The early Roman Republic was democratic republic with notions of equality. Rome under the Christians was an undemocratic empire with huge disparities in wealth.
Paul was certainly not for equality when it came to women. Also, the equality before God was already established in Zoroastrianism. So Paul could not have invented it.
Trannies and their supporters have a low birthrate. A pagan Roman complained they will decline because the barbarians and Christians have a high birth rate.
Economic inequality in America is much higher than 60 years ago.
"Paul was certainly not for equality when it came to women." This is true, his position on women was pretty red-pilled.
Trannies and their liberal supporters have a low birth rate, but they don't really propagate via birth but via indoctrination and molestation, i.e. they convert the children of conservatives.
> "Also, the equality before God was already established in Zoroastrianism. So Paul could not have invented it."
Paul was a Jewish subject of a Roman Caesar - not a Zoroastrian. I feel like acting akin to a pedantic historian, but it is my impression that there is a difference. Zoroastrians did not expect the people outside their empire to recognise their good - until they came to conquer them, of course. Whereas Paul saw no trouble converting the subjects of Rome from their native gods (and even Emperor worship) to Yeshua. And it's not like Paul was expecting the Roman Caesar to convert to his creed (Paul was not some new sovereign renovating the cult to his liking).
That said, it is curious to note that the Christians did eventually come to associate their Jewish religion with the Roman Empire, and concerted efforts at Christianisation beyond their borders only came with Charlemagne (war-like) and the accursed Anglos (peaceful).
> "The early Roman Republic was democratic republic with notions of equality. Rome under the Christians was an undemocratic empire with huge disparities in wealth."
The Mammon-worship of the empire is another topic, tangential to the pollution of blood and the corruption of the moral character. Yet it is a mistake to call Christian self-abnegation healthy. After all, their distrust of the riches might well have contributed to the fall of Rome. And they could not build a good society in its place, chemically castrating their children the moment Luther translated the Bible and medicine developed the drugs.
Christianity spread Eastward from the start. Christianity was once the dominant religion in the Middle East. Western Christianity was once the backwater of the Christian world.
Reputedly, the apostle Thomas went to India. Nestorian Christianity sent missionaries as far as Mongolia.
See "The Lost History of Christianity" by Philip Jenkins.
I know all that. What you're missing is my ability to cut off the irrelevant parts of history. The Eastern Roman Empire became largely irrelevant starting with the Justinian plague. Not to say that the West rose immediately after - it took a millennium to build itself up. But in the mean time, Byzantium was vanquished without a trace, with the Turkic realm in its place.
It is one thing to debate philosophy and theology, where all views are effectively eternal. It is another matter to consider the worldviews which had any effect in reality. Mongolia, for one, has always been an irrelevant backwater, a heaven's scourge for China's sins in the better times. Whereas the legacy of the Greeks only lives on in Russia - a similarly irrelevant shithole, akin to Poland or Armenia.
What are your predictions in the next 5-10 years? Is there any safety in the world if you are considered the wrong skin tone or wrong sexual orientation? Skin tone is something one can’t hide or change.
Hi Deb, I think in prior decades there were places to flee to but not really in the current era. Australia and New Zealand had some of the worst COVID lockdowns in the world, and they've both banned gun ownership while swarming their countries with non-integrating nonwhites. Europe isn't any better. I think rural areas will likely hold out longer than urban areas, for whatever that's worth, and the more self-sufficient one can be in terms of their living and food supplies the better off you'll be.
Specific predictions are a tricky matter; it's hard to know from the outside of their plots until they unleash their chosen plot de jure. Globohomo operates using many developed contingencies that they can roll out depending on political necessity. For example, they rolled out COVID in 2020 because they needed Trump gone and to institute permanent vote by mail. But they likely had that plan for decades ready to go and dusted it off. They have many other contingencies ready to go when needed. All these top level guys do is plot and come up with new plans to consolidate their power and crush their enemies.
