Here’s to Open Borders: Heineken’s Billionaire Heiress Wants an “Open World”

Capital either wants to go to misery (“outsourcing”) or import misery (“Refugees welcome!”) or both.  It wants to maximize competition among working class folks to make them more disposable, to lower their wages and to make them more frugal. Lower wages, higher rents: this is the simple materialist reason why Capital wants free trade and open borders; this is why it has long used immigration to move different ethnic groups throughout the world like pawns on a chessboard.

   Indians were sent to Fiji to cut sugar canes while Chinese people were sent to Canada, to South Africa and the United States to work on railways. Meanwhile, Irishmen, who were already accustomed to live “in any pig-hutch, their food consisting of potatoes and potatoes only”, were gladly welcomed in England because these uppity English punks still dared to demand more than whiskey and potatoes, and someone needed to acquaint them with the minimum of the necessities of life. The Wirtschaftswunder of 1950s Germany, i.e. the era of economic growth after World War II, was first “tackled” by importing Turkish workers, and the US Immigration Act of 1965 laid the foundation for the ethnic replacement of European Americans (and, ironically, the destruction of the African-American working class. African-Americans had been developing a relatively stable working class for some years and a delicate middle class with some economic success as small business owners when the foundation for their destruction was laid during the Civil Rights Era.)

   Not even mentioning other, let alone all, waves of mass-migration (such as the swamping of Australia by Asians) now, we can sum up the whole matter by noting that “No Nations! No Borders!” is just as much a corporate slogan as it is the slogan of a spoiled and pampered ANTIFA youth, rioting to emphasize their demands for less “racism” and for more immigration. This is why it can’t be repeated enough that “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.” (Alain de Benoist) A “race conscious” Capitalism that takes into consideration the well-being of low-status Aryans is a pipedream or a contradiction just as the liberal idea of a “conscious Capitalism” (to be achieved once 50% of all CEOs are females) is. At least Mrs de Carvalho-Heineken, based in Switzerland and with a net worth higher than that of Donald Trump (who, compared to some other billionaires is a small fish anyway and as a building contractor even dependent on the American domestic market) apparently only cares about the color green:

 

Advertisements
Posted in Capitalism | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , | 4 Comments

Against Women’s Rights

1. Christina Hoff Sommers’ most famous book, written when she was a philosophy professor at Clark University, poses a question: Who Stole Feminism? And the answer to that question is, “Nobody.” Lesbianic sociopaths, radical Marxists, anti-Christian man-haters, abortion lobbyists, perverts, weirdos, freaks and wicked, evil Jews (“Christ’s most violent enemies.” – John Calvin) did not “steal” feminism; they were in control of the Women’s “Liberation” movement right from its very inception. Trying to re-define “feminism” for conservative and/or Christian purposes is both futile and dishonest. Our proper goal is to utterly oppose feminism, and to destroy it from the face of the earth as an ideology of devils.

2. Likewise, there has never been a good and an appropriate “wave” of feminism, and it is therefore pointless if not even deceitful to differ between “third-wave” and “second-wave” feminism, between “modern” and “traditional”(?) feminism, implying that previous “waves” were justified. Besides, the majority of women do not even identify as feminists, which is true for both the US as well as the UK. Most Western women are not blue-haired majors in lesbian dance therapy, and they will not speak to you directly about feminism. Rather, they will say something along the lines of, “I’m not a feminist, but…” The tirade that is then to follow involving all the common feminist believes and talking points. There are hardly any self-identified feminists outside of college campuses, while the antifeminist camp is gladly frequented by homosexual Jews and overweight atheists who put bananas in their asses. Let us hence simply identify our enemy as the false god of “equality” and as the devil of those so-called “women’s rights.” So-called “women’s rights” were a grave mistake and only time will tell if the white Western world will ever survive the mistake of granting women even the very right to vote.

3. I recognize that the Puritans don’t have the best reputation these days. As a matter of fact, one can make a movie about a Christian farmer’s family with children, goats and a dog being haunted and then murdered by Satanic forces, and people be like, “Man, these Puritans, they creep me out! They really had it coming! Thankfully, Satan murdered that girl’s whole family so she could become a rootless cosmopolitan and a feminist witch!” Still, at least in Reformed circles it shouldn’t be too controversial to encourage the prayerful study of the Puritans and the Reformers themselves. Unfortunately, the appreciation of the fathers is often narrowly limited to matters concerning prayer, spiritual crises and to rather abstract topics such as the importance of distinguishing between necessity and compulsion to understand what is implied when it is deduced that human will is “of necessity either drawn or lead into evil.” (Calvin, Institutes, II. iii. 5) But we should also consider what the fathers taught in regards to more juicy topics such as Jewry and (the monstrous regiment of) women. 

