Terribly wrong!

For a long time, I have been advertising Robert Morgan’s comments on this site, even when he used to comment under another penname. But with his most recent response at Unz Review to another regular visitor of The West’s Darkest Hour, that hate is what powers the entire universe and that ‘The love of a child for its parents is self-interest, because without them it would probably die’, I see that Morgan is incapable to see what we may call a psychogenic emergent leap, especially among humans (cf. what I say about psychohistory in Day of Wrath).

I cannot delve deeply into the subject as today I’ll translate Evropa Soberana’s section on the SS. But to say that love does not exist is a terrible mistake.

If you see the tags and categories of this site you’ll find that now I only have a single tag: the ‘4 Words’, the ultimate goal of my philosophy. What else could these four words(*) mean except love for the animals (and of children abused by their parents, or abandoned in the woods, as David)?

Morgan badly needs to watch the 2001 film Artificial Intelligence and see what an emergent leap means: the psychogenic jump from pure erotic gratification to, as professor Hobby says (the creator of David), ‘Love like the love of a child for his parents’.

I once told Morgan that his robotic view about humans was seriously wrong and that he had not read my books (obviously, as I still have to translate them). His tragedy is the tragedy of many deracinated males that have a good grasp of science and almost none of the arts and the humanities.

Morgan’s views about the human psyche remind me of Descartes’ psychotic views about animals as mere automatons. This is why, unlike many white nationalists, I consider Hitler a balanced man: he had a good grasp of the humanities as demonstrated in his table talks. It is just too bad that, compared to Hitler, many male nationalists suffer from a sort of hemiparesis in the sense that they don’t use much the hemisphere of the emotions. Have they followed Schopenhauer’s advice to have a woman as a confidant, or are they trapped in a purely Yang mind?

Those males who haven’t cried at the film’s end (‘I love you, David’, she says. ‘I do love you. I have always loved you’) won’t grasp what do we mean.

__________

(*) ‘Eliminate all unnecessary suffering’ and their corollary: exterminate those species that cause it.

Three types of Meds

by Mauricio

Granadinos by Robert Kemm (1837-1895)
stored at Biblioteca Provincial de Granada.

______ 卐 ______

 
Meds are very polarised in terms of racial awareness. The way I see it, there’s three camps:

Camp A – “We wuz never Nordics.”

They believe “Mediterranean” to be a race on it’s own, separate from Aryans. Most will unwittingly glorify the Hollywood versions of the Greek and Roman Empires, and will refuse to admit they were spawned from nigger miscegenation.

It’s like that “sour grapes” tale of the fox, bit with Aryan genes instead of grapes.

These Meds have a crushing inferiority complex, and deep down, they envy the beauty and purity of the Aryan genes. I wouldn’t classify them as anti-White, but they are certainly anti-Nordics, which makes them borderline race-traitors. I wouldn’t be surprised if some of them had Jewish ancestry—after all, blood speaks louder than words. Well, at least they hate niggers…

Camp B – “We’re mixed, and that’s fine.”

For these Meds, there’s no racial purity anymore; the world is becoming a Big Beige Village, and soon the Aryans will be mixed too. These degenerate quitters are the most common. They secretly lust for brown, easy flesh. They don’t care if they come from Aryans or niggers. They capitulate under PC atmospheric pressure, and won’t even feel an ounce of hate if their daughter is fucking a mulatto. Traitor scum. To the gallows.

Camp C – “We’re mixed, and that sucks.”

The minority. Closet racists, they care about their ancestry and descendents. These Meds are soldier material against ZOG if given the proper 14 words guidance. My guess is, they comprise the least mixed portion of the Meds, and they can see a glimmer of hope in their brown eyes when they look in the mirror.

Last year, I wrote a comment on Varg Vikernes’ YouTube channel, on a video about Racial Purity. My comment got pinned at the top and received hundreds of replies. Varg recently got shoah’d, so I can’t link the video, but my comment went something along the lines of:

The racial standard for Europeans has always been blue eyes and blonde hair. Brown hair and eyes is admixture. We Mediterraneans need to recognise this. Our European ancestors have miscegenated, and the result is us. But there’s still hope.

If we choose to stay in Europe, and brave the European climate; if we feed ourselves from European wilderness; if we breed only with our own; if we raise our children to be traditional and self-sufficient, then eventually, Nature will reward us, by re-surfacing our dormant Aryan genes in our descendants. Our children will inherit Thule.

