← Back to home

[Eroding nations]

We are living through an era where everything has been severely relativized, and morals have been the ground where we suffered the most. No one can distinguish between good and evil: by taking the relativist stance, one denies that there is truth. In this hazy worldview, it is impossible for people to find common ground, since most human beings, despite admiting that things are relative, will still argue that they are right. No other thing than pure confusion will reign over the masses if there isn’t a rigid system of beliefs, and no authority to enact the rules. This conclusion, is basically why democracy is the preferred schema of state organization, why it acts as a form of nation eroder, and why everyone has been programmed to defend it.

When living in a democratic country, one should notice, at least, that if after decades of voting things are gradually and cyclically getting worse, something must not be working. The eternal refurbishing of political parties, where any politician can switch factions thanks to the lack of memory and excess of ignorance of the voters, shows how deluded the mass is, but also, how effective our ruling synarchy is. All politicians, are merely superflous actors in the structure of power politics. But people are unaware of how the system really works so by making they believe that power is in their hands, they also believe that their representatives have any power over the logistics of their country. Therefore, if things go wrong, someone must be blamed: but they always accuse their bland and convictionless leaders, meaning that the root problem will eternally persist.

Any other form of government is preferable to democracy. We would be better living under any type of autocracy, at least there we could point at the real cause of our misdirections. But in the west, we have the stupid notion that ruling more than four years equals to our leader is literally Hitler (see how media handles the Putin situation), or something in those lines. Obviously, ruling longevity doesn’t necessarily mean that our leaders will be commanding with justice and in our interests: it needs to come in hand with autonomy and sovereignty.

The aforementioned virtues of the state, are by today standards bad words, because of course, gaining some form of independency means that you slightly become ungovernable, and that is a big no-no for our ruling class (they comprehended this in the 30s and 40s). A less schizoid take, if you can pretend that a globalist conglomerate of pernicious entities doesn’t exist, would be to understand this through geopolitics or game theory: power is finite and since there are competitors desiring a portion of it, it is natural for those in higher positions of the political hierarchy to influence lesser countries, where motivation is weakening competitors.

There were better times when people could hang Kings for their imprudence: and it was natural, since they were the King’s private property. By negligence, the King would lose its power by action of the people or by alien forces. The prudency or lack of it, just denoted the character of the leader. In this context, terms like autocracy and tyranny are intentionally mixed so we can’t differentiate between good and evil leaders: here they are all evil. Though in reality, tyrants are just a degraded and inferior form of autocrats. But it seems like through all our history, Kings and rulers were always maliciously conducting their reigns and countries, when this is truly illogical and plain dumb if you think about it. Why would a King mistreat their people if he depends on them? If there is no loyalty, then there is no reign, and therefore no King.

“He who becomes a Prince through the favour of the people should always keep on good terms with them; which it is easy for him to do, since all they ask is not to be oppressed” - Niccolo Machiavelli

Some questions: how many examples in today’s world do we have to show proof that long term mandates are not a bad thing but in fact the diametral opposite? Which countries are rising and which are falling?


…but everyone still is. It is rare to find someone that likes to be told what to do. Liking it or not, every human being is a slave to some sort of power. The trick relies in making the slave not knowing who is in charge. The system knows this and therefore it exploits this condition to its advantage. But how does it do it? Effectively, by promoting the illusion of liberty and choice, where the nations’ problems seem to only have two solutions: liberalism or marxism, which are the philosophies of Capitalism and Communism, respectively.

These political philosophies are just tools of the system which are, of course, far from bringing positive changes to nations where are promoted. Ultimately, they are both utopian perspectives of our true and one reality. Liberals, casting the spell of free market unto the people, will sell the nation’s resources to the best bet: all in function of short term consumerism, and because they erroneously think that men are mere rational economical actors. Communists, on the other hand, always fall short to the long term goal: by neglecting the human condition as the political animal he is, they always have to seize the power from each other, “betraying” their revolutions and establishing a permanent, oppressive and gigantic state.

The realist take is that we are subyugated under the state because higher minds came, at some point in history, to the conclusion that any form of social organization is desirable to chaos and disorder (i.e anarchy). The state is, therefore, a lesser “evil”, or badly spoken a dad telling its son what to do despite its rebellious condition. The dad is the state, the son is the people. We concede some liberties, and the state guarantees our rights for the nation’s greater good.

