Whom Did Satan Give Authority of the World to?

Luke 4:5–7 (NKJV): 5 Then the devil, taking Him up on a high mountain, showed Him all the kingdoms of the world in a moment of time. 6 And the devil said to Him, “All this authority I will give You, and their glory; for this has been delivered to me, and I give it to whomever I wish. 7 Therefore, if You will worship before me, all will be Yours.”

Scripture says the devil was a liar from the beginning, and is the father of lies (John 8:44), but how do we know that Satan was lying to Jesus? Scripture also plainly states that man should not love the world or anything in it (John 2:15).

The point isn't to determine if Satan was lying to Jesus about his authority to give the world to whom he pleased, rather to wonder whom he gave the world if he did have such authority.

Thoughts?

Moralizing White Nationalism

I stumbled into White Nationalism circa 2006. There wasn't any particular happenstance that resulted in my interest, I just always seemed to inherently find myself viewing an increasingly diverse society through a racial lens.

Perhaps one of the biggest misconceptions about White Nationalism on an individual level is that it's a reactionary position based on causation, due to either multicultural victimization, or being seduced by some form of antiquated, familial indoctrination. Of course this isn't a coincidence, it's a socially engineered ad hominem fallacy used to deter Whites from being pro-White: “Oh, you're a 'racist,' did you get assaulted by a black guy, or was your grandpa in the KKK?” An unprovoked worldview in support of White homogeneity is implausible reasoning within the conformity guidelines of the status quo.

Due to the perpetual onslaught of anti-White propaganda that has flooded the Western conscious via the subverted information systems over the last 60 years, the concept of White people wanting to be racially exclusive triggers immense cognitive dissonance within the average person's psyche. The argument can be made that “diversity is our strength” and “we all bleed red” have replaced “land of the free” and “home of the brave” as characterized mantras of neo-Americanism.

Personally speaking, my journey into White Nationalism began after an internet search of a local politician accused of doing a racism directed me to the forum Stormfront. Mind you, this was long before search engine censorship attempted to manipulate people's curiosities algorithmically. Therefore, interest on a variety of topics could lead one to such a website and ultimately pique their curiosity into the foundational ideology of the platform (hence the reason for censorship years later). I've personally known people who had very little interest in race who became race realists after their interest in pantheism and Nietzsche resulted in Google sending them to Stormfront as well.

Furthermore, up until that point, I had this media-induced stereotype ingrained in my mind that these “White Nationalists” were just a bunch of dumb skinheads and rednecks with a collective IQ of 78. Instead, what I quickly learned was that White Nationalism was a byproduct of intellectualism, motivated by the quest for unadulterated truth. Of course, like all intellectual movements, many of these people were eccentric, anti-social personality types, but that was the stage of the game at that point in time. It was the exchange of ideas that was needed to pave the way for future generations by seeding propaganda in support of an existential ideology that was forged with group survival in mind.

In those days, White Nationalism was a thinktank, not a movement. In fact, way back in January of 2014 I had my first paper published on Occidental Observer titled Is White Nationalism Real?, based on the premise that White Nationalism was just the exchange of ideas on the internet:

Theoretically, White Nationalism is the political ideology supporting the formation of a homogeneous state or “homeland” for the White race. Although the definition might vary somewhat, the concept is universally consistent. Obviously the philosophy is real, but is the movement endorsing the dogma a reality? Is White Nationalism figurative terminology in efforts to make the ideology more socially acceptable (i.e. “I’m a White Nationalist, not a racist”), or is it an actual movement?

I was somewhat jaded, because it seemed like all anyone wanted to do was argue on the internet about things that had been argued about a thousand times already. You couldn't even convince anyone to meet you for a beer. I couldn't see the forest through the trees. I was naive to the systemic consequences involved with revolutionary ideas, and the fear of social ostracization that made a lot of people really paranoid. And after reading books like Hoffer's The True Believer, I developed a better understanding of the psychology behind the personality types that were attracted to fringe movements. It takes a certain kind of person to be “racist” in an explicitly anti-racist world.

