Flat Earth or conspiracy theories as a spiritual exercise

A Lesson in Humility

Alchemists stress the importance of humility, because a humble mind is always ready to receive higher truth. If we cling pridefully to false knowledge then truth will flee from us, we must always be ready and willing to have our worldview transformed into something greater and more illumined. We must be able to discern between the true light and the false light, to follow the golden thread.

Back in 2002, my PhD supervisor, a senior professor, told me a story which always stuck with me. There was an international nuclear physics conference back in the 1980s, where all the world’s top researchers gathered annually to share their work. One of the guests of honour was an old professor who had spent his entire career developing an exciting new theory of the structure of the atomic nucleus.
Everyone admired him and was familiar with his work, he was a legend in the international theoretical nuclear physics scene.

During the conference, a young post-doc, fresh out of his PhD and still wet behind the ears, got up on stage to deliver his presentation. In it, he systematically debunked and disproved the professors theory, using sound scientific methodology and reasoning, demonstrating that it could never happen as it was physically and logically impossible.
He showed this beyond any doubt, revealing that the professor had spent his whole life promoting a theory which was inherently flawed and just plain wrong. The professor stood up from his seat, walked down the isle, got up onto the stage and reached out and shook the post-doc’s hand, saying “Thank you, now I know the truth’.

This story is a lesson in humility, and a reminder to all intellectuals that truth should always be the goal, we must be prepared to let go of our beliefs and admit fault the moment we become aware of it, even if we have spent our whole life working on it, its the honourable way.

It can be difficult. embarrassing, humiliating even, as our ego gets attached to the wrong ideas, we may even be successful and financially dependent on perpetuating them. Nobody likes to publicly admit they were wrong, it is vulnerable, a form of surrender, a humbling. Humility is the opposite of pride, its what makes an apology a real apology.
If this professor were full of pride, he would kick and scream and launch ad-hominem attacks, demanding that the post-doc be cast out from the conference and stripped of his honours for daring to question authority.

Pride puts ego above truth, humility puts truth above ego. At its most extreme, pride can completely block people from the truth that is right in front of their noses, it’s a form of spiritual blindness and a back-door for demonic influences to enter the mind and take over. Alchemical texts and religious scriptures are replete with warnings about the consequences of pride.

Whereas, humility is said to be a precursor for receiving higher knowledge and for effective healing and prayer, it’s a key component of spiritual development. We must be able to humble ourselves before the eternal truth of the universe, or we are destined to live out our lives in darkness, believing in fables and pseudo-science.

**

I first heard of ‘flat earth’ around 1999, playing the Stephen Jackson Illuminati card game with some friends at university. The cards each represent human groups with different special interests, and on the card for ‘Flat Earthers’ it says “People laugh, but flat earthers know something”.
Of course, my student friends and I all laughed at the idea of people who believe the earth is flat, how could they be so stuck in the past? I kinda dismissed it as a weird joke, and after that I didn’t think about it again for many years.
During 2015-2016 it popped up a number of times online, and eventually by recommendation from a friend, so I decided to see what it actually is these people believe.
I expected it to be some weird cultish thing like scientology, but what I found was just solid, verifiable scientific research that calls into question many of the theories we are taught about our world. For the most part there was no nonsense at all, just straight-shooting facts and hard questions that are thought provoking and irrefutable. As someone coming from a scientific background, I was well impressed by how meticulous and well-reasoned the flat earth research was, it was a breath of fresh air to see the scientific method being used so effectively. I couldn’t understand why I hadn’t learned any of this in university, it’s really fundamental stuff. It took a few months of watching presentations and doing experiments and having many heated conversations with people, but eventually I came to a place of 100% knowing that our world is not a planet spinning through space. I may not know 100% what it is, but I know 100% what it is not, and it’s not a spinning ball. The Illuminati cards were right, flat earthers do know something.

The process of conversion is a one-way street, nobody ever goes back to believing in the ball, there are no ‘ex-flat-earthers’ as far as I know, because there is actually no reason to believe you are spinning once you know that you are not. But how does one get to a place of knowing such a thing?

Well, start by asking yourself, how do you know that you're on a spinning ball flying through space? You have to set about trying to prove the globe, something that seems like it should be quite an easy task (especially for a boffin such as myself) but it turns out is actually quite impossible.

Many will tell you the same story, becoming a ‘flat earther’ is the result of having tried to prove the globe and failed. The irony is flat earthers are treated as the most stupid people in society, a proper fool in the negative sense, a symbol of ignorance, madness and wrong-think, a group of people not even worth listening to. The globe is so entrenched in the collective consciousness that it is generally deemed to be an unquestionable fact of reality.

To do the work it requires a position of neutrality, no attachment to any particular outcome, just simply to look at all the evidence for and against the spinning ball earth.
In doing this we have to be comfortable being ‘the fool’, people will call you a fool for even looking into it, so we must be open minded, curious, humble, and ready to have our worldview challenged.

Going in with a hard head and a zealous attachment to the globe will get you nowhere. Eventually, once the various proofs are understood, and the beliefs and assumptions of the globe model have been overcome from every conceivable angle, it all just clicks into place.

I remember vividly the day I realised I wasn’t spinning through space, it was the most profound awakening of my
life, a true enlightenment experience, a new dawn, finally getting ‘out of the mind’ and ‘coming to the senses’. The globe earth is often called the mother of all conspiracies, and for good reason, it’s a conspiracy about the nature of our mother, Earth! And when you internalise this it is like a master key that makes all other conspiracies very transparent and easy to spot.

The topic has been presented and debated very thoroughly for a long time now, there are literally hundreds of verifiable scientific experiments to consider’ and some amazing resources and dedicated people’ devoted to giving you all the best information on every question you might have.

In general it is a topic best discussed by video presentation, since the globe is largely an image promulgated through the medium of video. However, if you really wish to try and prove the existence of the globe for yourself, let me save you some time, there are only two tests that really matter:

1) proof of spinning,
2) proof of curved horizon.

Here’s the catch: you can’t use images from NASA as your ‘proof’ because NASA has been shown to be a fraudulent organisation that lies to the world and fabricates fake imagery, many times over. Plus, it’s unscientific and logical fallacy to ‘appeal to authority’, you have to prove it using the scientific method, techniques that can be repeated by independent people. All NASA imagery is unverifiable and unfalsifiable, so it’s useless as evidence for anything (the ‘space program’ will be covered in the next chapter).

When I set about trying to prove this back in 2016, I thought it would be child’s play, with my trusty PhD and advanced mathematical skills, and since I was flying ‘around the globe’ in planes all the time, I could undoubtedly prove it, easily! But the more I looked and the harder I tried, I just couldn’t, I searched for globe evidence every single day for many years, it was an obsession, I kept thinking maybe there was something I overlooked, some test that proves it, I soured many relationships due to broaching the subject, and I followed the debate online closely, but I have never found a single reason to believe in the globe in all the years since. The case for the globe gets weaker with each passing year, while ‘flat earthers’ grow in number constantly.

What’s clear is that academics don’t engage with it on a sincere level, they either completely ignore it, or use ad-hominem attacks to slander and belittle the researchers, as if the whole topic is beneath them, an insult to their intellect, a conversation not worth having. This is intellectual bypassing, they just block you and smear you and carry on as normal.
From 2015 through to 2018, a golden era for the free flow of information online, almost every single day I found more reasons to doubt the globe model of earth, and almost every time I tried to talk to someone about it, I was shutdown, dismissed as a fool.

I eventually opted to keep it out of social conversation as it’s far too much of a thankless labour trying to re-educate people in cosmology during the short windows of time we have together, especially when most don’t even want to learn. All the alchemy texts I was reading warned against trying to share higher knowledge with people who are not ready or willing for it, plus I felt like there was no reason why anyone would believe me, in the eyes of the world I was a professional fool, not a serious scientist.

Nevertheless, I knew in my heart of hearts that the globe is a lie, I could find no real evidence for the existence of this giant spinning ball we call “planet earth”, and all the theories it was based upon were crumbling under scrutiny, it became clear as day that the whole thing is very a clever fabrication.

Steven A. Young
Science Conspiracies & The Secret Art of Alchemy

***
Photograph of Chicago taken by Joshua Nowicki, as he stood at Grand Mere Park, Michigan, 57 miles away.
If the earth were a globe Chicago would be below the horizon. The only way that Chicago could be seen from the western shore of Michigan is if the world is flat. Below is a map showing the 57 mile distance across lake Michigan from Grand Mere Park, Michigan to Chicago, Illinois.

Let us calculate the position of Chicago in relation to Grand Mere Park, assuming that the earth were a globe. Grand Mere Park is 600 feet above sea level. Lake Michigan is 577 feet above sea level. Therefore, Grand Mere Park is 23 feet above Lake Michigan (600 − 577 = 23). Let’s assume that the photographer was at the highest point in Grand Mere Park. We will add six feet for the height of the photographer. We come up with an estimate that the camera was, at most, 29 feet above the level of the water on Lake Michigan (23 + 6 = 29). We will subtract seven miles from the distance of 57 miles to account for the 29 foot elevation of the camera above Lake Michigan (29 foot drop to horizon = approximately 6.6 miles, which is rounded up to 7 miles) (29 feet = 6.62  × 8 inches).

Calculating the curvature of the earth using the 50 mile distance, we find that the street level of Chicago should be 1,644 feet below the horizon. The tallest building in the picture is the Sears Tower (it has been recently renamed the Willis Tower). The Sears Tower was, from 1974 to 1998, the tallest building in the world. It stands 1,450 feet above the street. However, the antennae on top of the tower brings the total height to 1,729 feet above the street level. In coming up with the 1,644 feet drop below the horizon, it must be understood that it was necessary to subtract 23 feet from the total drop of 1,667 feet (502 × 8 inches = 1,667 feet) to account for the fact that the Sears Tower is 23 feet above the level of Lake Michigan. The Sears Tower is 595 feet above sea level. Lake Michigan is 577 feet above sea level. That puts the Sears Tower 23 feet above Lake Michigan. Therefore, the base of the Sears Tower would be 1,644 feet below the horizon (1,667 − 23 = 1644). That means that if the earth were a globe, none of the buildings, including the Sears Tower, would be visible. They would all be below the horizon. The top of the Sears Tower would be 194 feet below the horizon (1,644 − 1,450 = 194). The only thing that would be visible in the entire Chicago skyline would be the uppermost 85 feet of the antennae on the top of the Sears Tower.
In fact, however, the entire Sears Tower and all of the other buildings along the shore in Chicago can be seen in the Nowicki photograph. (...)

Joshua Nowicki’s photograph created such a sensation that it was necessary for the media powers to explain how Chicago could be seen from the Michigan shore, 57 miles away, which is an impossibility if the earth were a globe. Tom Coomes, a weatherman for ABC News argued that it was impossible to actually see Chicago from 57 miles away. Coomes stated that “Chicago is beyond the horizon; you should not be able to see it.”47 However, it can be seen; it is clearly revealed in Joshua Nowicki’s photograph. How does Coomes explain this apparent impossibility? Coomes explained away Nowicki’s photograph by averring that the Chicago skyline wasn’t really there at all.48 He claimed that Nowicki’s picture was depicting what is called a “superior mirage.” Coomes showed an amazing display of self control, as he kept a straight face throughout his ridiculous explanation.

The problem with Coomes’ explanation is that a superior mirage is a mirage of an object that is usually inverted above the actual object. Sjaak Slanina explains that “[a] superior mirage occurs when an image of an object appears above the actual object.”49 The drawing below is from the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) and illustrates the inversion of a superior mirage. (...)

Mountains of Proof

Jon McIntyre was troubled by the evidence of the flat earth and simply could not bring himself to accept that such a massive conspiracy to hide the very nature of the earth could exist. He came up with an ingenious way to determine, once and for all, whether the earth was a sphere or flat. He concluded that if the earth were flat then two equally high mountains separated by many miles would appear to the observer to be the same height if the observer was stationed at a vantage point that was equal in height to the peak of the two mountain tops.

All he needed to do was to move perpendicular to the alignment of the mountains, thus creating a parallax between the mountains, and he could then see both mountains side-by-side. If, however, the earth were a globe, then the more distant mountain top would drop below the height of the nearer mountain top by the distance in miles squared multiplied by eight inches (miles2 × 8 inches = distance of drop on the supposed spherical earth).

McIntyre searched and found three mountains that met his criteria. The three mountains were found in the Black Mountain Range in North Carolina. He positioned himself with his camera at an elevation of 5,385 feet on the ridge of Tennent Mountain. He then trained his camera at Fryingpan Mountain, six (6) miles in the distance from his position on the ridge at Tennent Mountain. The peak of Fryingpan Mountain has an elevation of approximately 5,380 feet above sea level. Thirty four (34) miles beyond Fryingpan Mountain was Graybeard Mountain, with an elevation of approximately 5,395 feet.

McIntyre’s position was to the side of Fryingpan Mountain, which created a parallax between it and Graybeard Mountain. This allowed him to view both the mountains juxtaposed to one another, although they were separated by 34 miles. He discovered that in fact the mountain tops were almost the same height, just as indicated by their official reported elevations.

If the earth were a globe, then the curvature of the earth would cause Graybeard Mountain to drop 770 feet and be out of the sight of the observer. But that is not what we see.

Such a configuration as depicted in McIntyre’s photograph would be impossible on a spherical earth. His picture is compelling evidence that the earth is flat.

It should be noted that McIntyre is not a believer in the flat earth. The most he can bring himself to say on the issue of whether the earth is flat is: “I don't know.” But he cannot otherwise explain the phenomenon of the mountain peaks being the same height in relation to one another as officially reported, although they are separated by 34 miles. He states that he can “find no way to interpret this data other than to say that it clearly supports the conclusion that the earth is flat.” Yet, he cannot bring himself to believe it. The implications for him are just too disturbing.

This shot I find to be completely bizarre. Do I believe that the earth flat? That’s a big leap to make. A really big leap to actually believe in a conspiracy theory of that size. It is craziness! But what am I supposed to do with this evidence? I don’t really know. Honestly, I don’t really know.

But I felt compelled to make this video. I felt compelled to collect irrefutable evidence one way or the other, so I could end the internal debate I was having about it and answer the questions I was having regarding flat earth, because I did find the debate interesting.87

It seems that McIntyre finds the evidence in his experiment that proves that the earth is flat to be compelling. He put a lot of work and study into conducting his experiment, but when the results pointed clearly and irrefutably toward a flat earth, McIntyre could not fully believe that the earth is flat. To do so would be to make “a really big leap to actually believe in a conspiracy theory of that size.” He has been thoroughly conditioned to ignore his senses and view the results of his test as “craziness” no matter how convincing is the evidence. McIntyre admits that, although the evidence in his experiment is compelling proof that the earth is flat, he cannot bring himself to accept it, because he cannot overcome his conditioning from “a lifetime of being told that I live on a globe flying through space.”

My love of truth and love of the pursuit of truth compelled me to conduct this experiment and produce this video. I find the evidence I collected to be very convincing. In fact I find no way to interpret this data other than to say that it clearly supports the conclusion that the earth is flat. Yet if you were to ask me if I believe the earth is flat my answer would be “I don't know” because at this point I truly do not know what I believe. I am fully aware of what this evidence is pointing to and yet my mind seems unable to firmly settle on the belief that the earth is flat. Maybe this is due to a lifetime of being told that I live on a globe flying through space.88

McIntyre’s video and photographic proof of a flat earth has been attacked by deceptive debunkers.

They use sophistry, obfuscation, and lies to confuse readers and conceal the truth of the flat earth. One example is the purported debunking website, Metabunk.com, which was so full of errors and misrepresentations that McIntyre called the deceptive posters: “liars.” The whole purpose of the heliocentric posters is to deceive the unwary and ignorant who the posting charlatans know will not truly dig into the details. It is an age-old strategy of befuddling people with misleading details so they will just throw up their hands in frustration and reject the otherwise convincing evidence that would upset the mythology of the status quo.

Below is a quote from McIntyre about the supposed debunking of his video on the forum at Metabunk.com. Keep in mind when reading McIntyre’s reaction to the deceptive posts that he, to this day, does not accept that the earth is flat. That means he agrees with the viewpoint of the debunkers that the earth is a sphere, but he nonetheless calls them liars. He calls them liars, because he knows his facts and understands how they are twisting the evidence to mislead others. McIntyre will not tolerate misrepresentations of the evidence. McIntyre strives to find and accurately report the truth and will not allow his work to be maligned by liars who have an agenda to deceive people into believing that the earth is a sphere; even though he, himself, believes the earth is a sphere. Indeed, he pulls no punches and describes the so-called debunkers as “liars.”89 McIntyre states:

Look, this is exactly what I'm not going to deal with. I spent many, many days hiking around those mountains trying to locate the perfect position to get the shot. The whole entire time I was intermittently seeing Fryingpan and Graybeard.

And I've been up there probably more than twenty times since and I still see them all of the time. I hike over Tennent regularly. Guess what? I see Fryingpan and Graybeard and they look exactly the same as in my shot because guess what??? They are the same mountains. How in the world do I go up there and spend all of this time up there and hike all of these mountains. I've been to the top of all of these peaks. I know these peaks. I see them all the time. And then somehow when I need to find a shot on my line of sight and at the right elevation I suddenly forget what they look like.

I quite seriously do not appreciate this. Not you bringing this to my attention but a liar lying and the trying to force me in some way to pay attention to these lies as though they are worthy of attention.

The assertions by that page you sent me are.... I don't know... absurd, outright lies, inanity. I verified those peaks. I live near those peaks. I hike those peaks. I was directly on that line which is obvious to anyone who can think because it looks exactly like the image on Peakfinder.

Furthermore, just take a look at the mountain range in the distance that includes Graybeard. LOOK AT IT. To the left of Bald Knob you sea steady incline all the way up to the hogback of Mount Mitchell.

It's obvious. Look at it. then look at Peakfinder and examine the way it looks. That ridge of mountains is unique and completely identifiable to anyone willing to think.
I hike up there all the time. I drive up the Blue Ridge Parkway all of the time. And I've hiked down the ridge to Graybeard from the road. When I'm driving up the Blueridge I have Mt. Mitchell on my left and I'm looking to the right and guess what I see... to the furthest left: Graybeard, slightly closer: Pinnacle, then even closer: Bald Knob. I've sat on top of those peaks. I know them. I've hiked that trail and been up there. I've used my topo maps for navigation. I've seen them from multiple angles and multiple mountain tops.

... I hate liars. I've seen those peaks from many angles and and made sure to be thorough and yet I have some guy making up lies about me and my test. Look, you are free to read that trash and believe it. You are being lied to. [If] you bring it to my video again, sincere or not, I [will] delete [your] comments and I [will] block you.

Why? Very simple. I will not allow lies and deception to be promoted along with my video on my channel. I won't have it. I'm done. Bring legitimate, honest debunking to my comments or don't bring anything. Stop being lazy.