Unluckily and with time, lesser minds started to occupy higher places in academia and other institutions, allowing for the discussion of what should be an universal axiom and I repeat: that the state is a necessary evil. Not a single serious country has abandoned the idea of nation state, and it should be sufficient proof for one to observe our current geopolitical situation. Powerful nations don’t listen to dumb intellectuals, they just prove that they are effective by just existing. Therefore, we should accept the truth and accommodate ourselves to it, and not vice versa as modern intellectuals plan.

Finally, if we can accept the idea that autonomous states empower their citizens with the reciprocal benefit, one shouldn’t be surprised when all the presented solutions turn out to be positions that ultimately pretend to remove the state, or minimize its power. Even more, if one can also accept the idea that power is finite and that there are political competitors wanting a portion of it, one should ask who is gaining from the undermining of other competitors.


We all know the phrase divide and conquer but I assure you that even those who accept it will still be under the claws of the divider. The reflection of mainstream politics is proof of this, where only superficially both ends in the political spectrum show discrepancy, though in reality this combat is just another fabrication of our ruling class. On one hand, you have the leftist who pursues the cultural subversion of the nation, and on the other hand you have the screaming but harmless right winger whose only motive is economical “freedom”, less taxes and the GDP.

The leftist proactively proposes social and cultural changes, managing to make some of them permanent. All the right winger, specifically conservatives, did in history was to temporally impede such changes. We are told that the movement of the social pendulum from one extreme to another is a normal phenomena, but in reality we should aim to maintain it as static as possible. When the pendulum moves to the right winger extreme, it means that there will only be a period of maintenance: never they thought that society should take the step backs that the left managed to walk, because fundamentally, they are as progressive as the left is.

One thing is for sure: conservatives from the past, are no close to what a conservative of the present is and this is because of how the ruling class persuades the masses, co-opts ideas, and subliminally inserts talking points inside right wing enclosures: a precise example would be TPUSA, where as you can see, they are against state sponsored grooming in the schools while at the same time they have openly gay and even tranny expositors among their lines (see Lady MAGA and black gay guy that used to give speeches alongside Charlie Kirk).

According to TPUSA’s site:

Turning Point USA is a 501(c)3 non-profit organization founded in 2012 by Charlie Kirk. The organization’s mission is to identify, educate, train, and organize students to promote the principles of freedom, free markets, and limited government. Turning Point USA believes that every young person can be enlightened to true free market values. Since its founding, Turning Point USA has embarked on a mission to build the most organized, active, and powerful conservative grassroots activist network on high school and college campuses across the country. With a presence on over 3,500 campuses, Turning Point USA is the largest and fastest-growing youth organization in America.

They present themselves as conservatives, though all they are deliberately managing to conserve are the cultural changes made by the left. Ironically, they give speeches promoting the idea of culture war and how the unwashed youth should approach it. And that is basically the trick, they supposedly are against child grooming while at the same time they subvert and groom the youth by showing that even trannies and homosexuals CAN be conservatives!

An event from the past years, where one of TPUSA’s expositions was stormed by true Christian traditionalists, exposed their true intentions and showed how they mutate to literal leftists when confronted with the truth, because and I repeat, they essentially are the same, only discrepancy is economics:

Unluckily, the only thing I could find on youtube and other sources was this fragment of the full exposition. Nonetheless, it is sufficient proof of how mainstream talking points like culture war act as a distraction just so they can subtly transgress your moral and traditional values. Other questions were about America’s middle east greatest ally, which also were evaded and laughed off (despite the laughs you can see that Pocahontas is genuinely enjoying the discussion).


As opposed to political “non profit” organizations like TPUSA, we can find another strain of subverter, which is even more subtle due to is presentation, and because of its discretion is even more effective. But before starting this section, I’d like to quote a paragraph from Ted Kaczynski’s book called The System’s Neatest Trick:

The university intellectuals also play an important role in carrying out the System’s trick. Though they like to fancy themselves independent thinkers, the intellectuals are (allowing for individual exceptions) the most oversocialized, the most conformist, the tamest and most domesticated, the most pampered, dependent, and spineless group in America today. As a result, their impulse to rebel is particularly strong. But, because they are incapable of independent thought, real rebellion is impossible for them. Consequently they are suckers for the System’s trick, which allows them to irritate people and enjoy the illusion of rebelling without ever having to challenge the System’s basic values.

Between the newer generations there is this weird belief that not watching TV abstains one from propaganda subversion. This is how “independent thinkers” like Jordan Peterson, Ben Shapiro, Steven Crowder, Joe Rogan and so on, have become the perfect propagandizers and are still able to do their work in mainstream social media sites like Youtube and others. Despite belonging to the counter-culture movement (which necessarily means that you are AGAINST THE SYSTEM), they are still freely operating inside the system’s platforms, which means that they are not conceived as a threat to our ruling class.

All these influencers are gatekeepers of the truth, because the system needs to control and drive the narrative, by sedating potential truthers through these vectors of misinformation. The method is always the same, these intellectuals debate libtards at universities about topics where any sane individual will hop into their side. Once the intellectual has been purified through this premeditated and well made psyop, he becomes a false idol accepted by the fanatical viewer. Then, the discrete pouring of anti-national and anti-Christian values takes place once the viewer tunes in to the “independent channel” of information, generally being that the verified Jewtube channel.

Bad actors like Ben Shapiro are the instructors of the “conservative youth”. Lets see what he has to say about Jesus:

Why is this little fella loose free on Youtube when speakers against Judaism are banned from same platform on sight? The answer to such question should be obvious, though a precise answer would make you get banned from anywhere. The interviewer, namely Joe Rogan, is another agent of the continuous brainwashing of the masses. Not having a single controversial guest ever, he perpetuates Rick and Morty talking points for weed smokers like “string theory”, “UFOs”, “simulation theories”, “wormholes and blackholes”, and all the fancyful trash that has filled the vessel of the godless mass of idiots. Basically, he produces content for the sativa-indica-ganjahman-spiritual-not-religious fool, which are mostly adults that couldn’t grown up out of the Sci-Fi hollywood fantasia of space travelling and parallel realities.

Another guide of the rightoid type is Jordan B. Peterson, which has another approach of subversion but the same dose of malice. He is a judeo adjacent psychologist who will never advocate in favor of the national lineage, but will promote the seemingly harmless ideas of liberalism and individualism, while subtly hiding it under a big facade of vague Christian apologetics.

Jordan B. Peterstein

This zogbot goes on verbose ramblings about how nationalism is an extreme form of organization while at the same time he has no problem with the ethnostate of Israel, and that is why we see him on the same table with Shapiro and Netanyahu: you don’t bite the hand that feeds you. But to be consistent with his ideas, though not much sincere, he will defend the oxymoron of civic nationalism because of course, the American nation is just an “idea”, it has nothing to do with heritage, identity, culture and race. By enabling the idea of civic nationalism, he effectively becomes another globalist agent, since he implies that anyone could be an American citizen.


“The Globalist is immunized against all dangers: One may call him a scoundrel, parasite, swindler, profiteer, it all runs off him like water off a raincoat. But call him a Globalist and you will be astonished at how he recoils, how injured he is, how he suddenly shrinks back: “I’ve been found out”.”

We can always find examples of “globalists” funding liberal think tanks or leftists partisans, but why do they never fund anything that is national or Christian? Because they still have nightmares from times where the people still had the spirit to rebel against evil. They fear the national feeling because it establishes coherency between the people, and the less differences there are in society, the less problems it will have. Therefore, a nation becomes stronger.

Why they prefer democracies as the method and returning to the point, is because of this last statement. Supposedly, democracies allow for the plurality of opinions and the free market of ideas, but in reality we end up having a suffocating unanimity and a controlled monopoly of discussions. By suffocating unanimity we understand the disfigured political spectrum where there is almost no distinction between left and right, and with controlled monopoly of discussions we understand that every public discussion must orbit around the following question: is it convenient or not for our globalist agenda?

You might call our current system a synarchy, a corporate tyranny, an anarcho-tyranny, or whatever else you feel like, but one thing is for sure: the people behind it have names and they DO have ethnical coherency, for a reason.


By “eroding nations” I argued that the power of some is due to the decline of others. This meaning that there’s a tyrant global power acting in favor of an specific nation state, and by means of the cultural subversion of their enemies they plan to consolidate their power.

When talking about nations, one must precisely speak about race. Race is not everything, but it surely is a great factor on the nation’s success. Every nation is on their right to preserve and prolong its existence: that is a moral imperative. But for some reason, we are to believe that a every nation except white ones have this right.

Despite having multiple examples of successful nation states worldwide, we are supposed to believe and accept the orders from our globalists overlords. They propagate all these liberal and marxist cosmopolitan ideas to the masses, not because they adhere to them, but because they want to destroy the nations of the world: in these terms, a plan to create a racial amalgam of marronesque creatures with no identity and no history to appeal to sounds reasonable for them. Converting the individual to some sort of tabula rasa where one can write new rules is a “globalist’s” wet dream.