4. Listen, for example, to John ‘Decalogue’ Dod expounding the duties of a wife in his 17th century bestseller A Plaine and Familiar Exposition of the Tenne Commandements: The duty of the wife is constant obedience and subjection. As the church is in subjection to Christ, so let the wife be to her husband in all things. If she rebel against his commandment, she rebels against God. The wife must persuade herself that her husband’s charge is God’s charge, and when he speaks, God speaks by him, and that which was a thing indifferent before the husband required it, is now become a bounden duty unto her, after the husband hath once enjoined it. And therefore she must resolve to obey him in all things, (…) must obey her husband in all things cheerfully and willingly, without gainsaying.”

5.  Thankfully, men like Dalrock regularly point out how antifeminism has been hijacked or is at least often misused by what I call “man-up cuckservatives”. You know the type; the type that loves to go on about how a “real” man never touches a woman, even to brush her out of the way when she’s obstructing our Lord Jesus Christ, how “real” men actually like stronk womyn, how nothing is the fault of women themselves, nothing the fault of society as a whole but everything the fault of some individual guy who himself is just not strong enough to appreciate the strength of these stronk womyn. It’s the type of men who promote a kind of heterosexual gay marriage between masculine women and masculine men; the type who believe that there are individual solutions to structural problems: “Man up and pull yourself up by your own bootstraps.”

6. Likewise, despite their many, many flaws, some pagans such as weev over at the Daily Stormer, rightfully point out that “traditional gender roles” aren’t some sort of moderate feminism and not about “real” equality. (For instance, the right of a husband to inflict “moderate corporal punishment” on his wife was only removed in 1891 in the UK; in Germany, husbands could legally terminate their wives’ contracts with an employer and forbid them to work outside the home until 1958.) Now listen what weev has to say: “Coverture was the reality for all of European history up until the late 19th century. The basic principle of coverture is that the rights of the woman are completely subsumed into that of her husband’s. A married woman could not own property, sign legal documents or enter into a contract, obtain an education against her husband’s wishes, or keep a salary for herself. (…) Men gave women full legal independence, and then they even stopped giving them the basic boundaries of discipline. What did women do with all these new rights and comforts? Well, you see how that graph goes. They whored like never before through the sixties and seventies, and Western civilization has been rotting ever since.”

7. If you’re still fixated on Islam, still believe that the main problem with open borders is that some people might come in who don’t particularly care about sodomy, and still don’t get that the Islamization of Western Europe is merely a symptom, not the actual disease, you honestly deserve to be thrown off a roof. Islam is like the common cold, a disease you can get easily rid off. But modernism is like AIDS: weakening your immune system up to a point where even the common cold can kill you. Just because Islam is opposed to this or that element of degeneracy doesn’t mean that it stops being degenerate and wicked. Some Imam being opposed to gender equality and sodomy doesn’t mean that we should support it. “Moslems do something so we should do the total opposite of it” is like building your civilization on sand. And when you say that a husband’s right to discipline his wife is some “backward sandnigger shit”, you essentially imply that our Christian ancestors up until very recently were “backwarded sandniggers.”

8. Finally, although tradition must not rule our interpretation, it should nevertheless guide it. If, upon reading a particular passage of Sacred Scripture you come up with an interpretation that has escaped the notion of every other Christian and every other man of the Covenant for 3000 or so years, or has been championed by universally recognized heretics, chances are pretty good that you’d better abandon your interpretation. As a rule of thumb, everything that was published after 1968 is wrong. If your Biblical exegesis results in a St. Paul that could just as well join the faculty of Berkeley’s Gender Studies Department, because he’s just as concerned about equality as Hillary Clinton and has performed just as few miracles as her, you might want to rethink your theology.

