Apotheosis Magazine

Welcome to Apotheosis Magazine - a webzine of ideas -  AltRight, Genetics, Philosophy, Neuroscience, Bioethics and more. The Future is Always Radical

Thank you, Liberal Modernity, for rendering the UK and the West a shithole.

Thank you, Liberal Modernity, for rendering the UK and the West a shithole.

Buckminster Fuller: “You never change things by fighting the existing reality.
To change something, build a new model that makes the existing model obsolete.”

In response to the recent terrorist attacks in Manchester and the London Bridge, the British Prime Minister, Theresa May, outlined her four-way plan to tackle terrorism:

“*A drive to counter extremist propaganda and turn those susceptible to radicalization away from violence by making them understand that British values of freedom, democracy and human rights are "superior to anything offered by the preachers and supporters of hate."

*International agreements to regulate cyberspace to prevent the spread of extremist ideology and terrorism planning.

*Action to prevent the growth of separate, segregated communities in the UK.

*A review of counter-terrorism strategy to ensure that police and security services have all of the powers they need to deal with the fast-changing threat from terror. This could include longer jail sentences for terror-related offences, even those on the "apparently less serious" end of the spectrum.”


As many have suggested, Theresa May's four-way solution is essentially useless as it does not tackle or confront the actual problem, but only seemingly perpetuates it – for anything that doesn’t eradicate a problem is perpetuating and condoning it in some form.

I suggest that the very reason her four-way solution is by necessity utterly useless and ineffectual is because the ruling ideology - liberal democracy - that wittingly and, in some ways, unwittingly created this intolerable situation is manifestly unable to rectify or solve the problems itself created. That is, Liberal Democracy, the ideology that the individual, free from the apparently stultifying bonds of religion, race, family, is judged purely on an atomised individual basis, independent of gender, race, ethnicity, religion and family. In short, an individual is judged without relation to his identity. The question, then, facing the West, is how can an ideology that atomises the individual tackle a racial and/or – depending how you define it – religious problem, a problem of identity? In short, it can’t. It can only perpetuate it, breed it through the (three) horsemen of the apocalypse: welfare state; third world immigration; desire for cheap labour and global profit before national interest.

As such, risibly, unable to solve the problems it created, May’s solutions are a perpetuation of the current problems that have rendered the U.K a hotspot and harbinger of terror. As a consequence of ignoring race as a determining factor of behaviour, May would have us believe that a would-be “jihadi” can be moulded into the perfect, tolerant Multicultural pet - not hell bent on killing kaffirs -  by indoctrinating the Muslim community with the superiority of “British Values.” In effect, taking the egregious blank slate doctrine to a whole new level.

It seems to have never occurred to Theresa May and her Cobra committee, that most terrorists are ‘homegrown’ second-generation immigrants and are therefore are already impervious and sick-to-death of being subjected to believe in the “British (Multicultural) Values” of tolerance, diversity and freedom of religion. It has also never seemed to have occurred to May and her committee that to accept British Values at the expense of Islamic values is to renounce Islam. Something worshippers will never willingly do; and hence why Islam seeks to bend the West to its will. Whilst Islam and Muslims are obviously to blame and renounce, such strategy in theory (not in practice) reminds us of the Christian Inquisition: whereby Christians tortured Jew's to convert to Christianity. That is, whites are always seeking the foreigner in their homelands to renounce and convert their beliefs. Historically the tactic was stupid, and today making a racial class renounce Islam is doubly so. This strategy will be about as successful as asking mothers to renounce their children. May’s recourse to “British values” is indicative of the same colonial mindset of the past – (and present) - where the West strived to make the Black or Brown in to its own Christian, "civilized" image, rather than accept their propensity towards tribal warfare and the voodoo (ju ju); that is, to conform to the West’s own ethnocentric – missionary - beliefs, rather than accepting that, collectively, third-worlders are low IQ, violent and base genetic refuse, and to leave them alone. The more things change in history, evidently, the more they stay the same. The colonial missionary impulse in the Caucasian is something that reality and evidence cannot seemingly ameliorate. Pathological altruism and ethnocentric projection seems evidently to have been with us for a long time - just not in our own lands.