So let’s make it happen.

The next day, I got lambasted by at least 30 comments from Med Camp A: “Meds are glorious too!” “If you like them so much, why don’t you go suck Nordic cock” and some 20 comments from Camp B: “Haha, you’re a sand-nigger, you’ll never be Aryan.”

And some Aryan commenters, in the same vein as this Kurwenal fellow, actually praised my comment: “That’s the spirit! We’re all together in this fight! Hail our Mediterranean brothers.”

It’s all fun and games until the music stops. And modern Aryans are addicted to music.
 

Editor’s note:

What matters here are the words of the Aryans collected in the penultimate paragraph. All of them around the globe suffer from a psychological problem after World War II. Before the war, the eugenicist associations assumed that the parameter of whiteness and eugenic selection in Europe was the Nordic: England, Ireland, the Scandinavian countries, Holland, Germany, Switzerland, Austria and those uncontaminated in France, Northern Italy, Russia and other countries.

All that was thrown overboard after the war against Germany, and white nationalists in the United States no longer read racialist pioneers like the American Madison Grant, a Nordicist.

After WW2, virtually all whites have accepted with extraordinary fanaticism the Christian ethics that equals men with women, the black with the white and the Nord with the Med. What these nationalists insist on not seeing is that the entire line of Aryan preservation studies before the war, from Gobineau to Günther through Chamberlain, took Nordicism for granted.

White nationalism really represents a radical departure from racial orthodoxy. Neither Mauricio nor I are inventing anything new. It is them, the nationalists who, in pursuit of political correctness, don’t want to hurt our feelings.

To put it bluntly, white nationalism is a regressive aberration towards Christianity. Even the agnostics of that movement subscribe the ethics of loving one’s neighbour as oneself. Everyone who really wants to save the race from extinction must replace this utter nonsense in the alt-right with National Socialism.

For those new visitors who don’t know the subject, I suggest you start researching it by reading this abstract.

Courage vs. groupthink

As I have said recently in the series ‘Veritas odium parit’, the mestizos and the Mediterraneans are easy to understand. They are simply self-conscious before the Aryans and they deceive themselves because they are incapable of dealing with their inferiority complex.

The Jews are somewhat more difficult to understand, but after reading the trilogy of Kevin MacDonald, especially the first of his books, their group surviving strategy is understandable.

It is the whites, especially their suicidal passion today, who represent a challenge for me; and the only thing I can say here is that Christianity modified whites as no religion has modified other races.

But Christianity is not the only factor we must consider in white decline. For more than a year I have been thinking about the tragedy that the groupthink has represented for the white race, and we can illustrate it with a passage of the biographer Stefan Zweig about Stendhal. In short, we are influenced by the environment as much as the air gets into our lungs:

The natural reflection of the individual is not his own opinion, but his adaptation to the opinion of the time. It requires special energies every time, a foolproof value—and how few possess it!—in order to oppose a spiritual pressure of millions of atmospheres, which signify great energies. An individual must meet very rare and very tested forces so that he can subsist in his uniqueness. He must possess an exact knowledge of the world, a sovereign contempt for all herd, an arrogant and enormous disregard toward them and above all courage, three times courage, courage so firmly grounded that it seconds his own conviction.

Much of what happens to contemporary whites is encompassed in the quote above, as it is very rare that an ordinary man is not psychically crushed by the millions of atmospheres of politically-correct propaganda that for more than seventy years has been over us.

As I said recently on this site, I rarely have contact with pure Aryans or Jews. But I know the soul of Mediterranean people and mestizos very well. Yesterday I watched some videos of the most intelligent Mexican intellectual of the 20th century. In this old video for example, Octavio Paz, of whom I have already spoken, appears with other Spanish-speaking intellectuals: Mario Vargas Llosa, Manuel Vázquez Montalbán, Juan Goytisolo, Jorge Semprún and Fernando Savater.

Something that has bothered me about all the Spanish-speaking intellectuals is that since the 19th century they have been crushed by those millions of atmospheres that Zweig talked about. There are simply no paradigm dissenters among them as yours truly, who really has a sovereign contempt for all herd and an arrogant and huge disregard for their worldviews!