Posted in Christianity, Feminism | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 3 Comments

Sanctified Through Thy Truth

http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2017/04/17/students-claim-objective-truth-is-a-white-supremacist-myth/

1. “Once Orlov stuffed himself with mashed peas and died. And Krylov found out about it and then died as well. And Spiridonov died all by himself. And Spiridonov’s wife fell off the sideboard and also died. And Spiridonov’s children drowned in the pond. And then Spirodonov’s grandmother took to drink and hit the road. And Mikhailovich stopped combing his hair and caught the scabies. And Kruglov sketched a woman with a whip in her hands and went out of his mind. And Perekhrestov received four hundred roubles by wire and boasted so much that they had to fire him. All good people but just can’t keep a cool head.” Author: Daniil Kharms, arrested by the NKVD in 1942 for “spreading defeatism”, died of starvation in a Soviet prison the same year, and always a good medicine when you’re feeling down from the fact that even good people can’t keep a cool head at times.

2. Plato lets Simmias say to Socrates that one should “take the best and most irrefragable of human theories, and let this be the raft upon which he sails through life—not without risk, as I admit, if he cannot find some word [logos] of God which will more surely and safely carry him.” (Phaedo 2.65) – To which Augustine replied that the only thing that distinguishes “us” (=Christians) from the Platonists is the belief that there is indeed such a Logos that became flesh (John 1:14). What does it mean that the Logos became flesh? It means that “tout ce qui arrive est adorable.” (Léon Bloy); that “everything that happens is adorable.” What is the Logos that became flesh? It He is not merely someone who brings a truth but He is the truth (John 14:6). “Sanctify them in the truth; your word is truth” (John 17:17 ESV), your word is aletheia, ἀλήθεια, not an adjective (meaning “your word is true“) but a noun, “your word is truth.”

3. Christ’s prayer for unity (John 17:21) has often been misused as an argument for ecumenism and church unity irrespective of doctrine and practices. However, servants of the Lord Jesus Christ must seek unity only in a way that honors said prayer, “Sanctify them truth thy truth.” (KJV) There is no true unity without a common faith in the teachings of the inerrant Bible, along with a common life of holiness.

4. Since Nietzsche (or arguably since Hume), the underpinning assumptions of the old debate on the existence (or the nature) of God have dramatically changed. The classical arguments for the existence of God all attempted to show that God exists; but they all assumed that truth exists as well, and that the world is based on structures that are accessible through reason. These structures were supposed to be originated from God, but since they were immediately accessible to us, they could lead us to this origin of God Himself. “Even we knowers of today, we godless anti-metaphysicians, still take our fire, too, from the flame lit by the thousand-year-old faith, the Christian faith which was also Plato’s faith, that God is truth; that truth is divine.”, says Nietzsche. But this very idea was an illusion for Nietzsche, “truths are illusions of which one has forgotten that they are illusions“, he said, believing there is no such thing as “the truth”, but only either use- or harmful idiosyncrasies. “We should not imagine that the world turns to us a readable face”, Michel Foucault later added, and Richard Rorty then simply replaced the former quest for understanding with a quest for social hope. 

5. It simply is an intellectual declaration of bankruptcy when people with Nietzsche avatars go on about “modernism” and “Cultural Marxism”, not being aware of the fact that the very same postmodernists (like Michel Foucault, this homosexual Frenchman and staunch supporter of the Islamic Revolution in Iran, and intellectual predecessor of “Everything is just a construct”-feminists such as Judith Butler) have much better reason to see themselves in a Nietzschean tradition. The same is true for their current darling, Jordan B. Peterson, who stands in a Jungian tradition about the “collective unconsciousness”, about becoming balanced with the archetypes who don’t have to literally be truth to have a symbolic kind of truth, and are de facto simply about feeling good, it’s all just about feelings, about feelings of the self, about “self-actualization” and about “sorting yourself out.”

6. Charles Péguy once defined a “modernist” as someone who doesn’t believe what he believesIt is not only liberal mainline churches who stand accused as heretical modernists but also all these alt-right-ish people who LARP as Roman gladiators contemplating conversion to Orthodoxy. They too don’t have faith in God but faith in faith; they don’t believe in God, they believe in religion and its effects on a people’s birth rate. The only difference is that some modernist who don’t actually care about God and the Bible use religion for a “liberal”, while other modernists who don’t actually care about God and the Bible use religion for a “reactionary” agenda. A great many Christian places who profess to be an alternative to the heresies of modernism, are themselves nothing more than dens of iniquity, in which these oily manwhores commit spiritual adultery with the Romish antichrist. 

