Interview with Alexander Wolfheze

/9 Comments/in /by
9 replies
  3. Waldemar's Holy Spirit
    Waldemar's Holy Spirit says:

    “Caroline in particular said that performing that piece reminded her
    of the Christian hymns she sang at school, despite growing up Jewish.”
    https://www.discogs.com/artist/2290504-Caroline-Schutz
    https://429harrowroad.com/2018/09/01/reed-caroline-before-aylesbury-high-school-chamber-choir-performance-27-june-2018/

    How many singularities exist, if the Holocaust
    has to be the only really true singularity ever?
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xp5VI-f6Syo

    “Re-arranged from THINGS (not beeings)”

    All that we are
    and all that we adore
    is re-arranged
    from THINGS that came before.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t9kw_upg5LA

    https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC936b8I9WgFruHRnmZhFGgA

  4. rubytuesday
    rubytuesday says:

    since reading christopher jon bjerknes i can’t see the point of commenting about politics from any other than the dispensationalist christian angle

    politics are a masonic-tavistock-charade that is aimed only at christian farmers and einsteinian liberals. trump and dugin are part of the same ideological cul de sac.

    • Alexander Wolfheze
      Alexander Wolfheze says:

      Hello Ruby, I belief you are here referring to the ‘democratic’ bread and circus mass-politics of the West. Over the last years, I have contributed to Prof Dugin’s Eurasianist think-tank ‘Geopolitica.ru’ (check out the large English-language version, ‘they’ forgot to censor it for now), and I failed to detected any ‘mass-democracy’ illusions within his Eurasianist movement. In any Traditionalist-informed political philosophy – and Eurasianism is that – the only viable form of government – rather rule – is based on strict (mixed aristorcratic-meritocratic) hierarchy, sanctioned by an authentic religious value-system and preferably enshrined in hereditary succession. Government should be for the people, not by the people. To the best of my understanding, for Russia at least, Prof Dugin supports a return to katechonic Empire and paternalistic monarchy. In my view, the more individualist-oriented West, each nation according to its temperament, may equally benefit from the reintroduction of at least elements of both. The traditional Catholic teaching of ‘subsidiarity’ (in combination with ‘distributism’) and the 19th C Calvinist teaching of ‘sphere sovereignty’ may provide mechanisms to politically rebalance the West. Of course, as of now, it may be too late for the West – but not for the East. In any case, the ongoing ‘Great Reset’ has eliminated the illusions of ‘freedom’, ‘democracy’ and the ‘pursuit of happiness’ for any supposedly mass-based political dispensation forever – our enemy has done our work for us.

      • rubytuesday
        rubytuesday says:

        hi Alexander,
        thanks for your reply. it looks to me like the Russian people carry the same type of yoke as the Europeans in the West and that the owners of those yokes are the same people.
        i think the problem is not with these owners of the yokes though(let’s call it the tavistock media complex), but the fact that 87% of the population voluntarily carries it.
        it looks to me like Asia and the West both suffer from modernity, not eachother.

  5. SimpleMale
    SimpleMale says:

    Prof. MacDonald mentioned that when Europeans are told they will become a minority, they say that this is a bad thing, which is evidence that Ethnocentrism still exists in Europeans. But, are they saying that it’s a bad thing because they are concerned that their fellow Europeans living on the next street, or next city, or next state, or in other nations will be harmed, or are they saying it’s a bad thing because they are concerned that they personally, or their nuclear family unit would be harmed? Would this issue not be key in determining if their concern is the result of sincere Group Selected Altruism modulated by Ethnocentrism, or whether their concern in just selfish, aka Individual Selection/Nuclear Family Unit Selection? Prof. MacDonald has in the past mentioned that when a neighborhood becomes diverse and detrimental, European individuals/families just leave for a better neighborhood, and then they are perfectly fine again, thus no concern about other Europeans – only themselves.

    Also, when liberal Europeans call Eurocentrists “evil,” do they sincerely mean it? My understanding is that Liberal Europeans are much more Individually Selected than Conservative Europeans, so they don’t actually have innate altruistic sentiments for anyone but themselves as individuals. So, would it then not be the case that they are only saying what they understand is the correct thing to say to enhance their careers, social status, opportunities for coitus, and overall resource status? It’s as if they know that the people in charge want certain things to be said and done, and if they do as such, they will enhance their personal resources. Thus, it’s not sincere altruism. This is anecdotal, but I personally have never met an actual innately altruistic Liberal European. The ones that interact with me only do so if it benefits them, and their behaviors towards others are opportunistic. On the other hand, the few times I’ve met what appeared to be sincere selfless Europeans, they were stubbornly Conservative and Christian. They are strict with their moral views, yet still kind, forgiving, and willing to harm themselves to help others. I always have to curtail their generosity towards me, since I don’t like to exploit other people’s sincere innate altruism.

  6. SimpleMale
    SimpleMale says:

    Additional comments:

    Prof. MacDonald also mentioned that there is a lot of talk (in various media only, as opposed to typical Europeans?) about different parts of America breaking away and forming their own nations. But, this would require war, since the Ashkenazim will not allow it to happen peacefully or democratically. Do typical Europeans still have the genetics to sacrifice everything and endure the extreme tortures of civil wars? If not, then this is all just talk.

    How can it makes sense for an Ashkenazi to intermarry, yet still be considered Group Selected and ethnocentric? If they claim to identify as Ashkenazi, then maybe they personally understand that they are genetically/biologically Ashkenazi and thus may face anti-Ashkenazi hostilities, and for this reason they may support groups like the ADL, but how can they be said to be innately Group Selected and Ethnocentric? The fact that they intermarried clearly would show they don’t have innate desires to perpetuate their race. So, their appearance of ethnocentrism may just be opportunistic, such as earning high incomes doing skilled jobs at Ashkenazi organizations, making money via ethnic networking, and due to a reasoned out belief that their own personal safety requires that they promote/fund pro-Ashkenazi projects/entities.

Comments are closed.