One time we will wake up. However, it is not our body that wakes up, as it remains in the place where everyone else is. But who then wakes up? It is us, our soul. So, in that first moment, we will not even notice that we have passed away, as it will be as if we had woken up, like every day, after a good night’s sleep. However, we will start to notice some strange things, like talking and people not listening to us. Then, it may be that we remember someone who is not present with us in the place where we wake up, and suddenly that person will appear to us. When that happens, we’ll say, “Wow! What happened? How bizarre! What is this?”. After a while, this starts to cause us a certain fear and despair, because soon after we will realize: “Wow, look at me lying there, pale and stinking. It is my body that is there!”. In that moment we will be really desperate. At the height of this despair, we will pass out.

When we wake up from this fainting, we will no longer be seeing anything from this world or the place we are in, we will not be listening to anyone else, we will move but we will not be able to see our hand, we will try to grab our chest and we will not feel it in any way. In short, we will be in total and complete darkness, and some processes will begin.

When we are dead, and if we are in the situation we are describing, we will not even know if the things that can satisfy our desires still exist, because all we will see is a black, a darkness. It will be as if we are now with our eyes closed, however, we will feel that our eyes are open.

Also, at the beginning of the 20th century, England not only provoked the First World War, having in mind to destroy its imperialist competitor (Germany), but later prolonged the war by three and a half years more.

Moreover, the organization of this plan was the work of a secret society composed of people from the nobility, great capitalists and a mega intellectual named Alfred Milner, who although he had no money was really the boss of the thing because he was the most intelligent. And the aim of this society was to create the conditions for the Anglo-Saxon race to dominate the world. Not only was it a mega imperialist plan, it also ushered in the era of genocide. Because in the war they waged against the boers in South Africa, despite the fact that later they wanted to agree to a surrender, just like Kitchener, the british commander in charge, an instruction came from Milner and others in the secret society that he should kill until the last, so it was evidently a war of extermination.

I suggest you reading: “Hidden History: The Secret Origins of the First World War” by Gerry Docherty and James MacGregor, and “The Anglo-American Establishment” by Carroll Quigley (Quigley was Bill Clinton’s history professor, and wrote until then the most important book on the globalist elite that is Tragedy and Hope, in which he defends the globalist elite, he just didn’t want it to be secret)

In my readings, few questions impressed me as the one that gives the title to the second part of José Ortega y Gasset’s La Rebelión de las Masas: “Quién manda en el mundo?”

The philosopher did not formulate it in a metaphysical sense, where it could be answered by something like “God”, “chance”, “fatality”, but in a geopolitical sense, and came to the conclusion that it was a pity that Europe had lost its position, leading the way to Russia and the United States.

The answer seemed out of place with the question. States, nations, governments and continents do not rule. The bosses are the individuals and groups that control them. Before geo-politics comes tout court politics. And then everything gets complicated formidably. It is easy to see which states or countries prevail over others. But finding out who really rules in one state or country — and through it in others — is a more daunting intellectual challenge than the usual political analyst can imagine.

The verb “command” comes from the Latin manus dare: the commander lends his means of action (his “hand”) to others to do something he has thought. A ruler gives orders to his subordinates, but upon closer examination you will see that only very rare rulers in history — a Napoleon, a Stalin, a Reagan — were themselves the creators of the ideas they came up with. Early theorists of the modern state got it right when they invented the term “executive power”: the man of government is usually the executor
of ideas that he did not conceive of, nor would he have the ability — or the time — to conceive. And those who conceived these ideas were the same ones who gave him the means to reach the government to realize them. Who are they?