7. Or with Orthodox Patriarchs. Western OrthoLARPers (or maybe OrthoHipsters, attending churches you’ve probably never heard of) are of course the latest craze these days. Just like their yoga pants-wearing sisters they love religions their parents don’t belong to, ideally Eastern religions from Eastern countries where people have less teeth but more faith. And just like the sexual cuckold fantasizes about a man of raw masculinity coming and commanding his wife, they fantasize about a raw man coming from the wild, wild East, and conquering his church. Furthermore, just like their pansexual little brother roleplays as a Japanese girl on the internet, they LARP as deep Orthodox monks from the Russian steppe. They even have their own substitute nationalism, as can easily be seen if you dare to say something remotely critical about Russian history or Orthodoxy on some of these alt-right-ish blogs. Then, these Westerners become just as nasty as European liberals who lecture Americans about guns.

8. Andrei Sinyavsky, the great Russian dissident whose “voice from the chorus” reached the world in the 1970s from a Soviet gulag, once noted that “One should not believe out of habit, nor out of tradition, nor because one is afraid of death; not because it’s better to be safe than to be sorry, not because one is forced to believe, nor because of humanist or philosophical reasons, not even to save one’s soul and not be original and unique. One should believe in God simply because God exists.” Amen! And we should also not believe because we hope that Christianity might be a weapon against Islam or against feminism, but because it’s true and it’s truth. It feels to me as if ecumenism is not motivated by a desire for peace but driven by a disregard for God’s word. But if this wicked Argentinian Jesuit who leads this NGO that works on behalf of Islam, immigrants and Jewry, and that dares to call itself the Catholic (=universal) church were to die right now, the fire of his punishment would never cease.

9. The relativism of the Western world is not a very tolerant ideology. After all, it wants to get rid off everyone who doesn’t want to “deconstruct” all his deeply held religious beliefs. Everything is subjective and everyone who disagrees with the idea that everything is subjective is objectively evil: non-Western Christians for instance who don’t particularly care about “gay marriage.” But it weren’t the Jehovah’s Witness, going from door to door, who threatened peace; it were the Nazis who put them into concentration camps, and the liberals now who essentially work on the criminalization of Christianity, up to an absurd, Kafkaesque point where even not baking a cake is considered to be a criminal act. It is not longer enough for the citizen to simply submit – Babylon demands accomplices. 

10. We have to resist the temptation to give up religious truths for the sake of political comradery. Tolerance once implied to accept that others hold to different truths, not to give up our ideas of truth themselves. It’s very sad to see that so many Protestant Christians are unwilling to utter the least amount of criticism directed at Catholodoxy; and it’s even sadder to see that the opposite does not seem to be the case. While Russia is making it harder and harder for independent churches to survive, and the Catholodox on the internet make no secret out of the fact how much they despise the true Church, it’s mostly lukewarm cultural Protestants who immediately clutch their pearls and jump to the defense of Catholodoxy whenever someone voices his opposition towards them. We must somehow find a way to defend the concept of truth (and vice versa of heretical errors and damnable lies) against both left-wing and right-wing modernists, while simultaneously work together against feminists, neoconservatives and “globalists.” “Nam pirata non est ex perduellium numero definitus, sed communis hostis omnium.” – “For the pirate is not counted among the enemies of the state, but he is the common enemy of all.” To sum up: we should be good people and together fight against this common enemy of all, but still keep a cool head about it and neither make excuses for the first nor for the third Rome.

Posted in Christianity, False Religions, Philosophy | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Love Not the World…

“Whatever kind of tribulation presses upon us, we must ever look to this end: to accustom ourselves to contempt for the present life and to be aroused thereby to meditate upon the future life. For since God knows best how much we are inclined by nature to a brutish love of this world, he uses the fittest means to draw us back and to shake off our sluggishness, lest we cleave too tenaciously to that love. The whole soul, enmeshed in the allurements of the flesh, seeks its happiness on earth. To counter this evil the Lord instructs his followers in the vanity of the present life by continual proof of its miseries. Therefore, that they not promise themselves a deep and secure peace in it, he permits them often to be troubled and plagued either with wars or tumults, or robberies, or other injuries. For this we must believe: that the mind is never seriously aroused to desire and ponder the life to come unless it be previously imbued with contempt for the present life. Indeed, there is no middle ground between these two: either the world must become worthless to us or hold us bound by intemperate love of it.

  • John Calvin, Institutes, III. ix. 1 f.
Posted in Christianity, Music | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Ten Thoughts on Racism

1. According to the monopolized (fake news) media, I am, of course, a racist; and if the monopolized (fake news) media don’t call you a racist (or a self-hating Uncle Tom who has “internalized” racism) you’re doing something wrong. Likewise, if you would feel comfortable telling an audience full of journalists, college professors, teachers and other meme replicators of the ruling class everything you honestly believe about racism, you’re doing something wrong, either. But just because the monopolized (fake news) media call everyone and everything a Nazi, racist, fascist doesn’t mean that there aren’t any real Nazis, racists, fascists left.

2. In some ways, it doesn’t even matter if racism is right or wrong. Consider, for instance, the EU parliament building in Strasbourg and compare it to a primitive African hut used as a church. Obviously, centuries of a superior intelligence were needed to build a building such as this parliament. In the grand scheme of things, however, the spirit behind this primitive church is superior and more important than the “wisdom of the world” that was only used to give the anti-Christian EU a main building. (Or compare primitive African music like the one the Missa Luba was based on with all the technology needed to create something as monstrous as Miley Cyrus and her strap-on dildos.) When alt-right-ish types attack Christianity, saying, that a white Christian would rather give his daughter to a Christian black man than to a white Pagan, they are, of course, correct. You can give Caesar what is Caesar’s, but you can’t worship both God and money.

3. Even if racism was true and, say, black people were on average less intelligent than white people for biological reasons – would this really give white people the right to discriminate against black people? You could just as well make the case for giving people with inherited disadvantages the additional support they’d need. And if you’re opposed to such moral arguments and more concerned about intelligence, you should rather give your white daughter to one of the few/er intelligent black men than to one of the few/er unintelligent white man.

4. People are less equal than they say but more equal than they think. The number of Mozarts and Newtons and other real geniuses is minimal. What we need are working class and middle-class jobs, and non-whites are obviously at least intelligent enough to build the cars that were once manufactured in the West. And many white collar jobs in California are done by Indians and Asians now. The capital wants to go to misery (“outsource” jobs to China, Mexico, India, etc.) and/or import misery (as low-wage immigrants). “No borders, no nations!” is just as much an ANTIFA slogan as it is the slogan of the monopolized US mega-capital. Just throwing non-whites out of Western countries would therefore not solve the problem of the mega-capital outsourcing jobs to these countries, and hence forcing white people to drastically decrease their living standard in order to remain competitive with miserable Mexicans or Chinese people.

5. During the Weimar Republic, Hitler’s young Nazi party was often accused of offering a faux anti-Capitalism. The saying was that “Antisemitism is the anti-Capitalism of fools.” I believe that the current hostility towards white men as a scapegoat also is a kind of faux anti-Capitalism, the anti-Capitalism of fools. I also believe that the current ruling class doesn’t hate white people as white people, but that it’s actually worse. They want “free trade” and open borders to drive down ages, drive up rents and create even more competition among the 99% of people who don’t own any capital. Since white middle-class men are pretty much the only group left that either has some tiny capital themselves, or have at least has the potential to create some capital and hence competition to the monopolized US mega-capital of the ruling class, they have to go away. But it’s not like black men or Hispanic women profit from the destruction of the white middle-class. It’s not like there’s less of a white but more of a black middle-class now. It’s not like the people of Iran or China or Syria or North-Korea will profit from that and at least be left alone. Personally, I think that this is a much more scary thought than the idea of (((them))) just hating on whiteness or something. That would be bad, of course, just as a furious man kicking someone lying on the ground would not be a pretty sight, of course. But it’s far more scary to see a calm and tranquil man kicking someone lying on the ground. Someone who isn’t even angered but just wants his victim to go away. The angry people, the psychopaths so to speak, who are manically laughing while kicking someone lying on the ground, aren’t the ones with power but simply the ones who are paid and hired by the ones in power. Teachers, college professors, activists; these “meme replicators” are all disposable. It’s not like in the days of Professor Higgins anymore, most people working in (higher) education have shit fixed-term contracts, are only hired for two semesters or so and also have to face with more and more brutal competition. There is a lot of jealousy and anger directed at people working in (higher) education, only some of it justified but some also based on a misplaced jealousy that is not even justified. 30 shekels to sell your soul. “But what are they for so many?” (John 6:9)

