Conrad Speaks

Since the start of the guest-worker migrations to Northern Europe, around the 1960s, each time war broke loose anywhere in the world, we kept sending the refugees to Europe. What if I told you these mass migrations were all planned? The displacement, replacement, and genetic erasure of Europe’s native populations has always been EU policy.

This video is not available on YouTube, but you may choose from these alternative links:

BitChute - Odysee - Dailymotion - Brighteon - DTube - Rumble - BrandNewTube

What is now called a conspiracy theory—the so-called Kalergi Plan to replace Europeans—was once the newest fashion among the European nobility of the 1920s. It was a plan popularized by the half-Austrian, half-Japanese nobleman Richard von Coudenhove-Kalergi.

Kalergi, for short, was the founder of the Pan-European Union, the predecessor to the EU, the man who contributed the blue background to the EU’s present flag, and who hand-picked the EU’s present anthem—Beethoven’s Ode to Joy.

Son of a charming Japanese mother, Kalergi also first introduced the idea of a monetary union for Europe. And it was his idea to coin the minting of a European currency, now called the Euro.

As a high-ranking member of the Freemasons, Kalergi had access to Europe’s royal rich. It was Baron Louis de Rothschild who introduced Kalergi to Max Warburg, a Jewish banker who put up 60,000 Deutschmarks to fund the first steps of the Pan-European Union.

The European Union basically is a Jewish-funded project. For 49 years, Kalergi then presided over the Union’s Central Council, and in 1950, he received the first Charlemagne Award for his unifying efforts, a prize also awarded to Germany’s Angela Merkel in 2008.

Say what you want about me, but you cannot deny Mr. Von Coudenhove-Kalergi was extremely influential. This half-Japanese man was the founding father of the European Union. And now that his political and economic dreams have all been realized, perhaps we should be careful to dismiss his racial ideas as something “controversial”.

Kalergi’s racial ideas are being implemented, and have been for over a century, except, we European commonfolk are not supposed to know about it, because it might upset us. Kalergi, for example, wrote extensively about his friends in his 1925 book Practical Idealism.

Let me quote some passages for you:

On page 27 of the first edition, he wrote: “Insofar Europa is Christian, she is Jewish; insofar Europa is moral, she is Jewish. … Nearly the entire European ethic is rooted in Judaism. … In the East, the Chinese people are the ethical par excellence … in the West, the Jewish [people].”

On page 28: “The strength of the Jewish character combined with its mental clarity predestines the Jews … to be the leaders of urban humanity …”

And on page 33, we get to read something we really weren’t supposed to hear about: “The battle between capitalism and communism over the legacy of Europe’s blood nobility … is a battle … between heathen and Christian minds. The generals of both parties [meaning capitalist and communist] were recruited from Europe’s race of spiritual leaders: Jewry.”

On page 50, Kalergi further stresses that Europe’s old feudal nobility has indeed been replaced by this new urban nobility, and on page 51, he confirms that “Judaism is the lap from which Europe’s new spiritual nobility emerges.”

No wonder this book is out of print! You see, this book wasn’t meant to be read by a commoner like me. It was written and intended for Europe’s new nobility.

(By the way—I have a riddle for you: How is it that Kalergi could be so open about Jewish supremacy writing before the Second World War, but after the war all of sudden everything had to be done in secret?)

What Kalergi called the feudal or blood nobility, also called the sword nobility or the fighting nobility, were the old Germanic, Celtic, and Slavic clans that used to control Northern Europe. But they—meaning /our people/—have been defeated by the new urban nobility, namely by playing both sides of the capitalist and communist movements.

At least, Kalergi thought so. Driven by fear, this European nobility embraced the Kalergi Plan, because it saw in the Soviet Union a grave threat. They believed, far-seeing as they were, that European unification was going to be necessary to thwart a Russian invasion and Russia’s subsequent world domination.

Or perhaps both sides—Russia and Europe—were cleverly played, again. Either way, nationalist tendencies within Europe came to be seen as a threat to European stability. It’s the same story we keep hearing today.

In principle, I do support some sort of banner for Europeans to unite themselves under, but it’s not the European Union, this urban-centric, anti-rural dystopia that now threatens to erase native European stock for the sole reason that our urban elites are afraid that our suppressed fighting spirit might one day resurface to overthrow them.

I’m not making that up. Kalergi said so himself on page 54 of his book, namely that “in a more peaceful Europe of the future, the nobility will have to be stripped of its warlike character and have it replaced with a priestly demeanor. A pacified and socialized West will no longer need rulers and masters, only leaders, educators, and examples.”

I would add ‘influencers’ to that list since Instagramsexuals seem to be telling us how to live nowadays. We, old stock Europeans, apparently, have to be pacified by mass immigration, mass miscegenation, and mass media manipulation until the war strain has been bred out of us.