Applying the question to the specific case of the United States, the sociologist Charles Wright Mills, one of the New Left mentors, published in 1956 the book that would become a classic: The Power Elite. The answer he found took the form of a complicated plot of groups, families, businesses, official and unofficial secret services, sects, clubs, churches, and ostentatious and discreet personal relationship circles, including lovers and call girls. The political class, which culminated in the person of the nominal
ruler, appeared there as the foam on the surface of dark waters. Mills was obviously on the right track. But he died in 1962 and did not have the opportunity to witness a phenomenon that he himself helped produce: the New Left itself became the power elite and lost all interest in “transparency.” On the contrary: it has worked its opacity to the point of having placing a complete stranger in the presidency of the most powerful country in the world and surrounding it with a protective wall that blocks every attempt to find out who it is, what it has done, who it is with, and what interests it represents. If you want an idea of what the power elite is doing in the United States, you need to look for information at the other
end of the ideological spectrum: conservatives are the current heirs to the tradition of study inaugurated by Wright Mills. It is thanks to them that today the fabian globalist elite, the living nucleus of power behind virtually all western governments, has become visible in its composition and in details of its modus operandi to the point of near obscenity, involuntarily comical the insistence of some in calling it “secret power”. Press enter on google for the words “Council on Foreign Relations”, “Bilderberg”, “Trilateral” and the like, and you will get more information than your neurons will be able to process over the next ten years — information whose level of credibility ranges from scientific evidence to
top-down invention.

By contrast, little or almost nothing is known about the deep sources of power in Russia, China, and the Islamic countries. Even the descriptions we have of the visible ruling class in these regions of the globe are schematic and superficial, without comparison to the meticulous Who’s Who of the
western elite. This is easily explained by the difference in access to information sources. It is one thing to search western archives and libraries, under the protection of democratic laws and institutions, and even in the US to break through the barrier of official ill through the Freedom of Information Act. It is completely different in trying to guess what is passing behind the impenetrable walls of the Russian-Chinese establishment. Neither the KGB nor China’s intelligence services have ever given access to
independent researchers. Even the archives of the USSR Communist Party closed again after a brief period of tolerance, motivated not by any sudden love of freedom, but by the illusory conviction, soon denied, that western researchers were mostly sympathetic to the Soviet regime.

In the Islamic world, beneath the ruling class and the clutter of terrorist groups stretches an unfathomable network of esoteric organizations, some millennials, whose power of influence is vastly varied from country to country and from time to time. These organizations, which constitute the
spiritual core of Islam, the profound assurance of its civilizational unity and, in the long run, the condition for the possibility of worldwide Islamic expansion, remain perfectly unknown to western political analysts,
journalists or even scholars. The difference in visibility between the big contending globalist schemes is
a source of catastrophic errors in describing the power conflict in the world.

Every artist’s job is to transfigure a genuine experience into a cultural good. The artist will not intellectually process the experience to reach its comprehension at the universality level; he will record it in the most eminently communicable way possible. Of course sometimes it’s not that easily communicated. Sometimes it can be so subtle that, no matter how hard he tries to be clear, it won’t be very clear — you’ll have to crack your head a little to know what he’s talking about. Not to mention the fact that to understand his experience, you will need to have sufficient maturity or imagination — if not, you will understand nothing.

It is also possible for the artist, in addition to fueling cultural memory with his art, making it a vehicle of intelligence and transforming art into a concept. He can do that, although he is not obligated. There are artists who worked with a very clear intellectual awareness of what they were doing, such as Henry James, who wrote an explanatory preface for each of his novel. Sometimes the preface was even better than the book. Others would not even be able to explain how they did the book, because their job is not to explain, but to do. Once done, that genuine, true experience is recorded. Hence you can easily distinguish what is genuine experience from mere copied experience, stereotype repetition (which is a thing that has little memory content and is just word repetition). The artist’s job is to make these experiences available to other human beings. He can go on meditating and deepening it if he wants to, but it is not required for him to do so. Not everyone can be all things.

I fully understand the phenomenon of shyness. It takes you out of the current of life and squeezes you into a dark corner where everything just happens in thought and nothing is accomplished. It crunches opportunities like earthworms that you step on the way. It takes you away from what you want and populates your life with everything you don't want. From shyness to depression and depression to resentment the path is very short. The shy are among the devil's favorite foods. He chews them like gum and throws away the tasteless rubber that remains at the end. If you have the temptation to be shy, drop it immediately. Start doing everything that you fear will cover you with ridicule. It is better to make a fool of yourself than be the fool.