6. I suppose that “racial awareness” can be a tool to help explain the world, though. Just as weak eyes need to be aided by glasses to discern everything distinctly, we need to be aided by some theories of history to understand the world and to explain why things happened the way they did happen. Sunni Islam for instance can be explained as a religion (and/or as a false religion from a Christian point of view), but it can also be explained as a tribal phenomenon that serves as the ideological and cultural glue, holding 1001 mixed-brown ethnicities more or less together. But I don’t really see what’s wrong with historical “syncretism” so to speak. I am of course totally opposed to religious syncretism, but already having a religion I don’t need a secular surrogate religion like Marxism or a neo-Pagan surrogate religion with Julius Evola and Rosenberg and Hitler. Marxist terminology for instance is far more precise than liberal terminology, so I say “ruling class” and not “elites” (they wish they were elites!) and as I said, I believe that this ruling class is motivated by material interests, not by bad ideas like anti-white racism, but that doesn’t mean that I want to become an actual Marxist. Just as I don’t want to become a racist in the sense Andrew Anglin is an actual racist. (People who throw around “racist” as a buzzword and people who throw around “cultural Marxist” as a buzzword often feel not so much like opposites but like the two sides of the same coin to me. Unsurprisingly, “cuckservatives” (who believe that “Democrats are the real racists!” and worship this trinity of Martin Luther King, the US Constitution and “classical” 19th century liberalism) love to throw around both of these buzzwords, and are as paranoid about racism as they are about anti-Capitalism…

7. As for the Jews: even putting aside now the very important question of Genesis and Darwinism (Was death the result of sin as Paul says or was it operative long before man even came into existence as Darwin says?), it has massive theological implications to say that Jewish people need to be kept out of the Church for racial reasons. Even in the old covenant, you could of course convert, just as you can convert to Judaism today. They just treat it as you becoming part of a nation. It might be hard but in theory it’s always possible to become part of a nation, but you can’t become part of a race. The old covenant was ethnic but it wasn’t racial in the sense we use race today. Also, even hardcore anti-Semites usually admit that the billionaire class of Jews doesn’t really care about the poor Jews in France who then have to live the Islamic anti-Semitism from Muslim immigrants. And if these rich Jews don’t care about poor Jews just as rich white people don’t care about poor white people, then maybe the race isn’t the most significant factor at play here…

8. Admittedly, the kind of racism you sometimes find on AmRen, from people like Jared Taylor or Identitarians like Alain de Benoist has nothing to do with this occult Pagan racism of Heinrich Himmler and the like. For instance, what I write here about Marxism and anti-Capitalism I mostly have from obscure writers like Alain de Benoist (Identitarian), Kerry Bolton (National Socialist), Aleksandr Dugin (beyond good and evil) or Fritz-Erik Hoevels (Communist). Recently, I read a book about Marxism from Hoevels and although he is accused of being a right-winger for being opposed to Islam, to feminism, open borders and supports an alliance with Russia against US monoimperialism (the same imperialism that bombed Serbia, Iraq and now Syria, etc.), he is, of course, still a Marxist who is opposed to racism. And the example he uses in this book to show that racism is not about science or identity but simply an ideology, is from an old schoolbook from Nazi Germany. Apparently, this book taught that the “racial soul” of the Frisians (a Germanic ethnic group indigenous to the coastal parts of the Netherlands, Germany and Denmark) was deeply influenced by living at the sea for centuries. Living at and from the sea for centuries had allegedly caused their Germanic desire for freedom and their German work ethic and their aversion to overly intellectual drivel and claptrap. Hoevels then, among other things, points out that this is not Darwinism but Lamarckism; he says that racists are almost always opposed to Darwinism and atheism and are in most cases Lamarckists (due to living at the wide, eternal and so very dangerous sea, Frisians develop a longing for freedom, impulse control and work ethic, this becomes a characteristic of their “racial soul” and this characteristic they then pass on to their offspring). If racism would be really about science, he says, racists wouldn’t be opposed to Darwinism and atheism and wouldn’t always put some occult/esoteric/spiritual stuff on the materialistic basis of race. And while I believe that this is an interesting argument, you have to admit that there at least some racists left who otherwise have a secular, “scientific” world view (like Taylor) or a “cultural” world view (like de Benoist) – all without the obscure New Age mysticism that is associated with writers like Evola and Rosenberg.

