+

Gracious Lord and heavenly Father; soon we will all be dead. Teach us, please, to realize the brevity of life that we may become wise. And lead us on Your path straight through this labyrinth of lies and of struggles, of pains and fears, of onslaughts, doubts, and then open to us the gates of Your righteousness, so we may go into them and praise You forever and ever, Amen.

Posted in Prayer | Tagged | Leave a comment

+

Gracious Lord and heavenly Father; grant us, please, what You command and draw us closer to Your Son, our King. Give us the strength to endure through all struggles and pains, the faith to come boldly to Your throne of grace, and the obedience to stoudly take whatever cup You hand us, Amen.

Posted in Prayer | Tagged | Leave a comment

Racists as the New Luddites

Why was the ruling class of 19th century England so eager to import dozens of Irish workers? Friedrich Engels, writing in 1845, quoted Thomas Carlye to explain: “He is there to undertake all work that can be done by mere strength of hand and back — for wages that will purchase him potatoes. He needs only salt for condiment, he lodges to his mind in any pig-hutch or dog-hutch (…). The Saxon-man, if he cannot work on these terms, finds no work. ” Engels continues himself, “These Irishmen who migrate for fourpence to England, on the deck of a steamship on which they are often packed like cattle, insinuate themselves everywhere. The worst dwellings are good enough for them; their clothing causes them little trouble, so long as it holds together by a single thread; shoes they know not; their food consists of potatoes and potatoes only; whatever they earn beyond these needs they spend upon drink. What does such a race want with high wages? (…) The majority of the families who live in cellars are almost everywhere of Irish origin. In short, the Irish have, as Dr. Kay says, discovered the minimum of the necessities of life, and are now making the English workers acquainted with it. http://archive.is/0lgQy

    One of the saddest “red pills” to swallow is that the ruling class is not a race or an occult group, trying to achieve a metaphysical goal of some sorts, but simply opposed to the nation state and borders because they want cheap labor. They want mass immigration in order to drive down the wages, drive up the rents and make strikes impossible. Conservative Ann Coulter realized it, “Nouvelle Droite” philosopher Alain de Benoist realized it (“Whoever criticizes capitalism, while approving immigration, whose working class is its first victim, had better shut up. Whoever criticizes immigration, while remaining silent about capitalism, should do the same.”), self-described National-Socialist Kerry Bolton realized it, and even “democratic Socialist” Bernie Sanders realized it before he cucked out: “Open borders? That’s a Koch brothers proposal. That’s a right-wing proposal, which says essentially there is no United States. It would make everybody in America poorer —you’re doing away with the concept of a nation state, and I don’t think there’s any country in the world that believes in that. If you believe in a nation state or in a country called the United States or UK or Denmark or any other country, you have an obligation in my view to do everything we can to help poor people. What right-wing people in this country would love is an open-border policy. Bring in all kinds of people, work for $2 or $3 an hour, that would be great for them. I don’t believe in that. I think we have to raise wages in this country, I think we have to do everything we can to create millions of jobs. You know what youth unemployment is in the United States of America today? If you’re a white high school graduate, it’s 33 percent, Hispanic 36 percent, African American 51 percent. You think we should open the borders and bring in a lot of low-wage workers, or do you think maybe we should try to get jobs for those kids?” http://archive.is/1XQlI

    Of course, even back then, you had a religious opposition to Irish (=Catholic) immigration, especially when the ruling class brought them to the US. Even back then you had a racial opposition to the Irish, the Irish were not considered to be “white” back then. Now, I do believe that both Islam and Catholicism are both false and wicked religions, but it is important to recognize the actual motivation of the ruling class to import these people. Mark A. Noll, a Reformed Christian himself, writing about the “Scandal of the Evangelical Mind” (i.e. Evangelical anti-intellectualism) in 1994, noted that, “the evangelical predilection, when faced with a world crisis, to use the Bible as a crystal ball instead of as a guide for sorting out the complex tangles of international morality was nowhere more evident than in response to the Gulf War in early 1991. Neither through the publishing of books nor through focused consideration in periodicals did evangelicals engage in significant discussion on the morality of the war (…) wealth formation throughout the world, the history of Western efforts at intervention in the Middle East, or other topics fairly crying out for serious Christian analysis. Instead, evangelicals gobbled up more than half a million copies each of several self-assured, populist explanations of how the Gulf crisis was fulfilling the details of obscure biblical prophecies.”