Our complete and total domestication is the end goal. Again, it was Kalergi who said so on page 55: “The races and the classes, as we know them today, will disappear ...”

Kalergi thought the mixed-race of the future was the highest possible ideal for Europeans, so that the Jewish element in this mixture could come to, and I quote, “its fullest development”, as though Jews were a sort of mental race that spreads through physical hosts.

I quote again:

“The European man of the future will be of mixed race. Today’s races and classes will disappear owing to the disappearing of nations, time, and prejudice. The Eurasian-Negroid race of the future, similar in its outward appearance to the Ancient Egyptians, will replace the diversity of peoples with a diversity of individuals.” (pp. 22-23)

A diversity of individuals. Aha! Now you know why Jordan Peterson, the Canadian psychologist, is pushing radical individualism so hard. He doesn’t want men of old European stock to unite as feudal clans to fight their urban oppressors. You can see my other video on that topic titled: Family First.

The genetic erasure of Europe’s natives is the European Union’s end game and has been from day one. No wonder big tech and big media are pushing the LGBT cult so hard on white men, while simultaneously promoting mixed-race relationships for white women.

Armies of single immigrant males are supposed to fertilize Europa with their backward ways, and our urban elites seem to think they will be able to educate the mongrels that come from such an act of genocide. I think they may be suffering from a little hubris there.

It is the white man, after all, who represents the potential last line of defense against the genocide of his people. And that is why I made this video. Because I’m sick and tired of these disgusting urban animals in charge of the West nowadays who think they have become my new nobility. They have not.

It is time for us, us men of the West who prefer to live and die by the sword, to start doing something about the urban cancer consuming the Earth. Firstly, by spreading the word, and secondly, by rallying men of European stock into becoming our so-called elites’ worst f*****g nightmare.

Links Amazon, YouTube, Facebook, Twitter, Discord, Telegram, Apple Podcast

Subscribe www.jmk.info

Get full access to Conrad Speaks at www.jmk.info/subscribe

All urban lineages eventually die out. By the fifth generation, city people have generally stopped having children and they disappear from the genealogical record. In this "fireside chat", I discuss the ups and downs of life in the city and its implications for humanity.

Links Amazon, YouTube, Facebook, Twitter, Discord, Telegram, Apple Podcast

Subscribe www.jmk.info

Get full access to Conrad Speaks at www.jmk.info/subscribe

The ‘cult of one’ is a religious movement that began in the Middle East some five thousand years ago or more. Centered around the belief in the oneness of everything, this movement has taken on surprising many forms, but each working toward the same event, the Singularity, when all becomes one. 

For example, the eye of Horus floating over the freemasons’ pyramid is one representation of this cult, the Book of Zohar foretelling the fusion of the divine male and female into a transgender goat-god is another, and the oneness of Christianity’s Holy Trinity yet another.  

The oneness of everything as a belief system has been the root cause of all modern illnesses. Starting with the great monotheisms, the belief in the One God saw the rise of the Abrahamic religions such as Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. With the arrival of organized religion, the worship of the one Son, or the one Prophet, people came to worship their egos rather than their ancestors.

Atheism is monotheism with one less God, in favor of worshipping some divine formula, the scientific theory of everything. And in Tolkien’s Lord of the Ring, the one ring that rules them all must be destroyed in a fire. The ring represents the one God that must be destroyed by Satan in order to establish atheism so that dwarves and elves and humans and orcs can all coexist peacefully. 

Indeed, the belief in equality is just another version of the cult of one.

The christening of Europe then all but successfully anesthetized the polytheistic European soul. Christianity carried forward the Greco-Judean idea of the sovereign individual, ‘freeing’ people from ancestral worship. 

The religions of individualism have made people deeply narcissistic, calculating, ‘rational’, selfish, in constant need of praise and worship in the form of material offerings, and yet, the followers of this cult of self-worship remain as helpless as a little baby and can only respond to their incompetence with a seething rage.

The influence of the cult of one can now be felt in every aspect of our lives. In fact, it has completely changed our reality. 

Karl Marx dreamed of establishing the definite class, the one working class. Albert Einstein famously fused space and time into spacetime, as though the physical world were one giant whole. Stephen Hawking gave the universe a singular origin, the so-called ‘Big Bang’. Psychoanalyst Carl Jung believed the European preference for life among their kin was a mental illness to be cured with individualism. Jordan Peterson merely picked up where Jung left off in terms of destroying Western social cohesion. 

The field of philosophy, too, has seen no exemption. German thinker Martin Heidegger went so far as to combine time and Being into a transcendent Oneness, erasing the very distinction between past, present, and future, and forming a gigantic present moment, the Eternal Now, so doing away with the ancestral past Europeans used to believe in.