This need to “double-down,” then, is seemingly not only an SJW behaviour, but something intrinsic in human nature. Even though this solution is bone-headed, perhaps there would be some very minimal justification for this solution if, and only if, statistically, newly arrived immigrants were the cause of terror; however, considering second-generation immigrants identify more racially and ethnically than their parents, it is indicative of it being a racial and religious problem, not, as May is suggesting, a failure of cultural socialization or forced integration and assimilation. As May has posited, Western values are superior to any set of values created by Islam. Yet it is an ethnocentric projection and arrogance to think our values will be deemed superior to Muslims, whom instinctively prefer Islam, as a result of genetics and evolution. Colonization isn’t just invading a homeland, it’s also trying to invade the mental homeland of those different from us.

Secondly, considering diversity and proximity increases conflict and erodes social trust, it is hard to see how de-segregation of Muslim communities will not rather increase ethnic and racial tension, thereby exacerbating the Muslim hatred for the Kaffir. Once again May buys into the unsound premises of Liberal Modernity that multiculturalism is a successful social organisation. That is, a forced social engineering to integrate disparate cultural and ethnic groups that hate each other – and consequently end up hating each other even more. The solution, evidently, does not reside in her attempt to force Muslims to vacate their religious and cultural identity. May needs to go further and reverse multiculturalism; she needs to go further and segregate Muslims from Britain. It is the only way to achieve cultural and civilizational harmony.

Third, jail sentences are not a deterrent to suicide bombers who seek martyrdom and death. Finally, regulating the internet just means that Jihadists go underground and elude detection. Sadly, despite Europe being besieged and bludgeoned with terror, with thousands unnecessarily and violently decapitated, the only solution the UK can seemingly manage is to “double-down” with its monomaniacal project of multiculturalism and Liberal Modernity. But can we expect Liberal Modernity to act any other way?

Proclaim it from the rooftops, Liberal democracy cannot solve the problems of Liberal Modernity: Liberal Modernity will never ‘solve’ Islamic terrorism, it can only be defeated by it; nor will it ever ameliorate the rates of high non-white crime or poor educational attainment, it can only be subjected and defined by it. Liberal Modernity has to learn that, despite vast sums of money being thrown at either problem, despite how many governmental surveillance schemes and lavish educational programs it devises to eradicate these social ills, they are perpetuated by Liberal Modernity’s own reality denying and erroneous premises. The statistics and research documenting this in alternative and mainstream papers is legion, and therefore needs no justification or commentary, other than to point out that, despite mass of evidence contrary to the premises of the ruling ideology, ideology still always wins. Taking my cue from Cormac McCarthy, then: the only things humans know and want is ideology – and ideology conditions how and what people see. Schopenhauer was right: the world is my idea; but perhaps this should be rephrased as the world is the ruling ideologies idea. And, absurdly, though we never should never as a rule underestimate the propensity for humans to engage in mass delusions, this idea is multiculturalism.

In the case of Islamic Terrorism and Black Crime, then, Liberal Modernity doesn’t even recognise it, it doesn’t even see it – because, as will be discussed, it literally can’t, because Liberal modernity only recognises problems in terms of individuals, not race or religion. This is the crucial facet of the reigning ideology that will eventually lead to its final demise or replacement by Islamism or Identitarianism: Islamic Terrorism is interpreted as individuals acting extremist; that is, not as the propensity of a race or the teachings of a religion. Therefore, as a corollary of seeing individuals as blank slates, distinct from religion, ethnicity, and class - as per Liberalism – anyone can be radicalized by the “hate” of the internet. Therefore, it is not an immigration or “border problem,” but a problem of “radicalization,” and, according to Liberal Modernity, the Alt Right stands on par with Islamism in this regard.