All these intellectuals mentioned above, which include two Nobel prizes in literature, subscribed in the most abject way the secular, liberal, egalitarian, universalist and deranged altruist groupthink that kills whites today. Personally it mystifies me that, despite the high intelligence of Octavio Paz, he never questioned the dogmas of his time.

Since, like Zweig, I am very interested in the biographies of notable men, yesterday I watched some videos about the biography of Paz, who as I have said died very close to where I used to live.

I didn’t need many videos to realise that Paz was always an extraordinarily gregarious man; that he had many friends among the Spanish refugees of the Franco regime, and that he himself travelled to Spain as a young man in times of the Spanish Civil War. Later Paz would criticise the most rancid Left in Latin America. That caused him many hatreds in a Mexico dominated by troglodytes in the cultural sphere, who had Fidel Castro as their patron saint. But in the videos that I have been seeing about his biography, it seemed to me extraordinarily clear that an individual who is so tuned with the milieu will be unable to completely break with the Zeitgeist, per Zweig’s quote.

Only isolated individuals can break with the groupthink. The problem is that solitude at such level can involve personal annihilation: what happened to poor Nietzsche. It is, therefore, very understandable that less courageous minds subscribe the current paradigm in order to avoid being expelled to an emotional Siberia by their pals.

The Internet provides a means by which a radical break is possible and not suffer maddening loneliness like that suffered by Nietzsche. At least in the racist forums we can share our views with isolated dissidents: akin souls that may be posting even in other continents.

Groupthink is killing whites, victims of mass propaganda after the Second World War. That is why I will not cease in my courage, three times courage, courage so firmly grounded that it will second my own conviction.

Published in: on July 17, 2019 at 1:24 pm  Comments (2)  

Holy wrath, 5

by Evropa Soberana

As you can see, the reasons are as varied as the opinionated characters that advance such theories. The best-known explanation, however, is that these men fought drugged. According to this theory, the berserkers ingested a fungus called amanita muscaria (a white-stem mushroom with red cap and white spots, which abounds in the birch forests of northern Europe), or some concoction prepared with that mushroom. This has a high toxicity thanks to an alkaloid called muscarine, which completely alters consciousness and perception.

Currently it has been classified as ‘poisonous’, given that in high doses it is deadly. The theory of the amanita muscaria was elaborated in 1784 by the Swedish professor Samual Ödman (who learned about the use of the mushroom by Siberian shamans). It was considered plausible to a certain extent because the Germanic mythology explained that, from the mouth of Sleipnir—Odin’s horse, with eight legs—, it dripped a red foam that, when reaching the ground, became the mushroom. Other drug theories suggest beer with black henbane or bread or beer contaminated with rye ergot.

The theory of drugs is unconvincing, and the two previous facts (Siberian shamans and Odin’s horse) are the only evidence we have to corroborate this thesis. On the other hand, the simple ingestion of a drug does not guarantee by itself an outburst of devastation and warlike frenzy like that experienced by the berserkers. If they actually ingested a drug, it would have been after a long and harsh ascetic and warlike preparation that would have made them resist the possession of the Od, with doses carefully thought for by true connoisseurs of their effects, and with rites designed to enhance and channel certain aspects related to the substance.

Equally unlikely is the theory that the berserkergang was triggered by a kind of ‘hypnotic programmer order’ that was stored in the subconscious through a violent and traumatic ritual initiation, automatically ‘activated’ by listening the noise of the weapons, the battle cries and the chants that invoked Odin’s fury; giving rise to the irresistible longing to be at the centre of the battle, where the fight was fiercer and the wrath more concentrated.

It is most likely that the berserkergang’s attainment techniques were mental or psychological, through hypnotic processes catalysed by powerful rituals, and surely amplified through tribal dances, movements, techniques and breathings capable of generating huge amounts of adrenaline in a short time. And if the drugs were really present, it would have been to facilitate possession, but in no case were they directly responsible for the incredible combative performance that was unleashed with it.

The ornamented hilt of a Viking sword.

Substances released by drugs can be stimulated in the body through purification practices. In the initiatory traditions, when the man gets absolute control over his body, he can stimulate his organs and glands at will, releasing the substances he wants and causing the effects he wants, just knowing how to materialise the thought. Ideally, the drugs that are used come from our own interior, because they are already inside us—such as testosterone, adrenaline, dopamine, pheromones and endorphins. They only need a stimulus to free themselves.

The religious use of drugs appeared at a time when most people were no longer able to go into a trance naturally. And in any case the ingestion of drugs for religious purposes was carried out under strict control and ritualism, and on individuals physically, mentally and spiritually prepared to withstand their effects; everything watched over by the wise about the natural sciences, knowledgeable about plants, animals and the Earth.

During situations of great stress and violence, the body is disturbed. The pulse increases, the breathing accelerates and the adrenaline rises like a flame. A series of physiological responses take place that in themselves are neither good nor bad, but their nature will depend on the use made of them and the output that is given to them. The conventional ‘chivalrous’ warriors tried to dominate the torrent of reactions and sensations that caused the combat so that, keeping their will above them, retained the ‘cold blood’ and consciousness intact.

The berserkers, on the other hand, seemed to do the opposite: they let themselves be carried away by the physical reactions to the fight, so that they took possession of them and ended up into beasts that ‘saw everything red’. Out of them came a totally independent will of consciousness. Only the best were tough enough to really let themselves be carried away by the torrent of ferocity to release their impulses savagely, to lose control, to break all ties in order to allow the beast to ride free, to savour the deep and primitive pleasure of the butchery, bloodletting, slaughter, domination, possession and destruction; submerging all their being in absolute chaos and surviving to be able to tell about it—although it is very probable that afterwards they did not even clearly remember what happened.

Is all this a wild barbarism? Yes, but it is part of human nature, whether you like it or not. Turning our backs on those issues only serves to catch us off guard later. To ignore that we have an animal side is like mutilating the spirit and sabotaging the body. Conversely, to accept this and to master it is to reconcile ourselves with ourselves.

Published in: on June 25, 2019 at 3:27 pm  Comments (8)  

Don’t miss my point

The following was my today’s comment on yesterday’s thread, ‘Night King theme’. It still surprises me that visitors don’t get what I have been trying to say about the Game of Thrones phenomenon, whose finale millions watched on Sunday, a week ago.

______ 卐 ______

 
But don’t miss my point.

Whites are stupid. Jews are right: they’re just cattle and behave like cattle:

Linder is wrong. He believes that by solving the JP everything will be automatically all right. But he has not answered why, sans Jews, Iberian whites screwed big time in the Americas by polluting their blood, or why the Yankees fought for Lincoln against ‘evil’ racists, again sans Jewish press.

Whites (cattle) need a Fourth Reich so that the mythmakers will use (as Hitler dreamt) Germanic sagas to feed the proles instead of Judeo-Christian myths. Yes: prolefeed for the proles but with good messages; good stories instead of a show directed by two kikes and whose novels were authored by an extremely liberal goy.

Again: don’t miss the point of my dozen posts about the Game of Thrones craze. We need good stories. We need a sort of Game of Thrones TV show for mass consumption but this time directed by priests of the 14 words.

Published in: on May 26, 2019 at 10:54 am  Comments (8)  

‘Game of Thrones’ fan reactions

Do you see now why I wanted to be a film director when I was a kid? In good hands the audiovisual medium—with good music of course—would be the most powerful. You can only imagine how whites would be behaving today if Hitler had won the war.

Published in: on May 25, 2019 at 12:18 pm  Comments (7)  

A response to Highrpm

– Re: this –

But why Game of Thrones resonates with whites? Why the novel and film of Ben-Hur resonated in the last centuries in the West?

It doesn’t matter that one can say that the authors of Ivanhoe and Ben-Hur were silly Jew-admirers. The question remains: Why did their novels become such huge bestsellers?

White nationalists who presently are ignoring Game of Thrones are also ignoring the buttons the show had pressed in the white psyche to become so popular.

To me, it’s obvious what lies behind: a longing for pre-technological civilisation, when life was cruder but in many aspects fairer than the unnatural ways of today’s lifestyles; a return to a sort of idealised Middle Ages, the adolescence of the white people’s story, but without Christianity, as in the Game of Thrones universe there’s not a single Christian whatsoever.

Because in activating the right archetypes in the collective unconscious lies the possibility of white awakening, nationalists are ignoring the Game of Thrones phenomenon at their own peril.

Published in: on May 24, 2019 at 10:08 am  Comments (6)  

Without…

any reference to Game of Thrones whatsoever, in 2015 I already knew that only good stories, however mythical, can galvanise the white psyche to the point of boosting its self-image and self-esteem, let alone racial preservation.

