Thanks for making public this sincere thinking and writing effort, JR. I, too, once thought 'ideological dissidents' were few and far between, but then read Alex de Tocqueville's "Democracy in America" and recognized from what he had to observe and write that this nation was extremely heavily leavened by such people from its very start -- and still is, generation after generation. They are exactly the sort of people who do not go about looking for, or are reliant on, the instruction and encouragement of others. As to thinking that abolishing problematic central banks will solve many of the problems afflicting humanity, I remember reading Confucius's remark to the effect of: 'If you try to rid the world of thievery by instituting a system of weights and measures, then the people will quickly learn to steal through the use of weights and measures.' Rust never sleeps -- and the 'rusting' tendency is not something confined to any one particular ethnic or cultural group.
Thanks for your kind feedback, Larry. It was difficult for me to share this because many of the expressed ideas are far outside the Overton window, but the expected future is such a horror show (worse than the present, which is already pretty bad) that I felt an obligation to say something out of moral obligation. I agree that there is no "permanent" solution to the problems afflicting humanity, but at least the hope is let people be in charge of their own destiny and make their own decisions for themselves, their families, and their communities and make their own mistakes.
"...the hope is [to] let people be in charge of their own destiny and make their own decisions for themselves, their families, and their communities and make their own mistakes"? There is no need for some kindly caring outside agency to do so -- "people", for better or for worse, already do so without the aid of any sort of enabling agency or well-crafted word series.
The point of globalism though is to strip people of the ability to make their own decisions, both locally and nationally. People feel powerless about their ability to influence the world around them; there is no ability to petition for grievances in the west. Politicians are appointed in fake elections by globalist overlords with the central bank owners pulling their strings behind them. And this process is speeding up with power increasingly centralizing in global institutions, not slowing down.
No ability to petition for grievances is a big problem. There's that whole idea that free people deserve either voice in how they are governed or the right of exit from a particular governing entity. That's what people are denied in the current system. Apparently because the overlords don't want any alternatives to be visible, particularly when the alternatives would demonstrate better outcomes. I can understand why the overlords fear this, but it really stinks for the slaves that it's very hard to go off an live under an alternate system. These days the least bad options might be rural life, unplugging partially from the system, etc., but these are partial options, subscale options, hidden options. No-one can fully exit to another polity, we can only kind of partially check out.
Like I've implied before, I really think you overestimate the overall net effect of these 'globalist' efforts on individuals. Kind of hard to extinguish something that is bred into the cells of each living human being through millions of years of natural evolution. Indeed, 'globalists' trying to do this just shows how collectively lost in mental space they are, how far they've departed from
I am in awe of the brilliance of these maps, NF! You've managed to lay out, in a coherent way, a great many of the most important factors holding us back from the lives God designed us to live. These maps in essay form will help countless others comprehend the pathocracy parasitizing us. With inspiration and luck, we may yet win a future worth living in.
I pray I succeed in drawing the attention of more of our men to this work.
Apr 30, 2023·edited May 1, 2023Liked by Neoliberal Feudalism
a couple of things for you to consider, although as we know, these waters have been mudded to extreme, to make truth almost indistinguishable ... in rome christians were prosecuted, the coloseum wall still has the cross in there as a sign of what was happening inside. same things with plagues in middle ages.
Thanks for your comments, pandelis. I touched on the Jewish angle by covering the Rothschild central banks (and their control over the Soviet Union, for example) and Paul of Tarsus, but made a conscious decision not to go too deeply into that angle otherwise because I think it would be a distraction from, and take away the potential reach of, my core points regarding (1) the hope to reestablish an equilibrium between priest/warrior egalitarian/inegalitarian energies and (2) the enormity of the central bank scam. I had not heard that theory of the Black Plague, thank you for sharing it.
If the central bank owners cared about the Jewish people would they have treated Israel so much harsher than everywhere else? Chris Langan, considered by some to be the smartest man in the world, makes a similar point: “The same people run them all. They're virtually all your relatives, or at least they claim to be. And while they've got it all covered, a poor little wastrel like you will never see more than a few pennies. You're one of the hapless "little Jews" cheerleading and muling the ongoing legacy of these scoundrels through the ages, and you'll be among those who dig deep when the credit runs out and the bill comes due.” https://gab.com/ChrisLangan/posts/109331048122959856
Hi Pandelis, yes, when I write the "Rothschilds" I am using that as a catch-all for the families who own the central banks, some of the names of which we would likely not even know of given their m/o is to hide in the shadows with a determination not to be reported on, and because of the opaque nature of the central bank ownership structures.