With that caveat, my predictions for the next 5-10 years are that globohomo will roll out central bank digital currencies (CBDCs) under the guise of either a fake banking crisis, or otherwise spread it more slowly via introducing it in the form of welfare. CBDCs will be used to micromanage individual behavior (enforced by woke AI) to an extent greater than any other in human history.
I think there is a decent chance that globohomo pushes the right into a corner -- perhaps by charging Trump with treason for 1/6 and putting him in prison for life or giving him the death penalty, or through other measures (87,000 new armed IRS agents?) -- in order to cause them to rise up, after which globohomo will use the military to brutally crush them.
That's all cute, although why not emigrate to Slovakia? Incidentally, this is why I think in my most tinfoil-hat fears a nuclear war with Poland possible - because Poland is just a large Slovakia.
The balance is found in the concept of natural rights, which must adhere to the principal of non contradiction, that is, ones natural right must not contradict another's natural right. Life, liberty, speech etc. You never know from where greatness will arise.
Beyond that, let the cream rise to the top.
It seems that all is lost until there is a transvaluation. This is unlikely without a catastrophic collapse.
Hi Broken, I'm a little weary of the concept of natural rights because I associate it both with egalitarianism and libertarianism (the latter of which can only work in a homogenous, high trust society). I ultimately think "rights" are ultimately upheld at the point of a gun, and to lose sight of that is to invite in decadence and complacency...I agree with you that a transvaluation of values seems highly unlikely without a major crisis.
Government is force. The question is how can that force be constrained. (If you think it should). I think the american framework is close, but has gone off the rails. Not sure how to rectify the short comings.
Egalitarianism is simply the disguise use by those seeking domination to hide behind. I do not think they are sincere in the slightest. They are sociopaths.
Agree that a common framework is required, and the ability to articulate that is the primary target of the unification of corporate and governmental power.
> "Egalitarianism is simply the disguise use by those seeking domination to hide behind. I do not think they are sincere in the slightest. They are sociopaths."
Said by every single Marxist ever! They simply cannot believe that the Christians are genuinely this stupid and suicidal. But they are. The Anglos destroyed their empire for the sake of poor Slavic Jews. The Americans not only refused to exterminate the Japanese and Chinese when they could, they even proceeded to humiliate themselves in Afghanistan because they could not bring themselves to kill the Asiatics.
Now their empire crumbles because they fed China, their founding stock is being replaced with Mexicans, Jews and women, and it's still apparently some nefarious power play! Yes, these "sick psychopaths" are so "sick" - right when their paedophile rings are being uncovered, and glorious Jewish men are left hanging in their cells due to the whorish Me2 campaign (Epstein did nothing wrong).
Agreed! I know some people would still pull a Hillary Clinton and think 1984 was about why people should trust the government, but I still can't help but feel that if more people just read Harrison Bergeron, 1984, Brave New World, Fahrenheit 451, and their ilk, the general populace would at least be in slightly better shape. People need to at least watch Idiocracy! haha
Excellent post! Very interesting. I believe it was philosopher Don Marguis, or his bud Archy the Cockroach, who said, "If meek inherit the earth someone has to run it for them"
One factor overlooked here is that the Roman populace literally turned more and more into slaves.
The noble and strong of the peoples the romans conquered were usually slain in battle or killed afterwards. What remained were the weak and the slaves and they were transfered as slaves into Roman society. So, genetically speaking, over time the Roman founding stock was substituted for foreign slaves. No surprise these people favored different values.
I think something similar was happening in the last 250 years in Europe. The most noble and capable founding stock was killed off in ever more deadly wars at a young age before having children of their own. The weak and cowardly survived and multiplied. Add to that the accelerating dysgenics trough modern medicine and industry and you have a quite different genetic profile today than you had traditionally. You see it in pictures, you see it everyday. To think these people can even hold the same moral values is ludicrous.
Hi RGK, I understand and respect your approach, many share it. But it is a deontological approach -- i.e. it accepts Christ's resurrection at face value and then tries to make sense of the world based on that belief as the cornerstone of the worldview. My approach is looking at things via cause-and-effect, judging beliefs by the fruit that it bears, and so it is a fundamentally different approach. There is plenty of good that has come from Christianity, as long as the egalitarianism has been kept in check...