Published in: on May 23, 2019 at 2:15 pm  Comments (2)  

Pride and infantilism

(This is a translation from pages 192 to 196 of my last book, From Jesus to Hitler. Some explanatory brackets between unclear passages are added.)

Although my dad and I had more or less the same intelligence, the difference of honour—valour and honesty between father and son—was sidereal. In my soliloquies many times I have called my level of honesty liquid oxygen, in the sense of pure element that does not even want to mix with nitrogen so that the combination is more breathable. I think the truth, only the truth and nothing but the truth without dilution or compromise. Perhaps my crude honesty is a flight to the antipodes of my father, so immersed in his placenta. He was the opposite: an extremely dishonest individual, and without any valour to face reality there when it denied his convictions in front of his nose.

Having analysed the family tragedy, with emphasis on my father, can provide the keys to understand the darkest hour of the West. If the white race perishes in the future, and if someone remains clever enough to speculate why it perished, he would get a clue in an unusual field: the first comprehensive analysis a son makes of his parents. My Leaves ended with the lapidary phrase ‘But my father chose evil’. My subsequent texts have been helping me to understand this evil: why dad never grew up.

In my soliloquies, I have sometimes imagined his attitude as having ‘mounted the horse of pride’, but in the end it was always a deep yearning not to grow. That is why he assembled his mind so well with my mother, who wanted to put ‘bricks on our heads’ so that we would not grow up either.

A paradigm of that pride one does not get off of would be, let’s say, what in the previous volume I called ‘the confrontation of drugs’ in which father simply inverted who was to blame [I refer to my mother, who wanted to control us by secretly pouring drugs in our meals]. Well, what Westerners do today is nothing but getting on the horse of pride, although, in their case, not for failing to recognise criminal behaviour in the family, but for refusing to question the narrative about the Second World War. In my blog in English I use a sticky post with links to the essay ‘Rome contra Judea; Judea contra Rome’ and a review of Hellstorm: the antithesis of the haughty horse. Why has the white man failed to see something so obvious?

The brutal response is that they are as childish as the father I referred to in the final words of my Leaves, or as proud as the father who inverted guilt when I confronted him with [my mother’s] drugs. My life was annihilated by my father’s childish pride. Unless they awaken, the white race will be annihilated by their own infantiloid pride. Just as my father must have come to talk with his son as in my dream of the leaves, whites must have approached those who told the truth about Christianity and the Second War. But they have chosen evil.

As we know, my father lived his whole life in self-deception. If there is a word that defines him, it is that: self-deception. Recall how he reversed reality through the aforementioned self-deceits. These were some of the most conspicuous:

• That Mexico had more cultural institutions than the United States.

• The inversion during ‘the confrontation of the crossed arms’ and that my sister, not mom, would cry tears of blood when thinking about her behaviour.

• The final chords of La Santa Furia that glorify miscegenation. Compare that with the Führer’s words in ‘Quoting the royal book’ of my previous volume. From the moral point of view, even more serious reversal of the facts in the plot of La Santa Furia was:

• To have inverted the faults on infanticide: something that the pre-Hispanic Amerindians did without any scruples as Sahagún saw. My father blamed the infanticide on the Spaniard with whom he started his last opus! Blaming the Spaniard for Amerind infanticide was the other side of the coin of blaming my sister and me instead of blaming himself and his wife, as my sister saw so well in ‘the confrontation of the crossed arms’. And finally:

• The cancerous tumour that he suffered, according to him, ‘already became small’ [with no medical proof whatsoever]. In other words, he claimed he was already healthy.

About my brother’s observation that our father was a small child there is something that I have been saying to myself that I had not captured: a postscript to my dream about ‘the little blue and white church’ that I had so much ago, recounted in my previous tome.

I do not want to project my current thoughts back to the times when I had the dream. But a delayed interpretation is that dad was becoming convinced to self-deceive himself in the dream. Convincing himself to do so was the Leitmotiv of his life; I suppose, from his youth. He gave reasons to himself to deceive himself, as what was most comfortable for him in such a modest little church (the placenta or ideological bubble he had gotten himself into).

Paradoxical as it may seem, the infantilism of the little blue church is the other side of the Horse of Pride. I think it’s worth saying that, of the movies I’ve seen, only in Spotlight I was able to see, in a very brief dialogue, a profile that portrays my father.

