One ancient Roman historian noted a case of a wild Germanic warrior who, frothing form his mouth, plunged alone into a Roman formation and was promptly slashed in the throat by several short swords. The anecdote served as a warning to those men trying to be “brave”. Was Richard Russell, who died by suicide after barrell-rolling a plane into a mountain, such a fool, or was he something more?

We don’t know what drove the Sky King to his actions other than from his own admission that he perhaps “had a couple of screws loose”. Or that he was struggling with his high-paced work as a ground service agent for Horizon Air, making ends meet.

When a jet fighter pilot, who was chasing the Bombardier that Russell had successfully hijacked and gotten off into the air, said, "they would give you a job doing anything if you could pull this off", Russell replied, "Yeah right! Nah, I'm a white guy."

And that simple remark, that he was a w-h-i-t-e g-u-y, made his death so iconic, if not heroic, for millions of White men instantly identified. Too many White men are, in fact, just as quietly suicidal, only pushing on to meet family expectations. Men feel they are the slaves of a society that never cared about them, and never will.

The internet is divided here. Wasn’t Russell just a man who abandoned his duties as a lover to his girlfriend, and a son to his family? Or was he, as in the eyes of his supporters, a hero who made a statement against the smallness of life, the rigidness of economic authority, the lack of purpose, growth, and development offered a White man?

I get the feeling that the hatred some White women feel for their brothers, fathers, uncles, grandfathers, and sons has been made public policy. And I say this because this oikophobic (self-race-hating) policy creates men such as Richard Russell, who'd rather die a stuntman’s death than try looking for a better job.

To many White men, Russell indeed became an instant cult hero with a massive online following. The "Sky King" memes still return once in a while on the social medias. So how did one man's suicidal wish turn into a heroic inspiration? It was, in part, because this working man taught himself how to fly a Bombardier Q400 passenger plane and do a barrell roll with it just by watching YouTube videos.

And because Russell did what too many men think of doing: clocking the fuck out of this rigid, unhuman life that leaves no room for one's self-betterment.

Every working White man feels this: We are stuck, life isn’t going anywhere, society is crumbling, and the controlling feminist women (of the Devouring Mother archetype) are threatening to eat their young lest they die in wars for economic profits.

In opposition to this dying-and-being-devoured world, Russell’s message communicated that there is a thing of genius hiding in every working-class White man, and if only we wouldn't fear death, the world would learn to fear us instead.

It’s not about committing suicide doing a big stunt. It’s about living heroically.

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

But the Detmold claim was controversial, as was the statue itself, showing the hero Arminius dressed in Roman battle skirt and carrying a Roman short-sword. It would have been more ‘Germanic’ to depict him with a spear and wearing trousers, and without the fantasy winged helmet.

Later, a dig near Kalkriese, north of Osnabrück, unearthed evidence of a large battle between Germans and Romans, but although this area now hosts the Varian Disaster’s museum, it was likely the place of another conflict, namely the Battle of the Angrivarian Wall, as evidence by an actual wall dug up there.

Is there no source left, then, that can inform us about the Teutoburg Battle’s actual location? Yes, the Icelandic monk Nikulás Bergsson went on a pilgrimage from Iceland to Rome during the mid-12th century, and he was still able to pinpoint the site.

He wrote in his diary,

“Two days till Paderborn, ... and then four to Mainz. Between these places is a town named Kiliandur, and that’s where the Gnitaheide is, where Siegfried slayed the dragon Fafnir.”

His account had already mythologized the Roman legionnaire columns into a dragon. The word ‘gnita’ means broken or sharded in Old Norse languages, and heide is a heath- or moorland. And, lo and behold, south of the city of Paderborn, we find the region’s largest limestone deposits. When farmers plow such land, they break up the limestone and create the appearance of a “broken or sharded land”.

And there, we find a site named Totengrund, or Deathground, and we find the Totengrundstraße and the Taubengrundstraße, or the Death ground’s street and the Deaf man’s ground street, signaling a deadly event must have once taken place here.

The Germans, coming from the West, had the high ground here, as the Romans were following along a small stream. The Germans fought the Romans hand to hand, in close combat. That way, the Romans couldn’t make use of their superior formations. There was no room for manoeuvring in these dense forests.

So, the physically superior Germnanic individuals butchered the Romans.

Source: Martin Hülsemann, Alisonensis.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Read more

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

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

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

Read more

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

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

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

Legal Assistance in Hate Speech Cases

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3. By influencing the media through interviews and debates;

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

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

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

A Global Membership Association

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

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

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

Branching Out into Politics and Physical Protection

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Never lose your smile.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Unattainable Goals

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Herculean Works

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

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

Reasoning from this angle, our concrete goals become clear:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mastering Time and Space

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Just recently, Holland made similar comments at another event:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It’s as if people are naturally straight!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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

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