   The same can be observed today, when Evangelicals, who religiously (literally religiously!) defend Capitalism and instead of focusing on the economical motivations behind the destruction of the nation state and its borders, dabble in prophecies about the “Black Pope” or the Jews. Interestingly enough I found that fascism and racism have actually become more acceptable in Christian circles than thorough anti-Capitalism; you can rather talk about how the evil Jews want to kill the Aryan man as a revenge for the Reformation than using terms such as “ruling class”, “capital” and “low-wage workers.” It’s the same with anti-Americanism; describing the USA as a new Babylon and Satanic is more acceptable than simply describing the process of the monopolization of capital and US “monoimperialism.” Which finally brings me to the Luddites.

    The Luddites were a group of English textile workers in the 19th century who destroyed weaving machinery as a form of protest. Of course, the ruling class of 19th century England (the same ruling class who imported these Irish to make things even worse for workers) defended machinery and crushed the Luddites most brutally – just like the ruling class of today destroys you most brutally if you speak out against open borders. Old-fashioned liberals like to talk about “divide et impera”, not realizing that the ruling class of today has so much power, that it is no longer necessary and wanted to “divide”, because it sufficient to “impera.” Today, racism against low-wage immigrants has come out of fashion, but an imperialist attitude towards their native countries that might need to be “liberated” (like Iraq, Libya, Syria, Russia, Iran and in 20, 30 years or so China) has not. Every remainder of non-American mini-capital is about to be destroyed, so American billionaires can rule the whole world. If alt-right et al. had realized that racism and anti-technological sentiment weren’t the proper responses for 19th century Luddites, and aren’t the proper responses today, they might not have been so disappointed by their “God Emperor” Trump. Also, while people are less equal than they say, they are still more equal than they think – Asians, Indians and Mexicans are obviously at least smart enough to produce, say, the cars that were once produced in the US and created a strong and prosper working and middle class. 

   Admittedly, there is one thing that sometimes makes me consider a more “metaphysical” outlook; the fact that if the current trend continues, this would be the very first time in human history, that there would be only ONE world power, and only ONE mega-capital in the hands of a small clique of American billionaires who rule the whole world through nuclear blackmail. So far, there have always been different empires, different kingdoms and so on – capital was always in the hands of different people, so competition and opposition could grow around this foreign capital. If the current trend however continues, and even pathetic China and pathetic Russia destroyed, there would be NO significant non-American capital left and I don’t see how forceful resistance against US monoimperialism could be developed, if there isn’t any non-American capital it could grow around. The worst case scenario people should prepare for isn’t war but “peace”: the kind of “peace” you get when you have completely destroyed all competition and the only thing left are some alienated terrorists here and there – but not capital, no state, no actual forces anywhere left who would actually have the potential to put up a fight. This would indeed be the end of the world as we know it.

Posted in Alt-Right, Capitalism, Philosophy, Theology, US Monoimperialism | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

On Orthodoxy

A few days ago, I read that Hank Hanegraaff, apparently better known as the “Bible Answer Man”, had converted to Orthodoxy. Admittedly, I have no idea who Hank Hanegraaff is, but to me, coming out of a Slavic immigrant family of (nominal) Orthodox Christians and having spend much time in alt-right-ish circles, he doesn’t seem to be very representative for Western converts, to begin with. In my experience, it is insofar futile to talk theology with people contemplating conversion to Orthodox, because most people contemplating conversion to Orthodoxy don’t do so for theological reasons to begin with, but for sociocultural reasons. Sure, every cult and every false religion has a website with an untidy mountain of colored Bible verses, but meditating on these always seems to come after the conversion.

   It’s like with “neoreactionary” Catholics who don’t defend Catholicism based on theological grounds, on what is true (these days, even the “reactionaries” are relativist modernists who don’t care about The Truth anymore…), but based on what they think is politically useful; they don’t try to convince you that Protestantism is wrong, they try to convince you, that the political implications of Catholicism are less “liberal” than the political implications of Protestantism, or that man needs the smells and bells of Catholicism. And if man needs something, we should throw away the Bible and just give it to him, right?

  Christians however are called to seek first the kingdom of God and his righteousness. French Catholic Charles Péguy once defined a “modernist” as someone who doesn’t believe what he believes. And the kind of people who LARP as Roman gladiators contemplating conversion to Orthodoxy fit that definition pretty well. They don’t have faith in God, they have faith in faith; they don’t believe in God, they believe in religion and its effects on a people’s birth rate. Ironically, that makes them exactly like the “modernists” they otherwise despise so much. The only difference is that some modernist who don’t care about God and the Bible use religion for a “liberal”, while other modernists who don’t care about God and the Bible use religion for a “reactionary” agenda. (Joseph Ratzinger, after having preached so much about truth and relativism, was once asked about what he makes of the fact that many studies come to the conclusion that people who pray regularly have less problems with high blood pressure and mental health issues. He replied that this might well be the case but that if you use prayer only as a kind of psychological trick or as a medical trick to deal with your blood pressure, it won’t work anymore. The same is true in regards to politics because having faith in religion is not the same as having faith in Christ.)

   I like James White and I generally like to listen to his podcast, but I’m sceptical about the way he described Orthodoxy when he talked about Hank Hanegraaff’s conversion. Namely the way that “Eastern thinking” is allegedly so very different from “Western thinking” and so hard to pin down. In my experience, it is first of all a red flag when Western people use the term “Eastern thinking”, no matter if it’s Yoga pants females talking about Buddhism and the idea of objective truth as an intolerant and bigoted invention of white men, or if it’s Western men talking about “Eastern thinking” in Orthodoxy. (Hanegraaff actually converted in a Greek Orthodox church, by the way; and if having black hair and debt means that you stop being part of the Western world, Rome would be “Eastern” as well…)

  “Mysticism” in “Eastern thinking” essentially boils down to the unwillingness and the inability to answer concrete questions with yes, yes and no, no. Furthermore the fact that, for political reasons, it is unnecessary to do so because the state keeps away people who ask uncomfortable questions, and you spend more time answering the questions from representatives of the state than questions from believers. Of course there are certain things we cannot know and comprehend, and things God hasn’t revealed to us. But this is neither an invitation to use esotericism to gain a kind of knowledge God doesn’t want us to have, nor an excuse to hide in the rhetorical fog of “Eastern” mysticism. Not contemplating on, say, the Trinity and what the Bible clearly teaches about the trinity, is not a sign of humble devotion but a sign of intellectual laziness and the unwillingness to always be “prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you.” (1 Peter 3:15)

   Concrete Orthodoxy is a political shell without a (Holy) ghost, and idealizing Eastern Europe and this “Slavic tradwife” nonsense is pretty much like idealizing the lives of Texan truckers and of biker gangs, like romanticizing poverty. (All the poorer immigrants who helped us with our house when I was a kid weren’t more traditional than my parents, they were simply more drunk.)

   The real problem is that “conservative” Protestantism has become a synonym for American neoconservatism, and that Evangelical Protestants have thrown out the fathers and replaced Augustine with Benjamin Franklin, the Heidelberg Catechism with the US Constitution, male headship with “gender equality”, caring for Christ’s Church with caring for the nation-state of Israel and to our Lord saying that no one can come to the Father except through Him, they have added, “except if you have Jewish genes.” Since more and more young people now come to realize that the hopes they have placed in “Americanism” was misplaced, they feel like leaving Americanism behind must go hand in hand with leaving Protestantism and the Bible behind (Thomas Nelson has even published an “American Patriot’s Bible”, White Hall Press a “Patriot’s Edition” of the Geneva Bible, all putting the US Constitution and the like between the Law and the Prophets).

   So, to sum up the whole matter, what I believe we can simply observe here is that one kind of unbiblical idolatry (worshipping Israel, Jews, feminism, the US constitution, capitalism) brings forth other kinds of unbiblical idolatry (worshipping Orthodox idols err “venerating” Orthodox “icons”). The tree of unbiblical idolatry always brings forth other kinds of unbiblical idolatry. 

Posted in Alt-Right, False Religions, Theology | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Who Cares What Women Want

I’m a feminist who loves rough sex“, “I’m a queer little“, “How I reconciled feminism with my first step into the dark side of BDSM” – put “feminism and BDSM” into a search engine and you’ll find dozens upon dozens of articles in the monopolized fake news media telling you how stronk feminist womyn have stopped worrying and loved to learn the whip. Meanwhile, Return of Kings et al. are also eager to praise BDSM as something women “secretly” want (but just don’t want admit), and men should hence do.