Hi RGK, sure. The way I like to review religious institutions -- and all institutions, really, including secular ones -- is by exploring the real-world results of those institutions, which can be both good and bad, usually both and in varying degrees and ways. Then I ask why and how did those results happen and develop in that way? In other words, I start with looking at the results and then I work backwards to the theology, not starting with the theology and then trying to explain the world from it.
Through these judgments I have developed a worldview, which I then test recursively based on its predictive power for the future. If a future event doesn't turn out the way I expected, then I try to update my worldview to accommodate the event. Sometimes these updates are minor, sometimes major (although not many major updates these days).
Here's an example. Based on demographic changes Islam is rapidly expanding and Christianity is rapidly contracting throughout Europe, and trends indicate that this will continue. What is it about the nature of Christianity and Islam that has led to this outcome so far (in addition to other factors, of course)? Then delve into specific religious doctrines, etc...
I loved this essay. It reminds of the debate on the far right that is roughly about whether the goal should be to change minds or whether it should be to gain power. I don't think it's an either or, but I've been of the mind that we really need to stem the tide of leftist thought and start to make inegalitarian, meritocratic and self-favoring ('America First', 'white people built the modern world and have a lot more to be proud of than ashamed of') ideas more popular and publicly acceptable. I think the overreach of the left is starting to accomplish this but it's really surprising how difficult it is to make these ideas, that I think most people implicitly agree with, explicit and publicly acceptable.
Nice comment, Rowan, and I agree it's not an either/or. That being said, the difficulty in effectuating real change stems, in my opinion, from people's failure to recognize that their beliefs are not rooted in reason, intellect or science (the way everyone wants to think their beliefs are), but rather from the blindly retained ethics and morals of a long-since-discarded religious faith whose rotten corpse currently manifests in an all-pervasive, all-encompassing nihilism. If people begin to understand that their belief in egalitarianism are irrational and faith-based, perhaps real change becomes possible...
I'm not an english speaker. what do you mean by " The central bank owning Rothschilds and their allies", is the central bank the owner or the property ?
totally agree with you, it's the formulation that puzzled me, I would have said the central bank owned by the Rothschilds" or "the Rothschilds-owned Central Banks"
anyway, the article is great and I fully agree on everything....I had heard about this Tom Holland but I did not appreciate how radical he could be in his positions, i'm amazed he's not canceled by the loonies....
Thank you, and nice links (although it looks like Romain hasn't tweeted in a couple of years). Yes, I like Guillaume Faye and the Nouvelle Droite...I regularly link to this post by the blogger Kynosarges about the weakness of the populist right: https://news.kynosarges.org/full-speed-into-the-void/
Kynosarges is a follower of the Nouvelle Droite...
The link (the post by the blogger Kynosarges about the weakness of the populist right) has been compromised? It leads to an advertisement for fast food restaurants in NYC. Can you re-link?
The warrior-priests could be seen as the soyboy cucks of our SJW days. Or the Catholic knights in Prussia who weren't even permitted to rape the locals. Or the fanatical Bolsheviks. (All I'm saying is that "priest" is a ridiculously unclean word for Nietzsche.)
“In a full transvaluation of values to Roman style warrior values, inequality is promoted as an ideal and the poor, the destitute, the obese and dumb are discarded like genetic detritus, both individually and as classes. Taken to an extreme, that means extermination of the out-groups.”
This is exactly what the current elite are doing. We are the genetic detritus to them. They are exterminating us as an out-group.
This is why white nationalism and especially exterminationism is a dead end, since the 6-7% of the planet that is European needs others to join in the battle against the elite if we are to win, especially given extreme European susceptibility to elite strategy and tactics.
Buying into beliefs like the above leads to a sense of hopelessness and despair when it is being done successfully to Europeans by a more capable elite.
Hi Ron, I agree with you that the masses of the world have a great incentive to band together and resist it, as I wrote elsewhere:
“This is a big reason why both garden-variety civic nationalism and far-right white nationalism is a dead end: putting aside that the West is rapidly turning brown and black and that the Germans who elected the Nazis had a 98% white country (i.e. it was an easy Schelling point at the time), and that the white world population has shrunk from 25% of the world population in 1900 to 6.5% today, it doesn’t understand that their globohomo opposition suppresses nationalism everywhere, therefore resistance to it needs to take place on a global basis from a position of populism and nationalism everywhere. Everyone in the world other than the tiny number of central bank owning families and their underlings is a slave to this system, therefore everyone has an incentive to upend it. Even if the end goal is nationalism, it cannot be accomplished while this global system is in force.”
I much appreciated this. I have been consumed of late, how to upend (transvalue) society to save it. We are on a trajectory of the loss of America and the West, an America where no one remembers either, and all the knowledge and literature of 2500 years is as dust.
Though I read Kynosarga's piece too, and I was following along until his finis, that we have to become European again. I think that is wrong. We cannot return to the Faustian. What transvaluing happens here has to be fundamentally American, i.e. something based on the old but wholly new.
Nice diagram of cultural changes, but still skeptical of the proposed governing mechanisms and overall model of the system. Be interested in seeing how variables like energy use per capita and average population density map out against degree of egalitarianism 'penetration'. I suspect instead that increased (labor-free and decision-free) production in the economic system over time took the average level of environmental pressure off people so that what they did, and how well they did it, came to matter much, much less than in it did in the past. Currently (well, that may be slowly changing now) people like those that constitute the modern 'left wing' have plenty of time, energy, and opportunity to artificially fill in the empty spaces in their lives with all kinds of odd imaginings and cultural constructions based on those imaginings. If this is a correct interpretation, it very well might be a blessing they're culturally 'infected' with the relatively harmless tenets of Christianity; i.e., it could possibly be worse.
Are you implying the England and Germany of the 1930s to be technologically different? Because the ideologies they ended up adopting proved to be absolutely irreconcilable. Blaming everything on the material (=economic, race is matter, too) conditions is pure Marxism.
Nah, I'm saying the technological and economic slack [western urban] people have allows them to follow their fantasies. These fantasies used to be markedly different from place to place, but now these imaginings are more homogeneous. Marxism has nothing to do with this hypothesis -- except that it also was (and is) an economically and technologically- permitted fantasy for some people.
But that's the thing, technology is an enable of culture, yet the underlying culture can be diametrically opposite. Some countries use trains to transport migrants in, others - to transport the Jews out (gassing them in the process, IIRC).
The early Roman Republic was democratic republic with notions of equality. Rome under the Christians was an undemocratic empire with huge disparities in wealth.
Paul was certainly not for equality when it came to women. Also, the equality before God was already established in Zoroastrianism. So Paul could not have invented it.
Trannies and their supporters have a low birthrate. A pagan Roman complained they will decline because the barbarians and Christians have a high birth rate.
Economic inequality in America is much higher than 60 years ago.
"Paul was certainly not for equality when it came to women." This is true, his position on women was pretty red-pilled.
Trannies and their liberal supporters have a low birth rate, but they don't really propagate via birth but via indoctrination and molestation, i.e. they convert the children of conservatives.
> "Also, the equality before God was already established in Zoroastrianism. So Paul could not have invented it."
Paul was a Jewish subject of a Roman Caesar - not a Zoroastrian. I feel like acting akin to a pedantic historian, but it is my impression that there is a difference. Zoroastrians did not expect the people outside their empire to recognise their good - until they came to conquer them, of course. Whereas Paul saw no trouble converting the subjects of Rome from their native gods (and even Emperor worship) to Yeshua. And it's not like Paul was expecting the Roman Caesar to convert to his creed (Paul was not some new sovereign renovating the cult to his liking).
That said, it is curious to note that the Christians did eventually come to associate their Jewish religion with the Roman Empire, and concerted efforts at Christianisation beyond their borders only came with Charlemagne (war-like) and the accursed Anglos (peaceful).
> "The early Roman Republic was democratic republic with notions of equality. Rome under the Christians was an undemocratic empire with huge disparities in wealth."
The Mammon-worship of the empire is another topic, tangential to the pollution of blood and the corruption of the moral character. Yet it is a mistake to call Christian self-abnegation healthy. After all, their distrust of the riches might well have contributed to the fall of Rome. And they could not build a good society in its place, chemically castrating their children the moment Luther translated the Bible and medicine developed the drugs.
Christianity spread Eastward from the start. Christianity was once the dominant religion in the Middle East. Western Christianity was once the backwater of the Christian world.
Reputedly, the apostle Thomas went to India. Nestorian Christianity sent missionaries as far as Mongolia.
See "The Lost History of Christianity" by Philip Jenkins.
I know all that. What you're missing is my ability to cut off the irrelevant parts of history. The Eastern Roman Empire became largely irrelevant starting with the Justinian plague. Not to say that the West rose immediately after - it took a millennium to build itself up. But in the mean time, Byzantium was vanquished without a trace, with the Turkic realm in its place.
It is one thing to debate philosophy and theology, where all views are effectively eternal. It is another matter to consider the worldviews which had any effect in reality. Mongolia, for one, has always been an irrelevant backwater, a heaven's scourge for China's sins in the better times. Whereas the legacy of the Greeks only lives on in Russia - a similarly irrelevant shithole, akin to Poland or Armenia.
What are your predictions in the next 5-10 years? Is there any safety in the world if you are considered the wrong skin tone or wrong sexual orientation? Skin tone is something one can’t hide or change.
Hi Deb, I think in prior decades there were places to flee to but not really in the current era. Australia and New Zealand had some of the worst COVID lockdowns in the world, and they've both banned gun ownership while swarming their countries with non-integrating nonwhites. Europe isn't any better. I think rural areas will likely hold out longer than urban areas, for whatever that's worth, and the more self-sufficient one can be in terms of their living and food supplies the better off you'll be.
Specific predictions are a tricky matter; it's hard to know from the outside of their plots until they unleash their chosen plot de jure. Globohomo operates using many developed contingencies that they can roll out depending on political necessity. For example, they rolled out COVID in 2020 because they needed Trump gone and to institute permanent vote by mail. But they likely had that plan for decades ready to go and dusted it off. They have many other contingencies ready to go when needed. All these top level guys do is plot and come up with new plans to consolidate their power and crush their enemies.
With that caveat, my predictions for the next 5-10 years are that globohomo will roll out central bank digital currencies (CBDCs) under the guise of either a fake banking crisis, or otherwise spread it more slowly via introducing it in the form of welfare. CBDCs will be used to micromanage individual behavior (enforced by woke AI) to an extent greater than any other in human history.
I think there is a decent chance that globohomo pushes the right into a corner -- perhaps by charging Trump with treason for 1/6 and putting him in prison for life or giving him the death penalty, or through other measures (87,000 new armed IRS agents?) -- in order to cause them to rise up, after which globohomo will use the military to brutally crush them.
That's all cute, although why not emigrate to Slovakia? Incidentally, this is why I think in my most tinfoil-hat fears a nuclear war with Poland possible - because Poland is just a large Slovakia.
We have become a parody of Harrison Bergeron.
The balance is found in the concept of natural rights, which must adhere to the principal of non contradiction, that is, ones natural right must not contradict another's natural right. Life, liberty, speech etc. You never know from where greatness will arise.
Beyond that, let the cream rise to the top.
It seems that all is lost until there is a transvaluation. This is unlikely without a catastrophic collapse.
Hi Broken, I'm a little weary of the concept of natural rights because I associate it both with egalitarianism and libertarianism (the latter of which can only work in a homogenous, high trust society). I ultimately think "rights" are ultimately upheld at the point of a gun, and to lose sight of that is to invite in decadence and complacency...I agree with you that a transvaluation of values seems highly unlikely without a major crisis.
Three thoughts.