In the conclusion of my paper, I posited that White Nationalism wasn't “real” because it hadn't been experienced:

In conclusion, the term “real” is defined as having actual physical existence. With a very few minor exceptions, the White Nationalist movement would be better defined as a hobby of like-minded idealists. The reality of an all-White homeland in the foreseeable future (in America) is comparable to finding the end of a rainbow….

“Nothing ever becomes real until it is experienced” ~ John Keats

Hindsight is always 20/20. If you had told me back then that the political landscape would be what it is today, I'd probably accuse you of lying. I remember having a conversation with a Bob Whitaker disciple around that time period, and I asked him to give me an optimistic forecast for where he would like to see us in 10 years. He said, “If the mainstream media is using our talking points and terminology, that would be big. If they just referred to us as 'White Nationalists' or 'pro-White' and we can defeat their term 'racist,' that would be a huge victory.” He was one of those guys who would just go around repeating “anti-racist is just a code word for anti-white” to anyone who would listen. The term “racist” has definitely lost its sting, mostly because I think people have slowly realized that the “R word” is just the “N word” for White people.

I seldom write these days. Maybe one piece a year. I'm not very ingenuitive, and when you're an “oldhead” like me, a lot of dissident discourse becomes redundant. But occasionally something will spark the creative juices, and I'll dust off the keyboard and spend a day pecking away. Case in point, Counter Currents recently published an article titled Alt-Right Nostalgia that was an enjoyable and rather reminiscent read. The author touched on some things that I've discussed in this paper, and consequently instigated a personal pause for reflection:

Occasionally, I miss the romance of fighting a battle against seemingly impossible odds. The movement is in a different phase. We’ve won the debate and our ideas have conquered the internet. In a way, the fun part is over. The road ahead to the next level is going to involve some mundane normie politicking that requires engaging with the system and a long march through the GOP.

He references the romantic age of the Alt-Right era of 2016-2019. Those were certainly fun times to be involved in dissident politics. Lots of street activism. Tons of entertaining podcasts and digital media content with very little censorship. And for the first time since my involvement, the adage “getting White Nationalists together is like herding cats,” didn't apply. There was an aroma of optimism in the air.

This Dissident Right, or whatever we shall have to call ourselves now, was founded by political theory nerds who arrived at White Nationalism after a long ideological journey. “I started out as a normie conservative, then read Atlas Shrugged and was a libertarian for a few years. I was into Moldbug for a little while and then got redpilled on race after watching some Molyneux videos. Then I found Jared Taylor and here I am.”

While many probably see that bygone era as the catalyst for the mundane march politicking through the GOP that lies ahead, I personally rewind back further to those early Stormfront days as the formative years that paved that ideological road for future success (I assume those before me are going to rewind it back further, before the internet). You never really know what is going to become relevant, and what's not. So many of those ideas that were so passionately debated at the time ended up being completely irrelevant in the grand scheme of things. You can draw up the perfect societal system on paper, but until the unpredictable variant (humans) is inserted into that equation, you don't know what the question will be. This has always been the argument for and against communism. When faced with the atrocities of communism, communists always point out that “true” communism has never actually been implemented.

It's so crazy to see some of those talking points that nobody knew anything about 20 years ago be used in the mainstream today. Those big-brain political theory nerds, like Bob Whitaker and Horus, used to preach about the importance of staying on a consistent message, and how propaganda typically took about 15 years to have an impact on public opinion. Our side was playing 4D chess long before that term became popularized in 2016. Nonetheless, intellectual movements just provide the ideological framework necessary to nudge the pendulum of power. At some point, conclusions are reached when the variants of unpredictability become known, and that intellectual candle slowly burns out. As the writer of the Alt-Right Nostalgia piece accurately points out, dumbing down is an unavoidable part of the mainstreaming process:

That said, I also remember the bad times of the Alt Right. The sociopaths and constantly having to run cover for the latest self-inflicted PR disaster. After having been in the game as long as I have, I’ll take the boring but stable normiefied Dissident Right of today over interesting yet volatile counter-culture era Alt Right. Being edgy was fun but I’m ready to be a normie now. The whole mission was to get the ideas to this point.

But to be honest, yes, something has been lost in the mainstreaming process. In many ways, the level of intellectual discourse has dropped since back in the good old days. There have been rumblings about “low-IQ antisemitism.” That might mean different things to different people. Sometimes the term is used disingenuously and sometimes it’s referring to a real phenomenon that might or might not be a serious issue. It’s normal to accuse your factional rivals of being a dumb version of what your faction believes. Still, it is deniable that the level of discourse in the right-wing ecosphere has dropped a grade or two. Going from Kevin McDonald to Lucas Gage is a step down intellectually. Science-heavy Human Biodiversity stuff has become less fashionable, and the leading influencers are less dynamic thinkers than back in the day. I don’t think it is an unreasonable critique to say that the scene has gotten dumber.

Some of the dumbing down may be an unavoidable part of the mainstreaming process. Some of it is not. Some of it we might be able to remedy and some of it we simply cannot.

“The whole mission was to get the ideas to this point,” is the perfect summation of pre-2020 White Nationalism, and dissident politics in general. The exchange of ideas is over. There were certainly lots of pessimistic times during that period. Honestly, you pretty much had to be a pessimist to even get involved in White Nationalist politics pre-2016. But the good thing about pessimism is it reduces expectation. It has been said that happiness is results minus expectation. And demoralization is usually the result of failed expectations.

When I embarked on my intellectual journey I was already college educated, but I never really learned anything meaningful until I dove head first into White Nationalism. And that isn't to say I just learned how to regurgitate White Nationalist ideology, I learned philosophy, psychology, political theory, science, genetics, theology, human biodiversity, the JQ, economics, geography, migration patterns, finance, etc, which all supported the morality of my worldview. I could count the number of books I had read on two fingers, and my writing skills were elementary at best. I became an accomplished writer and have read hundreds of books. I lived in a very diverse metropolis, and relocated to a predominately White rural area. I fathered White children. I adhered to a pro-White code of conduct. It's highly improbable that any of these things would have happened had I not become interested in White Nationalism. To say that White Nationalism hasn't had a profound impact on my life would be a drastic understatement. I was (and still am) a true believer that White people should have the right to self determination.

Wise Old Owl

The Prophet Habakkuk

Habakkuk 2:18 What profit is an idol when its maker has shaped it, a metal image, a teacher of lies? For a maker trusts in his own creation when he makes speechless idols!

God's 1st commandment is Thou shalt have no other gods before me. (Exodus 20:3)

As Christians we should always put God first. 

Many think of statues or other inanimate objects when they consider God's 1st commandment, but anything/anyone can be your God.

What/Who do you worship?

All glory be to God, the one true God. The creator. The one who sent the perfect sacrifice for his imperfect creation so he could remarry his people and keep the covenant with his elected bride.

God's grace is sovereign. We must pray that before we entered the womb he chose to have grace upon our soul.

All glory be to God!

Crypto-Eugenics

All effective socially engineered programs are designed to be multifaceted in order to appeal to a diverse set of perspectives. The goal of social engineering isn't to establish the moral high ground, or to only attract the true believers, but rather to manipulate the attitudes of people on a large scale. There are several examples of social engineering that could be referenced to illustrate the point, but one of the best is illegal immigration.

The catalyst driving illegal immigration is capitalism (max profits via cheap labor). Thus, greedy capitalists fund the social engineers who “muddy the waters” by putting various “baits” in the cultural sphere in order to politically and morally polarize an issue that at the causative core essentially has nothing to do with either politics or morality. But if you were to talk to the average American about the illegal immigration issue, you would get some version of divisive tripe, such as, “Democrats are importing voters. Build the Wall!,” or “Borders are racist! Everyone has a right to be an American.” Meanwhile, there are 30 million illegal immigrants, sanctuary states, $150 billion per year in welfare and social services for illegal immigrants, unprecedented demographic change (88% white in 1970s to 57% white today) and citizens are left scratching their heads trying to figure it all out. They end up hashing it out on social media platforms, arguing about whether or not “White people stole America from the Indians,” or if “Democrats are the real racists,” instead of the fundamental causation. That's social engineering 101.

Another rather obvious example of systemic social engineering is the promotion and endorsement of the transgender/homosexual movement. Back in 2017, at the beginning of the transgender era, I wrote a piece titled The Trans/Sociopath Overlap, in which I presented the hypothesis that there was a large overlap between transgenders and sociopaths:

When you consider that homosexuals and sociopaths represent roughly the same percentage of the population (about 2% of the U.S. population is homosexual), and exhibit many of the same personality traits and characteristics (narcissism, high suicide rates, Machiavellian, disregard for personal safety, etc) it's almost analytically impossible to ignore the possibility that there may be a huge overlap between the two groups. In fact, the majority may be one in the same. This observation led me to pose the following hypothesis: All sociopaths are LGBTQ, and most LGBTQ are sociopaths.

It goes without saying that sociopaths are generally bad for a society (although from an evolutionary standpoint sociopathic traits have a reproductive advantage). Sociopaths transitioning into transgenders eliminates that reproductive advantage, and could drastically decrease the number of sociopaths in future generations. I'm not the only one who knows this, people in positions of power are aware of this too.

Interestingly, Google deleted that piece from its original publication source several years after it had been published, which highlights the depths of the systemic collusion that is mandatory for the regulation of nonsensical ideas (modern day book burning). Dissenters who refuse to conform to the new truth are censored, slandered and accused of “spreading misinformation.” That means they really don't want any negative opinions or views to be accessible to the public, even though it's blatantly obvious to pretty much everyone that individuals with their souls “trapped” in the wrong body are experiencing a permanent out-of-body experience. If you were permanently trapped in your neighbor's house, painting the outside a different color doesn't magically make it your house.

Furthermore, if you were to be examined by a medical professional and you said you were a specific person trapped in the wrong body (e.g. “I'm John Lennon trapped in Jane Doe's body.”), you would be institutionalized immediately (or at the very least, diagnosed with mental illness and heavily medicated). But as long as the person being held hostage in the wrong body is just the wrong gender, then that's perfectly understandable. The hostage negotiators (doctors) get called in, and once the ransom is paid, they cut the penis off to liberate her soul. Never mind the fact that every honest doctor knows that scalpels don't cure psyche issues, instead it actually exasperates psychological distress:

So-called "gender-affirming surgery" could lead to potentially dangerous mental health effects, a new study has found.

Transgender individuals face "heightened psychological distress," including depression, anxiety and suicidal ideation, "partly due to stigma and lack of gender affirmation," as stated in the study, which was published in The Journal of Sexual Medicine.

They determined rates of depression, anxiety, suicidal ideation and substance-use disorders were "significantly higher" among those who underwent surgery, assessed two years later.

Males with surgery had depression rates of 25% compared to males without surgery (11.5%). Anxiety rates among that group were 12.8% compared to 2.6%.

Just as with the illegal immigration issue, the “powers that be” aren't ignorant to reality. While collectively many pretend to be, individually they know the same thing that you and I know: transgenders are schizophrenics and homosexuals are sexual deviants. Therefore, the question becomes: Why do they enable and promote LGBTQ if it isn't a positive for society? The answer to that question is that it does do something positive for society. LGBTQ is a state-sponsored eugenics psyop (cryptoeugenics) designed to bring undesirables out of the closet, and consequently, out of the gene pool.

The innovation of modern medicine has allowed seeds the were to have never sprouted to bear fruit (IVF, fertility surgery, artificial insemination, intracytoplasmic sperm injection, etc). And not only due to leaps and bounds in the medical field, but the massive decline of war and famine, along with the luxuries of modern civilization, have eliminated most of the evolutionary pressures associated with natural selection. These by-products of modernity, combined with technological advancements like automation and AI, are doing the same thing to the human workforce that the cotton gin did to slavery. In other words, kings don't need armies, factories don't need workers and the family farm doesn't need twelve kids to operate.

It's important to note that there's a fine line between the correlation of eugenics and depopulation theory. While eugenics (the aim to improve the genetic quality of the human population) and depopulation theory (the aim to reduce the human population) may on the surface seem to be mutually exclusive, they are not. Rather, when merged, they are mutually inclusive. Those in power who are responsible for the social engineering taking place are both eugenicists and depopulationists. To be more precise, cryptoeugenics is the practice to both better the stock and decrease the population simultaneously (quality > quantity).

There are a plethora of reasons behind the motivations for depopulation. Towards the end of the COVID pandemic, I wrote a rather extensive depopulation thesis titled Depopulation for Dummies, that was published on several notable sites, in which I elaborated in great detail on the motivations for depopulation by elites. In the midst of doing so, I developed the following thesis using the Hegelian Dialectic (problem, reaction, solution):

The PTB have scientifically reached the conclusion that human overpopulation has placed the planet in an existential crisis. They’ve determined that if drastic population control measures aren’t enacted soon, irreparable damage to the planet and its ecosystem is inevitable. They intend to address this issue in three phases: 1. Socially-engineered sterilization, 2. Technological escapism, 3. Space Emigration. We are in Phase 1 and on the verge of entering Phase 2.

Before you pass off depopulation as some cooky conspiracy theory, I highly encourage you to read the piece. Not as a solicitation of my work, but because I quoted at least 15 very powerful elites who are on record making statements regarding overpopulation. Including one of the world's richest men, Jeff Bezos, who founded a company called Blue Origin, in which he predicted that earth will soon become a nature reserve.

Amazon Founder and space explorer Blue Origin owner Jeff Bezos, recently forecasted that Earth will soon become a “natural resort.”

According to a WION report Bezos said, this planet will soon turn into a natural resort because only a few “will be allowed to stay here in the future.”

During the annual Ignatius Forum in Washington DC, the billionaire also said, the Earth is special and “we cannot ruin it.”Talking about Blue Origin, his new firm, Bezos explained the experts are aiming to make sure that millions of people get to not only work in space but be born and call space as their first home, as well.Bezos also explained millions of people will move from Earth to space over time. More so, it is the vision of Blue Origin to make millions of people work in space.

For hundreds of years, he added, most, or many of the people “will be born in space.” It will be these humans’ first home. More so, they will be born in these colonies, not to mention, they will live in such colonies.

These people may visit this planet the way one would visit a national park, forecasted Bezos. He believes the space colonies in the future will have forests, wildlife, and rivers of their own, a similar Republicworld.com report said.

Describing his prediction, Bezos said this planet can support, for example, 10 billion people to a certain level. He elaborated they’d have to work quite hard to find out how to do that without degrading the Earth. Ge added the solar system can “support a trillion people.”Even though the billionaire is relatively positive about taking humanity to space and keeping this planet for a selected few, he was uncertain about claiming who is to decide who’s staying on this planet.

The collaboration of eugenics and depopulation is self-evident when viewed through the lens of motivation. All social movements of relevance require motivation. This is why AI will never take over the world: it lacks the innate sense of motivation to do so. Even the most elementary analysis of the establishment's promotion of LGBTQ should reveal that it's something way more sinister than a love for sodomy and schizophrenia. When the emotional charge is extracted from the equation, the only tangible sum of the rainbow pride initiative is negative birth rates.

Certainly there are other arguments to be made regarding the establishment's endorsement of LGBTQ. It's definitely not a accident that the rainbow is their banner, and “pride” their mantra. In the Bible, the rainbow serves as a visible reminder of God's covenant to preserve life on earth (Genesis 9:8-11). And even those who don't know scripture are aware that anti-pride is one of the central themes of the Bible, illustrated explicitly in the proverb, “Pride goeth before destruction...” (Proverbs 16:18). The irony itself is so overwhelming that the cognitive dissonance leaves you analytically cross-eyed. To the objective observer, this alone should clue you in that something is going on behind the scenes that doesn't translate into, “We don't have any ulterior motives, we just love gay people because they're gay.”

Of course, there is a spiritual component to this. It's not a coincidence that there is a mockery of Christianity within a sect of the establishment. The blasphemers have their own agenda (they hate Jesus Christ). There's obviously an element of truth to that. Just as there is an element of truth that some of those who are in favor of illegal immigration support white genocide. As I stated previously, this is an example of sound social engineering. The issue is polarized emotionally and packaged as a badge of honor for the recipient to pin proudly on their chest for all to see. It wouldn't be social engineering if there wasn't a smoke screen. The peasantry would understand that greedy capitalists are responsible for lower wages, higher taxes and white genocide. And LGBTQs would realize that they're being gaslighted into not reproducing, in what is essentially a modern day MK Ultra experiment using homosexuality practices as birth control in place of psychoactive drugs to illicit confessions during interrogations.

The science has concluded that sexuality is fluid. Therefore, contradictory to the accepted idea that sexual orientation is genetic, LGBTQ is a sexual behavior directly attributed to an individual's free will.

Research indicates that sexual orientation is not a matter of choice but rather a combination of genetic and biological factors. For instance, studies have shown that there are genetic markers associated with sexual orientation, such as the Xq28 region on the X chromosome. However, a large-scale genetic study involving nearly half a million people found no single gene or handful of genes that predict same-sex sexual behavior, suggesting that genetics may have a limited contribution to sexual orientation.

To understand how manipulative social engineers are, read the above cited paragraph carefully. While you'll certainly catch the obvious contradictory double-speak, notice the mention of “genetic and biological factors,” but no mention of any environmental factors. Yet we know that social engineering is primarily responsible for converting almost 40% of Gen Z (18-24) to LGBTQ. Historically, the percentage of homosexuals within the population has consistently been around 2%. Even if you take the highest estimates, like those of Alfred Kinsey in the 1940s, who estimated that roughly 10% of the population was homosexual (Kinsey was one of the first people to acknowledge sexual fluidity; his methodology was discredited due to disproportionately polling prisoners and male prostitutes), that's still significantly less that 40%, which is an astonishing figure. What will those numbers be in five years? How about 50 years?

LGBTQ as a cause is social, but as an effect it's undeniably evolutionary. This begs the question(s): if LGBTQ is in fact a state-sponsored cryptoeugenics psyop, does that change the way you feel about the systemic sponsorship of homosexuality? Should right-wingers start zealously waving the rainbow flag as if we've scored an evolutionary touchdown? What if it eliminates 90% of sociopaths from the gene pool, and like abortion did for NYC in the 1990s, drastically reduce murder and overall crime rates? Maybe leftists are right, and the power structure is rooted in white supremacy.

In conclusion, a rational way to objectively analyze the “LGBTQ is a state-sponsored cryptoeugenics” is to ask yourself this: If you wanted to discreetly implement a depopulation by eugenics program that required voluntary participation, and you wanted to attract as many susceptible people as you possibly could, how would you do it?

A wise man once said: you catch more flies with honey than you do vinegar.

Romans 6:12-14

Romans 6:12-14 Do not let sin control the way you live, do not give in to its lustful desires. Do not let any part of your body become a tool of wickedness, to be used for sinning. Instead, give yourselves completely to God since you have been given new life. And use your whole body as a tool to do what is right for the glory of God. Sin is no longer your master, for you are no longer subject to the law, which enslaves you to sin. Instead you are free by God's grace.

What a powerful message in the book of Romans.

"Sin is no longer your master," unless you choose to be a slave to it. 

Are you a master or a slave? 

God gave us the free will to be a master or slave. 

Do not let sin control the way you live. 

Do not allow yourself to become a tool for wickedness.

It is hard, as our nature is sinful.

All of our desires come from our sinful nature. We did not choose to be sinful, that choice was made for us by Eve.

Thankfully, Jesus Christ came to redeem his people from sin by offering himself as the perfect sacrifice for a wretched people. 

Our only hope is in the salvation of Jesus Christ through the faith of God's grace. 

All glory to God!

  

Sunday Sermon: Reformation Thelogy