Go to Peakfinder. Take a look at how that mountain range looks and then watch my video. It is obviously the same mountain range. I should not have to spend my time explaining something to you that is so completely obvious. Instead of checking with me to see if some debunker has made a point just go spend an hour and look for yourself. It is easy. And you will see they are lying.90

McIntyre’s tirade against the liars on Metabunk would also apply to Jesse Kozlowski, who portrays himself as an expert in land surveying. Kozlowski states that he has been land surveying for many decades. Jesse Kozlowski has posted videos and other information on the internet that he alleges proves that McIntyre was wrong and that the earth is a globe. Kozlowski was first introduced to this author by Dr. Jim Fetzer. Dr. Fetzer is professor emeritus of the philosophy of science at the University of Minnesota Duluth, who believes the earth is a spinning sphere. Dr. Fetzer engaged in an email discussion with True Ott, Alex Studer, and this author about flat earth. Dr. Fetzer explained his view of the flat earth thusly:
As a professional philosopher, I offered courses in epistemology and the philosophy of science as well as in logic and critical thinking. My first book, SCIENTIFIC KNOWLEDGE (1981), focuses on the nature of scientific knowledge. The belief in a flat Earth is a manifest absurdity in contradiction to thousands of years of scientific research.91

Dr. Fetzer followed up that email by calling upon Jesse Kozlowski as one of his experts to address the evidence with which Ott, Studer, and this author had presented Fetzer that proved the earth was flat. Dr. Fetzer introduced him as “the brilliant Jesse Kozlowski.”92 So, here we have an eminent professor in turn bringing forth his “brilliant” expert to once-and-for-all put to rest the flat earth nonsense. Let us examine the effort closely, because the refutation of their evidence does nothing but prove the earth is flat. (...)

The Greatest Lie on Earth
Proof That Our World Is Not a Moving Globe
Edward Hendrie

[One bhikkhu introduced me to the idea, which previously was ignored by me. Indeed, things aren't as simple as I thought, good exercise in thinking against acquired set of assumptions]. But one should remember the Sutta:

“Now recluses and brahmins of the third kind reckoned thus: ‘Those recluses and brahmins of the first kind, by acting as they did without precaution, failed to get free from Māra’s power and control. Those recluses and brahmins of the second kind, by reckoning how the recluses and brahmins of the first kind had failed, and then planning and acting as they did with the precaution of going to live in the forest wilds, also failed to get free from Māra’s power and control. Suppose we make our dwelling place within range of that bait that Māra has laid down and those material things of the world. Then, having done so, we shall eat food not unwarily and without going right in amongst the bait that Māra has laid down and the material things of the world. By doing so we shall not become intoxicated; when we are not intoxicated, we shall not fall into negligence; when we are not negligent, Māra shall not do with us as he likes on account of that bait and those material things of the world.’ And they did so.

“But then they came to hold views such as ‘the world is eternal’ and ‘the world is not eternal’ and ‘the world is finite’ and ‘the world is infinite’ and ‘the soul and the body are the same’ and ‘the soul is one thing and the body another’ and ‘after death a Tathāgata exists’ and ‘after death a Tathāgata does not exist’ and ‘after death a Tathāgata both exists and does not exist’ and ‘after death a Tathāgata neither exists nor does not exist’294 [158] That is how those recluses and brahmins of the third kind failed to get free from Māra’s power and control. Those recluses and brahmins, I say, are just like the deer of the third herd. MN 25

The LGBT community wants the right to sodomize children

 The government-protected privileges granted to sodomites is only the first step toward the degenerative goal of the evil occultists who control the governments of the world, which is to legalize sex with children. The powerful elite of the world today secretly engage in all manner of pederasty, which this author details in his book, Antichrist: The Beast Revealed. Indeed, the elite have plans to normalize pedophilia.

The allegation that there is a move afoot to normalize pedophilia is not hyperbole. In a 60 Minutes Australia documentary about pedophiles, they focused on a progressive theory by Dr. James Cantor, whom the presenter introduced as a neuroscientist specializing in atypical sexuality. 197 The theory that Dr. Cantor promotes is that pedophiles are born with their perverse predilection toward children. He argues that it is not their fault, they are made that way. He presents a distinction between a pedophile and a child molester. He claims that there are many pedophiles who do not act on their urges. He labels them “virtuous pedophiles.” That is an oxymoron if there ever was one.

Dr. Cantor is just one of many in a phalanx of perverts who have been let loose to degenerate and demoralize countries. For example, Marjan Heine advanced the same argument during a 2018 TEDx Talk at the University of Wurzburg. Heine’s presentation was titled: Why Our Perception of Pedophilia Has to Change. 198 Heine defined pedophilia as a person’s inborn sexual preference for pre-adolescent children. She argued that nobody is responsible for their feelings, and so pedophiles are not responsible for their feelings of sexual attraction toward pre-adolescent children. As with Dr. Cantor, Heine argued for acceptance of and inclusion within society of pedophiles. Heine claimed that it is social isolation that drives pedophiles to sexually abuse children. Heine suggested that if the shame of pedophilia was removed, and pedophiles were welcomed into society, they would not act out their impulses to sexually abuse children. Heine’s argument parallels Dr. Cantor’s scheme. She argues, as does Dr. Cantor, that a person's proclivities can be dissociated from his actions. Thus, she maintains that a pedophile is not necessarily a child molester.

Heine’s and Cantor’s evil sophistry is that a person’s proclivities can be dissociated from his actions. They reason that a pedophile is not necessarily a child molester. They ignore the reality that a person is identified by what he does, not by what he feels or thinks. For example, a football player is a football player because he plays football. He is identified by what he actually does. A person may feel like playing football, but until he actually plays football, he is not a football player. A robber is a robber because he robs. He is identified as a robber because of what he does. He is not a robber if he only desires to take someone else’s property from them, but does not actually take it. A pedophile is a pedophile because he sexually abuses children. He is identified as a pedophile because that is what he does. Heine and Cantor ignore that reality.

To make a distinction between pedophiles and child molesters is to make a distinction without a difference. It is a false dichotomy. Heine and Cantor think they can get away with making that misleading distinction because most people do not know that recidivism among pedophiles is very high. Show me a pedophile who denies he molests children and I will show you a liar. Research has proven that pedophiles do not control their impulses to sexually molest children. For example, an Emory University Study conducted by a leading child abuse researcher, Dr. Gene Abel, found that the average child molester (i.e., pedophile) claims 380 victims in a lifetime. 199

We can take a lesson from the fable of the scorpion and the frog. In that famous fable, a scorpion asks a frog to carry him over a river. The frog tells the scorpion he will not do it because he is afraid that the scorpion will sting him. But the scorpion pleads with the frog and argues that he would never sting the frog while crossing the river because if he did so, both he and the frog would sink and drown. The frog was convinced by that reasoning and agreed to take the scorpion across the river. The scorpion hopped on the back of the frog, and off they both went across the river. But midway across the river, the scorpion stings the frog, dooming them both to drown. When the frog felt the scorpions sting, he asked the scorpion why he stung him since now they would both drown. The scorpion explained, “I am a scorpion; that is what I do.”

Scorpions sting because that is their nature; that is what scorpions do. So also, pedophiles molest children because that is their nature; that is what pedophiles do. A “virtuous pedophile” makes about as much sense as a virtuous scorpion. To welcome pedophiles as accepted members of society is to doom children to destruction, just as the frog was unwittingly doomed as soon as he agreed to give the scorpion a ride on his back. Parents are given a precious gift when God bestows them with children. They are charged with protecting those children from danger. They should not be putting scorpions on their backs and hoping for the best. “It were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he cast into the sea, than that he should offend one of these little ones.” Luke 17:2.

Cantor and Heine are simply fronting for powerful evil forces who are trying to normalize pedophilia in much the same way that clinicians have normalized sodomy. Once you decouple morality from God's standard, it becomes a slippery slope. What the 60 Minutes Australia program did not reveal is that Dr. James Cantor is a sodomite. He presented a paper about his personal experience as a sodomite: "Being gay and being a graduate student: Double the memberships, four times the problems", at the Ninety-Ninth Annual Meeting of the American Psychological Association in San Francisco. 200

Of course, Dr. Cantor is going to argue that pedophiles are born that way. He has an agenda. The lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender (a/k/a LGBT) communities have an evil agenda, which they keep secret from the public at large. Michael Swift's 1987 Gay Manifesto reveals the dirty secret of the LGBT rights movement. The LGBT community wants the right to sodomize children.

Former California State Assemblyman Steve Baldwin researched the connection between homosexuality and pederasty. He published his findings in the Spring 2002 Regent University Law Review. Baldwin found that “[s]cientific studies confirm a strong pedophilic predisposition among homosexuals.” 201 One 1988 study published in the Archives of Sexual Behavior, reported that 86% of pedophiles who victimized boys “described themselves as homosexual or bisexual.” 202 Research statistics further show that homosexuals, as a population, molest children at a rate that is ten to twenty times greater than heterosexuals. 203 Those facts are well known in the homosexual community. San Francisco’s leading homosexual newspaper, The Sentinel, bluntly states that “[t]he love between men and boys is at the foundation of homosexuality.” 204

Homosexual publications openly promote pederasty and are often populated with travel ads for sex tours to Burma, the Philippines, Sri Lanka, Thailand, and other countries infamous for boy prostitution. Baldwin reveals that “[t]he most popular travel guide for homosexuals, Spartacus Gay Guides, is replete with information about where to find boys for sex and, as a friendly warning, lists penalties in various countries for sodomy with boys if caught.”

Baldwin found that “the mainstream homosexual culture commonly promotes sex with children. Homosexual leaders repeatedly argue for the freedom to engage in consensual sex with children.” 205 He determined that one of the principal aims of the LGBT rights movement is the legalization and promotion of child molestation. Mainstream LGBT organizations such as the International Lesbian and Gay Association (ILGA) and the National Coalition of Gay Organizations have passed many organizational resolutions calling for lowering or eliminating age of sexual consent laws, as a way to legalize pedophilia. 206

Such sin creates a violent and chaotic society. This chaos gives rise to new restrictive laws, which ultimately brings about a police state to reestablish order. Under the new police powers granted to the state, the exercise of God-given rights is suppressed by the government.

It is through orchestrated chaos that the people clamber for order, which brings the public acceptance of government tyranny. One of the principal subversive missions of secret societies is to covertly foment chaos in order to bring about the reaction of oppressive government crackdowns, which they have planned in advance from behind the scenes. The minions of Satan control the government, the reigns of which are in their hands, to steer its course to oppress the people.

The motto ORDO AB CHAO (order out of chaos) is an occult maxim often found in the rites of secret societies. For example, according to Mackey's Encyclopedia of Freemasonry, ORDO AB CHAO, is “[a] Latin expression, meaning Order out of Chaos. A motto of the Thirty-third Degree, and having the same allusion as lug e tenebris, which see in this work. The invention of this motto is to be attributed to the Supreme Council of the Ancient and Accepted Scottish petite at Charleston.” 207 Mackey’s reference to lug e tenebris is probably an allusion to be LUX E TENEBRIS, which is Latin phrase commonly found on Mason documents, that means “light out of darkness.” 208 Jackie Jura of Orwell Today explains:

The puppetmasters create "dis order" so the people will demand "order". The price of "order" always entails a handing over of control and loss of freedom on the part of the citizenry. Out of "chaos" comes "order" - THEIR order - their new WORLD order. ...

The trick of creating chaos and then seizing power under the pretense of putting things back in order is a tried and true method of deception and manipulation. It's the meaning behind the Latin motto: ORDO AB CHAO meaning ORDER OUT OF CHAOS.

It's also referred to as the Hegelian Dialect after the philosopher Georg Hegel who wrote about its effectiveness. He described it as: THESIS -- ANTI-THESIS -- SYN-THESIS.

Others have described it as: PROBLEM -- REACTION -- SOLUTION in that firstly you create the problem; then secondly you fan the flames to get a reaction; then thirdly (like Johnny-on-the-spot) you provide a solution. The solution is what you were wanting to achieve in the first place, but wouldn't have been able to achieve under normal circumstances.

Orwell described it as REALITY CONTROL. In 1984: he said, "The rocket bombs which fell daily on London were probably fired by the Government of Oceania itself, 'just to keep people frightened'."

There are literally HUNDREDS of examples of this method being used effectively throughout the course of history. A well-known example is the bombing of Pearl Harbor which resulted in the United States entering the Second World War. Chaos was required and so chaos was created. That's how it works. 209 (emphasis in original)

The Sphere of Influence

Edward Hendrie 

Marcel-Paul Schützenberger. THE MIRACLES OF DARWINISM

 Marcel-Paul Schützenberger. THE MIRACLES OF DARWINISM

1996 Interview with La Recherche

Q: What is your definition of Darwinism?

S: Darwinists argue that the double action of chance mutations and natural selection explains evolution. This general doctrine accommodates two mutually contradictory schools—gradualists on the one hand and saltationists on the other. Gradualists insist that evolution proceeds by small successive changes; saltationists that it proceeds by jumps. Richard Dawkins has come to champion radical gradualism, [the late] Stephen Jay Gould a no less radical version of saltationism.

Q: You are known as a mathematician rather than a specialist in evolutionary biology …

S: Biology is, of course, not my specialty. But biologists themselves have encouraged the participation of mathematicians in the overall assessment of evolutionary thought, if only because they have presented such an irresistible target. Richard Dawkins, for example, has been fatally attracted to arguments that hinge on concepts drawn from mathematics and computer science—arguments which he then, with all his comic authority, imposes on innocent readers. Mathematicians are, in any case, epistemological zealots. It is normal for them to bring their critical scruples to the foundations of other disciplines. And finally, it is worth observing that the great turbid wave of cybernetics has carried mathematicians from their normal mid-ocean haunts to the far shores of evolutionary biology. There, up ahead, René Thom and Ilya Prigogine may be observed paddling sedately toward dry land, members of the Santa Fe Institute thrashing in their wake. Stuart Kauffman is among them.  An interesting case, a physician half in love with mathematical logic, burdened now and forever by having received a papal kiss from Murray Gell-Mann. This ecumenical movement has endeavored to apply the concepts of mathematics to the fundamental problems of evolution—the interpretation of functional complexity, for example.

Q: What do you mean by functional complexity?

S: It is impossible to grasp the phenomenon of life without that concept, the two words each expressing a crucial idea. The laboratory biologists’ normal and unforced vernacular is almost always couched in functional terms: the function of an eye, the function of an enzyme, or a ribosome, or the fruit fly’s antennae. Functional language matches up perfectly with biological reality. Physiologists see this better than anyone else. Within their world, everything is a matter of function, the various systems that they study—circulatory, digestive, excretory, and the like—all characterized in simple, ineliminable functional terms. At the level of molecular biology, functionality may seem to pose certain conceptual problems, perhaps because the very notion of an organ has disappeared when biological relationships are specified in biochemical terms. But appearances are misleading. Certain functions remain even in the absence of an organ or organ systems. Complexity is also a crucial concept. Even among unicellular organisms, the mechanisms involved in the separation and fusion of chromosomes during mitosis and meiosis are processes of unbelievable complexity and subtlety. Organisms present themselves to us as a complex ensemble of functional interrelationships. If one is going to explain their evolution, one must at the same time explain their functionality and their complexity.

Q: What is it that makes functional complexity so difficult to comprehend?

S: The evolution of living creatures appears to require an essential ingredient, a specific form of organization. Whatever it is, it lies beyond anything that our present knowledge of physics or chemistry might suggest. It is a property upon which formal logic sheds absolutely no light. Whether gradualists or saltationists, Darwinians have too simple a conception of biology, rather like a locksmith misguidedly convinced that his handful of keys will open any lock. Darwinians, for example, tend to think of the gene as if it were the expression of a simple command: do this, get that done, drop that side chain. Walter Gehring’s work on  the regulatory genes controlling the development of the insect eye reflects this conception. The relevant genes may well function this way, but the story on this level is surely incomplete, and Darwinian theory is not apt to fill in the pieces.

Q: You claim that biologists think of a gene as a command. Could you be more specific?

S: Schematically, a gene is like a unit of information. It has simple binary properties. A sequence of gene instructions resembles a sequence of instructions specifying a recipe. Consider again the example of the eye. Darwinists imagine that it requires—what? A thousand or two thousand genes to assemble an eye, the specification of the organ thus requiring one or two thousand units of information? That is absurd! Suppose a European firm proposes to manufacture an entirely new household appliance in a Southeast Asian factory. And suppose that for commercial reasons the firm does not wish to communicate to the factory any details of the appliance’s function, like how it works or what purposes it will serve. With only a few thousand bits of information, the factory is not going to proceed very far or very fast. A few thousand bits of information, after all, yields only a single paragraph of text. The appliance in question is bound to be vastly simpler than the eye. Charged with its manufacture, the factory will yet need to know the significance of the operations to which they have committed themselves in engaging their machinery. This can be achieved only if they already have some sense of the object’s nature before they undertake to manufacture it. A considerable body of knowledge, held in common between the European firm and its Asian factory, is necessary before manufacturing instructions may be executed.

Q: Would you argue that the genome does not contain the requisite information for explaining organisms?

S: It does not, according to the understanding of the genome we now possess. The biological properties invoked by biologists are in this respect quite insufficient. While biologists may understand that a gene triggers the production of a particular protein, that knowledge—that kind of knowledge—does not allow them to comprehend how one or two thousand genes suffice to direct the course of embryonic development.

 Q: You are going to be accused of preformationism …

S: And of many other crimes. My position is nevertheless a strictly rational one. I’ve formulated a problem that appears significant to me: How is it that with so few elementary instructions the materials of life can fabricate objects that are so marvelously complicated and efficient? This remarkable property with which they are endowed—just what is its nature? Nothing within our actual knowledge of physics and chemistry allows us intellectually to grasp it. If one starts from an evolutionary point of view, it must be acknowledged that in one manner or another the earliest fish contained the capacity, and the appropriate neural wiring, to bring into existence organs which they did not possess or even need, but which would be the common property of their successors when they left the water for the firm ground, or for the air.

Q: You assert that, in fact, Darwinism doesn’t explain much.

S: It seems to me that the union of chance mutation and selection has a certain descriptive value. But in no case does the description count as an explanation. Darwinism relates ecological data to the relative abundance of species and environments. In any case, the descriptive value of Darwinian models is pretty limited. Besides, as saltationists have indicated, the gradualist thesis seems totally ridiculous in light of our growing knowledge of paleontology. The miracles of saltationism, on the other hand, cannot discharge the mystery I have described.

Q: Let’s return to natural selection. Isn’t it the case that despite everything the idea has a certain explanatory value?

S: No one could possibly deny the general thesis that stability is a necessary condition for existence. This is the real content of the doctrine of natural selection. The outstanding application of this general principle is Berthollet’s laws in elementary chemistry. In a desert, the species that die rapidly are those that require water the most. Yet that does not explain the appearance among the survivors of those structures whose particular features permit them to resist aridity. The thesis of natural selection is not very powerful. Except for certain artificial cases, we remain unable to predict whether this or that species or this or that variety will be favored or not as the result of changes in the environment. What we can do is establish the effects of natural selection after the fact—to show, for example, that certain birds are disposed to eat this species of  snails less often than other species, perhaps because their shell is not as visible. That’s ecology. To put it another way, natural selection is a weak instrument of proof because the phenomena subsumed by natural selection are obvious. They establish nothing from the point of view of the theory.

Q: Isn’t the significant explanatory feature of Darwinian theory the connection established between chance mutations and natural selection?

S: With the discovery of genetic coding, we have come to understand that a gene is like a word composed in the DNA alphabet. Such words form the genomic text and tell the cell to make this or that protein. Either a given protein is structural, or it works in combination with other signals from the genome to fabricate yet another protein. All the experimental results we know fall within this scheme. The following scenario then becomes standard: A gene undergoes a mutation, one that may facilitate the reproduction of those individuals carrying it; over time, and with respect to a specific environment, mutants come to be statistically favored, replacing individuals lacking the requisite mutation. But evolution cannot simply be the accumulation of such typographical errors. Population geneticists can study the speed with which a favorable mutation propagates itself under these circumstances. They do this with a lot of skill, but these are academic exercises, if only because none of the parameters that they use can be empirically determined. In addition, there are the obstacles I have already mentioned. We know the number of genes in an organism. There are about one hundred thousand for a higher vertebrate. This we know fairly well. But this seems grossly insufficient to explain the incredible quantity of information needed to accomplish evolution within a given line of species.

Q: A concrete example?

S: Darwinists say that horses, which once were as small as rabbits, increased their size to escape more quickly from predators. Within the gradualist model, one might isolate a specific trait—increase in body size—and consider it to be the result of a series of typographic changes. The explanatory effect achieved is rhetorical, imposed entirely by the trick of insisting that what counts for an herbivore is the speed of its flight when faced by a predator. Now this may even be partially true, but there are no biological grounds that permit us to determine that this is  in fact the decisive consideration. After all, increase in body size may well have a negative effect. Darwinists seem to me to have preserved a mechanistic vision of evolution, one that prompts them to observe merely a linear succession of causes and effects. The idea that causes may interact with one another is now standard in mathematical physics; it is a point that has had difficulty penetrating the carapace of biological thought. In fact, within the quasi-totality of observable phenomena, local changes interact dramatically. After all, there is hardly an issue of La Recherche that does not contain an allusion to the Butterfly Effect. Information theory is precisely the domain that sharpens our intuitions about these phenomena. A typographical change in a computer program does not change it just a little. It wipes the program out, purely and simply. It is the same with a telephone number. If I intend to call a correspondent by telephone, it doesn’t much matter if I am fooled by one, two, three or eight figures in his number.

Q: You accept the idea that biological mutations genuinely have the character of typographical errors?

S: Yes, in the sense that one base is a template for another, one codon for another. But at the level of biochemical activity, one is no longer able properly to speak of typography. There is an entire grammar for the formation of proteins in three dimensions, one that we understand poorly. We do not have at our disposal physical or chemical rules permitting us to construct a mapping from typographical mutations or modifications to biologically effective structures. To return to the example of the eye: a few thousand genes are needed for its fabrication, but each in isolation signifies nothing. What is significant is the combination of their interactions. These cascading interactions, with their feedback loops, express an organization whose complexity we do not know how to analyze. It is possible we may be able to do so in the future, but there is no doubt that we are unable to do so now. Gehring has recently discovered a segment of DNA which is involved both in the development of the vertebrate eye and which can also induce the development of an eye in the wing of a butterfly. His work comprises a demonstration of something utterly astonishing, but not an explanation.

Q: But Dawkins, for example, believes in the possibility of a cumulative process.

S: Dawkins believes in an effect that he calls “the cumulative selection  of beneficial mutations.” To support his thesis, he resorts to a metaphor introduced by the mathematician Emile Borel—that of a monkey typing by chance and in the end producing a work of literature. It is a metaphor, I regret to say, embraced by Francis Crick, the co-discoverer of the double helix. Dawkins has his computer write a series of thirty letters, these corresponding to the number of letters in a verse by Shakespeare. He then proceeds to simulate the Darwinian mechanism of chance mutations and selection. His imaginary monkey types and retypes the same letters, the computer successively choosing the phrase that most resembles the target verse. By means of cumulative selection, the monkey reaches its target in forty or sixty generations.

Q: But you don’t believe that a monkey typing on a typewriter, even aided by a computer …

S: This demonstration is bogus. Dawkins doesn’t even describe precisely how it proceeds. At the beginning of the exercise, randomly generated phrases appear rapidly to approach the target; the closer the approach, the more the process begins to slow. It is the action of mutations in the wrong direction that pulls things backward. In fact, a simple argument shows that unless the numerical parameters are chosen deliberately, the progression begins to bog down completely.

Q: You would say that the model of cumulative selection, imagined by Dawkins, is out of touch with palpable biological realities?

S: Exactly. Dawkins’s model lays entirely to the side the triple problems of complexity, functionality, and their interaction.

Q: You are a mathematician. Suppose that you try, despite your reservations, to formalize the concept of functional complexity.

S: I would appeal to a notion banned by the scientific community, but one understood perfectly by everyone else—that of a goal. As a computer scientist, I could express this in the following way. One constructs a space within which one of the coordinates serves in effect as the thread of Ariadne, guiding the trajectory toward the goal. Once the space is constructed, the system evolves in a mechanical way toward its goal. But look, the construction of the relevant space cannot proceed until a preliminary analysis has been carried out, one in which the set of all possible trajectories is assessed and their average distance from the specified  goal is estimated. Such a preliminary analysis is beyond the reach of empirical study. It presupposes that the biologist (or computer scientist) knows the totality of the situation, the properties of the ensemble of trajectories. Yet in terms of mathematical logic, the nature of this space is entirely enigmatic. It is crucial to remember that the conceptual problems we face in trying to explain life, life has entirely solved. Indeed, the systems embodied in living creatures are entirely successful in reaching their goals. The trick involved in Dawkins’s embarrassing example arises from his surreptitious introduction of a relevant space. His computer program calculates from a random phrase to a target, a calculation that corresponds to nothing in biological reality. The function that he employs flatters the imagination, however, because its apparent simplicity elicits naïve approval. In biological reality, the space of even the simplest function has a complexity that defies understanding, and indeed defies any and all calculations.

Q: Even when they dissent from Darwin, the saltationists are more moderate: they don’t pretend to hold the key that would permit them to explain evolution.

S: Before we discuss the saltationists, however, I must say a word about the Japanese biologist Motoo Kimura. He has shown that the majority of mutations are neutral, without any selective effect. For Darwinians upholding the central Darwinian thesis, this is embarrassing.… The saltationist view, revived by Stephen Jay Gould, in the end represents an idea of Richard Goldschmidt’s. In 1940 or so, Goldschmidt postulated the existence of very intense mutations, no doubt involving hundreds of genes, and taking place rapidly, in less than one thousand generations, thus below paleontology’s threshold of resolution. Curiously enough, Gould does not seem concerned to preserve the union of chance mutations and selection. The saltationists run afoul of two types of criticism. On the one hand, the functionality of their supposed macromutations is inexplicable within the framework of molecular biology. On the other hand, Gould ignores in silence the great trends in biology, such as the increasing complexity of the nervous system. He imagines that the success of new, more sophisticated species, such as the mammals, is a contingent phenomenon. He is not in a position to offer an account of the essential movement of evolution, or at the least an account of its main trajectories. The saltationists are thus reduced to invoking two types of miracles: macromutations as well as the great trajectories of evolution.

 Q: In what sense are you employing the word “miracle”?

S: A miracle is an event that should appear impossible to a Darwinian in view of its ultra-cosmological improbability within the framework of his own theory. Now, speaking of macromutations, let me observe that to generate a proper elephant, it will not suffice suddenly to endow it with a full-grown trunk. As the trunk is being organized, a different but complementary system—the cerebellum—must be modified in order to establish a place for the ensemble of wiring that the elephant will require in order to use the trunk. These macromutations must be coordinated by a system of genes in embryogenesis. If one considers the history of evolution, we must postulate thousands of miracles; miracles, in fact, without end. No more than the gradualists, the saltationists are unable to provide an account of those miracles. The second category of miracles are directional, offering instruction to the great evolutionary progressions and trends—the elaboration of the nervous system, of course, but the internalization of the reproductive process as well, and the appearance of bone, the emergence of ears, the enrichment of various functional relationships, and so on. Each is a series of miracles, whose accumulation has the effect of increasing the complexity and efficiency of various organisms. From this point of view, the notion of bricolage [tinkering], introduced by François Jacob, involves a fine turn of phrase, but one concealing an utter absence of explanation.

Q: The appearance of human beings—is that a miracle, in the sense you mean?

S: Naturally. And here it does seem that there are voices among contemporary biologists—I mean voices other than mine—who might cast doubt on the Darwinian paradigm, which has so dominated discussion for the past twenty years. Gradualists and saltationists alike are completely incapable of providing a convincing explanation of the near simultaneous emergence of a number of biological systems that distinguish human beings from the higher primates: bipedalism, with the concomitant modification of not only the pelvis but also the cerebellum; a much more dexterous hand, with fingerprints conferring an especially fine tactile sense; the modifications of the pharynx, which permit phonation; and the modification of the central nervous system, notably at the level of the temporal lobes, permitting the specific recognition of speech. From the point of view of embryogenesis, such anatomical systems are completely different from one another. Each modification constitutes a gift,  a bequest from a primate family to its descendants. It is astonishing that these gifts should have developed simultaneously. Some biologists speak of a predisposition of the genome. Can anyone actually recover the predisposition, supposing that it actually existed? Was it present in the first of the fish? Confronted with such questions, the Darwinian paradigm is conceptually bankrupt.

Q: You mentioned the Santa Fe school earlier in our discussion. Do appeals to such notions as chaos …

S: What we have here are highly competent people inventing poetic but essentially hollow forms of expression. I am referring in part to the hoopla surrounding cybernetics. And beyond that, there lie the dissipative structures of Prigogine, or the systems of Varela, or, moving to the present, Stuart Kauffman’s edge of chaos—an organized form of inanity that is certain soon to make its way to France. The Santa Fe school takes complexity and applies it to absolutely everything. They draw their representative examples from certain chemical reactions, the pattern of the seacoast, atmospheric turbulence, or the structure of a chain of mountains. The complexity of these structures is certainly considerable, but in comparison with the living world, they exhibit in every case an impoverished form of organization, one that is strictly non-functional. No algorithm allows us to understand the complexity of living creatures. These examples owe their initial plausibility to the assumption that the physico-chemical world exhibits functional properties that in reality it does not possess.

Q: Should one take your position as a statement of resignation, an appeal to have greater modesty, or something else altogether?

S: Speaking ironically, I might say that all we can hear at the present time is the great anthropic hymnal, with even a number of mathematically sophisticated scholars keeping time, as the great hymn is intoned, by tapping their feet. The rest of us should, of course, practice a certain suspension of judgment.

UNCOMMON DISSENT

Intellectuals Who Find Darwinism Unconvincing

Edited by William A. Dembski

Death and the meaning of life

 Let death be your greatest teacher.

—Buddha

(Unfound in Pali Canon, but not in contradiction with it)

DEATH, RISK, AND THE MEANING OF LIFE

What lies beyond this life? Heaven? Hell? An endless cycle of rebirth? Simple nothingness? Opinions abound, but it’s all speculation: No one knows. I’ve watched good people die, and I can attest that, more often than not, the final moment doesn’t seem very pleasant. If life is a song, it ends in a minor key. 

If we take it seriously—that is, if we don’t avert our eyes from the truth that we have an expiration date similar to a carton of eggs—then death becomes the most powerful teacher that we can ever hope for. If we think of death in Wedge terms, our assured demise is the ultimate stressor, and thus our motivation to make choices that mean something. Death is the stake that all of us are born with. No matter our triumphs or failures, death will always be waiting. With the end inevitable, it’s only our choices that matter. 

In other words, life is the wedge between birth and death.

I sometimes think of life as being the captain of a small boat bobbing up and down on choppy seas. We steer our vessels into waves, or around them. Sometimes we navigate into placid lagoons, and other times we push our limits and challenge the high seas. And while we can never predict what the ocean will throw at us, every sailor knows that when you’re caught in a storm and see a massive wave start to form, there’s one option. You turn the bow directly into the threat and hold fast on the rudder until you make it over the top or let it take you down into the depths. Running from a rogue wave almost always invites disaster. But it takes courage to face doom head on. Only the bold can hope to make it through.

This is why the Wedge is so powerful. We always have one choice in the face of life’s obstacles. We can follow reactions that are already hardwired into our body’s physiological responses, or, for better or worse, resist those urges and will ourselves onto a different path. Either way, life’s challenges—the crests and valleys of that turbulent ocean—are the stakes that define what we’re made of. The decisions we make in the face of death are what make us real. 

We may not always think about our death, but we sense death constantly on a cellular level. Evolution gave us this morbid gift. We are built to propagate the species. Every hormonal response, reflex, sensation and cognitive ability exists to serve this purpose. Every emotion, from fear, love and happiness to sadness, ambivalence and ennui, confers critical information that helps us stay alive.

Even so, our nervous systems can really only issue two commands: tension or release. This is the interplay between the sympathetic and parasympathetic wiring. In a moment of crisis, we can engage all of our physical and emotional powers to combat the situation we’re in, or we can relax and let the chaotic forces do with us as they will. At some point our personal powers have limits. There’s only so much that any of us can do. In the battle of man versus nature, nature always wins. 

In the beginning of this book, I wrote that evolution seeks to preserve experiences. It’s not a meaningless cycle of birth, reproduction and death. We struggle against challenges because they’re worth struggling against. We feel happiness, sadness, anger, fear and lust because those are inherently meaningful. 

The great spiritual adept Eckhart Tolle once wrote: “You are not in the universe, you are the universe, an intrinsic part of it. Ultimately you are not a person, but a focal point where the universe is becoming conscious of itself.” The miracle of being alive is that you have a very specific perspective on things both larger and smaller than yourself. It might be just one of an infinite number of perspectives, but it’s special because it’s yours. You’re responsible for how you want to live your life, and all the while, you know that every action you choose either moves you closer or further from the end. 

This is why it’s so important to take death seriously. It’s why death is so beautiful. No decision you make will ever make it possible to avoid death. Which, in a strange way, means that the whole idea of risk is something of an illusion. If avoiding death was the goal, then we’ve already lost the game. But what if the point of being alive was instead to experience the entire bounty of human emotion, failure, triumphs, love and loss? To my mind, the goal of life isn’t to live as long as possible, but rather to find our true selves as a reflection of the world that we inhabit. It’s to test our mettle and resolve as we race to make the most of the time we do have. 

Most of the experiences I’ve written about in this book are dangerous in one way or another. An errant kettlebell could land on a foot; a person could overheat in a sauna, fall into hypothermia in the ice or suffer hypoxia while holding their breath. Never mind the universe of unknown drug interactions with traditional medicines and illicit drugs. There’s no doubt that at least something I’ve written in the last few hundred pages has made you pause and wonder if any of this is really a good idea. And, honestly, as a writer far removed from your own personal circumstances, I can’t make that call for you. All I can say is that taking these risks have made me healthier, happier and stronger. I am more at peace with life because of the journey of reporting and writing this book. I’ve accepted that I don’t have any control on how things end up. I just have control of how I get there.

A person can choose a life path of muted sensations, avoiding pain and living indoors protected by a cocoon of technological comfort. That person can work a 40-hour work week, fully fund a retirement plan, carry acceptable insurance, dutifully pay taxes, have a few children and ultimately die comfortably in bed. This is the default life plan that many Americans follow. But it’s not as risk-free as it seems. On the one hand, we all risk the ordinary misfortunes of the modern world: cancer, car accidents, heartbreak, economic downturns and bankruptcy. On the other, by pathologically avoiding failure, we can miss out on the opportunity for unexpected rewards. The great paradox of life is that there’s no obvious meaning to it. And so we need to supply our own meaning. If we don’t, then life itself becomes unlivable. Purposeless. 

Success doesn’t happen if you only act when you are sure of a positive outcome. Real success means risking failure. We succeed only after we accept that we might fail and plan for the worst.

On a neurological level, the anticipation of failure is stress. When a person enters into an ice-cold bath, the first thing they feel is a desire to clench up and protect themselves. In a sauna, they want to escape the heat. Facing down a flying kettlebell, a person might cringe at the thought of it crashing onto their feet, and before an ayahuasca ceremony, it’s entirely reasonable to fear going insane. These are all innate responses predicting some sort of bodily harm. They’re sensations and emotions that we’ve trained into our neurology or inherited from a long line of evolutionary succession. However, when we tackle those sensations head on, when we insert a wedge into the space between stimulus and response, we don’t just become better kettlebell throwers, sauna endurers and plant imbibers. Facing those challenges makes us more robust, healthier and more capable of just about anything.

Indeed, it’s our anticipation of the worst possible outcomes that gets in the way more often than not. We envision negative consequences for our actions. And yet more often than not, a missed kettlebell lands safely on the grass, a sauna relaxes us, and an ice bath brings alertness. For me, the ayahuasca ceremony gave me a new perspective and answered questions that I didn’t even know I had about the deep bonds I have in my marriage, my connection to a lineage of ancestors and my vulnerability to electronic addictions. 

I began this journey by accepting the possibility of catastrophe. I knew my inquiry might lead nowhere. I also knew I might get injured or even die while seeking answers. But I kept going. I pushed through. Despite some doubts along the way, I believed I would come out the other side better, stronger and more resilient, that my life would be richer for it. When I think about my own death—no matter how I end up meeting it—I want to know that my choices made a difference. I do not want to have my final moments consumed by the notion that I was passive when I could have been active. Of course, I know that if I do this kind of work long enough, it’s likely that I’ll get hurt at some point. But that doesn’t mean the journey won’t be worth it.

This book and the wedges I’ve introduced are the tip of an iceberg. They’re exercises, practices and ideas that speak especially strongly to me. They’re examples of challenges that I needed to try, stressors that I needed to push up against in order to grow. Some of these wedges showed me powerful new ways to enter into a flow state. Others let me reprogram patterns in my nervous system. But it was my journey. Your life—the time between birth and death that the gods grant you—is your journey. It’s your Wedge. What you do with this opportunity is up to you. 

And just maybe, somewhere on your journey you will catch hold of that thread that connects the choices of every iteration of every Russian doll to a consciousness that none of the parts can comprehend on its own. In this way, we can all be individuals and the universe at the same time. 

Scott Carney

The Wedge

“Oh bliss! Oh bliss!”

 

Attached to Bhikkhu or homo monasticus

The occasion was this. The Blessed One was staying at Anupiyā—there is a town of the Mallians’ called Anupiyā—and by that time many well-known Sakyan princes had gone forth under the Blessed One. But there were two brothers, Mahānāma the Sakyan and Anuruddha the Sakyan. Anuruddha had been delicately brought up. He had three palaces, one for the summer, one for the rains and one for the winter. For four months he would be entertained in the rains palace by minstrels with no men among them and never come down to the lower palace.

It occured to Mahānāma: “Now many well-known Sakyan princes have gone forth under the Blessed One. But no one in our family has gone forth from the house life into homelessness. Suppose I went forth, or Anuruddha?”

Then he went to Anuruddha and told him what had occurred to him. Anuruddha said: “But I have been delicately brought up. I cannot go forth from the home life into homelessness. You go forth.”

“Come then, Anuruddha, I shall instruct you in the household life. Now first a field must be ploughed, then it must be sown, then water must be led into it, then the water must be drained, then the field must be weeded, then the crop must be cut, then it must be gathered in, then it must be stacked, then it must be threshed, then the straw must be removed, then the chaff must be winnowed off, then it must be sifted, then it must be stored away. Now when that is done, it must all be done again next year, and the year after. The work never finishes; there is no end to the work.”

“Then when will there be an end to the work? When shall we have the leisure to gratify the five strands of the sensual desires we are provided and furnished with?”

“My dear Anuruddha, the work never finishes; there is no end to the work. Our father and our grandfather both died while their work was still unfinished. So now it is for you to learn about this household life. I shall go forth from the home life into homelessness.”

Anuruddha went to his mother and told her: “Mother, I want to go forth from the home life into homelessness. Please give me your permission.”

When this was said, she told him: “You two sons of mine are dear and precious to me, not repugnant. In case of your death we should lose you against our will; but why should I give you my permission to go forth from the house life into homelessness while you are still living?” He asked a second and a third time. Then his mother said: “My dear Anuruddha, if Bhaddiya the royal Sakyan who is governing the Sakyans goes forth, you may do so too.” 5

Now Bhaddiya the royal Sakyan who was governing the Sakyans at the time was a friend of Anuruddha’s and his mother had thought: “This Bhaddiya is a friend of Anuruddha’s. He is not anxious to go forth from the home life,” which is why she had spoken as she did.

Then Anuruddha went to Bhaddiya and said: “My going forth depends on yours.”

“If your going forth depends on mine, then let it no longer be so. You and I will … well, you go forth when you like.”

“Come, let us both go forth together from the house life into homelessness.”

“I cannot. I will do anything else for you that I can. You go forth.”

“My mother has said: ‘My dear Anuruddha, if Bhaddiya the royal Sakyan who is governing the Sakyans goes forth, you may go forth too.’ And your words were these: ‘If your going forth depends on mine, then let it no longer be so. You and I will … well, you go forth when you like.’ Come, let us both go forth from the home life into homelessness.”

At that time people used to speak the truth, used to keep their word. Bhaddiya told Anuruddha: “Wait seven years. At the end of seven years both of us shall go forth.”

“Seven years is too long. I cannot wait seven years.”

“Wait six years. At the end of six years both of us shall go forth.”

“Six years is too long. I cannot wait six years.”

“Wait five years … four … three … two years … one year … seven months … two months … one month …. Wait half a month. At the end of half a month both of us shall go forth.”

“Half a month is too long. I cannot wait half a month.”

“Wait seven days. At the end of seven days both of us shall go forth. And so I can hand over the kingdom to my children and my brothers.”

“Seven days is not too long. I shall wait.”

Then Bhaddiya the royal Sakyan and Anuruddha and Ānanda and Bhagu and Kimbila and Devadatta, with Upāli the barber as seventh, set out leading a four-constituent army as though to the parade ground in the pleasure park as they were used to do. When they had gone some distance, they dismissed the army. Then they went across the border to another realm where they took off their insignia. They rolled them in an upper robe, and they told Upāli the barber: “Upāli, you had better go back. There is enough here for you to live on.”

Now on his way Upāli thought: “These Sakyans are fierce. With this they might even have me put to death as an abettor in the princes’ going forth. So these Sakyan princes are now going forth; but how about me?” He opened the bundle and hung the things on a tree, saying: “Let him who sees these take them as given.” Then   he went back to the Sakyan princes. They saw him coming, and they asked him: “Why have you returned?”

He told them what had happened, and he added: “And so I have come back again.”

“You did well not to go home, Upāli; for the Sakyans are fierce. With this they might even have had you put to death as an abettor in the Sakyan princes’ going forth.”

Then the Sakyan princes went with Upāli the barber to the Blessed One, and after paying homage to him, they sat down at one side. When they had done so, they said to the Blessed One: “Lord, we are proud Sakyans. This Upāli the barber has long attended on us. Let the Blessed One give him the going forth first so that we can pay homage to him and rise up for him and give him reverential salutation and honour. Thus the Sakyan pride will be humbled in us Sakyans.” Then the Blessed One gave the going forth first to Upāli the barber and afterwards to the Sakyan princes.

It was in the course of that rainy season that the venerable Bhaddiya realized the three true knowledges. The venerable Anuruddha aroused the divine eye. The venerable Ānanda realized the fruition of stream-entry. Devadatta produced the ordinary man’s supernormal powers.

At this time whenever the venerable Bhaddiya went into the forest or to the root of a tree or to a room that was void, he was constantly exclaiming: “Oh bliss! Oh bliss!”

A number of bhikkhus went to the Blessed One and told him about it, adding: “There seems no doubt, Lord, that the venerable Bhaddiya is leading the holy life dissatisfied. Or he is remembering his former position as ruler.”

Then the Blessed One sent for him and asked him if it was true.

“It is so, Lord.”

“But, Bhaddiya, what good do you see in doing this?” “Formerly, Lord, when I had royal status there was a well-posted guard both inside and outside the palace, and also both inside and outside the city, and also both inside and outside the district. Even though I was so guarded and protected, I was fearful, anxious, suspicious and worried. But now, Lord, when I am gone to the forest or to the root of a tree or to a room that is void, I am not fearful or anxious or suspicious or worried. I live at ease, in quiet,   dependent on others’ gifts, with a mind like a wild deer. This is the good that I see in doing this.”

Knowing the meaning of this, the Blessed One then uttered this exclamation:

Who has no longer conflict lurking in him

Will have surmounted all the kinds of being;

For he is fearless, blissful, free from sorrow.

No deity can vie with him in glory.

Vin. Cv. 7:1; cf. Ud. 2:10

FIRST VOICE. Now the venerable Nanda, the Blessed One’s half-brother, put on pressed and ironed robes, and he anointed his eyes and took a glazed bowl. Then he went to the Blessed One, and after paying homage to him, he sat down at one side. When he had done so, the Blessed One told him: “Nanda, it is not proper that you, a clansman who has gone forth out of faith from the house life into homelessness, should put on pressed and ironed robes, anoint your eyes and take a glazed bowl. What is proper for you, a clansman who has gone forth out of faith from the house life into homelessness, is to be a forest dweller, an eater only of almsfood got by begging, a wearer of refuse-rag robes, and to dwell without regard for sensual desires.”

S. 2I:8

Book on remigration

 Foreword  by Martin Sellner

Nothing can stop an idea whose time has come. And the time for remigration has clearly arrived! This term, now on everyone’s lips around the world, was first coined in France as a political rallying cry by the Identitarians. Like so many revolutionary ideas, the concept of remigration springs from the Gallic spirit. The decisive notion at the heart of the diagnosis — that of the “Great Replacement” — has already been formulated by Renaud Camus, a representative of this revolutionary people.

This “replacement migration” which the globalist establishment cynically presents as a “solution for aging societies” is in reality an unprecedented political crime with devastating consequences. This transformation of European nation-states into Islamized, multi-ethnic entities constitutes an historic catastrophe unique in its kind. It erodes the irreplaceable “social capital” founded on relative ethnocultural homogeneity. The mass naturalization of unassimilated migrants raises the question of “ethnic voting.” Demography devours democracy: we are losing our right to self-determination, and with it the possibility of a turning point. If we do not stop this process and reverse it, Europeans will become minorities in their own countries.

This diagnosis has united the European right since the beginning of the 21st century. The common enemy has given us, as Carl Schmitt put it, a figure. The question of population replacement has given rise to a community of destiny that transcends national borders. But what this identitarian and international movement long lacked was a unifying rallying cry, a clear objective toward which everything could converge. Thus came the hour of remigration.

It is profoundly significant that the rise of this idea is the fruit of a collective European effort. In the autumn of 2015, the slogan appeared for the first time on a banner in eastern Austria. Alongside fifty activists, we stood against the flood and blocked one of the routes through which millions of illegal migrants were being funneled into the heart of Europe.

The success of the term “remigration” is that of applied metapolitics. While the old New Right long contented itself with speaking of a right-wing Gramscianism, the Identitarians, from 2012 onward, put it into practice. Words are weapons, but they must first be forged. An idea becomes a blade for the mind when it is carried into the streets, painted on banners, broadcast in videos, and proclaimed through actions. The aura of political ideas must be charged through deeds. Years of tireless work, thousands of flyers, dozens of banners, and the idealism of hundreds of young women and men across Europe were indispensable to bring “remigration” out of the niche of patriotic circles and propel it right into the heart of public debate.

Millions of people now understand the same thing when they hear this term: with “remigration,” in 50 years, France will become more French again, Germany more German, and Europe more European than it is today. Remigration is therefore more than a political program. It is a mobilizing myth and a vector of unity. As the lowest common denominator, it directs, just like the lambda of the Identitarian movement, patriots from all European countries toward the same point of convergence.

Remigration is so essential because it constitutes an axis. It is the junction point between activists and political leaders, progressive dreamers and conservative pragmatists. It is the axis that links party politics to counterculture. Boomers and zoomers, men and women, Christians and pagans, socialists and libertarians find themselves united and strengthened around remigration.

What unites them is this unshakeable certainty: either remigration becomes the central axis of the political agenda, or tomorrow there will simply be no more German, Italian, or European politics.

Unlike defensive conservatives’ incessant complaints about migrant violence, cultural decline, or Islamization, the rallying cry of remigration is not limited to mere observation. It is a call to action. This is where it becomes a mobilizing myth.

Sorel writes: “The myth is not a description of things, but the expression of a will by which a man or a group gathers to act.” In other words, myths do not explain the world, but rather drive men to transform it. Compilations of facts about demographic replacement may shock us, but only myths like that of remigration inspire political action.

Why, then, do we need books on remigration? Activism in the streets and on the Internet needs to be supported by theoretical work. As Alex Kurtagić wrote: “A slogan on a poster, a punchy formula […] all rest on a theory: they are distilled from complex concepts and value systems belonging to an abstract level. Millions of words are written before a banner is unfurled, before a slogan appears in a discussion.” With my book, I was able to offer a contribution from the German-speaking world.1  With Jean-Yves Le Gallou, it is now a Frenchman who in turn presents his own conception, thus completing the loop in the elaboration of this notion.

With typically French clarity and a brilliant command of language, he examines the phenomenon from every angle. He considers both the legitimacy of remigration based on our several-thousand-year-old European history and its logistical and legal feasibility. On the decisive points, our conceptions of remigration fully coincide. We demand the immediate halt of all new immigration (“the great pause”), the expulsion of illegal migrants and criminals, the dismantling of parallel societies, and the fight against Islamization. When it comes to the sensitive question that “moderate” right-wing leaders often avoid, Jean-Yves Le Gallou does not mince words. Unassimilated, hostile citizens who have been wrongly naturalized constitute a problem that a serious remigration policy cannot evade. Le Gallou naturally respects the principles of the rule of law and shows that there are many constitutional paths to exert pressure on such hostile parallel communities.

This manifesto is all the more valuable because its author is one of vast erudition and reasons on the scale of millennia. He deepens the foundation of the legitimacy of remigration and specifies the political-legal implications necessary for its implementation. In the 21st century, remigration is morally anchored in the unbroken historical continuity of European peoples on their continent. A line unfolds over more than 40,000 years: from the Western Hunter-Gatherers (WHG) to the Yamnaya, to the Early European Farmers (EEF). Expressed by a Frenchman, this decried — even “heretical” — message may perhaps be more easily receivable to a German audience: “We are the indigenous people of Europe.”

The “JUGEXIT” is also a decisive contribution to the theory of remigration. The dictatorship of judges is targeted without restraint. With striking clarity, this book explains how the invocation of the “rule of law,” when diverted from its meaning, becomes in reality a double negation of national sovereignty and popular sovereignty. A caste of judges, never directly elected, permeated by a progressive and globalist ideology, has seized control of migration policy. This is a coup d’état which has wrested from millions of Europeans control over their borders and their people.

This “government of judges” systematically obstructs deportations by ignoring — to the benefit of migrants — threats to public safety. It blocks laws aimed at limiting family reunification or combating welfare abuse. This dictatorship of judges transforms Europe into a ship of fools. Its motto is: “Fiat justitia, pereat mundus” — let justice be done, though the world may perish. Abstract principles are imposed without regard for their collective consequences.

This is why the demand for a JUGEXIT as formulated by Le Gallou imposes itself as a necessary consequence. We must return to the primacy of the nation and to the right of European peoples to historical continuity.

This book is a precious intellectual fuel, fit to further feed the fire of remigration. I am grateful for this welcome French support in the metapolitical battle for this idea. Others must follow.

All of the European intelligentsia is now called upon to develop political projects for remigration. We need analyses of the economic benefits. We need a comprehensive database and an assimilation tracking tool in order to develop detailed remigration programs. We need in-depth historical studies on remigration projects throughout world history. And we need justifications — in political science, philosophy, and on moral grounds — of the notion of peoplehood, of ethnocultural continuity, and of the deportation of foreigners.

This project is the vastest and most decisive in all of European history. One example is sufficient to convey its urgency: in 2025, Germany had 83 million inhabitants, yet there remain only about 11 million German women under the age of 40 without a migration background. This is less than the population of Germany in 1684, in the immediate aftermath of the Thirty Years’ War. The birth rate of these 11 million would be between 1 and 1.3. The next generation of women will therefore not exceed 6 million. From 80 million in theory to 6 million in only two generations. We are living in a demographic illusion, a mere optical effect created by the “majority” of baby boomers. When they disappear, the balance will tip. Our countries already carry within them a multi-ethnic state dominated by Islam. In 20 years, most baby boomers will be dead. This is the disturbing truth the media hide from us: we have only a window of 15 to 20 years to save our 40,000-year-old European heritage.

All the great battles of the last two millennia pale in comparison. All the great victories of the last two millennia will be worth nothing if we lose this fight. Neither Thermopylae, nor Tours and Poitiers, nor Vienna, nor Lepanto were more important than our struggle for remigration is today.

Over the next 20 years, the hopes and sufferings, the faith, blood, sweat, and tears of tens of thousands of years will converge toward a single point. This is the decisive message of this book, addressed to each reader: Europe must unite under the banner of remigration and accomplish this monumental work, or else it will sink forever into failure.2

**

Remigration: A Mobilizing Myth  

The only battles one is sure to lose are those which one does not fight. Remigration is a mobilizing myth. It affirms the right of Europeans to not be “Great-Replaced” or colonized. It affirms Europeans’ right to historical and cultural continuity. And let us be clear: the choice is between remigration or submersion. Without remigration, Europeans will become minorities in their own lands between 2050 and 2100, depending on the country. We have no right to leave this to the generations that are coming. This is the meaning of the message brought forth by the powerful Dutch influencer Eva Vlaardingerbroek: “Being at home in your own country and being safe there is not a privilege, it is your right, and therefore I demand to take back possession of my country. We Europeans must demand and reclaim our countries. I was born in 1996 and I am part of the Remigration generation.”

Jean-Yves Le Gallou

**

Consciousness of Being European  

The European Union is part of the problem, but European consciousness, the consciousness of being European, is one of the keys to the solution. Let us open our eyes: nationality has become meaningless, cheapened by birthright citizenship and naturalizations of convenience. What does it mean to be French when some speak of their (presumed) compatriots as “céfrans” or “gwers”?6 What does it mean to be German for those who bear the title but first pledge allegiance to Istanbul? What does it mean to be Swedish when your “countrymen” cover you with shame in the Danish islands? What is the value of being Irish when, after two centuries of emancipation struggle and a century of independence, the country finds itself overwhelmed by populations from elsewhere? What future is there for a Briton when his new “fellow citizens” intend to impose sharia on him? Hence, in patriotic demonstrations across the United Kingdom, the gradual replacement of the Union Jack by the Cross of Saint George (English), the Welsh dragon, or the Norman leopards of Sussex.

Nationality bound to citizenship has been cheapened; it is no longer sufficient to define identity. Other criteria must therefore now be used: origin, civilization, culture, religion. And to answer Samuel Huntington’s question in Who Are We?: we are Whites. White Europeans. White European Christians. Each person can then express this civilizational belonging through language and history, according to their national expression: French, German, English, Italian, Spanish, Flemish, Portuguese, Irish, Danish, Swedish, Finnish, Czech, Slovak, Hungarian, Polish, Baltic, Romanian, or Croatian…

The Chain of Solidarity of Peoples in Revolt  

These different expressions must not oppose each other, but converge. Europeans must stop quarreling over who gets stuck with the hot potato of invasion and distributing migrants that no one (rightly) wants. They must stop limiting themselves to pushing back, beyond the Alps or the Channel, illegal immigrants whose place is outside Europe. European realities demand a European response. Not the one promoted by the Brussels bureaucracy, but just the opposite. A chain of solidarity of peoples in revolt must be built: from the demonstrations in Dresden to those in London, from Dublin to Lisbon, from Porto to Warsaw, from Amsterdam to Krakow, or from Callac to Bélâbre (in rural France). Similarly, the growing solidarity between dissident governments and alternative political forces should be welcomed. No country in isolation will be able to escape a fundamentally cross-border phenomenon.

At Home Among Our Own  

In a depressed Europe, remigration can be a mobilizing myth, a project bearing hope. The hope of finding one’s country again, of reclaiming one’s history, of fully living one’s culture and civilization — with one’s peers and one’s own kind. The hope also of rediscovering the trust necessary to live in peace, the joy of walking the streets without fear.”

At home among our own” could be the slogan of remigration: understanding one another in one’s own neighborhood and sharing the same customs and traditions; allowing women to move freely, without needing reserved train cars or taxis; enabling young White boys to play football again without risking stab wounds; going to the swimming pool without being subjected to the antics of troublemakers; moving closer to a society with more freedom and less surveillance; gaining easier access to housing; finding reduced waiting times for care and less crowded emergency services; refocusing public assistance on our own and not on others. 

After the failure of living together, which became a living side by side, then a living face to face, let us rediscover the happiness of being among ourselves. This is also the condition for rediscovering Philia, civic friendship between citizens, the sharing of common values that allows, according to Aristotle, for avoiding discord and civil war. It also means responding to the expectations of the young generation that looks with nostalgia at sepia photos from the 1960s: an era they did not know, when Europeans still lived among Europeans, sharing the same customs, the same traditions, the same culture, and the same values. Finally, it is a matter of assuming one’s duty: transmitting to one’s descendants the heritage one has received.

Remigration: A Mobilizing Myth with Wind in its Sails  

Remigration is the myth that can empower peoples to take back the power seized by oligarchies. It is a double reconquest of sovereignty. First, internal sovereignty, that of the people, through the humbling of the mediacracy and the dictatorship of judges: JUGEXIT. Then, external sovereignty, through the revision of European treaties according to a triple orientation: the effective implementation of the principle of subsidiarity, implying a strict limitation of the competences devolved to the European Union; the primacy of national constitutions; the strengthening of the European Council, in accordance with the logic defended by Hungarian and Polish conservative circles.

European Identitarians, Unite! Remigration entered the field of political debate in 2014–2015. Ten years later, in 2025, three summits devoted to remigration were held in Milan, Oslo (in the presence of Renaud Camus), and Porto. Very many political formations, reaching up to 38% of the vote in Austria, have included remigration in their program: the FPÖ (Austria), the AfD (Germany), the SDS (Slovenia), Vlaams Belang (Flanders), the Forum for Democracy (Netherlands), the Sweden Democrats, the Democrats of Norway, the Danish People’s Party, Vox (Spain), Chega (Portugal), the Lega (Italy), Reconquête (France), the Homeland Party (Great Britain), as well as Law and Justice (PiS) in Poland. These parties work together in the European Parliament, associated either with the Patriots group, the Sovereign Nations group, or the European Conservatives and Reformists group. 

The American “big brother” is not disinterested in this struggle of White Europeans. Elon Musk participated via video conference in the great demonstration in London on September 13, 2025 under the slogan “Unite the Kingdom.” President Trump, on many occasions, and Vice President J. D. Vance, in his Munich speech (Spring 2025), have underscored the risk that the demographic submersion of Europe poses to civilization. Moreover, American policy shows that the reversal of migratory flows is possible, since they are now implementing it. But one must have the will to do so. Hence the importance of developing a common consciousness. European identitarians, unite!

Europeans today share a common mythology, drawing on Celtic, Anglo-Saxon, Germanic, Finnish, and Greek sources, while being inspired by Christian themes. This mythology finds a powerful expression in J. R. R. Tolkien’s The Lord of the Rings. They must heed the call to the “free peoples of the West” raised by King Théoden at the dawn of the Battle of the Pelennor Fields:

“Arise, arise, riders of Rohan!”

Reemigration: For A Europe For Our Children 

Jean-Yves Le Gallou