A Radical Rightist I Am

I have my political view. A rightist view. So if you love political correctness and mass immigration and hate traditions and ideas of ethnicity, stop reading.

I normally think of myself as a man of the right. But that may be misleading. I'm no parlamentarian rightist, no Liberal Democrat, no mere market economy worshiper. I'm a radical rightist with a hard stance against immigration, with ideals rooted in my traditional heritage and my Christian religion. I'm also kinda anti-USA. The war in Libya was rigged as far as I'm concerned. It's a war for oil. The US makes war only to boost its own economy, forget that "peace and democracy"-bullshit.

And my point is, opinions like the one on USA was until recently leftist. So the right-left-dichotomy might have run its course. Maybe I'll just label myself RADICAL, that could do, if labels are to be used at all. Essentially I'm me, I'm free. I'm Svensson.

Anyhoo, the question of labeling the Real Right was up on the webzine Alternative Right some months ago. Agreeing that the concept "conservative" has lost its lustre new concepts were sought out and threwn around in the brainstorm were:

. radical traditionalism
. la droite (fr.)
. archeofuturist
. reactionary
. a man of the right
. restorationist/”restouratives”
. redeemers

These concepts seem formally OK. But they are a bit awkward to the tongue, being hard to pronounce. "Reactionary" though has a good overall ring to it. We react, we're not just mere PC pod people. When faced with reality we don't just come up with the Leftist Vacant Stare, no, we react and act accordingly, checking it with our opinions and, if necessary, readjust our opinions. The die hard left on the other hand never seems to be bothered by reality. "If the map disagrees with the terrain, follow the map" is the leftist creed.

- - -

I often surf on the internet. Sometimes I find sentences worth saving. So I do that. Save for what? Well you know, to write posts for the blog. So here follows some random observations, based on things I've written down after surfing. Topic: rightish.

”Russian nationality is not about blood but about spirit.” – Thus said Alexander Solzhenitsyn in ”The Russian Question At The End Of The Twentieth Century”, 1995. Well, you could say that if you're not faced with mass immigration. If you are, then blood becomes important. So as a gentleman I'd like to agree with Mr. Solzhenitsyn but since we today in Sweden have about 100 000 non-European immigrants per year (see this English language Swedish blog), then you have to defend your country on ethnic principles. Blood matters. So Swedish nationality is primary about blood. I could accept some smaller quota of immigrants, if they are ready to learn the language fast, work for their living and don't deal in crimes as they often do now.

Blod matters, ethnicity is important. Sweden could never have fulfilled its cultural and historical heritage with a creole population.

- - -

You find witty comments on the net. Like, As for now, all that is Left is the Right…

Or: Public school is ”a cultural Marxist Skinner box”…

Re education, they say that the Academy of today has become a ”Cathedral of Cthulhu”, a PC-influenced, taboo-ridden nightmare of an ideology factory. Very apt.

More witticisms: ”They” have put electric PC dog collars on us...

- - -

Recently I found these facts. Maybe it was in a book by Nesta Webster, the early 20th century conspiracy historian. As for her outlook she was a wee bit Victorian, a bit middle-of-the-road, common senseish. In comparing Freemasonry in England and France e. g. she said that the English variant was Sound and Good, the continental variety Suspect and Occult. But I'd say it's all the same sick quagmire of sex cults and satanism. Oh well. - The facts I wrote down was about NIHILISM, the prime enemy of our culture. "Nothing matters", "we're all gonna die anyway" is what leads many people on in their destruction of the West and its values. Mrs Webster for her part noted that nihilism philosophically can mean two things:

1) to deny all absolute truth [which is a new ageish thought in some circles] 2) rejecting all traditional moral and religion

Then Mrs Webster said, politically nihilism can mean:

1) destroy all social, economic and political institutions to make way for The New (Russian movement Nihilism 1860-1917, terror and murder) 2) the use of terror

And by the way nihilism has a long history. The agenda of a certain Jacob Frank, born 1726 in Poland, was Rejecting The Ten Commandments and Christ. I guess that Mr. Frank was of The People That Are Not To Be Chritisized, those dear Levantine fellows, but I may be wrong, Then of course nihilism got under way with Ludwig Weishaupt in the late 18th century. He infiltrated the Freemasons with his nihilist agenda, like atheism, materialism, rebellion for the sake of rebellion, world government, rejection of family values and so on. Today his ideas are commonly held among society's elites, be they Freemasons or not. But not the people, thank God; ordinary people still believe in God or some transcendental force, they believe in family and decency, even though the ideals of materialism and atheism are pumped out 24/7 in the mainstream media..

- - -

As intimated I sometimes read Alternative Right. One commenter in the post "No Horisontal Way Out" said this clever thing: "Christianity and islam inherited the earth. The modern secular-liberal upper classes are not replacing themselves. religious people are." So, we're winning, eh...? I sometimes think we're in for grim times but then, at the end of the day, I always tend to think, "Hey, this PC shit can't go on. It might seem strong today but so did the Soviet Union too before the fall. So f-ck all that, fuck today's extreme consensus. Fuck art, let's dance! There's still time to have fun, to play and write goofy stories, tell jokes and all these other things that will always be human pastimes. The radical policies of today, the EXTREME official policies of mass immigration and anti-traditionalism has gotten me to rise from my recliner and say NO. Then, having done that, it's important not to lose your original good humour, your creativity and non-political playfulness, your singing skills and painting skills and ability to enjoy the moment for its own sake.

So, in all, there might be hard times ahead, mighty convulsions when the PC system comes down and the materalistic world crumbles in war and famine and whatnot. But in the end decency, fairness and humanity will prevail. We're the sound ones, The Powers That Be are the extremists.

Related
Great 22-minute video hosted by William Lind, "The History of Political Correctness"
Majorityrights, an Excellent British Site for the Radical Right
Top 5 Conspiracy Strategies

A picture from downtown Härnösand, just to show you how green it is

In This Post I Give You Some Links To This Blog

It's summertime and living is easy. But as for blogging there's no rest, no, all the time I think of what to post next here on Ersatz Moonlight.

What to post? - After some soul searching I've decided to post some links, links to this selfsame blog. There's a lot of good stuff here.

Sure. Like this thread where I blog my top 5-lists. What lists? See for yourself.

A thread with supershort stories you'll find here.

A thread with my poetry here.

Here you'll find pieces on science fiction. And here you'll find my short stories like the one about Idallion, the Guadalcanal story, the dragon story and a lot of stories on the Saurian War.

In March this year I posted an article on Ernst Jünger. Many people liked it. It is now the second most read item on the blog. Here you go.

This post is about words and concepts in Carlos Castaneda's books. Up and coming.

Lastly we have this post from February, about Middle Eastern upheavals, history and what to expect later on. Enjoy.

Tower block, Härnön

A Battle For Realities

You can't shut yourself off from society these days. Everything is political. Or let's say: everything today is esoterical, both personal moral and official politics. That could mean: You have to have an ONTOLOGY on which to base A MORAL, and the ontology of today is widely debated. What is real? Some say that the USA, fighting imperialistic wars for our freedom is what's real. I highly contest that. So what's real? I'm real, art is real, what I feel and intuitively envision is real. The everyday world isn't as real as that. It's got a lower degree of reality. The Universe is Mind. But the NWO don't like spiritual world views like that. They want everybody to be afraid, bent on saving their material beings. -- Here's a take on some of these subjects.

We're engaged in a Battle for Realities. The topics of 2011 is all about a description of the world. So what's real? How did the history of Man begin? -- A way of putting it is this:

In olden times Earth was visited by aliens. Just let's say it did. Read Zecharia Sitchin, read Genesis 6:4. - And so, did these alien geezers create the human race? I for one don't think so but they propbably had a hand in raising us to a higher level, educating us. So let's say that in Sumerian times we had humans around which then were raised in their development by one of these godlike aliens. We can call him Ea. He's not central to this article but I like to have one or other fathomable character in the narrative, otherwise it gets kind of abstract and vague. So this Ea, what did he want? He wanted to enlighten primitive man by telling them that each individual essentially was a spirit inhabiting the material body. After the physical death the spirit lives on, pauses in heaven for debrief and is reincarnated on Earth.

Then what? This fine god Ea got ousted by some of his fellow beings. These started to enslave man. There was this, as David Icke calls then, "Brotherhood of the Snake" who started to manipulate the masses with religion, fear and hatred. There were elements of truth in their techings but the overall message was one to ensure enslavement and obedience to the Brotherhood. In time this Brotherhood split and the ftactions started to fight each other in the names of different creeds and religions. So by this we see that everything isn't peaceful in the Black World; in the realm of secret societies there are conspiracies and infighting as well.

As for the religions they party helped people live better lives, partly enslaved people. In the latter case it was due to stereotyping and simplifying the message, making people feel guilty for themselves and hatred towards "infidels". Wars were fought over religious issues. At the same time the power of the Brotherhood grew and consolidated itself into Freemasons, Rosicrucians, Knight Templars and so on. Their teachings on spirituality, like that the Universe is Mind and that microcosm man mirrors the macrocosmic universe were true in themselves. The creed of the secret societies is twisted and weird but it's also got some strands of truth.

So we can say: both religion and secret societies have their pros and cons. As for pros the teachings of the Bible e g helps men to be pious, to save spiritual energy by abiding on a higher power. And some secret societies taught esoteric doctrines bent on developing man as a spiritual being. As for the cons we had organized religion with its herd mentality and secret societies worshipping false deities, tending to weird and dark practisies.

- - -

The secret clubs got some things right in their spiritual quests. But mostly they seem to have worshipped false deities. And all the time they acquired wealth which they had to invest and thus grew their financial power. Parallell to that the high echelon leaders of the societies were men of the state and did what such people do, i e play "the great game" of world politics. Thus, without necessarily being evil on all levels, the secret societies became political machines, bent on preserving and increasing their spiritual, political and economic power.

"Spiritual power" should here be interpreted as propaganda, religious dogmas of obedience and fear. There might still today be some, say, Freemason or Rosicrucian who divests his time to studies of gnostic manuscripts, syncretism and esoteric practices, and I say: good. I have esoteric leanings myself. But there is no need for a secret society for these things anymore. In the 17th century texts like The Gospel of Thomas, the Upanishads and the Apocryphs were rare and sometimes suspect books, forbidden to own and read. Such is not the case anymore. There are no spiritual secrets around anymore. Everything, but everything is published either on the net or in paper form, even the jelously garded ritualts of the societies themselves. And True Christianity has itself ceased the need for secret societies with initiations and all that stuff. By receiving the Lord Jesus Christ as our saviour we are all initiated into the Secret of Eternal Life and Redemption. This according to Rudolf Steiner.

So I don't give much for secret societies, not even the spiritual side of them. They might have been progressive force in the time of an almighty church and the religious ortodoxy of olden times. But the church is today only an institution among many. Ironically organized religion today seems to be involved in many secret societies by way of its leaders. So there goes religion too. We have to be privately practising adepts. That's at least what I've been doing all my spiritual life. Since birth I've belonged to the Swedish State Church, true, and I intend to stay there even though it's a bit outmoded to have this old school religion. But since those who leave the State Church are mostly snug atheists, intent on saving 1000 SKR per year by not paying church tax, I'd rather stay among the faithful.

So how shall I end this? Well, esoterics is the way. You have to have a metaphysical creed. Even if you think you don't have you do. E g, by adhering to MSM:s stories of how paper money is the best thing around (and precious metals are in a speculation bubble), stories of how the USA fights for freedom and democracy and hints that injection with a microchip to open doors and pay supermarket tickets is a convenient technique, well then you adhere to "a certain creed". You BELIEVE what the MSM and the politicians say. Then, if you're a radical and sceptic you don't believe these things. Then again, if you totally reject this world as real then you have another world view, one that - and here's my point - can be controversial in itself. David Icke for one plays a bit along these lines: NWO want's us to be materialistic, to say that the everyday world is all that counts. To believe in a transcendental reality is atavistic and dangerous, because then we can't be ruled by fear.

I for one have no problem in uniting my radical world view, my critique of MSM:s narratives with an esoteric outlook. The Universe is Mind. To believe that the everyday reality is the only reality is to enslave yourself, making yourself into an easily led critter of the NWO. I've unplugged my TV in favour of spiritual books and meditation. I'm me, I'm free - as free as you can get in this world.

Unrelated
The Ark
The Dragon's Lair

Pic Härnösand Station, photographed some weeks earlier this year. Since then we've gotten green leaves and all.