Notes on the Bigger Picture
The ideas of open borders, equality, women’s rights, and diversity all have a positive ring to them. Who could oppose women’s rights but right-wing racists and their malformed personalities?
Yet, investigating the origins of these do-good politics, one uncovers a not-so-innocent plot to destroy Western civilization, a plot to all but erase the male sex in order to establish a global matriarchy. Most worryingly, one uncovers that the plotters aren’t people of the West but enemy outsiders.
Where did it all begin? Arguably, the ideas of the socialistic left are as old as civilization itself. Early Middle-Eastern scholars such as Philo Judaeus of Alexandria argued against private property, for wealth redistribution, and for free movement of people and goods at least two-thousands years ago. The first recorded proto-globalist call to “change the tongues” of different peoples and homogenize them is as old as the Babylonian myth of Enûma Eliš.
However, these Eastern philosophies have nothing to do with European civilization. They have nothing to do with the West. All modern Europeans, including the Italians, French, Germans, English, white Americans, Poles, and also Russians, Iranians, and Indians are descendants of a group of people called the Indo-Europeans. They were, and still are, very different from Middle Eastern peoples.
The stark contrast between Indo-European and Middle-Eastern civilizations explains nearly all we need to know about the difference between conservative and progressive politics.
Indo-Europeans culture was patriarchal and patrilinear, meaning that a woman would join a man’s family, adopt his language (and in our time, adopt his family name). Middle Easterners, such as the Arabs, Mesopotamians, Akkadians, and Semites, are matriarchal peoples. For example, a man’s Jewish identity is officially determined by whether his mother is Jewish. Such a matrilineal phenomenon does not occur among the Indo-Europeans.
Indo-Europeans were pastoral peoples, mobile herdsmen who chased their herds of cattle and sheep. They were fearful horse-riders who used their mobility advantage to roam the planes of Eurasia from England to West China. Middle Easterners, by contrast, were sedentary and urban. They built the first cities such as Ur, Uruk, and Babylon.
Indo-Europeans were anything but materialistic. Since they were mobile tribes of people, they could only afford the wealth they could carry with them in their carts and wagons pulled by livestock. Indo-European wealth was traditionally measured in numbers of cattle one owned. Middle Easterners, being urban and sedentary, were able to worship greater material wealth such as the real estate that sedentary life afforded them.
The contrast between early Indo-European (patriarchal, rural, capitalist, mobile, nationalist) and early Middle-Eastern culture (matriarchal, urban, socialistic, sedentary, globalist) could not be greater. Yet, this antithesis explains all that is going on in the West today where a highly organized conspiracy of people adhering to Middle-Eastern belief systems (namely: feminists and Marxists) have set out to corrupt and destroy Western civilization from within, using media propaganda and sexual corruption.
The modern political origins of the attack on Western civilization began with the mid-nineteenth century ideology called Marxist materialism. Specifically, Karl Marx’s ideology received its emotional justification with a book by Russian author Nikolai Chernyshevsky called What Is To Be Done? (Later, Lenin would copy the title of this book to write a political pamphlet that kickstarted the 1917 Russian Revolution.)
Chernyshevsky’s 1863 book is a utopian novel that condemns the physical abuse of women, their poor position in society relative to men, and so on. It proclaims a solution: a global-scale authoritarian communist system to which all citizens must ruthlessly obey, by which he meant men must submit to women as their lower-than-human slaves.
That is what modern feminists really want. For example, Russel Means wrote in an abstract to his article titled Patriarchy: The Ultimate Conspiracy; Matriarchy: The Ultimate Solution for Griffith Law Review (2011, vol. 20, issue 3):
“These last 6000 years are a convenient lie. From religion to governments, we have lived under a patriarchy with the leaders at the top of the proverbial pyramid and the rest of us underneath. This is a fact of life on our over-populated earth. What is a patriarchy, though? It is a system that both completely lacks and completely fears the feminine. Patriarchy is an imbalanced, fear-based, warlike and truly insane structure because only a patriarchy is on top, obsessed with control and completely inhumane to everything below. What it fears, it wants to control; what it can’t control, it wants to terrorize and destroy. Within this strict system, there is no true freedom. What, then, is the solution to this problem? The answer is to simply return to a matriarchy, based on the feminine. A matriarchy actually represents the origins of individual liberty through representative government.”
With the phrase “these last 6,000 years” Means referred to the patriarchal Indo-European civilizations and their modern offshoots. Modern feminists want to erase, efface, and extinct all Indo-European societies, including those of Europe, North America, South Africa, Oceania, Iran, and India.
Indeed, Indo-European civilizations are mostly ones built by white men (in the West) and by Persians and Indians in the East. Today’s hatred of white men, therefore, stems from this Marxist materialist worldview and its irrational hatred for the patriarchy. The people who produce anti-white rhetoric in the West tend to be Marxist feminists influenced by Middle-Eastern belief systems.
Note that Means thinks patriarchal societies are “truly insane” and “completely inhumane”. This hateful language serves to justify what has to be done: the complete extermination of Western civilization by corrupting male sexuality, telling boys to be girls, promoting transgenderism and sexually deviant ‘lifestyles’, and by making sure the male values of our world are condemned, accused, convicted, and sentenced to death.
In fact, the world wars of the twentieth century must be understood as deliberately planned to prune Europe of its manliest men in order to make women the electoral majorities. Indeed, Hitler was not a friend of the West. Adolf Hitler, too, worshiped his insane Catholic mother Klara and carried a shrine of her with him wherever he went:
Hitler’s conviction that he got his power from his mother was so literal that he kept pictures near his desks of both his actual mother, Klara, and of Medusa, whose gaze turned people into stone. Hitler said of the painting of Medusa, “They are the eyes of my mother!” Medusa was so deadly that one look from her could kill you. Hitler endlessly practiced before a mirror so his eyes would be killing “mother-eyes” like those of his own deeply depressed mother.
Hitler was, in fact, a Marxist-Leninist revolutionary feminist who worshiped his Holy Mother more than anything else. He was not a supporter of patriarchal Indo-European civilization. Hitler was a conman who duped the German people into dying for his Marxist cause. He literally promised his Holy Mother, “the sacrifice of 10 million German youth”—German boys and men who had to die in the war.
Beware. Know that modern feminism has more in common with Nazism than with civilization.