   What these 50 shades of feminism all have in common is that they are only concerned about what women want. Sure, right-wing feminists and left-wing feminists can’t quite agree on what it is that they want (and if what they say they want really is what they want), but they share the same gynocentric view on men and women; they both go out from the question, “What do women want?” and then try to answer this question. Antifeminism isn’t about giving a different answer to the question, “What do women (secretly) want”, it is about asking other questions: What do men actually want? And why the heck do we always just care about what women want!?

   “Man is the image and glory of God, but woman is the glory of man. For man was not made from woman, but woman from man. Neither was man created for woman, but woman for man.” (1 Corinthians 11:7) Genesis also tells us that Satan tempted Eve by telling her that she could be like God, while Adam was tempted to listen to his wife and follow her advice. (Both men and women are often tempted to put women in the place of God; just look at how many pagan religions are about motherhood goddesses.) The punishment for sin was death but also that women’s desire is now “contrary to her husband”, i.e. before the fall, the female gladly fulfilled her role to be the submissive helper she was created as – after the fall, she is boisterous and unsubmissive, her desire is “contrary” to her husband. Woman refusing to submit is both sin and the result of sin.

   BDSM is a fake and plastic surrogate for actual dominance and actual submission. Instead of a sweet, warm and submissive helper whose cheeks blush, if you give her a playful slap at her bum, men now have ugly boisterous feminists who want you to spit in her face and whip her and simulate rape like conditions. As a compensation. Internet virgins seem to believe that women being into BDSM is a sign of femininity. But the opposite is true. The more feminist a woman is, the more pain and humiliation she needs in order to feel like a woman in the bedroom. The more feminine a woman is, the less she wants you to hurt and humiliate her. (Which reminds me, btw, that my antifeminist grandmother who said things such, “The world will be ruined once women take over because they are so bitchy”, was nevertheless shocked when she found out about 50 Shades of Grey through TV, and remarked that even she had immediately left her husband and went back to her parents if her husband would have done something like that to her.)

    This “consensual” fake plastic “dominance” in BDSM is pathetic. Women want to reduce men to dogs that look dark and dangerous and threatening when they bark – and yet they are on the leash of the female who snaps with her once to turn him into a plastic “master” in the bedroom, then snaps with her fingers twice to turn him into feminist beta cuckboi again. Also, anyone who has some real experience with this whole “BDSM scene” knows that BDSM is part of the LGBTBBQ+ movement. It’s all just queer and degenerate and this desire to hurt and to humiliate is all just part of the symptom, not part of the cure.

Posted in Alt-Right, Feminism, Philosophy, Sex, Theology | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

Can Muslim Men Really Stop Modernism?

There are always good and bad reasons to criticize something. For instance, Marxism should be criticized for its (anthropological) optimism and the idea that men and women should have the same rights. (In that regard, American cuckservatism, having turned “real equality” and a Masonic constitution into idols, is very “Marxist” itself.) Marxism should not be criticized because poverty is seen as holier and more “Christian” than wealth or something.

   Same with Islam; Islam should be criticized for being a wrong religion, immigration should be criticized because the ruling class only wants open borders in order to import low-wage workers, to drive down wages, drive up rents, make strikes impossible and destroy Christianity. When it comes to destroying Syria, Iraq, Libya, they couldn’t care less about “Islamophobia.” Islam should not be criticized for the fact that some Muslims rightly believe that God is the ultimate authority not secular law, that religious knowledge is always more important than secular knowledge, that “gender equality” is heretical nonsense and that the USA is a Satanic empire of evil.

   The question however is if Muslim Men will really have the power and the spirit and the intelligence to stop modernism. It seems to me that this idea that Muslim men will stop modernism and eventually punish Western women for their sins, is based on this deeply flawed idea of historical justice. In comment sections these days, men go on and on about how women will eventually regret their transgressions because Muslim men will come and punish them. But what happened to Catholicism, Protestantism, Judaism; to white men, to black men in the West and to Jewish men, might as well happen to Muslim men. And who even says that women would actually dislike being Muslims? Or that the Muslim women of today actually dislike being Muslims?

   Women are usually the conservative part in every social setting; they are usually the ones who support the powers that be. If these powers that be (in the West) would eventually support wearing the Hijab and praying five times a day – women might fall for it and support it as fiercely as they support gay marriage and the destruction of the nation state with its borders right now. Also, the idea of high-status men having harems is pretty much compatible with female hypergamy; and the feminist idea of male disposability is also compatible with the traditional kind of conservatism we can observe in a religion where men blow themselves up to get their 72 virgins.