Government is force. The question is how can that force be constrained. (If you think it should). I think the american framework is close, but has gone off the rails. Not sure how to rectify the short comings.
Egalitarianism is simply the disguise use by those seeking domination to hide behind. I do not think they are sincere in the slightest. They are sociopaths.
Agree that a common framework is required, and the ability to articulate that is the primary target of the unification of corporate and governmental power.
> "Egalitarianism is simply the disguise use by those seeking domination to hide behind. I do not think they are sincere in the slightest. They are sociopaths."
Said by every single Marxist ever! They simply cannot believe that the Christians are genuinely this stupid and suicidal. But they are. The Anglos destroyed their empire for the sake of poor Slavic Jews. The Americans not only refused to exterminate the Japanese and Chinese when they could, they even proceeded to humiliate themselves in Afghanistan because they could not bring themselves to kill the Asiatics.
Now their empire crumbles because they fed China, their founding stock is being replaced with Mexicans, Jews and women, and it's still apparently some nefarious power play! Yes, these "sick psychopaths" are so "sick" - right when their paedophile rings are being uncovered, and glorious Jewish men are left hanging in their cells due to the whorish Me2 campaign (Epstein did nothing wrong).
The number of Jews is not increasing, and the percentage of women is not increasing.
I think about Harrison Bergeron all the time. It’s become upsettingly prescient.
Agreed! I know some people would still pull a Hillary Clinton and think 1984 was about why people should trust the government, but I still can't help but feel that if more people just read Harrison Bergeron, 1984, Brave New World, Fahrenheit 451, and their ilk, the general populace would at least be in slightly better shape. People need to at least watch Idiocracy! haha
'ones natural right must not contradict another's natural right. Life, liberty, speech etc.'
Still living in judeo-christian fairy land
Excellent post! Very interesting. I believe it was philosopher Don Marguis, or his bud Archy the Cockroach, who said, "If meek inherit the earth someone has to run it for them"
One factor overlooked here is that the Roman populace literally turned more and more into slaves.
The noble and strong of the peoples the romans conquered were usually slain in battle or killed afterwards. What remained were the weak and the slaves and they were transfered as slaves into Roman society. So, genetically speaking, over time the Roman founding stock was substituted for foreign slaves. No surprise these people favored different values.
I think something similar was happening in the last 250 years in Europe. The most noble and capable founding stock was killed off in ever more deadly wars at a young age before having children of their own. The weak and cowardly survived and multiplied. Add to that the accelerating dysgenics trough modern medicine and industry and you have a quite different genetic profile today than you had traditionally. You see it in pictures, you see it everyday. To think these people can even hold the same moral values is ludicrous.
Yes, Near East migrants became Christian even in Rome
Respectfully, for all the focus on Paul, Zoroastrianism, Rome, and various philosophers, “Christianity” in its essence comes down to Christ/Messiah.
Specifically, to His resurrection.
That’s the proverbial—and literal—game changer concerning all of humanity over all eternity.
Hi RGK, I understand and respect your approach, many share it. But it is a deontological approach -- i.e. it accepts Christ's resurrection at face value and then tries to make sense of the world based on that belief as the cornerstone of the worldview. My approach is looking at things via cause-and-effect, judging beliefs by the fruit that it bears, and so it is a fundamentally different approach. There is plenty of good that has come from Christianity, as long as the egalitarianism has been kept in check...
Thx for responding.
Can you flesh out your “cause-and-effect” paradigm?
I see the Cross/Crucifixion/Resurrection as the quintessential CAE moment in an eternity that envelopes time, space, and matter.
It is the primary and secondary witnesses to the resurrection that persuade me.
Hi RGK, sure. The way I like to review religious institutions -- and all institutions, really, including secular ones -- is by exploring the real-world results of those institutions, which can be both good and bad, usually both and in varying degrees and ways. Then I ask why and how did those results happen and develop in that way? In other words, I start with looking at the results and then I work backwards to the theology, not starting with the theology and then trying to explain the world from it.
Through these judgments I have developed a worldview, which I then test recursively based on its predictive power for the future. If a future event doesn't turn out the way I expected, then I try to update my worldview to accommodate the event. Sometimes these updates are minor, sometimes major (although not many major updates these days).
Here's an example. Based on demographic changes Islam is rapidly expanding and Christianity is rapidly contracting throughout Europe, and trends indicate that this will continue. What is it about the nature of Christianity and Islam that has led to this outcome so far (in addition to other factors, of course)? Then delve into specific religious doctrines, etc...
Thanks for clarifying.
Please correct me if I’m off target here:
Would it be accurate to say that your “world view” (perspective, etc.) is concerned solely with material reality—observable outcomes, data, etc.?
I want to understand where (if anywhere) non physical (“spiritual” or whatever term you would use) aspects of existence fit in (or do not fit in).
Thx in advance.
I loved this essay. It reminds of the debate on the far right that is roughly about whether the goal should be to change minds or whether it should be to gain power. I don't think it's an either or, but I've been of the mind that we really need to stem the tide of leftist thought and start to make inegalitarian, meritocratic and self-favoring ('America First', 'white people built the modern world and have a lot more to be proud of than ashamed of') ideas more popular and publicly acceptable. I think the overreach of the left is starting to accomplish this but it's really surprising how difficult it is to make these ideas, that I think most people implicitly agree with, explicit and publicly acceptable.
Nice comment, Rowan, and I agree it's not an either/or. That being said, the difficulty in effectuating real change stems, in my opinion, from people's failure to recognize that their beliefs are not rooted in reason, intellect or science (the way everyone wants to think their beliefs are), but rather from the blindly retained ethics and morals of a long-since-discarded religious faith whose rotten corpse currently manifests in an all-pervasive, all-encompassing nihilism. If people begin to understand that their belief in egalitarianism are irrational and faith-based, perhaps real change becomes possible...
I'm not an english speaker. what do you mean by " The central bank owning Rothschilds and their allies", is the central bank the owner or the property ?
Hi Jordan, the central banks of the world are owned by a very small number of families. I explain the structure here: https://neofeudalism.substack.com/p/goals-motivations-and-strategies
totally agree with you, it's the formulation that puzzled me, I would have said the central bank owned by the Rothschilds" or "the Rothschilds-owned Central Banks"
anyway, the article is great and I fully agree on everything....I had heard about this Tom Holland but I did not appreciate how radical he could be in his positions, i'm amazed he's not canceled by the loonies....
You should check Romain d'Aspremont, it's his twitter (https://twitter.com/R_Aspremont) and he has a few talks in english...he si ideologically close to the now dead Guillaume Faye who theorized archeo-futurism (https://en.metapedia.org/wiki/Guillaume_Faye)
Thank you, and nice links (although it looks like Romain hasn't tweeted in a couple of years). Yes, I like Guillaume Faye and the Nouvelle Droite...I regularly link to this post by the blogger Kynosarges about the weakness of the populist right: https://news.kynosarges.org/full-speed-into-the-void/
Kynosarges is a follower of the Nouvelle Droite...
The link (the post by the blogger Kynosarges about the weakness of the populist right) has been compromised? It leads to an advertisement for fast food restaurants in NYC. Can you re-link?
This is why I would write these grammatical constructs hyphenated, i.e., "the central-bank-owning Rothschilds" in this case.
I like the symbols these ideas create. The warrior, the priest and the warrior priest.
The warrior-priests could be seen as the soyboy cucks of our SJW days. Or the Catholic knights in Prussia who weren't even permitted to rape the locals. Or the fanatical Bolsheviks. (All I'm saying is that "priest" is a ridiculously unclean word for Nietzsche.)
Guru Gobind Singh Ji said the tyrant commits a sin, but the one who submits to tyranny a yet greater sin.
ਅਕਾਲ
“In a full transvaluation of values to Roman style warrior values, inequality is promoted as an ideal and the poor, the destitute, the obese and dumb are discarded like genetic detritus, both individually and as classes. Taken to an extreme, that means extermination of the out-groups.”
This is exactly what the current elite are doing. We are the genetic detritus to them. They are exterminating us as an out-group.
This is why white nationalism and especially exterminationism is a dead end, since the 6-7% of the planet that is European needs others to join in the battle against the elite if we are to win, especially given extreme European susceptibility to elite strategy and tactics.
Buying into beliefs like the above leads to a sense of hopelessness and despair when it is being done successfully to Europeans by a more capable elite.
Hi Ron, I agree with you that the masses of the world have a great incentive to band together and resist it, as I wrote elsewhere:
“This is a big reason why both garden-variety civic nationalism and far-right white nationalism is a dead end: putting aside that the West is rapidly turning brown and black and that the Germans who elected the Nazis had a 98% white country (i.e. it was an easy Schelling point at the time), and that the white world population has shrunk from 25% of the world population in 1900 to 6.5% today, it doesn’t understand that their globohomo opposition suppresses nationalism everywhere, therefore resistance to it needs to take place on a global basis from a position of populism and nationalism everywhere. Everyone in the world other than the tiny number of central bank owning families and their underlings is a slave to this system, therefore everyone has an incentive to upend it. Even if the end goal is nationalism, it cannot be accomplished while this global system is in force.”
From: https://neofeudalreview.substack.com/p/the-global-world-order-is-centralized
Thanks, I agree.
Fascinating post!
I much appreciated this. I have been consumed of late, how to upend (transvalue) society to save it. We are on a trajectory of the loss of America and the West, an America where no one remembers either, and all the knowledge and literature of 2500 years is as dust.
Though I read Kynosarga's piece too, and I was following along until his finis, that we have to become European again. I think that is wrong. We cannot return to the Faustian. What transvaluing happens here has to be fundamentally American, i.e. something based on the old but wholly new.
Rereading this essay today, I realize that without integrating these insights into my worldview, I was blind to the nature of what holds us back. Thank you for laying this out so well, and for linking to it from https://neofeudalreview.substack.com/p/the-meaning-crisis-meaning-and-decadence
This is an interesting but disturbing piece. It merits an article length reply -- which I have posted yesterday:
https://rulesforreactionaries.substack.com/p/populism-is-the-way?utm_source=profile&utm_medium=reader2
Nice diagram of cultural changes, but still skeptical of the proposed governing mechanisms and overall model of the system. Be interested in seeing how variables like energy use per capita and average population density map out against degree of egalitarianism 'penetration'. I suspect instead that increased (labor-free and decision-free) production in the economic system over time took the average level of environmental pressure off people so that what they did, and how well they did it, came to matter much, much less than in it did in the past. Currently (well, that may be slowly changing now) people like those that constitute the modern 'left wing' have plenty of time, energy, and opportunity to artificially fill in the empty spaces in their lives with all kinds of odd imaginings and cultural constructions based on those imaginings. If this is a correct interpretation, it very well might be a blessing they're culturally 'infected' with the relatively harmless tenets of Christianity; i.e., it could possibly be worse.
Are you implying the England and Germany of the 1930s to be technologically different? Because the ideologies they ended up adopting proved to be absolutely irreconcilable. Blaming everything on the material (=economic, race is matter, too) conditions is pure Marxism.
Nah, I'm saying the technological and economic slack [western urban] people have allows them to follow their fantasies. These fantasies used to be markedly different from place to place, but now these imaginings are more homogeneous. Marxism has nothing to do with this hypothesis -- except that it also was (and is) an economically and technologically- permitted fantasy for some people.
But that's the thing, technology is an enable of culture, yet the underlying culture can be diametrically opposite. Some countries use trains to transport migrants in, others - to transport the Jews out (gassing them in the process, IIRC).
"Enable" is a good word to use here because spoiled children can get into all sorts of trouble. There's a whole book, first published in 1950, that presciently explores this theme -- "The Lonely Crowd". It's available for free download on Internet Archive (https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.187299). Something brief to read that gets to the same point was posted today here on substack: https://petermcculloughmd.substack.com/p/are-the-inmates-now-running-the-world