Freedom is a vital property of the human psyche, but it does not have it as a perfect and finished gift, but only as a possibility that in a way creates and expands itself as it is assumed and exercised. That is why the famous controversy of determinism and free will has no general theoretical solution: these two factors do not weigh uniformly in all lives, but are distributed unevenly according to a very subtle dialectical game that varies from individual to individual, from situation to situation, from case to case. There is no way to prove freedom except by exercising it, but to put it in doubt is to refrain from exercising it, thus proving its inexistence through a self-fulfilling prophecy.

We have the image of God within us and were born with a responsibility in the world. That is why our existence must be based on this dignity. In the same way that God created the world, we are also able to create some things (of course, keeping in mind the proper proportions). We are the created creators.

For millennia each human being, when pronouncing the word “I”, immediately and automatically referred to his immortal soul, the only one who could pray and answer for his own actions before the altar of divinity. Of this soul, the bodily psyche was a minor part and function, focused solely on the material and social environment, alien to every sense of the eternal and, strictly speaking, incapable of sin or holiness, only of socially recognized crimes and virtues.

Later on when the bodily psyche was assumed as an autonomous reality, each individual only sees himself as a member of an animal species and as a “citizen”, amputated from that dimension that underlies the ultimate sense of responsibility and then he cultivates, in its place, the mere instinct of social adequacy.

There is no suppression of being, there is suppression of the image of the self as given in the presence self, the social self and the biographical self. In Hinduism, there is talk of peeling the various layers that make up the psyche — memory, language, emotions etc, — until remains something that constitutes the true substance, the brahma, which is eternal. However, this act is not only not possible, but it disregards an even more serious fact: it is only as a substantial irreducible self that you can experience divinity. This condition, rather than an obstacle, is your path to that experience.

Taoism is merely passive and reactive on the character of its ethics: it emphasize patience, resistance, abstinence, and less active sacrifice and struggle for the good. The taoist virtues would, in short, be “feminine” exclusively, without the manly mark of the Christ-King. A true salvation, to exist, would have to inject some histamine in the tired old Tao...

The problem with the metaphor of the drop of water in the ocean is that it represents no salvation. If I disappear, there is no salvation. What is the difference between saying that I am going to become a great God — and losing my personality — and saying that I am going to dilute myself in matter and turn to dust in the grave? There is not much difference, I disappeared anyway. In order to have salvation, on the contrary, it is necessary that I remain; that there is a human, stable core that can say 'I'. It is necessary that I enter into synergy with God and at the same time remain myself.

Duty fulfillment regarding a social role presupposes the existence of people who have an expectation regarding the occupant of that role, that is a life focused on competition. To act on the coherence of one’s own biography presupposes that it must continue. Acting toward goals dictated by the culture and intelligence presupposes that there are achievable ends within the time frame of a historical existence. But if the individual acts solely on the basis of an end, he is acting precisely on the inexistence of a world around him. With or without the world, he would act the same way. Acts then acquire a supra-temporal, supra-historical meaning, that is, eternally man should do so before the world exists or when it ceases to exist. Here action is taken as the direct expression of a divine quality that acts without the existence of the world.

Who does the guy should talk to, to who must he respond to? His family, society, history? All these things will perish, so it is not that. If we erase the connection to God, his life becomes a collection of meaningless acts.

To believe that human morality, even the highest and most substantial, is in no way dependent on religion, or necessarily linked to it, is a fallacy.

All civilizations were born from original religious outbreaks. There has never been a “secular civilization”. A long time since the foundation of civilizations, nothing prevents some values and symbols from being separated abstractly from their origins and, in practice, becoming relatively independent educational forces.

I say “relatively” because, whatever the case may be, its prestige and ultimately its meaning will remain indebted to the religious tradition and will not survive long when it disappears from the surrounding society. Thus, all “secular morals” are just an excerpt from previous religious moral codes.

The atheists morality is only good because their conduct schematically — and externally — coincides with what the principles of religion demand, that is, that the very possibility of good lay conduct was created and sedimented by a long religious tradition whose moral rules, once absorbed in the body of society, began to function more or less automatically.

In reality, nothing. It is necessarily so, since all morality comes from religions, and they do not believe in an objective transcendent power (who is the one who provide the moral laws). For an atheist, there is not even the concept of truth, in the end everything is relative to them. At heart they are an pure anarcho-egoist from Max Stirner.