9. In some ways, it does matter if racism is right or wrong, though, because it matters if something is only an idea or if it has a material basis that is true no matter what you think about it. “Historical materialism” (i.e. “Marxism”) is also an opposition to Hegelian idealism, and i.e., broadly speaking, the assumption that every society and every historical period is shaped not by good or bad ideas but by its “mode of production.” So, the question of slavery for instance is not a struggle of ideas, but first and foremost a materialist struggle. Americans who don’t buy into the idea that their Civil War was fought because some people suddenly got the idea that slavery was bad and had to be ended, should actually understand this thought. So, of course it makes a difference if race is first and foremost an idea or if it has a material basis in our biological machinery.

10. I guess the tenth thought should be about my personal conclusion on the question of racism, of environmental vs racially inherited factors, etc., but to be perfectly honest, I’m not even sure in how far I actually have this one conclusion yet. It just seems like a rather complicated issue to me that raises so many questions, so many moral questions, it has so many implications in regards to theology, etc. Also, I’m not even sure in how far it even is important to gain a very specific kind of consensus. I mean, I’ve met people who believe that the Jesuits are behind mass-immigration into the former Protestant nations of Northern America and Western Europe; so they believe that the puppet masters behind the curtain are motivated by destroying Protestantism. And while I don’t believe that Jesuits secretly rule the world, we would both support the same parties and movements at the end of the day. We would both be opposed to more immigration, open borders, feminism, Islam, the destruction of authentic cultures in order to create this genderless, borderless, Godless, raceless eunuch, a race “as ineradicable as the flea; the last man lives longest” (Nietzsche).

Posted in Alt-Right, Capitalism, Philosophy | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Faux Masculinity

Recently, we went to a Chinese restaurant with the family and my brother made some lame jokes about me picking vegetables and tofu from the buffet. I found this in so far interesting, as he isn’t the kind of guy who otherwise has any problems with accepting mass-immigration, “refugees” and Islam, “women’s rights”, etc. But of course, most men living here in Western Europe don’t. There is, however, a rather bizarre kind of surrogate masculinity, a faux masculinity. While many men these days are completely neutered cucks, they are yet (or because of that) practically obsessed with professing their masculinity by only listening to heavy metal music, only eating unhealthy fast food, playing violent video games, watching action movies, and so on. If you were to tell them that you love your Lord Jesus Christ, they’d cringe; but they don’t have any problems with open borders, mass-immigration, Islam, “gender equality” and a whole system that essentially works against the interests of men just like them.

    Then again, it’s getting increasingly hard to tell what they really believe, because it’s the women who are getting increasingly political and politically aggressive, while many men just shamefully drop their gaze when politics come up, and just seem to hope that the topic will change soon. Women, however, rant on and on about the “refugees” and “equality”, while being “politically incorrect” (or “based”) essentially just means that they propose other strategies to achieve “equality” (market not state), and make out other enemies to the false god of “equality” (Muslim and not Christian men). There are men who don’t want to tell the women they are interested in, which party they vote for and which opinions they hold, but I’ve never heard of any woman being afraid of telling a man about her preferred method and party to achieve “equality” and “diversity.” Men approach “dating” like a job interview; and it’s the women who even ask the political questions. 

    Many modern men somehow pull off the feat of being both completely neutered cucks and yet they behave like absurd caricatures of masculinity; like big, black dogs that look intimidating and bark loudly, but are effectively on the leash of the female and with their balls having being surgically removed. Only on command do they bark to the female’s delight and pretend that there’s something raw in them left. Like in the bedroom where these masculinized females want them to perform a just as faux kind of “dominance”, to hurt and to humiliate them in some degenerate 50 shades of BDSM games -the more radical the more feminist she is- before they’re ordered to drop the act again. Talking about violence, I miss the olden days when guys on the internet just threatened to find and to fight you IRL. These days, however, more and more guys I debate with on the internet aren’t even aggressive but, rather, shockingly sarcastic and snarky; their whole attitude just characterised by such an effeminate kind of a jaded cynicism, like that of a skinnyfat Jewish faggot talking about Evangelicals.