1) At one point I thought you said you were an atheist? But then in the takeaways and suggestions you suggest prayer and belief in God. Is there some tension/contradiction here?
2) You cover the theory that Christianity was consciously designed as a revolutionary inversion. Then you note the long-term (and intensifying) hostility of the revolutionaries toward Christianity. Both things can be true. But it raises a few questions:
A) The idea that Christianity was designed to undermine Rome/Western Civilization--is that idea itself possibly a piece of propaganda meant to further undermine Christianity among dissident free-thinkers? Specifically to prevent Christianity from becoming a Schelling point?
B) Christianity seems to be a possible Schelling point, flawed but arguably more promising than Paganism/Classicism/Warriorism just because Classicism was so successfully stomped out that it would have to be rebuilt from scratch. There are still billions of Christians, kind of. Can/should Christianity be used as a Schelling point? Or is it too inverted to ever work?
C) Are we too far removed from Paganism/Classicism/Warriorism to use it? Are we too spiritually bolshevized? Aren't the modern pagans/classicists just small, powerless, nerdy LARPers?
3) To the extent that there is value in the Greek/Roman classic warrior philosophy and religion, what do you recommend in terms of reading/philosophy/action? (This could be a path toward saving the world, but even if it isn't, we moderns certainly have a lot to learn (and gain from) the forgotten Hellenist and Roman-esque philosophies that preceded Christianity.)
4) Isn't "anti-private-central-banking" as a Schelling point too negative/too reactionary? I thought you said somewhere in one of these essay sections that what's needed is building alternatives, not defining ourselves in opposition to something. What should noble world improvers stand FOR and what should they build?
5) Isn't "anti-private-central-banking" also too complex and dissident-y to ever win over a critical mass of normies? Maybe you just need a critical mass of dissidents. But again, it seems like you have to build the alternative, rather than just expose the problems with the current system. What do you think?
6) You seem to accept at face value the argument that "the Dark Ages" (a.k.a. the heights of Christian civilization and power) were dark and benighted and anti-intellectual. You certainly opened my eyes with all the content about Christianity working hard to wipe out rival Classical thought, and that fits with your thesis of Dark Ages. But history is written by the winners, and the winners are anti-Christian now (even if they are the intellectual descendants of Christianity). And it has always suited their narratives to claim that nothing good happened in civilization between 300 AD and 1500 AD. But I've read a number of good arguments that the "Dark Ages" are deliberately misrepresented in modern thinking. Some argue that Catholic civilization, with its belief in the soul-value of all people, its belief in creating things of beauty and meaning for the glory of God, its creation of a hierarchy of meaning, cathedrals in every city, meaningful laws for living, etc. helped advance civilization tremendously. Yes civilization had to rebuild from the collapse of the Roman empire and the loss of some knowledge, but rebuild it did because the human spirit is indomitable and life under Christianity was pretty good (especially for regular people as opposed to just Spartan warrior aristocrats). And arguably the Enlightenment was a conscious attempt by protestants, merchants, politicians, etc. to TAKE Catholic wealth and power, rather than the myth of an actual intellectual awakening of Science. In many ways Science was encouraged by Catholicism, under the auspices of understanding God's creation. Whereas Enlightenment Science was politicized as part of the coup, laying the groundwork for the utter corruption we see in Science today. Anyway, I'm curious what you think of those types of common arguments. Is it really true that life in the middle ages was terrible?
7) Along similar lines, it feels like you're glossing over something when you say that Catholicism was good merely because it added some hierarchy and slightly de-radicalized the otherwise inversionary spiritual Bolshevism of Christianity. While I can certainly see the amazing inversionary power of Christianity, the way it captured the rabble and brought down an empire, the viral meme-ability of it, the ability to outcompete decentralized polytheistic religion, etc., it seems like it also included some valuable CIVILIZING impulses. As you say, the Hellenistic/Romanistic idea was that only the noble warriors were worth anything, and killing everyone else was no big deal. If Christianity was helpful in terms of elevating the value of women and children and regular people, of bringing in concepts like a rule of law, etc., isn't that positive instead of just inversionary?
7) What do you think of the whole "vitalist" idea promoted by people like Bronze Age Pervert? It seems like a cultural/aesthetic movement that celebrates strength, warrior mentality, fertility, vitality, etc., with echoes of Nietzche. Is this interesting/valuable?
8) What do you think of the idea of replacing Christianity with a return to Hellenistic values? Is it possible? Desirable?
Whew! That's all my questions. Any thoughts you have about any of them any time in any comments or posts would be amazing! But I realize I've asked too many questions so feel free to disregard whatever parts you like. Thank you!
Hi Crush, thanks for your comment. You ask a lot of good questions and I'll do what I can to try to answer them. Many of your questions require in-depth answers, so I will link to posts on my other Substack where relevant that tries to grapple with them. I'm happy to answer any follow-up questions you have to the best of my abilities.
2(B). The specific path forward to reinvigorate western civilization at this point is a contentious one and up for much debate. As John Carter wrote, “Religiously, the right embraces an incredible variety of creeds. Tradcaths, Orthobros, prots of every description from high church Lutheran to low church Baptist, Odinists, Neo-Hellenists, Buddhists, Hindus, Muslims, Nietzschean vitalists, gnostics, New Agers, druids, and atheists are all found in varying degrees of abundance. Ideologically, you have neoreactionaries, traditionalists, foundationalists, Nietzschean vitalists, civic nationalists, ethno-nationalists, MAGA America Firsters, populists, fascists, national socialists, 4th Political Theory Duginists, paleo-conservatives, classical liberals, post-liberals, libertarians, anarcho-capitalists, Catholic integralists, monarchists, masculinists, and (what I think is) the most recent addition, Landian effective accelerationists.” Discussed here: https://neofeudalreview.substack.com/p/an-overview-of-dissident-right-substack . With that being said, the current trends seem mostly in favor of the continued spread and strengthening of Islam: https://neofeudalreview.substack.com/p/demographics-is-destiny-a-comparison
2(C). There is a direct and strong inverse relationship between materialism and spirituality. As the west's material well being continues to decline, one may expect for a return of sorts of spirituality. In what form it takes is unclear at this time.
3. The core problem is currently metaphysical, which places it above the level of politics or culture. In other words, there needs to be some sort of a transvaluation of the western focus on extreme egalitarianism. Personally, I have started an esoteric journey focusing on gnostic belief (which will be the focus of my next post), but I'm open to seeing where it leads.
4. This is the key question. One cannot simply be against something, one must stand for something; as far as being against something goes, though, being against privately owned central banks isn't a bad place to start. The fundamental question of the modern era (and of the last couple hundred years) is how to find meaning in a society steeped in ubiquitous nihilism (https://neofeudalreview.substack.com/p/the-meaning-crisis-meaning-and-decadence ). I don't propose to have the full answer here.
5. I personally think normies do what they're told, but I am also not as interested in the political power process than many others on the dissident right because my philosophy is pessimistic (https://neofeudalreview.substack.com/p/philosophical-pessimism-a-denial ). My own process is to look to find the ineffable beyond the quest for power.
7. You are right that Christianity offered dignity and hope to those who had none, which is a big part of its appeal. It's not an either/or in terms of good and bad; it wouldn't have caught on if it didn't offer a very large number of people real benefits in their lives.
(Second) 7. Personally I don't like BAP, although he excites a lot of people on the right so maybe he's doing something right. I think his focus on aesthetics and his general strong tone of anti-natalism, plus his unwillingness to grapple with thorny issues such as the complicated relationship between the central bank owners and the Jewish people (https://neofeudalreview.substack.com/p/the-complicated-relationship-between ), makes his arguments less than persuasive. (I also dislike the unusual spelling of words he uses).
8. Hellenism seems dead to me; how can one revive something when its practice has been totally forgotten? Whatever comes next, unless it's just simply an Islamic conquest, will likely have to be something new that speaks to modern ways of thinking and feeling. You may appreciate this post on Julian the Apostate and the death of the ancient world: https://neofeudalreview.substack.com/p/julian-the-apostate-a-doomed-struggle
No, people in the past did not understand their interests better. They abolished slavery around the world, they gave women property rights, and their religiosity was as NPC-like as the current one - it was the specific religion that progressed slightly to its logical conclusion. And Yuri Bezmenov is a typical retard - anyone who opposed the USSR in the 1980s was a self-hating cuck. That's what even Igor Strelkov understood (a true Russian hero).
True, I myself thought what model could have predicted that the Aryans would import millions of savage bulls to impregnate their own women. I realised that it was already visible in the case of the British Raj and the Philippnes - an ideology that made it unthinkable to pose the question as to why the Anglo chose not to exterminate the foreign races. In short, the moral trajectory of Christianity.
No, I reject a cabal-centric view of history. It it my impression that the élites "believe their own propaganda" - or, to be more poetic, are as controlled by the gods as the normie masses are.
No, the masses never want just to exist in peace. War is begotten by the masses - read up on the final ride of Napoléon III. Calling NPCs peaceful is pure Marxism. Again, a good argument for how normies start wars is how you can easily find the sentiment online in American cyberspace as to "Why don't we liberate North Korea for muh' liberty and Constitution?" - something that the Russians utterly lack, and compare the track record of foreign interventions thereof.