That all terrorism is perpetrated by Arab or Black Muslims, and not the Alt Right, apparently, is a coincidence. According to the state, infection by the virus of extremism could happen to anyone, even me, dear reader, or you, if you happen to accidentally click on the wrong link or open the wrong book. Except that it couldn’t have. It seems to have eluded the government that the Koran is a symptom of a particular racial, population group predisposed to violence, extremism and rape, and therefore that same particular racial, population is also predisposed to be attracted to ideologies condoning and promoting violence, extremism and rape. Also known as ‘active genotype-environment correlation.’ That is, an active genotype after puberty creates the environment maximally compatible with the underlying genotype. The patterns and behaviours of extremism or worshipping the Koran fit the underlying genotype. The collective codification of the Koran, then, can be seen as a collective genetic mechanism, genetic canalization, in which the environment is largely the construction of a population group ‘actively ignoring or selecting opportunities, constructing their own experience.’ The Koran, then, is the codification of an ideology or a belief system best suited for their collective personality. The Koran isn’t the problem, Tommy Robinson. The Koran and Muslims are.

There was something truly symbolic and insightful, then, about the nature of multiculturalism in the recent London attack. Three separate ‘incidents’ were simultaneously reported and initially thought to be linked to the same terrorist attack. However, encapsulating the true fruits of multiculturalism, it turned out that the third incident was only (apparently) a Black on Black stabbing – (I guess it’s ubiquity deigns its normality in London.) Islamic terrorism, high-rates of ethnic crime, then, in the words of the London Major, Sadiq Khan, is all ‘part and parcel’ of living the modern city and we should all just get used to it. That is, it cannot be questioned or properly tackled you see, because then some serious questions may be asked and serious solutions may have to be implemented, and we can’t have that, lest Blacks and Browns are blamed (rightly). The fact that terrorism and high crime rates are not inherent to western civilization seems to have escaped Sadiq Khan, but it is indicative that the modern cosmopolitan multicultural society will not take any definitive remedial action in a collective sense. Why would it? To do so would be to reverse the tenets of Liberal Modernity that brought us here – and we all know that no ideology ever refutes the tenets or principles of its own ideology.

So, the more the ‘normie’ West waits in vain for this solution to Islamic Terrorism and Black Crime to miraculously occur, the more they are ‘sitting ducks,’ prey to the flaws of their ideology. Effective change will simply never happen on a governmental level in present day Europe – (even if the New Right and Alt Right already have the solutions), without the election of Fascist or Nationalist parties. Therefore, the corollary of this is that the West can only survive if the ideology changes, and if doesn’t the West will die. Therefore, the only – worthwhile - solutions to this symptom of Liberal Modernity are by nature undemocratic and illiberal. That is, White Nationalist or Identitarian. As such, any candidate not a Nationalist or Identitarian is incapable with dealing with the problem by the very nature of being ensnared by the ‘mind forg’d manacles’ of “Liberal Modernity.” Because how can a liberal and democratic government enact undemocratic and illiberal polices? More so when the solution entails discrimination based on race and/ or religion.

It is therefore incongruous for us to ever expect, no matter how many terrorist attacks occur, no matter how dystopian or Orwellian the West becomes, no matter how bad and awful non-white crime is, for governments operating from the model of Liberal Modernity to be able to provide an effective solution – or even to recognise the fundamental problem. After every terrorist attack, I have a glimmer of hope that this attack, the 487th in Europe this year, will finally be the ‘one straw that breaks the camel’s back’. But it never is. And that is because an attack or contrary evidence cannot refute an ideology in the mind of a believer. It simply cannot. It is a waste of breath to complain or ask otherwise. They – Theresa May or Sadiq Khan, for instance - will never become red-pilled, no matter how many terrorist attacks occur. They will, despite rhetoric to the contrary, “never rip up the book of human rights,” or see the problem in racial or religious terms. For any government with a conception of human nature fashioned out of Liberal Modernity will never be able to provide an effective solution.