   Indeed, we do see “laughably artificial “tribes” forming around such trivialities as music styles, fashion, films, and cringe-worthy fandom based on TV cartoons such as anime”, and I guess, this too is a kind of plastic surrogate, a faux nationalism for the faux masculinity. I don’t know how it is in the US but in Europe, even in the West, men sometimes literally fight each other because they prefer different soccer clubs, and you have hooligans and fan clubs, literally fighting each other, blood might even flow, some people might get seriously injured, just because they prefer different soccer clubs! It’s so pathetic. Sometimes, the only thing I hate more than white Western women are white Western men – and their faux masculinity that is pro “equality”, pro mass-immigration and pro open-borders but anti-intellectual, anti-art, anti-poetry, anti-Christian. 

Posted in Feminism | Tagged , | Leave a comment

Hands off Syria! Hands off North Korea!

Syria and especially Assad represent everything the “free West” hates from the bottom of its capitalist heart: the sovereign nation state, independence from the US, a coalition with Russia (that has one of their last bases in Syria) and an at least slightly socialist domestication of the “free market”, the “free West” worships (almost) religiously. Assad signed his death warrant when he refused to join the imperialist war against the sovereign people of Iraq in 2003, when President Saddam Hussein was murdered in order to create the barbaric chaos we can witness today.

   Also, happy slaves are the bitterest enemies of actual freedom, and every happy slave and every content servant hates the dignity and the pride of the free soul that remains standing upright and despite all blows of all whips just refuses to worship Caesar. Syria displays dignity in weakness, and abject Western wretches simply cannot bear to see this, for it shows them every day what the difference is between a sovereign people with a sovereign statesman, and a bunch of disposable underlings for whom it is no longer enough that citizens submit, but who now demand accomplices.

   There is no reason to idealize Assad (or Hussein or Gaddafi for that matter) but you just have to compare Assad to the sheikhs of Saudi-Arabia the US loves so much, to Erdogan and to Qatar to know on whose side you should be. We also shouldn’t hold it against Assad that the Mullahs of Iran support him. They simply know who, after the destruction of Syria, would be next on the menu of American imperialism: “Nam pirata non est ex perduellium numero definitus, sed communis hostis omnium.” (“For the pirate is not counted among the enemies of the state, but he is the common enemy of all.”)

  That being said, no matter if it’s China or Iran, Russia or North Korea; every at least somewhat independent, somewhat sovereign country that has the potential to put up at least somewhat of a resistance against the total Gleichschaltung, the total forcing into line, under the (ideological) dominion of US mega-capital, shall be wiped out and destroyed like Iraq under Saddam Hussein; no matter how much oil they do or don’t have, no matter how much of a threat they are or are not.

  Monoimperialism after the end of the Eastern bloc is now followed by the monopolization of capital (every non-American mini-capital shall be destroyed, so American billionaires can rule over all the earth). It doesn’t matter if a country, a state, makes “good” or “bad” usage of its independence, it if uses said independence to support or to oppress the Christian churches; the fact that it is at least somewhat independent must make it an enemy in the eyes of the wicked US Empire. And empire, that is also waging war against Christ – it’s not like they are defenders of Christ at least at home and that at least the US Christians would profit from this rainbow-colored kind of imperialism.

  Trump having flirted with Russia and isolationism during his campaign simply had to make himself an enemy of the ruling class and their meme replicators (= journalists, teachers, professors, “activists”, artists, etc.). Once the last pitiful remainders of national sovereignty are destroyed, we will all be finally enslaved; then, it won’t even suffice for proper wars or “economic crises” anymore (topics for some other posts), then the whole world will simply be in the hands of US mega-capital; then, there won’t be any place left in the whole wide word where some powerful, effective resistance and competition could grow around non-American capital. After all, all Political power grows out of the barrels of guns that need to be payed. Without economic competition there will also be no philosophical competition. (This is something many Americans seem to understand far better than many idealistic Europeans.)

   Now, Before someone replies that North Korea isn’t a free country, it is important to note that only sovereign nations have the potential to eventually become free nations. Only sovereign nations can become free nations. It is not guaranteed that a sovereign nation will become a free nation (North Korea is obviously terrible); but that a non-sovereign country (essentially a colony with slaves) will be an unfree country, that is guaranteed!

Posted in US Monoimperialism | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment