Trump isn’t going to Win

I hold this to be self-evident and wasn’t going to cover this topic, but I feel like stating it nonetheless. Donald Trump is controlled opposition. He is not going to win the next American presidential election, and he’s not there to do so.

Compared to the other candidates like Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders, Trump’s clearly the best choice, but he’s still not good enough. Sure, he says a lot of things that sound legit, but he’s basically an actor there to gather the sympathies of people who aren’t Cultural Marxists. However, that’s all he is there to do; to look and sound good so you’ll be distracted. People put their faith into Trump fixing things instead of actually doing something themselves. He’s a lot like UKIP’s Nigel Farage in Britain. I’ve shared some of his videos on Facebook in the past, and Farage’s got great rhetoric, but he actually hasn’t done anything useful to free Europe from the yoke of the European Union.

The real positive side about Donald Trump is that he is saying some politically incorrect things in public. This is a sign that the “elites” have been forced to have controlled opposition who at least makes some sense. The people aren’t buying blatant frauds like Bush-Gore and Obama-McCain anymore.

Trump isn’t in the race to win, however. That’s not his job. He’s there to distract, and to make you think the democratic system might still work. It doesn’t. I might still vote of Trump if I were American for the hell of it, but it doesn’t matter. Or maybe I’d vote for Vermin Supreme.

I see a lot of “red pilled” people getting excited over Trump. To them I say, you’re not red pilled enough. You still buy into their games. He is not going to win. It’s a scripted race. The house always wins. I’ll have my “I told you so” when that happens. Or if I’m wrong, and Trump gets elected and starts making decisions that benefit America and the world, then you can say I’m just a dumb conspiracy nut.



Why Hillary Clinton will be the next US president:


Are Jews genetically different?

It being Christmas Eve and all, it’s natural to discuss everybody’s favourite topic, the Jews. It’s an old source of controversy whether Jews are a race or a religion, but just by looking at what they believe they are a race. Another point of contention is, since they are a race, are they somehow significantly different to us? I’ll first address the issue of them being a race, and the other, more difficult question.

Jews consider anyone born of a Jewish mother to be a Jew. This by itself suggest some sort of ancient understanding of hereditary genetics, and that Jews see themselves as a race. Christians, Muslims and Buddhists don’t think that one is born into the faith, but it based on a decision made by the individual, although in practice they usually do raise their children to adopt their religion.

Modern Israel too has been criticized for for being a racist “apartheid” state.  They wish to keep their country Jewish, and it does not merely mean that they want people who live in Israel to convert, but they want their citizens to be racially Jewish. Even the black Jews from Ethiopia, the Falashas, are not considered proper Jews in Israel despite Ethiopians being Semites. Jews definitely seem to think of themselves as a race.

Many scientific studies have been conducted on the genetics of Jews. Their outcomes are contradictory at times and it appears that no-one has been able to pinpoint what the Jewish race actually is, but the overall consensus with these studies seems to be that Jews are a race. There’s a pretty long article on Wikipedia about it, and as it is Wikipedia it should be treated with a grain of salt, but at least it cites plenty of scientific studies. I’ll highlight a few interesting details in the article.


The Wikipedia Article

One common conception is that Askernazi and Sephardic Jews are very different from each other, or that Sephardic are the real Jews and Ashkenazi are somehow racially diluted. The Wikipedia article however refutes that by quoting Nicholas Wade:  “‘Ashkenazic and Sephardic Jews have roughly 30 percent European ancestry, with most of the rest from the Middle East.’ He further noticed that ‘The two communities seem very similar to each other genetically, which is unexpected because they have been separated for so long.'” Despite Ashkenazis having been in Europe for centuries, if not Millennia, they are still racially similar to the Middle-Eastern Sephardics.

Another study suggests that Jews and Palestinians are closely related: “In a study of Israeli and Palestinian Muslim Arabs, more than 70% of the Jewish men and 82% of the Arab men whose DNA was studied, had inherited their Y chromosomes from the same paternal ancestors, who lived in the region within the last few thousand years.” However, a bit later it said: “In relation to the region of the Fertile Crescent, the same study noted; ‘In comparison with data available from other relevant populations in the region, Jews were found to be more closely related to groups in the north of the Fertile Crescent (Kurds, Turks, and Armenians) than to their Arab neighbors.'” If I get this right, the original ancestors are closely related to Kurds, Turks and Armenians, who eventually mixed with the Palestinian Arabs? Possibly the Arabs lived in Palestine and the pre-Jews invaded, or the pre-Jews lived there and were invaded by the Arabs.

Map of the Fertile Crescent:

Later on the article offers some minor evidence that Jews are indeed mutants differing from regular people: “A study of haplotypes of the Y chromosome, published in 2000, addressed the paternal origins of Ashkenazi Jews. Hammer et al. that the Y chromosome of most Ashkenazi and Sephardi Jews contained mutations that are also common among Middle Eastern peoples, but uncommon in the general European population. This suggested that the male ancestors of the Ashkenazi Jews could be traced mostly to the Middle East.” Of course, the article does not elaborate what these mutations are and how they affect people, but I doubt it is anything significant.

Wikipedia refers to one study that seem suggest that Judaism being inherited through the mother is false:  “Studies of mitochondrial DNA of Jewish populations are more recent and are still debatable. However, it seems that there are no maternal lines common to all Jewish people.”

The article is also dismissive of the theory that Ashkenazis have descended from the Turkic-Khazars. I am suspicious of this theory as well.

Anyway, I just discussed a few details in the article I found relevant. I suggest you read the rest yourself if you are so inclined.


Other Sources

Two fairly recent competing theories on the Jewish race are the ones brought forward by Harry Oster and Eran Elhaik. Ostrer, who I think is not Jewish, simply seems to be saying that Jews are a race. Elhaik, however, who is a Jew, is pushing the Khazar-theory. Elhaik calls Ostrer and his supporters “liars” and “frauds”.

The problem with the Khazar-theory is that it is mostly promoted by Jews. It was invented by the Jewish Arthur Koestler, and nowadays the two of the people with a scientific background who promote it are Jews, Eran Elhaik and Shlomo Sand, the author of The Invention of the Jewish People.

There is however one fairly recent study by geneticist Martin Richards whose findings contradict Ostrer’s was discussed in Science. His study suggests Ashkenazis might have originated in Italy. The article discussing the study states:  “Jews have traditionally considered that the mother determines the ethnic identity of her children. If being Jewish is defined as genetically descending from the Israelites through the maternal line, then many Ashkenazi Jews fail the test, according to this data.” According this this study then, Sephardics and Ashkenazis aren’t of the same race, it seems. The study also offered more evidence to disprove the Khazar-theory.

So all that can be said is that the road discovering the truth about Jewish genetics is confusing and perilous.


Parasitic Jews

It has been argued here and there that Jews have a genetic disposition for subversions and parasitic behaviour. I certainly agree that Jews have achieved this negative stereotype by their actions, but I cannot say whether this is due to their culture, religion or race. I think it is possible that Jews have such a genetic quality, but I am skeptical of it. I think the subversive actions the Jews have perpetrated on the West are mostly due to their position as an outsider. They are similar to Gypsies that they are outside to the native European cultures and don’t share our values, and therefore do not respect our laws and customs, but I wouldn’t say that Gypsies have a genetic propensity for kleptomania. It is more a cultural thing.

However, I looked a bit into the notion of genetic inheritance from the mother. Men have one X-chromosome and one Y-chromosome, and women have two Xs. Men inherit one Y from their fathers, and one X from their mothers. Women inherit an X-chromosome from both. The UK NHS website explains that if a woman has a mutated X-chromosome it is unlikely to affect them, since the effect tends to be recessive. If one of the Xs is normal, the woman is normal. These women can, however, become carriers of a harmful mutation, and if their son was to inherit the mutated X-chromosomes he would be affected by it. Yet a boy would not inherit the harmful X-chromosome from his father since he gains Y from his father, but daughters of the man would inherit the X-chromosome and become carriers.

This suggests then the theoretical possibility that being Jewish is a mutation that passes from mother to son. I am of course not a geneticist, so I my interpretation could be wrong. Moreover, even if I’m right, this is still just a theoretical possibility. As far as I know this has not been proven to be a fact.



I’m still more inclined to think that the subversive behaviour exhibited by Jews by can be explained by other means, such as them simply being a cultural outsider with preference for their own people, much as the same as the Gypsies, or possibly the trauma caused by circumcision shortly after birth, or the persecution complex inherited in verbal tradition.

Moreover, if one was to argue that Jews are genetically predisposed for certain type of behaviour, I would say that white people, or particularly Anglo-Saxons or Germanic people are genetically predisposed to obey the Jews. How else do you explain the unquestioned support the Jews have gotten from Europeans and Americans over the years? The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail also referred to some researcher who had suggested that all Europeans noble families were of Judaic descent. I don’t have the book at hand now, so I cannot check who said it, but interesting idea, to say the least.

I want the Jews to be removed from power as much as everyone else, but it does no good simply repeating the same clichés. There is the question of how did the Jews attain the position they’re in? I think the answer lies in looking at us. What is wrong with men of European stock to allow this to happen?



I discovered that a man called Michael Bradley suggests that Jews have descended from neanderthals. I don’t know how valid his claims are, but it is at least evidence supporting those who say that Jews are genetically different from the rest of us.

He has at least written a book called The Iceman Inheritance, and here’s an interview with him:

John de Nugent has also written about this topic:



6 Crazy Things Israel Has Done to Maintain Racial Purity:

Israel’s Racial Purity Laws:

Genetic studies of Jewish origins:

Jews Are a ‘Race’, Genes Reveal:

‘Jews a Race’ Genetic Theory Comes Under Fierce Attack:

Did Modern Jews Originate in Italy?:

Nature of the Jews…:

How genetic conditions are inherited:

Nothing is Sacred

I was playing tabletop RPGs at a Christian friend’s place tonight. There was a Bible on a desk where I usually put my beer, but I didn’t want to put it there since I might accidentally spill something on the book. While I don’t hold revere the Bible in the way that Christians do, although I do revere books in general, I wanted to be extra careful since it was a Bible. It got me thinking how modern secular society does not does not hold anything sacred, and it’s harmful for us.

Pretty much every society since time immemorial has held certain things sacred, and other things taboo. Be they primitive stone age societies where they revere their totems and customs, or pagan cultures, monotheists and buddhists that have all their holy books, churches, temples and symbols, which should not never be defaced or treated in a profane manner. Modern societies only care about things they consider necessary such a profit and expediency, and pleasure and comfort. I think this creates a psychological vacuum, it makes us lose perspective on what is important and detaches us from life.

Even if all of these metaphysical notions of gods and spirituality are just man-made constructs and do not exist out there somewhere in the ether, I think psychologically we need something to hold sacred, something to give us limits in order to distinguish right from wrong. Otherwise we degenerate into apathy or debauchery as is evident in modern secular societies. It may not as important what the object of reverence is, as that we have something that we understand collectively to be beyond disrespect.

Different societies have different values, naturally, and it may be completely acceptable in Islamic societies, for instance, that Mohammad should never be made into disrespectful cartoons. It may even be necessary that this is the case for the cohesion of the society. However, in Europe we don’t hold Mohammad as sacred, so for us making fun of him isn’t such a big deal. The issue with the Mohammad cartoon controversies isn’t then that the Muslims are overreacting by getting angry over them, or that Europeans are wrong for depicting Mohammad in cartoons, but the problem is forcing people with highly differing values to live in the same countries. This is fairly obvious.

What isn’t so obvious though, is that even in the secular West in recent decades these kind of religious tendencies are making a comeback. Let’s call this the post-modern society. Cultural Marxists and Social Justice Warriors have their favourite victim classes that are in effect treated as sacred. Some atheists and materialists hold theories such as Evolution as sacred. Transhumanists and other technophiles hold technological progress as sacred. While I think all of these objects of worship are somehow harmful if treated religiously, they highlight the psychological needs of the post-modern man to have something to revere.

It’s not necessarily harmful in itself that the believers in these ideologies behave like fundamentalists, but that they have been bereft of any proper religion as modernity has rendered both Christianity and paganism obsolete in the minds of the majority of post-modern people. Modernity has taught them nothing is sacred, yet in deep in their psychological makeup people feel like something should be sacred they turn to ersatz versions of sacredness.

Therefore, I would say, it is of utmost importance that we either rediscover the old spiritual doctrines or come up with something new. And I’m pretty sure there are people who are trying bring their One World Religion to fill the spiritual vacuum in post-modern men. We shouldn’t fall for that one.

Why we need the Alt-Right

I don’t consider myself Alt-Right nor right-wing, but I can’t help but found myself agreeing more and more with people who do label themselves as such. I am a nationalist although usually tend to avoid labeling myself a believer in any ism, and that too is a fairly new development in my life. Perhaps just this admission makes me right-wing according to some definitions, but I’m not here to discuss about semantics.

I have a fairly conspiratorial view of the world, and I’ve had suspicious mind ever since I was young. I also try to look at the world from a philosophical standpoint, and living in this day and age having philosophical inclinations goes hand in hand with becoming somewhat conspiratorial. Perhaps I’ll write about that in more detail at a later date, but let’s just note that the word philosopher means a lover of wisdom, and conspiracy theorists seek to uncover the truth from a web of lies. My kind has also been called the Truth Movement or Truthers. While I don’t really like those terms, I do resonate with the word truth. Striving for the truth is one of my highest values, as it should be for any conspiracy researchers, yet of course we don’t have monopoly on the truth, nor are we metaphysically more connected to it than regular people. Let’s just say conspiracy theorists tend to spend more time in pursuit of the truth than Joe Average.

Alt-Right’s primary concern seems to be self-preservation and determination. They are more like warriors and builders who actively work toward practical change for the better in the real world, contrasted with conspiracy researchers who tend to be more passive and scholarly.

Some years ago I heard people like David Icke and Max Igan say that we, the people of the earth, need to unite in order to defeat the New World Order. I agreed that this is what we need to do, but I was quite skeptical how this vague notion of a somewhat abstract enemy could unite people who mostly know each other only through the internet. To this day, I don’t think that conspiracy research has been a properly unifying force, and in many cases it has done the opposite. Some people fight tooth and nail over whether one single incident was a false flag or a hoax, while in fact they cannot know the full truth by merely looking at videos and reading articles on their computers. The rise of nationalism though, or the Alt-Right, in recent years looks like a force that managed to unify people in the real world, and it seems to me that it is offering a proper challenge for the New World Order. Race, religion and culture are a better unifying force than abstract intellectual principles. This is why I admire the Alt-Right.

However, I do see some potential pitfalls the Alt-Right may fall victim to. While I like the way they are taking an active role in creating the kind of world they want to see, I sometimes also see right-wingers choosing to see the world the way they prefer than how it actually is. In other words, they don’t care about the facts as much as proper conspiracy researchers do. I’ll illustrate this with examples to prove that I’m not making it up.

In Daily Shoah episode 59 (around 2h 41min) the guys (I’m not sure which voice belongs to whom) are talking about false flags, and how they can understand how anarcho-capitalists might want to say that mass shootings and terrorist attacks are false flags, because it fits their narrative, but it does not the narrative of white nationalists. From the conspiratorial standpoint the question is what is the truth, not what fits my narrative, but for Alt-Right it seems to be what fits their narrative. However, I’m not saying the Daily Shoah’s approach is necessarily wrong though. Take the Paris Friday the 13th terrorist attack for example. I’m personally not convinced it was perpetrated by Muslims, and I am more inclined to believe it was a false flag, but I don’t know all of the facts. It might have been either way. Even if that particular attack was not perpetrated by Islamists, it still is an undeniable fact that the Muslim invaders have committed other heinous crimes in Europe, so I don’t see much sense in going out of my way trying to prove that Muslims were innocent of that one attack, while many other cases do exist.

Another example is from the National Policy Institute 2015 Live Podcast – Become Who We Are (around 56min), an Alt-Right meeting, when Richard Spencer says that “data, empiricism, the truth. These things are really overrated.” He’s referring to the fact that its easier to influence people with music and art than showing them facts and statistics. I hate to admit it, but he’s right.

These are just two examples of how the Alt-Right does not seem to care about the truth as much as conspiracy researchers, but I’ve gotten a similar impression from other videos and articles. I also understand their viewpoint. They look at the world like a soldier whose task is to win the war. You promote the story that helps you win the war, whether its true or not, and hide the facts that hinder you. It makes sense, to a degree.

However, the potential downfall is that you have to be able to distinguish the truth from the narratives you find convenient lest you fall victim to them yourself. Let’s take 9/11 for example. While the Alt-Right did not exist back then in the same sense it does now, the common right-wing reaction to the terrorist attacks is summed up in the movie American Sniper; America was attacked, patriotic soldiers go die and kill the bad guys for what they did. I can agree with the sentiment, but the unfortunate fact is that it is questionable whether Afghanistan or Al-Qaida had anything to do with 9/11, Iraq certainly had nothing to do with it, and even if Al-Qaida was involved the American patriots should have recalled that it was an American creation from the 80s. Moreover, the real culprits of this attack were in the US government and Mossad. It is in situations like these you need a proper conspiracy researcher to point out the facts so you don’t end up working for your enemy, i.e. Israel.

Alt-Right people tend to see their enemies in these three categories; Muslims, Jews and Cultural Marxists. Some identify only two of them as enemies, while others identify them all as such. While any conspiracy nut understands its not that simple. There are other, hard to define organizations at play. Yet I do like the Alt-Right approach to fighting the enemy they can see, instead of passively theorizing in front their computers on the nature of the enemy, the Alt-Right should be reminded what Sun-Tzu said about knowing the enemy.

Like I said earlier, the Alt-Right is focused on winning the war, while conspiracy theorists’ goals are often not so well-defined. This means the Alt-Right people tend to focus on immediate issues that either present a new threat to them, or things that are opportunities to help their cause. Conspiracy theorists certainly sometimes do that, but often they, like myself, discuss issues that have very little foreseeable practical application, such as the Flat Earth debate, moon landing hoax, shapeshifting reptilians, UFOS, spiritual matters and so on. I agree with the Alt-Right in the sense that the main focus should be on practical issues, yet unless we know the truth about a certain issue, we cannot know beforehand whether it will be useful or not. My comment on this matter is that I do understand why many people see these things as a waste of time, and I don’t begrudge them for it, but I do see potential value in exploring the unknown and exposing decades old conspiracies.

In conclusion, both the Alt-Right and conspiracy research community are on the same side. I hope we can find middleground, co-operate and all that. Yadda yadda.



Daily Shoah episode 59:

National Policy Institute 2015 Live Podcast – Become Who We Are:



Chemtrails, Blade Runner and Fallen Angels

In recent times I’ve heard some people of the nationalist or alt-right persuasion dismiss the issue of Chemtrails as something ridiculous. They’re decent people whose political views I for the most part agree with, but not on their choice to ignore issue that do not fit into that political view.

I can understand that some people feel put off by the more esoteric side of conspiracy theories, and they don’t see the point in dwelling over whether the latest terrorist attack was a false flag or not. They either very distant or minor details that have little practical baring on one’s life. Chemtrails, however, are very physical and easily perceived phenomenon. I’ve seen aeroplanes emit Chemtrails dozens of times over the years. I’ve seen them in various countries, including at least Finland, Taiwan, Hong Kong and South Korea. I’ve read reports and seen videos of Chemtrails appearing many other countries as well. They are a global phenomenon you can perceive with your very eyes if you pay attention. It is not an issue of belief, emotion, or something nebulous like debating whether “it’s” the Illuminati or the Jesuits.

I’ve seen planes emit contrails, the white chemical trails that disappear after a minute or so. I’ve seen planes spray Chemtrails that linger in the air for a long time and eventually form clouds. This is a straight forward matter. If you don’t believe me, start paying attention when you go outside. You might not see them everyday, but you will see them eventually unless you happen to live in an area where no Chemtrails are sprayed. If such a place exists.

One comment I read recently about Chemtrails was someone disputing the existence of Chemtrails because the idea that the elites would be poisoning the earth like this, since they live on this planet too. First of all that is a huge leap of faith to say that Chemtrails are a plot to poison people. The only fact about Chemtrails I know is they exist, and would seem to be some sort of Chemicals. I do not for what purpose they are sprayed or how they affect things.

Secondly, the comment of this “Chemtrail skeptic” is completely non-sensical. It pre-supposes some sort of universal hive mind of humanity where everybody thinks the same as the guy making the assumption, and moreover the idea that people would never do something that will eventually bring them their doom is demonstratively wrong. Just look at all the Feminists who want Muslim immigrants to invade their countries and rape them. Just look at the Bug Chasers in San Francisco who purposefully want to get AIDS. Yes, they exist, and I am referring the disease, HIV, and not making a South Park-related joke about Jared wanting to give people aides.

That part of this post was cold, hard fact, but this is where the wild speculation sets in.

I just finished re-watching the scifi classic Blade Runner. The movie starts with a shot of a huge, futuristic ziggurat-like building with a vehicle flying towards it. It immediately reminded me of what Erich von Däniken, the Ancient Alien theorist, said about ziggurats in the ancient Mesopotamia. He theorized that they were airports for the flying vessels of the aliens.

I am however very skeptical of the whole Ancient Aliens narrative, but there is plenty of evidence of pre-historical societies with all sorts of advanced technologies. There are loads of ancient ruins around the world that defy the narrative of main stream archeology.

Blade Runner is based on the novel by Philip K. Dick by the name of “Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep”, but there are many differences between the book and the movie. While the novel is pessimistic and post-apocalyptic, the movie is more dark, literally, and more transhumanistic. The visuals follow this dark, cyberpunk, machinic society that is disconnected from nature. The Borg from Star Trek, and H. R. Giger’s art, who is most famous for designing the alien for the movie Alien, present a similar world. The future in the Terminator-movies and the Matrix isn’t that different either. While I do find this dark, cybernetic world aesthetically pleasing, but certainly it is not world that any sane person would want to become reality, as it is basically a vision of hell.

The movie is transhumanistic in its depiction of the replicants, the artificial humans. The plot is that four, well six, but two of them died in the backstory, replicants escaped from the Off-world Colonies, i.e. colonies in outer space to earth. Replicants have only a four year life-span, and they’re seeking to prolong it. Their presence on earth is illegal (how can a person be illegal? trololol) and Deckard, played by Harrison Ford, has to hunt them down.

The suffering of the replicants is much more highlighted than the experiences of Deckard. When both of the female replicants are killed sad music is played in the background, and there’s slow motion. And the end battle against the boss, played by Rutger Hauer, is somewhat anti-climactic, since the replicant saves Deckard and simply dies of old age instead of being shot by the hero. I’m not saying this as a movie critic, but with the purpose of analyzing the message of the movie. In effect the movie wants you to sympathize with the inhuman antagonists. I don’t think it worked, though, back in the eighties when people saw the movie, since people back them were more rooted in reality than we are now. Nowadays though, I can imagine a Social Justice Warrior watching the movie and hating human for being so intolerant against these artificial machines.

The underlying message in Blade Runner is, as the Rolling Stones put it, to have sympathy for the devil. Transhumanism and Satanism, I believe, are one and the same. This might sound counter-intuitive to someone not versed in these topics as transhumanism is something scifi and futuristic, and Satanism, or devil-worship is something archaic and superstitious. Yet I believe that demons, or devils, or fallen angels are some sort of artificial intelligences. Either they were devised as concepts in the mind of God, but he chose not to create them, or he created them but banished them to hell. The popular idea of hell is fire and brimstone, lakes of fire and horned demons, but I’m inclined to think it’s more like the artificial, dark world presented in the science fiction works I referred to earlier. This does not mean the artists who make these depictions are necessarily “in the know” or work for the Illuminati, but rather they have inadvertently picked up the inspiration from the ether and depicted what they saw.

“As it was in the days of Noah, so it will be at the coming of the Son of Man “(Matthew 24:37) is a phrase that has been plaguing me for a long time. Some Christian Ufologists and conspiracy theorists have interpreted this to mean that in the days of Noah people had a lot of the technology that we have today as well as genetic manipulation, and other sciences that pervert nature. Then God brought the flood to get rid of it. It sounds like a plausible theory to me.

This relates to the ziggurat in Blade Runner, the building of the Tyrell corporation, that creates the replicants. Back in the days of Noah, these high priests used their perverse technologies to try to bring these demonic, artificial entities into our world. The ziggurat probably symbolizes this. The movie Blade Runner states that they are attempting to do it again.

This is where the Chemtrails come into the picture. The most reasonable sounding explanation for what the purpose of Chemtrails might be is that they are used for geoengineering. I think that is the case. Into what are they moulding the world into then? I’d say it’s the dark, artificial world we’ve seen in scifi movies. Perhaps Global Dimming is caused by Chemtrails, if it is an actual phenomenon and not another fraud like Global Warming.

I know there are a lot of different, seemingly unconnected topics I discussed here, and I may have jumped from one thread to another a bit too fast without explaining the whole process, but it’s getting late and I’m sleepy. The big picture though makes sense, when you put it all together.


I’ll add some references here to point out that I didn’t just pull the stuff I said here out of my ass:

Dane Wigington-Chemtrails/Geoengineering is Playing God with Weather:

First Genetically Modified Humans, As In The Days of Noah:

The Origin of the Nephilim – Archon Invasion:

Artifacts from the Pre-Flood World – Fallen Angels Proof:

Michael Tsarion – Origins & Oracles – Atlantis, Alien Visitation & Genetic Manipulation:

TransHumanism is the New World Satanic Order:

The Sorcerers of Atlantis:

John Lash | Gnosticism, Sophia, & The Archon Control Matrix:



Global Dimming:


Burning down the Neo-Nazi Strawman

Today is Finland’s independence day, so I’ll try to force this topic to somehow correspond with that fact, since Finland was allied with Germany during the Second World War.

Whenever someone questions the Holocaust, says something positive about the Nazis or shows any interest in race other than saying “there’s only one race, the human race” or demonizes white people, they are labelled Nazi, racist, Stormfag or something similar. As if that somehow invalidates what the person was saying.

It’s an argument based solely on emotion and the pre-programmed image of a Neo-Nazi no-one wants to associate with. The program triggers an image of a person such as these:

Of course nobody wants to be regarded as being similar to these guys or sympathizing with them. Nor do they want to be seen as someone who condones the murder of six million innocent Jews. Fortunately then, we have facts that point out that the Holocaust was mostly a hoax, and the real Nazis, you know the Germans in the 30s and 40s, wouldn’t have liked the nutcases pictured above either.

What kind of a person is a modern Nazi sympathizer then? Well, take me for instance. If you saw me and talked to me, you’d see something like this instead of a skinhead Neo-Nazi:

It’s not my actual image, nor do I play a guitar, but I would say this is more the feel I give to people than somebody who looks like they wanna bash your face in.

No, I’m not making the argument that the hippies would have actually loved the Nazis, or anything like that. I’m just saying I’m a regular, peace-loving guy, and I’d say most people who have begun to sympathize with the actual, historical Nazis are. While I am certainly not saying that I think everything about the Nazis was good and perfect, but looking at the world today, and comparing it with what the Nazis did, if I am being intellectually honest, I cannot fathom how the world could be any worse than it is now had the Nazis won World War II. Let’s look at some of their beliefs and exploits.

First of all, the Nazis managed to turn Germany from an extremely impoverished state to a prosperous one in just ten years or so. The Nazi government actually seemed to care about the people. Nowadays governments seem hell-bent on making the people impoverished. The Nazis were against sexual deviancy and perversion, whereas in 2015 the West celebrates transgenderism and deviancy. They were of course against the World Jewry and its control over economics, but the Nazis did not irrationally try to exterminate the Jews. Nazis merely wanted them out of Germany. They were against Freemasonry and the Clique of Internationalists. They were against both communism and capitalism. The Nazis wanted to see their country prosper and people be happy.

Maybe it’s just me, but I agree with all of these points. I’m not saying their methods were always correct, or effective, but the National Socialist philosophy seems certainly worth studying. However, it should be noted the Nazis failed, so no doubt they committed severe mistakes, and they should not be imitated uncritically.

If I’m a person who sympathizes with the Nazis, what kinds of values does it mean I hold? First of all, it means I value truth and scientific fact over peoples’ emotions and consensus based on repetition. I believe that people should be allowed to discuss historical facts like reasonable adults, instead of the government threatening people and imprisoning them for holding politically incorrect ideas. Questioning the Holocaust is still illegal in several European countries. I believe in some degree of decency, and oppose the celebration of the deviancy rampant in today’s society. I believe that society should exist for the benefit of the people of said society, instead of being exploited for profit as in capitalism, or all of their thoughts and actions being controlled as in communism.

One thing usually associated with the Nazis are their ideas on race. Quite frankly I don’t know enough of the actual Nazi ideas on the topic. I know plenty of accusations on how racist they were, but I do not know to what extent they were true or false. My own ideas on race is that race does exist, and we should be able to discuss race, and racial differences. Both the good and the bad. Too often the mere mention of race is regarded as something negative, and you’re being hateful for doing so. Is it hateful to point out that German shepherds are larger than Chihuahuas?

I’ve seen people on the internet, who are usually rational and intelligent, degenerate into calling others Stormfags and using other insults simply for suggesting the fact that the rapists in the Rotherham scandal in Britain might have something to do with race. The offenders were Pakistani, and supposedly they are into inbreeding with their cousins. Considering this possibility for their criminality should not be out of the question.

I think that is the difference between a communist and a Nazi. The communist will do anything to stand within the politically correct zone, whereas as the Nazi dares venture into unknown territory.

Let’s top this off with a reference to the infamous interview from Britain of some guy protesting against the Islamization of Britain and mumbling incoherently about Muslamic law, and Muslamic rape gangs or Muslamic Ray Guns. The video has spawned some internet memes and stuff. The guy in the video has usually been dismissed as an idiot and laughed at. However, while I think the guy is a dumb thug, he’s also right. He talks about how Muslims are trying to introduce Sharia law into Europe, he mentions how there are Islamic rape gangs in Britain (like the one in Rotherham), and he’s concerned about it.

While all the liberal intellectuals and internet geeks are laughing at him for not being able to express himself verbally, the guy is actually trying to do something to protect British girls from rape. So maybe it’s better to stop worrying how other people see you, and do what is right. I might not want people to associate me being someone like him, but he’s still a better champion for Europe than all of the politically correct people put together who only care about their image.

That shit is for teenage girls, and pop-idols who make money off of teenage girls. Men are not afraid of being called Nazi, racist or any of that. They pursue truth and justice independently regardless of social pressures.; The Harbinger of Evil

The title is deliberately cheesy. Get over it.

Unfortunately though, the title is also correct. In recent months the website has become infamous for promoting pedophilia. It is a clear agenda to normalize such criminally evil behaviour. Today I noticed they’re also pushing Satanism.

I am not a Christian, and I’m talking about this issue because it should concern everyone whether they’re Christian, Atheist, pagan or whatever. A few days ago Salon published an article called “The greatest trick the satanists ever pulled: They may be truer to the words of Jesus than most Christians”. The article is as the title describes. Satanism is supposedly much more moral and rational than Christianity.


The Seven Tenets

The seven fundamental tenets of Satanism are listed:

  • Strive to act with compassion and empathy toward all creatures in accordance with reason.
  • The struggle for justice is an ongoing and necessary pursuit that should prevail over laws and institutions.
  • One’s body is inviolable, subject to one’s own will alone.
  • The freedoms of others should be respected, including the freedom to offend. To willfully and unjustly encroach upon the freedoms of another is to forgo your own.
  • Beliefs should conform to our best scientific understanding of the world. We should take care never to distort scientific facts to fit our beliefs.
  • People are fallible. If we make a mistake, we should do our best to rectify it and resolve any harm that may have been caused.
  • Every tenet is a guiding principle designed to inspire nobility in action and thought. The spirit of compassion, wisdom, and justice should always prevail over the written or spoken word.

The first four of the tenets I don’t have much problems with. They’re generic, and ultimately meaningless, since anyone can try to argue that whatever they are doing, they are doing in pursuit of these principles. But I can agree with the basic principle.

The next tenet is “Beliefs should conform to our best scientific understanding of the world.” This is utterly banal. I would say that our beliefs do conform to our best scientific understanding of the world. If someone believes that something is true, they automatically adopt it into their world view. However since different people have different perspectives, they’re views on what is scientific fact differ from each other. Also some people are more informed than others. Taken this way, the tenet is meaningless.

However, what I think they mean is that basically people should conform to whatever the technocratic theocracy tells them to believe. If the “science” says that we evolved from the primordial goo, we should ignore people who say otherwise, such as we were created by a deity, regardless of what the actual evidence says.

The addendum to the fifth tenet is even more pointless; “We should take care never to distort scientific facts to fit our beliefs.” Or in other words you could, we should remain truthful to others and to ourselves. I think this should apply in other contexts, and not merely when it comes to science.

The next tenet is a truism, i.e. true but not worth mentioning; “People are fallible. If we make a mistake, we should do our best to rectify it and resolve any harm that may have been caused.”

The last tenet I sort of like. We should strive to inspire nobility in action and thought, but I don’t think that’s what these Satanists are really doing. And the latter part of the tenet is suspicious: “The spirit of compassion, wisdom, and justice should always prevail over the written or spoken word.” Is that a veiled way of saying you should disregard all laws and holy books like the Bible in favour of these vague ideals?

Right after the tenets, the article says the Ten Commandments “asserts the primacy of a single deity rather than the primacy of compassion and empathy.” This is apparently a bad thing according to the author. Well, if you’re a Christian and believe in God as the absolute source of everything and all that, I would say that God’s will is more important than your petty fucking emotions. This is such Cultural Marxist/Social Justice Warrior-propaganda. As long as your feelings are good, everything is good.


Other Satanist articles

This recent pro-Satanist article isn’t the only one on Salon. One article from almost 2 years ago is titled “The 18 best songs about the devil”. By itself the article would be fairly innocuous, but has several other articles praising Satanism, i.e. this is an agenda.

One article praises Satanists for challenging anti-abortion laws. Abortion is murder, ’nuff said. I do think that murder, including abortion, is justified under certain circumstances, but generally speaking it should be avoided. For example, if a woman is raped and gets pregnant, I am in favour of murdering the rape spawn. It may sound harsh, but I do not believe in rewarding rapists by allowing them to spread their seed.

A third article berates Christians for believing in demons, hinting they are superstitious and backwards for doing so. Looking at the rise of Satanism in recent years, and how people are just going crazy and rejecting reality, I wouldn’t say that the notion of demonic possession is such a dumb idea. Moreover this article seems intent on dissuading people from looking at this potential problem.

The article states that “it should be emphasized that most Satanists don’t literally worship the devil. They’re atheists who treat the figure of Satan as an inspiring piece of mythology, a symbol of individual freedom and resistance to oppressive orthodoxy.” If they’re just Atheists who don’t really believe in any spiritual crap, why are they erecting statues of Baphomet everywhere? Why are they acting as if Satanism is a religion? Moreover, the above statement is bullcrap.

Last summer a Baphomet statue was unveiled at the Satanic Temple in Detroit. People who wanted to buy a ticket to the event also had to sell their soul to the devil. It’s just a minor thing. Nothing to worry about. Vice website states that their excuse was: “We were thinking that having them sell their souls over to Satan would keep away some of the more radical superstitious people who would try to undermine the event”. Or just keep away people who want to keep their souls, or don’t get tangled in their non-religious Atheist religion that doesn’t take it seriously, but still bothers with these rituals.



In my humble opinion this Satanism stuff is very real, and very evil. It’s not just teenagers listening to Black Metal. They are trying to introduce it as something quirky and cuddly, like it’s not a big deal, until people get more accustomed to it. You know the Boiling Frogs-method.

I’m pretty sure that on top of the pyramid, there are Generational Satanists who want to pervert and subvert all of society. They take their pedophilic rape as a religious duty. It’s not a co-incidence that Salon is pushing both pedophilia and Satanism. These things are interconnected.



Some of the Salon article are originally from AlterNet. Perhaps that is the original Satanic source, and Salon is just mirroring it.




More pedophilia:

The greatest trick the satanists ever pulled: They may be truer to the words of Jesus than most Christians:

The 18 best songs about the devi:

“This isn’t a joke to us”: Satanists get serious about challenging antiabortion laws:

Inside the Satanic Temple’s Secret Baphomet Monument Unveiling:

Detroit Baphomet Monument Unveiling: Attendees Required to Sell Their Souls to Satan: