures, however, and the broader economy shows clear signs of weakness: flat or declining non-tech business investment, stagnant real disposable incomes, and shrinking earnings for all but the largest firms.

Europe presents an even starker picture. Despite repeated political summits and promises of an “AI continent,” the European Union is investing less than one-tenth of what the United States spends annually. Heavy regulation, fragmented capital markets, and risk-averse public funding have prevented European companies from reaching the scale required for competitive AI development. The result is growing technological dependence on American and Chinese providers rather than genuine economic renewal.

Self-Control, Not IQ, Predicts Life Outcomes

Decades of longitudinal research have tested the relative importance of intelligence and self-control. The most authoritative evidence comes from the Dunedin Multidisciplinary Health and Development Study, which has followed more than 1,000 New Zealanders from birth to middle age. Children rated as having poor self-control at ages 3–11 (by teachers, parents, and observers) ended up, as adults, with worse health, lower earnings, higher rates of crime, and greater dependence on welfare—regardless of their IQ or family socioeconomic background.1

A separate line of research has repeatedly shown that measures of conscientiousness and impulse control explain more variance in academic grades, job performance, and accumulated wealth than IQ does. In direct statistical comparisons, self-control typically accounts for 20–40 percent more of the differences in outcomes than cognitive ability alone.2 These findings have been replicated across countries, age groups, and socioeconomic strata.

How Low-Level Disorder Becomes Systemic Collapse

Small violations of public order—fare evasion, shoplifting, littering, and vandalism—appear trivial in isolation. In aggregate, however, they impose large economic costs and, more importantly, erode the social norms that make complex economies possible.

When a critical mass of people stops paying train fares, transit authorities must either raise prices for everyone else or cut service; ridership falls further, and the spiral continues. When retail theft is tolerated, stores close or install expensive security measures, reducing taxable commerce and employment. The National Retail Federation estimates that organized retail crime alone now costs American merchants more than $100 billion a year.

Psychological research on norm violation shows that visible rule-breaking is contagious. Once a subset of the population gains immediate advantages from minor infractions and suffers no consequences, others quickly abandon their own restraint. The result is a rapid, self-reinforcing decline in civic behavior that no technology can offset.

Diminishing Returns and the Limits of Complexity

Economist and energy analyst Gail Tverberg has documented how modern economies face steadily diminishing returns on additional complexity. Each new layer of technology, regulation, or infrastructure requires disproportionately large inputs of energy and materials while delivering smaller marginal benefits.3 Artificial intelligence fits this pattern: training the largest models already consumes electricity equivalent to that of midsize countries, and the physical limits of chip manufacturing are approaching known engineering barriers.

A society that maintains high average self-control can push further along the complexity curve before returns turn negative. A society that loses behavioral discipline hits the wall sooner, because more resources must be diverted to security, insurance, and remediation rather than productive investment.

Immigration and the Transmission of Behavioral Norms

Large-scale immigration from regions with different cultural norms regarding punctuality, rule-following, and public order can significantly affect a host country’s average level of self-control. Economic studies of second-generation outcomes in Europe consistently find that behavioral assimilation lags far behind language acquisition or formal education. Children of immigrants often retain crime rates and welfare-dependency patterns closer to those of their parents’ countries of origin than to native averages.

The fiscal consequences are measurable. Peer-reviewed estimates for several European countries place the lifetime net fiscal cost of low-skilled immigration between 0.5 and 1 percent of GDP per year. These costs arise not from any inherent inability, but from persistently lower employment rates and higher involvement with criminal justice and social services—patterns that correlate strongly with differences in impulse control and future orientation.

The Educational Failure: Teaching Self-Expression Instead of Self-Mastery

Modern Western education has largely abandoned the explicit teaching of posture, politeness, punctuality, and personal responsibility in favor of self-expression and emotional validation. Longitudinal data show that students in permissive environments develop lower conscientiousness scores and higher dropout rates than peers in structured settings.

Employers now routinely report that recent graduates lack basic workplace discipline: they resist unpleasant tasks, arrive late, and prioritize personal comfort over collective deadlines. These are not intelligence deficits; they are failures of character formation that no algorithm can correct.

Conclusion: No Technological Substitute for Civic Discipline

Artificial intelligence can optimize processes, reduce certain forms of labor, and create new industries. It cannot make people show up on time, pay their debts, or refrain from stealing when they believe they will not be caught. Economies are ultimately networks of trust and reciprocity, sustained by millions of daily acts of self-restraint.

As long as policymakers and investors continue to treat intelligence as the binding constraint on prosperity while ignoring the erosion of self-control, the current wave of AI investment will prove to be another expensive detour rather than a genuine renewal. History suggests that societies which lose the bourgeois virtues of order, diligence, and civility decline long before their technological capabilities peak.

The Law of Diminishing Returns and Its Application to Speculative Assets

The law of diminishing returns, first articulated in classical economics by Turgot and Ricardo, states that successive equal increments of an input eventually produce progressively smaller increases in output. In agriculture, additional fertilizer applied to fixed land yields ever-less additional grain. In manufacturing, adding workers to a fixed factory floor eventually reduces marginal productivity. The principle is universal wherever resources are finite.

Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies are pure price-discovery assets with no intrinsic cash flows. Their market capitalization can therefore rise only if new capital inflows exceed outflows. Each successive doubling of price requires approximately double the net capital inflow of the previous doubling. In a world of finite savings, finite institutional risk budgets, and finite retail participation, such exponential capital demands cannot be met indefinitely. The law of diminishing returns therefore applies with particular force to speculative assets that depend entirely on greater-fool dynamics.

The Stock-to-Flow Model and the Omission of Diminishing Returns

The most influential bullish forecasting framework for Bitcoin remains the Stock-to-Flow (S2F) model developed by the pseudonymous analyst PlanB (@100trillionUSD). The model treats Bitcoin as a commodity whose price is driven primarily by the ratio of existing stock to annual flow of new supply. Halving events, which cut the flow in half every four years, are assumed to trigger large price increases. Original projections placed average prices for the 2024–2028 cycle between $250,000 and $1,000,000.1

The S2F model contains no mechanism for diminishing marginal demand elasticity. It implicitly assumes that each halving will attract proportionally greater capital inflows despite exponentially larger absolute dollar requirements. Historical commodity behavior offers no precedent for such sustained exponential valuation growth once market capitalization reaches the trillion-dollar scale.

Empirical Evidence: Diminishing Cycle Multiples in Bitcoin

Bitcoin’s price history since 2011 can be divided into four complete or near-complete halving cycles. Measuring returns from cycle trough to peak yields the following multiplication factors:

• 2011–2013 cycle: ≈ 250× (from ≈ $2 to ≈ $1,150)

• 2014–2017 cycle: ≈ 110× (from ≈ $180 to ≈ $19,800)

• 2018–2021 cycle: ≈ 21× (from ≈ $3,200 to ≈ $69,000)

• 2022–present (as of 24 November 2025): ≈ 5.3× so far (from ≈ $15,500 to ≈ $82,000 post-crash)

Using trough-to-peak multiples and fitting a simple exponential decay curve to the log of the multiplier produces a coefficient of approximately –0.95 per cycle. If this decay rate persists, the expected trough-to-peak multiple for the 2028–2032 cycle falls to ≈ 1.6×, and for the 2032–2036 cycle to ≈ 0.6×—implying negative nominal returns from cycle low to subsequent peak.

Even if the decay moderates to half the historical rate, the 2032–2036 cycle would deliver less than 2× from trough to peak, a return insufficient to compensate for volatility, opportunity cost, or inflation in most developed economies.

Ethereum and Major Altcoins Exhibit the Same Pattern

Ethereum’s returns display a similar trajectory of declining cycle multiples:

• 2015–2018: ≈ 400× (ICO price to peak)

• 2018–2021: ≈ 60× (trough to peak)

• 2022–present: ≈ 3× so far

Other large-cap cryptocurrencies (BNB, SOL, ADA, etc.) that experienced explosive gains in 2020–2021 have either stagnated or significantly underperformed Bitcoin in the current cycle. Correlation with Bitcoin remains high (>0.85 for most major tokens), ensuring that diminishing returns in Bitcoin propagate across the sector.

Broader Theoretical Support: Energy and Complexity Constraints

Gail Tverberg has repeatedly demonstrated that real-world economic systems face diminishing returns at the margin due to rising energy and material extraction costs.2 Bitcoin mining and transaction validation are energy-intensive processes. As the block reward declines, miners must be compensated by higher Bitcoin prices merely to maintain network security—a classic diminishing-returns feedback loop. Proof-of-stake networks are not exempt: validator returns fall as issuance is reduced or burning mechanisms reach saturation.

Complex systems theory reinforces the conclusion. Highly interconnected networks (DeFi protocols, layer-2 scaling solutions, cross-chain bridges) increase fragility while delivering progressively smaller marginal improvements in throughput or cost. The observed pattern—initial rapid gains followed by stagnation and periodic cascading failures—mirrors biological populations overshooting carrying capacity.

The Terminal Phase: From Diminishing Returns to Contraction

When cycle multiples fall below approximately 3–4×, the risk/reward profile ceases to attract significant new capital. Institutional allocations remain capped at low single-digit percentages of assets under management. Retail participation, already scarred by previous bear markets, fails to materialize in sufficient volume. Net capital inflows turn neutral or negative, particularly during periods of monetary tightening or macroeconomic stress.

Historical bear markets have seen drawdowns of 80–95 %. In a mature market with reduced upside potential, comparable percentage declines from cycle peaks would erase years of prior gains, even if nominal prices do not fall to zero. The combination of low expected returns and extreme tail risk renders the asset class structurally uninvestable for most fiduciary capital.

Conclusion

Bitcoin and the broader cryptocurrency sector have followed a clear trajectory of diminishing marginal returns consistent with economic theory, historical commodity cycles, and biophysical constraints. Popular forecasting models that extrapolate past exponential gains into the future violate the law of diminishing returns and are therefore unreliable. Unless an unforeseen and sustained surge in global liquidity reverses the trend, the most probable outcome is a transition from periodic boom-bust cycles to prolonged stagnation or secular decline. The cryptocurrency bull market, as historically understood, is approaching its terminal phase.

Notes

Additional data sources: CoinGecko historical prices (verified 24 Nov 2025); UBS Global Research crypto commentary (Nov 2025); ZeroHedge market updates (22–23 Nov 2025). All cited events and price levels are accurate as of the publication date.