I refer to the words of the most learned scholar on the subject that the team interviewed, Richard Sipe, a former priest who worked to rehabilitate paedophile priests [incidentally, Sipe died last year]. When Sipe spoke by telephone of atrophy ‘at the level of a child of twelve or thirteen’, my mind immediately flew to my father’s character. It is true that, in the movie, Sipe spoke of such atrophy on a sexual level. But I only noticed it when, after buying the DVD, I saw the passage more calmly. My initial impression, when I saw the film for the first time, was that of a generic psychic atrophy: which is exactly what, less than a minute before the quote above, the reporter Sacha Pfeiffer discovers when interviewing Father Ronald Paquin, who had abused children [like Sipe, both are real persons]. Spotlight, winner of the Oscar for best film the same year my father died, hardly puts priests on the screen. One could imagine, from the journalistic notes, that they were monsters. But in Pfeiffer’s interview with Father Paquin, the exact opposite is seen: an extremely affable sixty-year-old man, with a benign face and gestures and very pleasant in personal dealings, but emotionally atrophied as a child or pubertal boy for the way he rationalised his paedophile behaviour before the reporter.

It has been the Roman Curia that climbs the Horse of Pride when they confront it: like promoting Cardinal Bernard Law after the Boston Globe scandal (who, both in real life and in the film, by orders of Rome had been protecting the priests who molested the children). But the candid infantilism of a Paquin is the other side of the coin of pride. Both facets of Jekyll and Hyde have the same purpose: to dissociate what happened.

I cannot say that my father was a victim of sexual abuse by priests in the institutions that my grand-parents put him into. But I guess he was because of the perversions recounted in my previous tome. If any of my readers keeps in mind the brief interview of the reporter with Father Paquin as dramatised by the film, he could look at my father’s affable character: atrophied at the level of a child of twelve or thirteen years of age.

______ 卐 ______

 
A comment for this site

As can be appreciated, this type of tough reflections can only be understood in the context of telling the whole family tragedy.

By the way, even though I use a movie to talk about my father’s character, I was never a victim of sexual abuse (but of something far more serious than sexual abuse!).

The reason why I translated the passage above is obvious to me, but not to my readers.

The white race is dying because the HIV mental virus with which it was infected two thousand years ago, only to this day metastasized into an AIDS that suppresses the racial defences in the psyche of the white man. This HIV, currently already in the phase of AIDS, is transmitted via parental introjects in each generation. That is, to re-develop defences in our immune system, we must break ‘the chain of the introject’ by killing the inner father.

I do not mean physical violence against our biological parents, but to unmask them before the public opinion through accusative writings.

In a previous thread I said that the task of doing this is long and painful, and I talked about the more than a thousand pages that it took me to write it over the decades. But since the ethics of Christian ethno-suicide is transmitted from father to son, a failure to kill the father internally results in a failure to kill the virus that is killing us.

I know that a short translation like the one above will hardly convey the message. To those who wish to read me but cannot do so in Spanish, I would suggest going to the nearest library to obtain a copy of Alice Miller’s Breaking Down the Wall of Silence or other of her books. The problem is that Miller, who was in the Warsaw Ghetto, had a Jewish mother. Alas, she is the only one that has profoundly dealt with the issue of debunking our parents to be able to heal.

For those unwilling to read Miller, they will have to wait for my daunting task of translating my twelve books so that the pro-white man who wishes to eliminate all HIV from his mind may approach the subject from the pen of a non-Jew…

The Antichrist § 16

Of course: when a people is destroyed, when it feels that its belief in the future, its hope for freedom, is irretrievably fading away […], then its God will necessarily change as well.

He will become modest and full of fear, he will cringe in corners and recommend ‘peace of soul’, forbearance, an end to hatred, and ‘love’ of friends and enemies.

He will constantly moralize, he will creep into the crevices of every private virtue, he will be a God for one and all, a private and cosmopolitan God…

He used to represent a people, the strength of a people, all the aggression and thirst for power in the soul of a people: now he is just the good God…

In the end, Gods have no other choice: either they are the will to power – in which case they will still be the Gods of a people – or they are powerless in the face of power – and then they will necessarily become good

Published in: on April 24, 2019 at 12:01 am  Comments Off on The Antichrist § 16