Calling people of the world "unknowing slaves" is as moronic as calling a woman "unknowingly raped".
> "Christianity has become too patient, deferential and afterlife-focused to forcefully oppose the central bank owners"
Pure nonsense. The Christcucks _were at the cutting edge_ of the Aryan race's suicide! See the tale of Benjamin Lay.
Regarding Brazil - Bolsonaro was a right-wing cuck and American puppet, so it's only natural to see a left-wing president de-dollarising.
Liberals are not sociopathic, and the god doesn't exist. Yes, I'm using the definite article "the" to underline how little I care for Jewish myths. The Mongoloid race is atheist and triumphant. The only god is the loyalty to one's race. It's unfortunate to see you stoop so low.
Hi Adunai, thanks for your comment. I thought you wouldn't like this Part 2 because you seek a full Nietzschian transvaluation of values into pure warrior values, while I think society does best with a balance between the polarities. We've danced around our different approaches in prior posts. That being said, I thought I was pretty clear that the Rothschild central bank scheme has only been successful because it is a symptom of the Christian push toward full egalitarianism/priestly energies -- but it's sure supercharged the decline. The comment about "unknowing slaves" is related specifically to how people do not equate debt slavery with the more ancient form, when they should.
Also, a little piece of interesting news today:
"Mrs. de Rothschild was named chairwoman of the bank in January 2015. That October, she and Epstein negotiated a $25 million contract for Epstein’s Southern Trust Co. to provide “risk analysis and the application and use of certain algorithms” for the bank, according to a proposal reviewed by the Journal.
In 2019, after Epstein was arrested, the bank said that Mrs. de Rothschild never met with Epstein and it had no business links with him.
The bank acknowledged to the Journal that its earlier statement wasn’t accurate."
Umm, could you explain the edit? I have zero clue as to what you're driving at. You know, I thought you were young, but with the use of boomer memes such as Epstein you seem to age in my eyes by at least three decades.
Epstein would be a good case of Jewish bankers being powerless in the face of woke Yeshua. Apparently, even the mighty Jewish bankers cannot do anything against the feminist system they erected.
Incidentally, when I heard Prince Andrew speak, I recognised him as a grand human being (his race treason notwithstanding). "Convicted sex offender" is gay speak. More boomer memes - human trafficking and paedophilia, literal buzzwords.
Hi Adunai, the edit was in response to your initial comment "I reject a cabal-centric view of history", but it looks like you responded before seeing the edit. Why are the Rothschilds popping up in ultra-sensitive security state matters centuries after they established themselves if they don't have an active hand behind the scene on things? While you could see Epstein's fall as global capitalism being subservient to society's focus on hyper-equality, separating the two issues is a complicated matter and I'll discuss the rise of a self-perpetuating capitalist matrix in my Appendix B post tomorrow.
No, I merely posit that the Aryans will die out provided they do not expel the Jewish cockroach from their damn brain (no offense to the physical Jews & cockroaches). It's simply a non-starter. The making of a balanced society is the same as wrestling with the questions of transhumanism - I would leave it to an Aryan country that exists. Unfortunately, we do not have such a country at present.
No idea about "debt slavery". All life is slavery then. The woman must submit to man, and the man - to the Führer. Otherwise, suicide (don't get me wrong, my ideal state would have voluntary euthanasia for all).
Thanks for making public this sincere thinking and writing effort, JR. I, too, once thought 'ideological dissidents' were few and far between, but then read Alex de Tocqueville's "Democracy in America" and recognized from what he had to observe and write that this nation was extremely heavily leavened by such people from its very start -- and still is, generation after generation. They are exactly the sort of people who do not go about looking for, or are reliant on, the instruction and encouragement of others. As to thinking that abolishing problematic central banks will solve many of the problems afflicting humanity, I remember reading Confucius's remark to the effect of: 'If you try to rid the world of thievery by instituting a system of weights and measures, then the people will quickly learn to steal through the use of weights and measures.' Rust never sleeps -- and the 'rusting' tendency is not something confined to any one particular ethnic or cultural group.
Thanks for your kind feedback, Larry. It was difficult for me to share this because many of the expressed ideas are far outside the Overton window, but the expected future is such a horror show (worse than the present, which is already pretty bad) that I felt an obligation to say something out of moral obligation. I agree that there is no "permanent" solution to the problems afflicting humanity, but at least the hope is let people be in charge of their own destiny and make their own decisions for themselves, their families, and their communities and make their own mistakes.
"...the hope is [to] let people be in charge of their own destiny and make their own decisions for themselves, their families, and their communities and make their own mistakes"? There is no need for some kindly caring outside agency to do so -- "people", for better or for worse, already do so without the aid of any sort of enabling agency or well-crafted word series.
The point of globalism though is to strip people of the ability to make their own decisions, both locally and nationally. People feel powerless about their ability to influence the world around them; there is no ability to petition for grievances in the west. Politicians are appointed in fake elections by globalist overlords with the central bank owners pulling their strings behind them. And this process is speeding up with power increasingly centralizing in global institutions, not slowing down.
No ability to petition for grievances is a big problem. There's that whole idea that free people deserve either voice in how they are governed or the right of exit from a particular governing entity. That's what people are denied in the current system. Apparently because the overlords don't want any alternatives to be visible, particularly when the alternatives would demonstrate better outcomes. I can understand why the overlords fear this, but it really stinks for the slaves that it's very hard to go off an live under an alternate system. These days the least bad options might be rural life, unplugging partially from the system, etc., but these are partial options, subscale options, hidden options. No-one can fully exit to another polity, we can only kind of partially check out.
Like I've implied before, I really think you overestimate the overall net effect of these 'globalist' efforts on individuals. Kind of hard to extinguish something that is bred into the cells of each living human being through millions of years of natural evolution. Indeed, 'globalists' trying to do this just shows how collectively lost in mental space they are, how far they've departed from
the reality they also reside in.
Although I still think you are deeply wrong on Christianity, you are fucking dead right on Central Banking. Prosit, my friend.
I am in awe of the brilliance of these maps, NF! You've managed to lay out, in a coherent way, a great many of the most important factors holding us back from the lives God designed us to live. These maps in essay form will help countless others comprehend the pathocracy parasitizing us. With inspiration and luck, we may yet win a future worth living in.
I pray I succeed in drawing the attention of more of our men to this work.
a couple of things for you to consider, although as we know, these waters have been mudded to extreme, to make truth almost indistinguishable ... in rome christians were prosecuted, the coloseum wall still has the cross in there as a sign of what was happening inside. same things with plagues in middle ages.
Thanks for your comments, pandelis. I touched on the Jewish angle by covering the Rothschild central banks (and their control over the Soviet Union, for example) and Paul of Tarsus, but made a conscious decision not to go too deeply into that angle otherwise because I think it would be a distraction from, and take away the potential reach of, my core points regarding (1) the hope to reestablish an equilibrium between priest/warrior egalitarian/inegalitarian energies and (2) the enormity of the central bank scam. I had not heard that theory of the Black Plague, thank you for sharing it.
big angle .... thats the history of the world ... as always too many layers
https://www.newbraveworld.org/smallpox/
Hi pandelis, keep in mind, though, that Israel, along with Australia, were the most heavily force-vaccinated countries in the world with respect to COVID -- and only the Jews in Israel, not the Muslims who were exempted. Israel required 3 or 4 forced vaccinations and had extensive shutdowns, i.e. see: https://themedialinedv.wpenginepowered.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/coronavirus-data-explorer.png , https://citizenfreepress.com/breaking/death-stats-for-israel-are-not-good/ , https://stevekirsch.substack.com/p/exclusive-proof-that-the-top-israeli
If the central bank owners cared about the Jewish people would they have treated Israel so much harsher than everywhere else? Chris Langan, considered by some to be the smartest man in the world, makes a similar point: “The same people run them all. They're virtually all your relatives, or at least they claim to be. And while they've got it all covered, a poor little wastrel like you will never see more than a few pennies. You're one of the hapless "little Jews" cheerleading and muling the ongoing legacy of these scoundrels through the ages, and you'll be among those who dig deep when the credit runs out and the bill comes due.” https://gab.com/ChrisLangan/posts/109331048122959856
Also keep in mind that not a single Rothschild died during World War 2 (other than one Catholic convert to the family via marriage: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%89lisabeth_de_Rothschild ) despite their clan being based in Europe...
Hi Pandelis, yes, when I write the "Rothschilds" I am using that as a catch-all for the families who own the central banks, some of the names of which we would likely not even know of given their m/o is to hide in the shadows with a determination not to be reported on, and because of the opaque nature of the central bank ownership structures.
same things ...
Thank you. A few questions:
1) At one point I thought you said you were an atheist? But then in the takeaways and suggestions you suggest prayer and belief in God. Is there some tension/contradiction here?
2) You cover the theory that Christianity was consciously designed as a revolutionary inversion. Then you note the long-term (and intensifying) hostility of the revolutionaries toward Christianity. Both things can be true. But it raises a few questions:
A) The idea that Christianity was designed to undermine Rome/Western Civilization--is that idea itself possibly a piece of propaganda meant to further undermine Christianity among dissident free-thinkers? Specifically to prevent Christianity from becoming a Schelling point?
B) Christianity seems to be a possible Schelling point, flawed but arguably more promising than Paganism/Classicism/Warriorism just because Classicism was so successfully stomped out that it would have to be rebuilt from scratch. There are still billions of Christians, kind of. Can/should Christianity be used as a Schelling point? Or is it too inverted to ever work?
C) Are we too far removed from Paganism/Classicism/Warriorism to use it? Are we too spiritually bolshevized? Aren't the modern pagans/classicists just small, powerless, nerdy LARPers?
3) To the extent that there is value in the Greek/Roman classic warrior philosophy and religion, what do you recommend in terms of reading/philosophy/action? (This could be a path toward saving the world, but even if it isn't, we moderns certainly have a lot to learn (and gain from) the forgotten Hellenist and Roman-esque philosophies that preceded Christianity.)
4) Isn't "anti-private-central-banking" as a Schelling point too negative/too reactionary? I thought you said somewhere in one of these essay sections that what's needed is building alternatives, not defining ourselves in opposition to something. What should noble world improvers stand FOR and what should they build?
5) Isn't "anti-private-central-banking" also too complex and dissident-y to ever win over a critical mass of normies? Maybe you just need a critical mass of dissidents. But again, it seems like you have to build the alternative, rather than just expose the problems with the current system. What do you think?
6) You seem to accept at face value the argument that "the Dark Ages" (a.k.a. the heights of Christian civilization and power) were dark and benighted and anti-intellectual. You certainly opened my eyes with all the content about Christianity working hard to wipe out rival Classical thought, and that fits with your thesis of Dark Ages. But history is written by the winners, and the winners are anti-Christian now (even if they are the intellectual descendants of Christianity). And it has always suited their narratives to claim that nothing good happened in civilization between 300 AD and 1500 AD. But I've read a number of good arguments that the "Dark Ages" are deliberately misrepresented in modern thinking. Some argue that Catholic civilization, with its belief in the soul-value of all people, its belief in creating things of beauty and meaning for the glory of God, its creation of a hierarchy of meaning, cathedrals in every city, meaningful laws for living, etc. helped advance civilization tremendously. Yes civilization had to rebuild from the collapse of the Roman empire and the loss of some knowledge, but rebuild it did because the human spirit is indomitable and life under Christianity was pretty good (especially for regular people as opposed to just Spartan warrior aristocrats). And arguably the Enlightenment was a conscious attempt by protestants, merchants, politicians, etc. to TAKE Catholic wealth and power, rather than the myth of an actual intellectual awakening of Science. In many ways Science was encouraged by Catholicism, under the auspices of understanding God's creation. Whereas Enlightenment Science was politicized as part of the coup, laying the groundwork for the utter corruption we see in Science today. Anyway, I'm curious what you think of those types of common arguments. Is it really true that life in the middle ages was terrible?
7) Along similar lines, it feels like you're glossing over something when you say that Catholicism was good merely because it added some hierarchy and slightly de-radicalized the otherwise inversionary spiritual Bolshevism of Christianity. While I can certainly see the amazing inversionary power of Christianity, the way it captured the rabble and brought down an empire, the viral meme-ability of it, the ability to outcompete decentralized polytheistic religion, etc., it seems like it also included some valuable CIVILIZING impulses. As you say, the Hellenistic/Romanistic idea was that only the noble warriors were worth anything, and killing everyone else was no big deal. If Christianity was helpful in terms of elevating the value of women and children and regular people, of bringing in concepts like a rule of law, etc., isn't that positive instead of just inversionary?
7) What do you think of the whole "vitalist" idea promoted by people like Bronze Age Pervert? It seems like a cultural/aesthetic movement that celebrates strength, warrior mentality, fertility, vitality, etc., with echoes of Nietzche. Is this interesting/valuable?
8) What do you think of the idea of replacing Christianity with a return to Hellenistic values? Is it possible? Desirable?
Whew! That's all my questions. Any thoughts you have about any of them any time in any comments or posts would be amazing! But I realize I've asked too many questions so feel free to disregard whatever parts you like. Thank you!
Hi Crush, thanks for your comment. You ask a lot of good questions and I'll do what I can to try to answer them. Many of your questions require in-depth answers, so I will link to posts on my other Substack where relevant that tries to grapple with them. I'm happy to answer any follow-up questions you have to the best of my abilities.
1. No, I am not an atheist. My sensibilities track closest with gnosticism (https://neofeudalreview.substack.com/p/meditations-on-the-problem-of-evil ).
2(A). I think you would enjoy reading Catherine Nixey's The Darkening Age which discussed in detail how Christianity destroyed the ancient world: https://www.amazon.com/Darkening-Age-Christian-Destruction-Classical/dp/0544800885
2(B). The specific path forward to reinvigorate western civilization at this point is a contentious one and up for much debate. As John Carter wrote, “Religiously, the right embraces an incredible variety of creeds. Tradcaths, Orthobros, prots of every description from high church Lutheran to low church Baptist, Odinists, Neo-Hellenists, Buddhists, Hindus, Muslims, Nietzschean vitalists, gnostics, New Agers, druids, and atheists are all found in varying degrees of abundance. Ideologically, you have neoreactionaries, traditionalists, foundationalists, Nietzschean vitalists, civic nationalists, ethno-nationalists, MAGA America Firsters, populists, fascists, national socialists, 4th Political Theory Duginists, paleo-conservatives, classical liberals, post-liberals, libertarians, anarcho-capitalists, Catholic integralists, monarchists, masculinists, and (what I think is) the most recent addition, Landian effective accelerationists.” Discussed here: https://neofeudalreview.substack.com/p/an-overview-of-dissident-right-substack . With that being said, the current trends seem mostly in favor of the continued spread and strengthening of Islam: https://neofeudalreview.substack.com/p/demographics-is-destiny-a-comparison
2(C). There is a direct and strong inverse relationship between materialism and spirituality. As the west's material well being continues to decline, one may expect for a return of sorts of spirituality. In what form it takes is unclear at this time.
3. The core problem is currently metaphysical, which places it above the level of politics or culture. In other words, there needs to be some sort of a transvaluation of the western focus on extreme egalitarianism. Personally, I have started an esoteric journey focusing on gnostic belief (which will be the focus of my next post), but I'm open to seeing where it leads.
4. This is the key question. One cannot simply be against something, one must stand for something; as far as being against something goes, though, being against privately owned central banks isn't a bad place to start. The fundamental question of the modern era (and of the last couple hundred years) is how to find meaning in a society steeped in ubiquitous nihilism (https://neofeudalreview.substack.com/p/the-meaning-crisis-meaning-and-decadence ). I don't propose to have the full answer here.
5. I personally think normies do what they're told, but I am also not as interested in the political power process than many others on the dissident right because my philosophy is pessimistic (https://neofeudalreview.substack.com/p/philosophical-pessimism-a-denial ). My own process is to look to find the ineffable beyond the quest for power.
6. Yes, I argued here that Catholicism ultimately found a measure of balance between egalitarianism and inegalitarianism which lasted for 1,000 years: https://neofeudalreview.substack.com/p/the-egalitarian-ratchet-effect-why . And here I argued that the Orthodox Christian perspective is that the Enlightenment paved the way for modern secularism: https://neofeudalreview.substack.com/p/an-exploration-of-eastern-orthodoxy .
7. You are right that Christianity offered dignity and hope to those who had none, which is a big part of its appeal. It's not an either/or in terms of good and bad; it wouldn't have caught on if it didn't offer a very large number of people real benefits in their lives.
(Second) 7. Personally I don't like BAP, although he excites a lot of people on the right so maybe he's doing something right. I think his focus on aesthetics and his general strong tone of anti-natalism, plus his unwillingness to grapple with thorny issues such as the complicated relationship between the central bank owners and the Jewish people (https://neofeudalreview.substack.com/p/the-complicated-relationship-between ), makes his arguments less than persuasive. (I also dislike the unusual spelling of words he uses).
8. Hellenism seems dead to me; how can one revive something when its practice has been totally forgotten? Whatever comes next, unless it's just simply an Islamic conquest, will likely have to be something new that speaks to modern ways of thinking and feeling. You may appreciate this post on Julian the Apostate and the death of the ancient world: https://neofeudalreview.substack.com/p/julian-the-apostate-a-doomed-struggle
Wow. Thank you so much for the quick and thoughtful and extensive response! Excellent! I will follow the links and do some more reading! Thank you!
Lots to take in. Brilliant stuff. Thank you.
No, people in the past did not understand their interests better. They abolished slavery around the world, they gave women property rights, and their religiosity was as NPC-like as the current one - it was the specific religion that progressed slightly to its logical conclusion. And Yuri Bezmenov is a typical retard - anyone who opposed the USSR in the 1980s was a self-hating cuck. That's what even Igor Strelkov understood (a true Russian hero).
True, I myself thought what model could have predicted that the Aryans would import millions of savage bulls to impregnate their own women. I realised that it was already visible in the case of the British Raj and the Philippnes - an ideology that made it unthinkable to pose the question as to why the Anglo chose not to exterminate the foreign races. In short, the moral trajectory of Christianity.
No, I reject a cabal-centric view of history. It it my impression that the élites "believe their own propaganda" - or, to be more poetic, are as controlled by the gods as the normie masses are.
No, the masses never want just to exist in peace. War is begotten by the masses - read up on the final ride of Napoléon III. Calling NPCs peaceful is pure Marxism. Again, a good argument for how normies start wars is how you can easily find the sentiment online in American cyberspace as to "Why don't we liberate North Korea for muh' liberty and Constitution?" - something that the Russians utterly lack, and compare the track record of foreign interventions thereof.
Calling people of the world "unknowing slaves" is as moronic as calling a woman "unknowingly raped".
> "Christianity has become too patient, deferential and afterlife-focused to forcefully oppose the central bank owners"
Pure nonsense. The Christcucks _were at the cutting edge_ of the Aryan race's suicide! See the tale of Benjamin Lay.
https://westsdarkesthour.com/2023/04/22/dominion-24/
Regarding Brazil - Bolsonaro was a right-wing cuck and American puppet, so it's only natural to see a left-wing president de-dollarising.
Liberals are not sociopathic, and the god doesn't exist. Yes, I'm using the definite article "the" to underline how little I care for Jewish myths. The Mongoloid race is atheist and triumphant. The only god is the loyalty to one's race. It's unfortunate to see you stoop so low.
Hi Adunai, thanks for your comment. I thought you wouldn't like this Part 2 because you seek a full Nietzschian transvaluation of values into pure warrior values, while I think society does best with a balance between the polarities. We've danced around our different approaches in prior posts. That being said, I thought I was pretty clear that the Rothschild central bank scheme has only been successful because it is a symptom of the Christian push toward full egalitarianism/priestly energies -- but it's sure supercharged the decline. The comment about "unknowing slaves" is related specifically to how people do not equate debt slavery with the more ancient form, when they should.
Also, a little piece of interesting news today:
"Mrs. de Rothschild was named chairwoman of the bank in January 2015. That October, she and Epstein negotiated a $25 million contract for Epstein’s Southern Trust Co. to provide “risk analysis and the application and use of certain algorithms” for the bank, according to a proposal reviewed by the Journal.
In 2019, after Epstein was arrested, the bank said that Mrs. de Rothschild never met with Epstein and it had no business links with him.
The bank acknowledged to the Journal that its earlier statement wasn’t accurate."
https://www.wsj.com/articles/jeffrey-epstein-calendar-cia-director-goldman-sachs-noam-chomsky-c9f6a3ff?mod=mhp
Whatever worldview you choose to work with, make sure it has an explanation for stuff like this, as I wasn't surprised in the slightest...
Umm, could you explain the edit? I have zero clue as to what you're driving at. You know, I thought you were young, but with the use of boomer memes such as Epstein you seem to age in my eyes by at least three decades.
Epstein would be a good case of Jewish bankers being powerless in the face of woke Yeshua. Apparently, even the mighty Jewish bankers cannot do anything against the feminist system they erected.
Incidentally, when I heard Prince Andrew speak, I recognised him as a grand human being (his race treason notwithstanding). "Convicted sex offender" is gay speak. More boomer memes - human trafficking and paedophilia, literal buzzwords.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AKQi3wzNFGQ
Hi Adunai, the edit was in response to your initial comment "I reject a cabal-centric view of history", but it looks like you responded before seeing the edit. Why are the Rothschilds popping up in ultra-sensitive security state matters centuries after they established themselves if they don't have an active hand behind the scene on things? While you could see Epstein's fall as global capitalism being subservient to society's focus on hyper-equality, separating the two issues is a complicated matter and I'll discuss the rise of a self-perpetuating capitalist matrix in my Appendix B post tomorrow.
No, I merely posit that the Aryans will die out provided they do not expel the Jewish cockroach from their damn brain (no offense to the physical Jews & cockroaches). It's simply a non-starter. The making of a balanced society is the same as wrestling with the questions of transhumanism - I would leave it to an Aryan country that exists. Unfortunately, we do not have such a country at present.
No idea about "debt slavery". All life is slavery then. The woman must submit to man, and the man - to the Führer. Otherwise, suicide (don't get me wrong, my ideal state would have voluntary euthanasia for all).