Modern liberals want to ‘liberate’ people from the restraints of their classes, ranks, families, gender, races, and you name it. They want to create one world without borders, mix everyone together to efface all difference, enslave people under one world bank, the global economy, and the one open society, with only one tune left to dance to, global communism. 

But today’s youngsters dance alone. Knowing no shame, they go to clubs and festivals to jump up and down, randomly flailing their arms and legs around. If your ancestors could see your TikTok-moves, they’d think you were all nuts. Our ancestors used to dance together to renew their social bonds. Dances were meant to drum up the spirits of their ancestors, to help heal the tribe, or perhaps in anticipation of childbirth.

Today, we are told to pursue a lifestyle of one-night stands, to live in a pod, alone, and to stay single, to pursue love the way the characters of Sex and the City do, hopping on and off the carousel—but don’t call me a w***e, ‘cause I don’t take cash, only expensive gifts will do.

Likewise, the trans-gender movement means to establish the definite sex—presumably, the female. We’re told the future is female and men will just have to live in jail or die out. Robots will take care of kids born in electric wombs so women can be free to pursue … what exactly? What are women supposed to do all day if there’s nothing left to do? Meaningless peacockery? Flaunting the latest fashion to other women who aren’t even looking?

Pursuing individualistic careers solely for one’s self-adulation, we think the emptiness of being is our track to getting promoted. Have I got a sticker for you. School exams test how well an individual student can replicate the dogmas of the collective. Why are pupils rarely judged as a group, for example, for building a house together? Why don’t family doctors get paid for each day their patients did not get sick?

People aren’t bricks glued together by society. We aren’t are supposed to be disconnected nobodies, nor connected somebodies. We are supposed to be living souls! Yet modernity keeps telling us “we’re all special” even though boredom consumes us. Vanity can never fill the gaping void where our soul used to be. If everyone’s special, then no one is. 

The oneness of everything wants to erase every ‘class’ distinction. It wants to mix all people with all so that the definite race, the one mixed race, can replace all others. For the same reason, now, climate Marxists are starting fires and flooding lands in order to create the definite climate. It should make us tremble with fear, for back when Marxists dreamed of elevating the working classes to establish the definite class, their nightmare ended in the murder of over 80 million people in Soviet labor camps.

Indeed, even democracy is not, and never has been, a native European way. “One person, one vote,” is the adagio to divide the people on every matter, so elites can rule democracies per divide et impera, divide and conquer.

They—the followers of the cult of one—call these developments their “enlightenment project”. They won’t stop until they’ve deconstructed physical reality itself, until the whole thing has collapsed onto and into itself, and all sentient minds have fused into one immutable entity they call a God-Mind.

For this is their one goal: to give birth to their God, their Messias, by tearing reality apart. Few people even grasp the pervasiveness of this completely alien, un-European, and anti-European doctrine that is the oneness of everything.

More than a psychologist, it’s a philosopher’s job to understand why people are generally unhappy. Why are so many people living unfulfilling lives nowadays? The psychologist analyses the individual and prescribes therapy, but the philosopher dives deep into the sources of it all. In the dark, murky waters of humanity’s soul, we see that mankind has become increasingly individualistic and narcissistic, riding a wave of materialism into the cities.

Today, humanity has been almost completely uprooted, cut off from the soil of his forebears, and dropped into residential highrises that amount to no more than human pigsties. Our ideal of scientific advancement leads us to lock ourselves up in spaceships made of glass and steel, losing any and all connection to the soil of the earth, cocooned in a technocratic dystopia.

And soon, our flesh and blood will be synthetically created, our minds replaced with implants, our hearts with pumps and valves. How much longer before we cease to be human at all?

‘Normal people’, simply meaning people who get to live fulfilling lives, crave community and companionship. We crave belonging and a role in some group effort, but as modern individuals, we must dwell alone. As a group, as our group, no matter how big or small, we become more than the sum of individuals. 

Rather than having to prove ourselves worthy to an undeserving audience every day anew, we find, all of a sudden, that we are supported by our kin. We can rise above ourselves, and, guided by our ancestral spirits, we achieve life’s fulfillment through struggle, for we are no longer afraid to go at it alone.

As with the flash of an atom bomb, we have awoken to the deception that was the Age of Enlightenment. The cult of the One will have to grow up.

Links Amazon, YouTube, Facebook, Twitter, Discord, Telegram, Apple Podcast

Subscribe www.jmk.info

Get full access to Conrad Speaks at www.jmk.info/subscribe

“O my Hiawatha! All your prayers are heard in heaven, For you pray not like the others; Not for greater skill in hunting, Not for greater craft in fishing, Not for triumph in the battle, Nor renown among the warriors, But for profit of the people, For advantage of the nations.”

These lines were taken from the epic poem The Song of Hiawatha by Henry Wadsworth Longfellow, written in 1855. That year, at a time when political correctness had not yet been invented, an anonymous reviewer for the New York Times judged the poem harshly:

“As an Indian Saga, embalming pleasantly enough the monstrous traditions of an uninteresting, and, one may almost say, a justly exterminated race, the Song of ‘Hiawatha’ is entitled to commendation. As a poem, it deserves no place, … We maintain it, there is no romance about the Indian.”

Longfellow’s poem follows the birth, life, and adventures of a maturing Hiawatha. His adventures come to an end when, in the second to last chapter, the hero encounters white missionaries seeking to spread Christianity. The Indians passively accept the arrival of these strangers from the regions of the morning,

“Let us welcome, then, the strangers, Hail them as our friends and brothers, And the heart’s right hand of friendship, Give them when they come to see us.”

As we now know, this naive, friendly welcome brought about a combination of war and disease that ended in the near-extinction of Native American civilization. But do we, Europeans, not find ourselves at a similar point in time, when we sheepishly accommodate mass immigration, allowing Muslim hordes to settle on our holy birth ground, having the soldiers of Allah erect their symbols of conquest, hundreds if not thousands of mosques, barracks of hate in our once Christian lands? Are we, too, not witnessing the onset of our civilization’s collapse?

If Native Americans could be so foolish to ignore the white man’s violent side and to underestimate his technological capability, surely white man himself can be just as foolish not to recognize the subversiveness of Islamic war doctrine, and underestimate a migrant undercurrent that hates us. While, on the one hand, our self-imposed politeness, our institutionalized political correctness, and our trust-based policies of open borders have greatly benefited an exchange of ideas and brought tremendous economic profit, on the other hand, these things have also blinded our minds from seeing the Trojan threat of foreign conquest.

The West has lost its way. Bouncing from fascist Hitlerism to ultra-socialist democracy in under a century, the hands of time have unhinged the West, separating it from a required sense of direction, reason, and sanity. As Charles Chaplin once put it, “We have developed speed, but we have shut ourselves in. Machinery that gives abundance has left us in want.” Soon, globalism’s false song will fade into the hypnotizing cries of the black-clothed Sirens of Islam.

What shall they write about us when we are gone?

Then let us cease to be deaf and blind. Let us not work for heaps of profits, not for greater self-promotion, not for the triumph of our goodness, nor for renown among the nations, but for the survival of our peoples, for the revival of the West.

Links Amazon, YouTube, Facebook, Twitter, Discord, Telegram, Apple Podcast

Subscribe www.jmk.info

Get full access to Conrad Speaks at www.jmk.info/subscribe

Listen now (11 min) | May the Truth Be Spoken?

Get full access to Conrad Speaks at www.jmk.info/subscribe

This article & video are part of a 9-part series based on my book Eternal Struggle.

The scientific worldview is neither scientific nor a view of the world. It is a myopic view of economics that limits scientific research to the study of matter in motion.

What we call “the scientific worldview” was tacked onto the natural sciences during the mid-nineteenth century under the influence of Marxism, the politics of matter in motion, also called materialism. This style of politics looks at society and determines its value by measuring the size of state revenue and corporate coffers.

The Latin word for science (or, scientia) meaning awareness, and the word scientist thus meaning ‘the aware’, proves scientists see themselves as initiates of secret knowledge only they, the educated class, have access to. They know the truth, because their truth is “scientific”. This truth ownership gives scientists their social status.

But modern science does not generate greater awareness about reality, nor do scientists think with their science. Science being a materialist philosophy cannot think outside of the limiting scope that is the physical world. Science is precisely the opposite of what it claims to be. It is as unaware of its fundamental assumptions as it is about the spiritual world.

The difference between faith and science is that between belief (which is in-trinsic thought) and awareness (which is ex-trinsic thought). One’s beliefs are seated in one’s mind, whereas one becomes aware of matters that live outside of ourselves. In other words, science discounts one’s thinking in favor of uncritically accepting the materialist falsification of reality as scientific fact.

Science doesn’t want you to think. A centralized state has an incentive to promote its peculiar brand of science as a universal doctrine. That way, materialist economies can better plan for the future by making people’s behaviors, needs, and wants more predictable—at the expense of our spiritual wellbeing.

States cannot exploit a self-thinking people as easily as one trained to follow the rules laid out by a material science. Indeed, when progressive politicians speak of having an “open mind,” they mean you should distrust your thoughts and beliefs, and instead, adopt a greater willingness to leave society’s governance in the hands of a class of educated experts.

To them, our languages, cultures, personalities, and the beliefs we hold now represent a cost. What makes people uniquely human—our souls, our spirits, our unpredictable will, our personalities—only adds friction to the financial machinery. By streamlining what we are or aren’t allowed to believe about reality, economies can be made more efficient.

In a society based on science, the self-styled experts exclude the ignorant masses from governance. Only the aware, the initiates, i.e., the scientists, may rule. One’s submission to the unchangeable laws of physics thus became a prerequisite for a bureaucrat to join the ranks of power. Bureaucracy, in turn, is the response to the nightmare of having to manage highly diverse urbanized nations, such as the ones we are living in today.

In a material economy, our bodies are considered the property of the state. We have become the means of production, no longer its beneficiaries. Science, then, is the religion of profit maximization through the ruthless elimination of human inefficacy.

This mechanical view of humanity denies that people can have a soul, a free will, a conscious mind or a divine spirit. At best, scientists explain such matters away as the byproducts of mechanical operations. Materialist thinkers believe thoughts are the ‘urine of the brain’ and should, therefore, be discounted as anything but useful.

The three tenets of the scientific worldview, which also support Marxism and materialism, are A) that everything comes from nothing (ignorance), B) that everything is physical (materialism), and C) that everything is one (universalism).

Ignorance, materialism, and universalism, then, form the pillars of scientific progress. By overcoming their ignorance, scientists hope to become aware of the universe’s secrets. They dream of producing limitless material pleasures and making everything freely available to the masses. Heaven on earth, at least, that’s the theory.

At the same time, through their actions, scientists condemn themselves to eternal ignorance by deliberately ignoring or discounting the non-physical, spiritual world.

Modern science claims our universe came from nothing (ignorance), from a single origin (the Big Bang), with unchanging laws of physics and fixed constants (the Theory of Everything), discoverable by trained experts (academia), and that everything is progressively accelerating toward some material utopia (i.e., the promise of Marxism) following the principle of continuous self-improvement (Universal Darwinism).

These assumptions constitute a belief system. It’s the religion of materialism. The only reason science educators may now instruct children in the supposed universal truth of a rule-based physical reality is that scientists themselves determine what the rules are—by proclaiming them, not by discovering them.

By the nineteenth century, a unified globalist doctrine had emerged, the belief in universal materialism, best known as: the scientific worldview. Industrialization and urbanization have been its two great consequences. These developments helped push the human population size from one to eight billion in only a single century’s time since the year 1900.

Materialist science so achieved the wonder of seemingly infinite economic growth by shifting human attention away from more meaningful, spiritual lives. Once a materialist economy such as ours has been established, it must pursue its self-preservation against society’s freedom-loving elements.

Rather than being consumers of technology, technology consumes us, and we raise our children to dedicate their lives to produce economic output for their employers. To let off steam, people living in such an engineered society may be free to explore deviant behaviors (‘individual freedoms’), but our minds must forever remain imprisoned in the straightjacket of a soulless economy.

The materialist philosophy that unifies Marxism and modern science into a tool of global human slavery came about as the synthesis of long-held historical ideas about the nature of reality, such as the idea that everything is matter in motion, and that people, therefore, are just bodies.

These ideas have served economic growth and material wealth well for the past two centuries, but they have come at the expense of our humanity. They are neither true nor objective, neither universal nor unchanging, neither fact nor fiction; they are magical.

The belief in science is belief, not science.

To allow ourselves to see the Truth again, we must climb out of Plato’s cave and rise above the mist of mysticism. We shall break out of the restraints imposed on our minds by the false prophecy of materialism.

We can re-awaken to the reality that we are more than matter in motion, and that we are spirits, not atoms.

Links Amazon, YouTube, Facebook, Twitter, Discord, Telegram, Apple Podcast

Subscribe www.jmk.info

Get full access to Conrad Speaks at www.jmk.info/subscribe

Jordan Peterson’s rise to stardom, a few years back, wasn’t organic. It was planned, with the help of the very media that later pretended to hate him. The Right foolishly embraced the Canadian controlled opposition, presumably because Peterson’s apparent defense of Western values hit a snare.

But right from the start, Peterson’s central message has been to discount the European family in favor of radical individuals each pursuing their rational self-interest. He calls this ideal the “divine individual”, and claimed it is rooted in Christianity. To Peterson, life as an atomized individual is the antidote to both communism and fascism.

It turns out Peterson’s message is that of a Marxist feminist who, no different from radical feminists such as Shulamith Firestone, is bent on the deconstruction of Western society and our social structures, such as our nations, our tribes, and, in particular, the family as the cornerstone of society.

Peterson and other radical feminists deceived the West to prepare for a Final Solution: namely, the complete erasure of European social cohesion. A man afraid of being one, Peterson essentially dreams of “liberating” women from the so-called oppressive restraints of child-bearing family life, so that women, rather than men, can live as selfish individuals pursuing their material interests.

This, in itself, contains a red-herring argument, since most men of the West are equally bound up by family life. They are not running around selfishly pursuing fun and games at the expense of women. They are providers and defenders. Peterson is simply the sheep in wolves’ clothes who has come to infect the West with foot and mouth disease.

According to him, the most fundamental Western value is supposed to be that of the recognition of the individual as a sovereign entity, an ideal he admitted did not originate in Europe at all, but rather in the Middle East, in ancient Mesopotamia, places normal people do not think of when we speak of “the West”.

A falsification of history isn’t alien to Peterson and his allies, either. For example, Peterson agrees with professor Ricardo Duchesne, author of such books as The Uniqueness of Western Civilization, and Faustian Man in a Multicultural Age. These books, too, have drawn in audiences from the Right. And they, too, have been fooled.

Duchesne claims “individualism is a unique attribute of European peoples”. But it’s not, and never has been. A student of Old Norse literature, for example, would know. In the Icelandic sagas, it is not the individual but rather the family supporting the individual that comes across as Europe’s tradition.

European peoples and their offshoots are not, and never have been, atomized individuals. We are not individualists living in the present moment of whatever personal identity we’ve adopted for ourselves, today, as though we were nothing but customizable characters in a video game, and we can be somebody else tomorrow.

Peterson, Duchesne, and the rest of the Marxist mafia have sown great confusion among right-wing thinkers by, justifiably, pitting the European individual against the Eastern collective. Though it’s true European individualism leads to freedom from collectivism, it does not mean freedom from family.

Western families, and life in rural clans, present a third way, an antidote to both the atomized individualism of the Middle East and to the unthinking collectivism of the Far East. Since Jordan Peterson can only reason from his Middle-Eastern point of view, he misses the European point, or rather both of them:

One, long before the arrival of Judeo-Christianity, Europeans traditionally counted among their ranks unique and strong personalities. The Babylonians did not need to invent European individuality for us. Europeans already had it naturally.

And secondly, the European individual does not suffer from a boundness to an all-encompassing Whole, such as the nation or the faith, but rather, he rises to astonishing heights precisely because his kinsmen are there to support him.

Anyone who thinks, like Peterson, that a European individual can find strength in some disconnected individualism will discover that he has built his house on quicksand. Ancient Europeans worried more about what their ancestors might think of them than about the fame their descendants might carry forward.

The ancient European, then, believed his forebears awaiting him in the afterlife would judge him for his actions. The forebears would want to know: Did you fight for your people? Did you defend the honor of your race? Or did you merely live for yourself?

The modern ideal, the one Peterson peddles, of a lone individual somehow making it big in Hollywood is the faith of narcissists, the religion of narcissism, and unique only to certain Middle-Eastern peoples. European man’s highest ideal was to be welcomed into the hall of one’s forebears in the afterlife, i.e., to join the ancient family.

It is through their blood ties that Europeans live free. And herein lies the greatest threat to the atomic collective. For if Europeans fight together, and for one another, we make ourselves all but invincible.

So, remember who you are—Anglo, German, Celt, Slav, Nord, Roman, Greek, Spaniard. Remember. Remember the men who came before you, in whose footsteps you live. Say “no” to the cult of individualism.

Links Amazon, YouTube, Facebook, Twitter, Discord, Telegram, Apple Podcast

Subscribe www.jmk.info

Get full access to Conrad Speaks at www.jmk.info/subscribe

(1) The questions politicians put to us are over-simplified.

(2) They drive us to an either-or decision, as revealed in elections.

(3) The freedom to say NO is systematically de-platformed.

(4) This is intended to demonstrate the power of the questioner, the State.

(5) It turns saying NO into a venture that only one in a hundred will dare.

(6) The Forest Passage is freedom’s new answer.

(7) Free men are powerful, even in tiny minorities.

(8) Our present epoch is poor in great men, but it brings figures to the light.

(9) The danger leads to the formation of small elites.

(10) The Worker and the Soldier are joined by a third, the Forest Rebel.

(11) Fear can be conquered by them, once they realize their power.

(12) The Forest Passage, as free action in the face of a seemingly invincible enemy,

(13) is independent of politics and its identities.

(14) In the Forest Passage, there is a meeting of man with himself in his indestructible Being.

(15) This meeting banishes the fear of death.

(16) Even the churches can only lend a hand here, since man stands alone in his choices.

(17) The priest may be able to make his situation clear to the Rebel but cannot deliver him from it.

(18) The Forest Rebel crosses the null-meridian under his own power.

(19) In the questions of healthcare, law, and arms, he takes his own sovereign decisions.

(20) Morally, too, he does not act according to any doctrine.

(21) He reserves the right to judge the law for himself.

(22) He decides what to consider property and how he will defend it.

(23) He is aware of the depths from which the Word rises up to fulfill the world.

(24) Here lies the task of the Rebellion, to renew the world in the revolt against democracy.

(After Ernst Jünger, The Forest Passage)

Links Amazon, YouTube, Facebook, Twitter, Discord, Telegram, Apple Podcast

Subscribe www.jmk.info

Get full access to Conrad Speaks at www.jmk.info/subscribe

In 1976, German magazine Der Spiegel asked Martin Heidegger whether he believed the Germans possessed a specific qualification for bringing about a reversal of modern technology, or as we say, a revolt against the modern world.

Heidegger feared that technology might, one day, become humanity’s master. Since by the early twentieth century, Germany had become the most technologically advanced nation, Germans should now also be made responsible for putting an end to the technological optimism. Heidegger thought it was a naïve frame to continue professing the idea technology will solve all of our problems someday.

It won’t. To prevent the destruction of the world, as though the whole planet were a giant gas station, we must reverse the technological trend. This reversal, then, can only be brought about by the very people that perfected the trend. By applying new thinking, and by drawing that thinking from the sources found in European tradition, we can give birth to a new, post-technological era.

In the interview, Heidegger added:

“I am thinking of the special inner relationship between the German language and the language and thinking of the Greeks. This has been confirmed to me, again and again, today by the French. When they begin to think, they speak German. They insist that they could not get through with their own language. … Because they see that they cannot get through today’s world with all their Rationality when it comes down to understanding it in the source of its Being.”

What Heidegger was suggesting here is that the German and Greek languages are much more rooted in their traditional past than are French or even Latin. French and Latin serve the scientific bureaucracy well but cannot grasp the essence of Being to which one must return in order to overcome technology.

Heidegger’s claim has often been dismissed, even ridiculed, by some who saw in Heidegger a chauvinist or a nationalist, a man proud of his language for it simply being German.

English Reality

But upon closer inspection, we find that Heidegger was right. German language is a superior choice for the art of thinking, poetizing, and philosophizing. The rootedness of even modern German helps a German speaker understand his own language in ways that a speaker of English never can.

Take, for example, the word reality. An English speaker should be able to make out that the word reality refers to all the things that are real. But there, it stops. What things are considered ‘real’ things, then? What makes something real? The English speaker, with his knowledge of English language, must leave this question unanswered.

An English speaker is forced to first study Latin and French in order to find the answers to life’s questions. Etymology, or the study of the origin and development of words, learns that by the year 1550, the word reality was originally coined as a legal term that meant “fixed property”. In other words, real estate. English reality, then, is a sort of real estate which includes houses, bridges, roads, infrastructure, farmland, landscapes, and perhaps the earth and the stars, too, but always physical.

Only by the year 1647 did the word reality come to mean “real existence” but the older meaning of real estate still lies buried in this phrase. The greater risk, here, is that the English word for ‘reality’ now includes people, meaning: people as another form of real estate, or simply bodies in motion; man reduced to his material form, stripped bare of his soul.

In English, real existence strictly means physical existence. Souls and spirits are excluded from such ‘real' things. “We don’t believe in ghosts,” as they say. The spiritual dimensions of our universe are not considered part of the English idea of reality. English reality is a strictly objective one.

German Wirklichkeit

Germans, however, occupy a completely different reality. A German speaker would notice, for example, that the word for reality, which is Wirklichkeit, contains the stem (wirk-) of the verb wirken. Wirken can be translated into English as simply to work, as in: The engine is working. Though, in German, the verb ‘wirken’ has many more meanings.

Wirken can also mean to appear or to seem. It can mean to achieve some effect or to cause something to happen such as by casting a spell, as in: The solution works miracles. It can also mean for something to take effect, as in: The new law is effective immediately, i.e., the law is put to work.

If we take the verb wirken to mean to work in English, Wirk-lich-keit could then be translated more literally as meaning workingness. English reality is German workingness. Whereas reality in English is static and objective, German workingness, being at work, is something active yet subjective.

In perfect opposition to English objective reality, German Wirklichkeit refers to all the things that an English speaker would not consider real. Wirk-lich-keit entails forces, spirits, souls, the doing of deeds, of actions.

If, in English reality, the physical object that is a chair is considered real, in German Wirklichkeit, it is rather the imaginative spirits whose forces were applied to the untreated wood. The effect of that work is the workingness of the Germans.

In German, then, a physical object in itself does not exist at all! Physical objects are not part of German reality, but rather the results thereof, implying there must have been a force at work that created the objects. In German Wirklichkeit, as with Dutch werkelijkheid or Swedish verklighet, realities are the imprint creative actions have left behind in the form of works. (See: German idealism)

German reality is all the things that appear to have an effect on something else, not just by and of machines, but rather of life, of nature, of the universe, of souls and human beings, and specifically: of God. For what is really meant with Wirklichkeit is the effect God’s actions have on the world, or on people, who are being worked on by God. In this sense, today's German and Germanic peoples are still more religious than modern-day Englishmen.

Anglo-Saxon Áweosung

But Englishmen didn’t always refer to their workingness as objective material reality. Their ancestors, the speakers of Old English or Anglo-Saxon, held a view of reality more similar to that of Germans. The Anglo peoples did not think of their world as a soulless physical object, as mere possession devoid of an inner working.

The Anglo-Saxon or Old-English word for reality used to be: áweosung. This word stems from the verb wesan, which can be translated as to be, or more precisely: wesan means to be present, or being-present. In fact, in modern German language, there is an expression ‘anwesend sein’, which means to be present. The German Wesen can also mean a being, such as ein menschliches Wesen, which means a human being.

The Anglo-Saxon word áweosung is a bit more precise meaning than merely being-present. It becomes clear when we ask the questions: Present what for? For whom? And for how long? The Anglo-Saxon would have instinctively understood that áweosung means being-present forever. We are facing an eternal and continuous being-present.

Imagine it this way: You are in a classroom and the lecturer asks about a Mr. Smith. Is Mr. Smith present? The lecturer looks around until Mr. Smith raises his hand and says, “Yes, Sir, I am present.” What does it really mean to be present in this context, this anwesend sein? It means you are not only there, but you also intend to stay there for the remainder of the lecture. And you are not merely there for no reason either—you are there to be in the presence of the lecturer from whom you wish to learn something.

This implies that, like the German anwesen or anwesend sein, the Anglo-Saxon áweosung implies an eternal being-present for some higher power. Anglo-Saxon reality, áweosung, meant all the things eternally being-present for God, in whose presence all exists. And this obviously excludes the physical reality altogether. Rather, the indestructible souls of men passing through the ages are the things eternally being-present for God.

In other words: We are here for a reason, and there is more to existence than mere physical reality.

Being-Present for God

So, we learn, that reality is not at all objective. Reality is subjective, and different peoples speaking different languages living in different times hold completely different views of what is or isn’t real. It means reality must first be defined—by people—and the very act of defining reality gives rise to a people’s worldview.

Modern-day Englishmen have come to see themselves as bodies in motion, whereas the ancient Anglo-Saxons saw themselves as eternal spirits there to live in the presence of God. Latin-speaking Romans, and later French-speaking Normans, really murdered the English soul by forcing the Anglo to adopt a strictly material sense of reality.

Germans, of course, beat the Roman Empire at the Battle of the Teutoburg Forest. This event saved their language from romanization, although today, German language is coming under threat from English and from diversity. It is no wonder, then, that modern English language, the language of the Anglo people who were subdued by the Romans, has become the language of the scientific community and of academia—branches of human life devoid of any spirit.

German Wirklichkeit, on the other hand, is all about the forces acting on and around us. One could say Wirklichkeit is the inner working of it all, the divine power that flows through us, and around, and beyond us, forces that take effect on us, on our thinking, and on our behaviors. Wirklichkeit is the sum of souls and spirits, of the subjective.

And to the Anglo-Saxon, whose conception of reality (áweosung) was arguably even more spiritual than that of German Wirklichkeit, their reality was about an eternally being-present, or a continuous being-present for something or someone, namely for God.

Heidegger Was Right

And so, I conclude, that Martin Heidegger was right. German language really is superior to English when it comes to philosophizing because, in the same breath, Modern English has become the superior language for doing scientific research (material science!). Philosophy and science each come from different and opposing realities.

If, someday, English speakers finally feel fed up with material society, perhaps they won’t have to learn to speak German to rediscover their long-lost souls, but rather, they can return to the language of their Anglo-Saxon forebears.

Language being an expression of how we think, if the English-speaking peoples were to take greater interest in the old vocabularies, and in so doing rekindle their people’s connection with God and subjective reality, they might beat the Germans at bringing about a revolt against the modern world.

Links Amazon, YouTube, Facebook, Twitter, Discord, Telegram, Apple Podcast

Subscribe www.jmk.info

Get full access to Conrad Speaks at www.jmk.info/subscribe

How did private property start? Uninformed communists say "private property is theft" as though it were an aberration of history. I argue private property is part of the natural world as much as eating food or birthing children. In fact, private property is the only defense against one's enslavement by a world government.

Links Amazon, YouTube, Facebook, Twitter, Discord, Telegram, Apple Podcast

Subscribe www.jmk.info

Get full access to Conrad Speaks at www.jmk.info/subscribe