As such, bound and constrained by the thought processes of Liberal Modernity, it is not ultimately May’s fault in a Free Will sense that neither she or her governmental apparatus can effectively deal or solve this problem. If this sounds determinist, it is. I am a Free Will sceptic, and expect Blacks to act – (cause high crime and “chimp out”) - like Blacks, Jews to act – (promote White Genocide, kvetch and Leftist degeneracy) - like Jews, and Liberal Modernity to act like Liberal Modernity. I therefore literally believe that leaders of political parties fashioned by Liberal Modernity – Left and Right – cannot even fathom the solutions to Western problems because their operating ideological system does not and cannot perceive the own error in its operating system. Multikultistan, then, perpetuates by nature of its governmental, academic and bureaucratic advocates. As such, the electing of parties underpinned by Liberalism to combat the problem precipitated by Liberal Modernity is as futile as rearranging the furniture on The Titanic.

Based on such an utterly false conception of human nature and identity, Liberal Modernity has rendered life in Western Europe so – relatively - bad to what it could be, it is questionable whether Europa will survive or recover. At the very best, ideologies fashioned out of Liberal Modernity can only help to minimise terrorism through a ridiculously Orwellian and repressive Draconian police system that makes a mockery of the liberty and freedom Liberal Democracy was supposed to guarantee and perpetuate for the individual. A decade or so more immigration from the Middle East, and will see the surveillance state and intelligence services expand so large by nature of the Islamic threat that nearly all Whites, hypothetically, will have to be employed to spy on non-whites to keep the civil peace. The one thing for certain, then, is that Liberalism will either be replaced eventually by Nationalism or Identitarianism as a matter of survival and necessity, or it will die along with Europe and be replaced by Islamism. Considering the West has been tempted to suicide and self-extinction by the false allure and promises of Liberal Modernity, do not rule out that the West will choose Islamism rather than Identitarianism. Either way, what we are definitively witnessing is that Liberal Modernity is on its death throes, having built its own funeral pyre.

Whilst the simple initial solution to the problem of Islamic terrorism is just to simply expel all 23,000 or so jihadists on the terror watch list – (one shouldn’t even think about trying to moderate or ‘reform’ Muslims) - and indefinitely close the border, before eventually expelling all Muslims; the very fact that after a year of constant terrorism Europe continually endeavours to promote Muslim immigration implies that the Liberal elites and their respective populations, on average, condone, in some way, Islamic terrorism under the guise and banner of Multiculturalism. The simple fact remains: If there were no Muslims there would be no terrorist attacks.

It is ultimately sobering to note that whilst there have been three acts of terrorism in three months, five plots have been allegedly foiled. More than that, the intelligence services have revised their previous estimates of 20,000 jihadists (!) willing to engage in terror to 25,000! I personally find it interesting (and disgusting) that five plots foiled is a cause for celebration; rather than an impetus to ask: why the fuck should we have to put up with foiling terrorist attacks? Doesn’t that alone, suggest how incompatible and violent Muslims are. Furthermore, whilst two of the three London terrorists were known to the intelligence services, one was not – meaning there are more unverified extremists then we know who are not being monitored or accounted for. It is indeed interesting that it is never questioned why a nation should have to live in a state where over 20,000 Muslims need to be monitored and potentially detained. Even if terror attacks were extirpated but the threat was not, why should we have to deal with such a threat? Why accept that such a threat is part and parcel of existence? Even on basis of potential threat alone, Muslims should be denied immigration and expelled from the country. 

Presently, Muslims only account for 5% of the British population, however this will inevitably significantly increase because of high birth rates and, if trends stay the same – (they will) – an increase in third – world immigration. Statistically, then, the number of jihadists on the terror watch list will increase two to threefold within the next decade or so. The potential number of jihadists, then, could well exceed 100,000. This situation is obviously untenable, and it was all made possible by one ideology: Liberal Modernity. And made the defeatable appear undefeatable: Liberal Modernity.

Spencer J. Quinn Interview

Spencer J. Quinn Interview

The Soul of an Establishment Philosopher

The Soul of an Establishment Philosopher