Posted in False Religions, Feminism | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Contre Le Monde, Contre La Vie

“Come, sweet death” is the title of a song of Johann Sebastian Bach. Unsurprisingly, the lyrics describe the “desire to depart” to say it with Saint Paul: “Come, sweet death, come, blessed rest, come lead me into peace, because I’m tired of the world, and I wait for you to lead me and to close my eyes.” And it isn’t even Bach’s most popular song describing this longing for death. This “desire to depart” runs like a common thread through much of his vocal work. For instance, at the end of BWV 56, the cantata Ich will den Kreuzstab gerne tragen, the choir sings, “Come, o death, brother of sleep, come and lead me away; release the rudder of my little ship, bring me to the secure harbor! Others may shun you, but to me you bring delight, for through you I will come to my loveliest Jesus.”

   In a sermon over Philippians 1:23 (“My desire is to depart and be with Christ, for that is far better.”), Charles Spurgeon, the Prince of Preachers, noted that a Christian’s view of their death is one of the readiest tokes by which we can judge their spiritual condition: “When men desire death (…) they may desire it for the wrong reasons, but when they desire it for the right reasons, we may be assured that they are at peace with God and that their faith is sanctified.” And while it is disputable who has written the great letter to the Hebrews, it is undisputable that this letter, too, describes us Christians as mere pilgrims and strangers on this earth. By nature, a pilgrim eventually desire to reach his final destination – the heavenly Jerusalem.

   It is therefore sad to see that modern Christendom has turned into this all-American white picket fence fantasy, that is all about shiny, happy people (producing exactly two children because only ghetto trash has more than two children and only pedos, fags and queers don’t have wife and children at all). I think we Christians should give room for this “desire to depart” again and remind ourselves and others that our hearts are in heaven. The Reformation always had a high view of the Church fathers, Calvin quotes Saint Augustine all the time. Sola scriptura never meant to completely ignore what the fathers had written. Alas, these days, Evangelical Christendom is mostly about disregarding the fathers but worshipping these Freemasons who penned the deeply flawed US constitution (the 19th amendment to it even gives women the right to vote!)

   Unfortunately, it cannot be said that disregarding the fathers had led to a higher appreciation of the Word of God. If that would be the case, there wouldn’t be so much hostility towards Saint Paul both from “liberals” as well as from “conservative” Christians! Paul says that man is the head of woman – Christendom goes to great lengths to convince itself (and the ruling class) that he actually meant that men and women share equal roles. Paul says that women aren’t allowed to teach – Christendom goes to great lengths to convince itself (and the ruling class) that he actually meant that women are allowed to teach. Paul says that it’s good for a man not to touch a woman (“The unmarried man is anxious about the things of the Lord, how to please the Lord. But the married man is anxious about worldly things, how to please his wife.”) – Christendom goes to great lengths to convince itself (and the ruling class) that he actually meant that it’s good to touch a woman because only fags don’t want to do so. Paul says/quotes that God has loved Jacob but hated Esau – Christendom goes to great lengths to convince itself (and the ruling class) that he actually meant that God has loved Jacob but loved Esau in another way. Paul says that his desire is to depart because it would be much better to be dead and hence be with Jesus, Christendom goes to great lengths to convince itself (and the ruling class) that he actually meant that having such a desire is a kind of pseudo-Buddhist heresy.

   I remember reading some article from a Catholic German philosopher, Robert Spaemann, once, who described how when he was young (shortly before Hitler came to power) people had begun to remove all “negative” songs from church groups and the like; songs such as the ones mentioned in Spurgeon’s sermon or in older Classical music like the one from Johann Sebastian Bach, or all music and poems mentioning the old Christian phrase about this world being a “vale of tears”, a vallis lacrimarum. Apparently, 20th century modernist suddenly discovered that this was all too “negative” and not “positive” enough, not in line with the “Think positive!” mantra of modernity. The void that was then created by this “Keep smiling” philosophy was filled by Communists such as Bertolt Brecht whose Threepenny Opera ends with an almost Biblical voice, “Do not persecute wrongdoings all too harshly / Soon they will freeze to death all by themselves / For it is cold / Consider the darkness and the freezing cold in this vale, and the tearful lamentations that resound.” If Christendom moves away from the Bible, ideologies will fill this void we have left.

Posted in Music, Theology | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment