literalism was the altar which religion is sacrificed upon

Unfortunately most of these authors, like Alexander Dugin, replace one hegemony with another which might not be suitable for the place its supposed to occupy, and end up making more of an ass out of themselves than what they're critiquing.

most Eastern cultures are built on eunuchs, living metaphorically through their institutions

People that don't pick a path to stick with will have their paths picked out for them

Marxism is ultimately, without a question a worship of the physical, on the altar of science, towards death's door, it is antihuman and machinelike and will make mankind obsolete, in dialectical fashion, the negation of human life into total mechanical process and finally the end of human usefulness, ground into the dirt by gears and molten steel, replacing the natural with the "unnatural"

The Soviet identity is constructed out of artifice, through the process of so-called "natural selection", it is rootless and fully made of artificial materials, where the man does not make his steel, the steel makes the man

the universe, besides being a product of God, is nothing more than forces of energy situating themselves in peculiar places

no one should sell their soul to something that already has been manifested in flesh

all religions are true in the right contexts

Just because a nation has a hard time creating new saints doesn't mean it's not worthy of redemption

I unironically believe that if enough time, money and elbow grease was involved, Bertrand Russell would have built a replica of the Tower Of Babel himself just so he could climb to the top of and say "what? I don't see God up here"

Jesus has probably revealed himself in many religions, however when Jesus revealed himself to be king of the jews, and you still have many of them saying "we're still waiting" im not so sure they're looking for him but rather something more sinister

Like Jim profit once said, paraphrasing, the quickest way to nip censorship in the bud is simply make banning illegal. Its not the internet's job to coddle you if someone said something that hurt your fanny. You can always just stop being online.

God is the idealized conception of mankind, and women are a derivative of man, greater than beasts but lesser than spirits, the general will of all mankind is to approve or disapprove all acts against the harmony of nature without conceding to authority, but rather reinforce acts which are constructive to the harmony of the state and excise outward the acts which divide men among themselves

most "peace activists" usually favor war if they're on the side of globalists

most corporations are in favor of shutting down free speech like they did in the Soviet Union or places like current day China, furthermore, people who talk about "there is no such thing as free speech" are often the same type of people who get offended when someone says "nigger" or "faggot", they're just being coy and facetious about it.

what even is "pure racism" or "pure misogyny"? there's no such thing as a "racist theory of economics" or "racist ontologies" in a pure form. nor "racist epistemology" these are just in their purest form, nothing more than spooks if nothing is attached to their identities. that's something I reiterated in my essays, that words with many definitions usually mean nothing at the end of the day, and unless they have actual branches of knowledge tied to them, cannot be used as ideological framing of any particular or broad concepts.

animals are conscious and are capable of having souls, just like mankind. but there are not capable of rational thinking, and since rational thinking divides man and beast ultimately, those with the ability to calculate whether something works in their interest versus what works against it, those that cannot master this simple exercise are not worth of guaranteeing rights for them, but rather watched over and cared over by those who CAN exercise rational judgement in their place.

the problem with feminism is essentially its a life-hating Malthusian ideology that believes only the top 1% of men should carry on their genes. its closely related by proxy to Marxism via Charles Darwin, essentially why its pro-abortion. guilt by association. it proposes that by giving women reproductive control, it attempts to reduce the population to allow more consumer goods to grow, when the more palatable solution would be to allow everyone to partake in more labor so the amount of consumer goods triples. not only that but it favors K-strategy which eventually will reduce the amount of people who are more or less mind-centric and more physical-centric, depleting the world of thinkers and the world will basically center around about a million controlled brutes where civilization will eventually stagnate and fall to anarchy.

if you live in darkness all your life, you will die in darkness as well

the entire concept of historical materialism denies a prime mover and is harmful to moral discourse, not only this but ontologically, it implies if something came from nothing and everything is a result of physical action, then all morals are based only upon the presumption of consequences, that is, the result of things happening, and not why they're wrong in the first place

transgender individuals are ontologically creations of humans, not a higher power, so it would logical proceed that they would never call God their father as they are a product of artifice and not found in nature

And why perchance, should anyone take anything seriously if Marxists never did? Everything about it them is about subversion which is sort of a hand maiden of irony which in turn is a hand maiden of comedy. A comedy of errors which has yet to actually formalize

Scientists should be disposed of unless they serve the zeitgeist of antiquity

while I'm all for having pets and treating them as "good boys and girls", the big issue is the infantilization of nature and treating animals as creatures that don't have their own natural "way of doing things", which is reflected in the domestication of men by females, the curtailing of certain behaviors such as brutal abation, and domination of lesser creatures and flaunting one's prowess, carnal or otherwise.

my general view on class distinctions is that the urban classes are too far gone into borgeiousie "lifestylism" to be redeemed and revolution must come the rural outbounds of society. of the former, that includes people that can be co-opted by moneyed interests, including scientists and philanthropists. so the revolution must happen outside city limits.the urban homeless could be a noble exception, however, many of them engage in behaviors that are exemplary of the post-modern condition, either by choice or by determination


Ideologies like Duginism want the destroy the west, there's not much difference between your average Dugin disciple and your average social justice warrior, they both have a singular, destructive goal in mind

I think the universe might repeat in any given direction, looping back in time back to where it began, hence the "infinite"

because history is geared towards the assimilation and destruction of all cultures, whether we like it or not, new cultures will arise out of the ashes of former cultures and the cycle begins again. look at how the Roman Empire dissapated with foreign invaders, and the mixing of genes created new cultural idenitities. Europeans may talk a big game about how much purer they are than say, Americans, but going farther back, their ancestors would consider them mongrels. its inescapable.

the idea of a great Satan is a theopolitical fiction that just depends on individual perspective, when in reality the great Satan transcends borders

Logical fallacies are just forms of morals used to debate people when actual "debate" or "conflict" in physical terms doesn't actually account for morals and is just a struggle for power.

Until men are thought of as more than the sum of their parts, so to speak, we will continue to have problems. from a reading of Aristotle's "Logic", we can deduce that there always something that gives an object or a person or a beast its "refinement" or particular significance, going by that, if we have ten guys named "Tom" there's one particular quality that separates A Tom from THE Tom. Hence, every man should thought of in this way. We're not mindless sperm guns.

the more complex and intriguing an art piece is, the more gatekeeping has to be done to protect its legacy. high art is for initiates only

Aristotle believed every substance had a unique character to define it attributes from other substances, following that, every man is unique from other men. Since men are unique among themselves, each one of them has a special place to fulfill in a society, however if we look at Hobbes and the school of legal positivism, one should not attempt to act against the interests of this society of great individuals. There are mental and physical properties, as Descartes believed, interpreted through our concepts and our souls/mind will exist beyond ourselves so acting in the interests of everyone else, these mental properties, if they are against the spirit of society will be phantoms that exist as a reminder of what evil things minds can create. By dwelling on a negative interpretation of the world, one will essentially produce something as equally as evil. So make sure to produce joyous thoughts!

The only alternative to religion is suicide

God the father is a corporeal substance that begat two distinctions, the son and holy ghost, the son is the word of the father given to the gentiles and the holy ghost is god/consciousness within his children. in order to receive his grace thereforth, people should seek him out in order reconcile the spirit with word.

A man without honor works against the teleological ends of society and should be viewed as a deviant on the level of pederasts

all things proceed from one substance, and gets divided into even numbers of ordered things that are direct oppositional substances, each with a consciousness of its own (plants, animals, humans) all things except rocks and dirt. the consciousness of these things can exist post-mortem and affect the consciousness of other beings anno domini, such as drive something to violence, mass death or other emotional affectations. see how a dead person can move people to sadness, anger, or regret, or how crows circle a dead person or animal, or how trees grow in places where one has fallen, etc etc.

voters have little control over the direct experiences of the intitution or experience of politicians, something can turn one from pro-gun to pro-gun control, from pro-life to pro-choice from pro-taxation to anti-taxation. the public wields very little influence on the personhood of politicians and what statues they set for rulership. One bad experience could turn someone you voted for to backpedal on their plans that you, yourself, voted them into place for that sole reason, so the best policy would be a direct democracy where a politician simply takes orders from the populace and does their bidding rather than representatives who set rules for the ruled.

the only way to "prove" the scientific method works is to use the scientific method on the scientific method to prove induction. however, this would create an infinite regress.

When people use the term "bodies" in discourse it makes me think they're either transgendered, mulatto or both. These people barely qualify as human so their first instinct is to dehumanize the English language

I would generally classify myself as a socialist and believe in the common welfare of the people, however, I generally think, for the good of the people, most people like to own things of their own merit and to have a bit self-reliance and taking that away sort of unpersons the individual, and in turn affects the general welfare of society at large.

so-called "mental disorders" are just different sets of personality typologies that need no "cure" but rather certain societal adjustments should be made to accommodate each and every one of them. to resist this is to pathologize alienation.


riddle me this, if evolutionary theory is true, wouldn't you think that, to use an example, ducks, bears, dolphins would have evolved at the same rate humans did from "apes" as you say to become as rational, thinking creatures who, in time, would develop their own technology and governmental systems and codes of ethics, natural science, and defense systems that would be able to rival our own in terms of abstraction and might, so in turn would have their own nations (not mere habitats mind you) that could defend themselves against the predations of other creatures (including our own) to ward off invasive populations (again, like our own) on a global scale?

We elect representatives who are supposed to do our bidding and We cannot control the free will of imperfect individuals who might change their views based on empirical observations, and politicians are known to go back on views that people have elected them to act on. Since we cannot trust a bureaucracy of representatives to tow the line of the peoples will, some changes should be made. thus, the vote must represent the collective will of the people who the sovereign puts into law, or what's the purpose of voting in the first place?

Denying moral goodness is the equivalent of denying ones one consciousness