All my links: https://linkin.bio/johannesmk
Men of the West must dominate their living space with the architecture most beneficial to our people’s well-being. We must do away with relativist notions of there not being a ‘real’ reality. We recognize that the male-dominated physical world exists to shape the female psychological world.
Either we shape our space, or others will.
I'm going to get a little bit philosophical here because, for a long time, I used to go along with what Friedrich Nietzsche once wrote about the nature of reality. Nietzsche thought there was no such thing as ‘real’ reality, and that everything that we perceive is just “lyingly added”—by your mind, your imagination.
The “apparent" world is the only one: the “real” world has only been lyingly added.
(Nietzsche in Twilight of the Idols)
Another German philosopher, Martin Heidegger, whose genius remains unparalleled to this day, took this Nietzschean notion even further to the extreme. Heidegger went on to suggest, in his later philosophy, that there is no real distinction anymore between what you observe and what you imagine.
Heidegger believed observations and perceptions were merely different qualities of the same thing. If you were able to somehow very deeply very strongly imagine something and thereby make it real, is a very powerful premise. It would suggest magic and manifestation work.
But I no longer believe this, for I realize now that Nietzsche and Heidegger were perpetuating a feminine version of reality while simply ignoring the masculine “thing-world” called physical reality.
One of the arguments that Martin Heidegger used, for example, to deconstruct the physical reality is, well, the fact that objects can all be deconstructed into atoms and quantum spins, and down to stardust if not merely energy. The idea is to dismiss the physical world as mere mental fiction, opening the door to “universal interconnectedness” and other “borderless world” fantasies.
I, however, cannot see the atoms in a wall. How, then, can you use an imagination—the atom—to argue that what I can perceive somehow isn't real? And so here I think Heidegger and Nietzsche did something wrong. They used their imagination of atoms to deconstruct something I perceive as a wall.
Right now, the wall behind me is not a collection of atoms, it is a wall. Now, although it might perhaps be possible to destroy this wall and to pulverize it into separate atoms, as long as this has not been done, the wall is still really a wall.
What does all of this have anything to do with me saying that it is important for men to dominate the public sphere with their architecture? I came to realize something very different from what Nietzsche and Heidegger used to profess, namely that the nature of reality betrays that reality has a feminine dimension and a masculine dimension to it.
The feminine dimension is the inner world of thoughts, feelings, and imaginations. The masculine dimension is precisely that of the things and objects of the physical world.
Men win mastery over their physical world through the acquisition of skills and competencies (muscle, knowledge, tools, organization, etc.), whereas women try to influence this world through the manipulation of men and perhaps even through spiritual manifestation.
Now imagine the world as it is becoming overly feminized, a world where people reduce everything to merely thoughts and ideas and words, rather than the actual physical things that they are. What happens when we deny the "Thing-World” in favor of a simulation or a dream?
You end up in a situation where the female tries to dominate the male. The feminine dimension says that everything is relative.
But it seems to be so—from the looks of it—that the physical world possesses a natural dominance over the spiritual world of women. I mean, our minds are contained within our physical bodies and not necessarily the other way around.
The physical male comforts the woman’s emotions, i.e., the physical world contains our minds in it. Were we to reverse this, and say that the universe is a giant God-Mind (or Goddess-Mind) in which our bodies are simulations, then we have allowed the feminine to engulf the male. Which is the end point of feminism.
If you don't like a certain group of people's feelings, emotions, imaginations, ideologies, religions, and so on, you may go to war with them and physically dominate them. A militia may round up and imprison woke activists, removing their weird ideas from society.
The physical, therefore, can always restrain the mental imaginations of entire groups of people, and of individuals. These are, of course, the sort of restraints that leftists find “oppressive”. Indeed, in a universalistic conception of reality, there can be no borders, and every sort of madness must be allowed to co-exist.
The male-dominated physical sphere traditionally serves as a constraint to such madness. And it is therefore so very important that the men of the West take back their public sphere and dominate it with their architecture. In architecture and in infrastructure, we find the first man-made shaping of the world.
Do we want to live as terminates in a giant global ant colony, for example? Or do we prefer the small towns? Do we prefer pastoralism or grain agriculture? All these decisions are traditionally made by men shaping their world.
We must also conclude that the feminine forces have become overly dominant, or rather domineering. The balance between male and female has been disturbed, and it is up to the remaining men to restore it.
It is truly problematic, for example, that modern architects are even allowed to construct their buildings. It is problematic that Muslims in Europe are allowed to build their mosques, and so on. We allow them to dominate our public sphere.
In any version of the future where our movement gains momentum again, it must lead to the fact that we shall begin to dominate the public sphere again with our architecture, by which I mean our way of shaping the physical world, with buildings and infrastructure and art that we prefer, art that we find beautiful, as opposed to what we don't find beautiful, the modern art, for example, or the Islamic architecture.
To put ourselves back in the seat of power means: to also begin to sabotage and attack this foreign architecture in our sphere, and to replace it with our own. Though the creation of healthy architecture may be difficult, the destruction of what we find unhealthy is going to be easy.
And I think this is a very big goal for our movement: to take back the architecture and to dominate the public sphere. For it is through our mastery of our physical world that we become the dominant leaders of that space—again.