About doubt & love

Do I have a special post today! None other than miss Alf herself proposed to write a guest post on this blog. She wanted to respond to my love series and describe her own perspective a little bit. This she has done, and I with great pleasure post it below.

 


 

I am a woman, therefore I doubt. I recall Jim stating this phenomenon in one of his posts (probably multiple times in 6 different ways with 12 examples, most likely not very concise).

I always hated myself for constantly doubting myself, my actions and everything else. I thought going to college all by myself in a whole new town would make me more mature, doubt less and care less. Unfortunately, it made things worse.  

I know what our relationship looks like from a distance. People see the boy drop out of college and subsequently forcing the girl to drop out of college as well. People see a shy girl without an opinion and a boy with an extreme opinion. One of my boyfriend’s friends once asked my boyfriend why I just sat there and didn’t react to the “things my boyfriend says about women”. Another friend said he thought I didn’t talk back. To make it clear for once and all, I am not the shy stupid girl they all think I am. I told his friend that most of the time I do talk back. Not that it makes any difference, I’ve said it before to the whole group and apparently they forgot.

I don’t mind, because I know that I am happy and they are jealous. I mean, I know how my old college “friends” feel, making “jokes” about how useless their studies are and how they will never find a job. I guess they are waiting to be saved too.

Truth is, my boyfriend makes me feel talented, pretty and smart. He even makes me feel like my boobs are huge while they are pretty average. He stimulates me in starting my own business. He forces me to do the things I fear the most, but is always there to take over when I have an anxiety attack. And most important: he recognizes my jokes are superior to his jokes. [lies. -Alf.]

University made me feel sad, purposeless and insecure. I once thought being strong and independent would make me a stronger woman, however, it turns out you do not have to do everything on your own. Back then I couldn’t make the choice to drop out of college myself. I thought my life would end the moment I would drop out of college, turned out my life would only just begin.

I hope this wasn’t too crappy for you smart guys. [it wasn’t. <3]

Love,

M

Advertisements

Friendship

The first thing that comes to mind regarding friendship is that Aristotle said some stuff about it. So I did some research.

Aristotle said that there are 3 kinds of friendship: based on utility, based on pleasure, based on goodwill.

A friendship based on utility is a friendship based on status: ‘I am friends with you because it benefits me.’Think a pick-up artist hanging out with a better pick-up artist, a politician having drinks with another politician, a young man empathically taking care of a rich, old and dying man. Common kind of friendship. Of course, also a fleeting kind of friendship, for it is not the person you care about most, but the utility, and the utility (or the need for that utility) is rarely permanent.

A friendship of the 2nd kind, based on pleasure, is a friendship based on common interests: think gamers, drinkers, drug users, hobbyists, womanizers… Also very common. More durable than utility-based friendship, but dependent on the durability of the shared interest. If your shared interest is drinking, you won’t have much to do when one of you stops drinking, in fact you run the predictable risk that your old ‘friend’ tries to persuade you to return to your old vices. However, if your shared interest is bird-watching, you’ll likely always have something to talk about for the rest of your life. Good stuff.

Friendship based on –mutual!- goodwill is a friendship based on shared values. Both friends agree on what is good in the world, what is bad, and work together to achieve good for themselves and their friends, bad for their enemies. According to Aristotle this kind of friendship is the best kind: it is least likely to change, it is durable, it is the only kind of friendship in which men care primarily about each other as a person instead of a means to status or pleasure.

Funny thing. I intended to write this post as a critique of Aristotle, in that I remember him saying some cheesy stuff about true friendship all around us, whereas I find true friendship pretty hard to find. But, upon research, I find myself agreeing with him. It’s a good categorization.

It explains why I find true friendship to be so rarely found; not only are most friendships by logic based on utility and pleasure, but even the friendships I feel should be based upon mutual goodwill are not really based on mutual goodwill, because the modern definition of ‘good’ is the exact opposite of the Darkly Enlightened definition of good. Classic morality is dead and the only place it is being revived is in obscure internet places.

Consider that when Aristotle quipped that women have smaller brains than men, his friends probably never responded: ‘well that’s very interesting but my woman disagrees so I disagree with you and in fact this all makes me rather uncomfortable.’

You can’t have true friendship if you take your woman’s intellectual opinion more serious than your friend’s, yet that is the world we live in.

The final problem is that geographical proximity is a requirement of friendship. It is not an unbreakable requirement, (sure you can be pen buddies with someone on the internet) but for a solid friendship you need to spend time in teh IRL, and the closer you live together, the easier to spend time together (this is in fact a no-brainer if it weren’t for the false promises of technology, even if technology those make long distance friendships feasible).

It would be nice to have more friends, not just based on utility and/or pleasure, but on goodwill. But, you work with the tools you have. I’m out.

Using Jim as a Schelling point for reality

What is this blog’s tagline? ‘Truth in a world of lies’. I like to hammer on the truth part. Truth is seldom found, because truth is unconditional cooperation — risky. It can not be refunded, taken back.

What I mean is that if I tell you the code of my banking account, I have extended my arm so far that the only thing I can hope for is that you won’t break it. Since the odds are against me I had thus better change my code asap.

This is why all this talk about ‘speak the TRUTH!’ and ‘be TRUTHful!’ is, generally speaking, such nonsense. Rarely, rarely do men speak unadulterated truth. Most often you get an interpreted version of truth, e.g. a position that from a certain vantage point might be framed as truthful but really is more of a hedging bet based on current emotional state. The Nash equilibrium is to say only that which raises your status. Even Jordan Peterson won’t address the Jewish Question.

It is self-defeating to blame men for their reluctance to speak truth. Cooperation is risky. When in doubt, better to lie. But here at this blog our diagnosis is that the democratic West will soon be dead because of lack of cooperation, so we try to kickstart new cooperation, starting by extending our hand by speaking truth.

Obviously, speaking truth by itself is not my main goal. My main goal is the creation of cooperation. If my main goal were to speak only and only truth, I’d just be setting myself up to be ‘exposed’ by leftists using my own rules against my. I reserve the right to lie. To do otherwise is stupid.

The reason I am telling you this is that this explains why I have been referencing Jim in every other post I write. Every content creator out there is out for his own gain and every content creator competes with other content creator for views, so the Nash equilibrium for bloggers is to defect on other bloggers. What I am doing in repeatedly upholding Jim as luminous beacon of intellectual honesty and curiosity and clear thought and sparkling prose and charity to dissenting views, shining out far across the darkness of online discourse, is because we need to cooperate. Well, we don’t need to cooperate, you’re free to do whatever you want, but it is right to cooperate. We are built for cooperation.

But it is hard to get cooperation right. Need some autism. So, in order to get it right, must emphasize Jim, must get the foundations right.

What enlightenment is

People say Vox Day’s classification system of men is gay, but personally I like it. Of course Vox is an incorrigible LARP’er who takes himself much more serious than he should, but see a gamma, recognize a gamma.

Which is not to say Vox invented the wheel. In fact all he did was rebrand the wheel and sell it as a Dark Legion Army Exclusive Only My True Minions May Understand ™. This is what any good salesman does.

Good words are those that cut reality at the joints, so a good salesman is always on the lookout for fancy new words that do exactly that (Spandrell’s Bioleninism comes to mind). Of course it is much more often that a word already existed for the thing the salesman wants to sell. Being ‘enlightened’ for instance. The state of enlightenment is an actual thing, while the word enlightenment is just that, a word. Hence only a matter of time before the idea of a mass Enlightenment was co-opted by liars; see the 18th century.

Real enlightenment dances around 2 core concepts: dark and light, awake and asleep, lower consciousness and higher consciousness, tier 1 and tier 2. Many different ways to describe it, all point towards the same core principle.

How woke are you?

The thing about enlightenment is that, just with the concept of God, it is hard to describe exactly right. Humanity predates language, so language tends to be too rough around the edges to get it exactly right.

Enlightenment is not superhumanity, although it must seem like superhumanity from the unenlightened perspective. Biological hierarchy necessitates it; accepted truth is that the masses are unenlightened and few are enlightened, so if I am enlightened but everything I do seems to you to be easy to copy, how enlightened am I really? Therefore, enlightenment necessarily has an element of magic.

Of course when we draw back the curtains we see that there is never any metaphysical magic involved; it’s all humans doing human stuff. But a human in peak performance is indistinguishable from magic, and that it where we find enlightenment.

How to deal with woman, the pitch.

We’ve discussed human’s place in the evolutionary arms race. Genes confine us. Then we discussed how, while genes confine us, genes leave room for wiggling space. Reality has its own pace, but once you pace reality, you can push reality. Which we call: our new religion.

The trick is to get the sales pitch just right. Which of course includes not calling it a sales pitch, even though that is exactly what it is. Jesus didn’t try to sell us anything, he was just being a Good Guy! Nope, Jesus was an excellent salesman, had no problem faking a miracle here and there to increase demand for his product. Which I don’t blame him for, in fact I think it was very clever. Hence I am borrowing his style of thinking and ask the pertinent question: how do we sell our product?

To whom do we sell our product? We sell it to heterosexual white men, which is to say we do not exclude non-heteros, non-whites and non-males, just that our product appeals to heterosexual white males best.

What is our product? Our product is the next Great Civilisation! Cooperation! Pretty girls! Wealth! Integrity! Pride! A motherf*cking Great Life with Friends and Family! The Ushering in of a New Era of Science!

Of course, we are the Dark Enlightenment, not the Happy Enlightenment, so all the above promises go with a pinch of Dark Salt: we are decisively not bringing heaven into this world. Such utopia talk is the domain of leftists.

But if we control for unrealistically high expectations, we are left with plenty of realistically high expectations. Religion can do amazing things.

So, for now, let’s turn to our singular best-selling product: how to deal with women. In a nutshell our pitch is as follows:

We know exactly how to deal with women, and if you are interested, we can show you how to deal with women yourself.

Truly a great product in this age of soyboys and feminists.

Now, there are competing salesmen for this product, but naturally our product is better. Heartiste is too bropulist, Roosh too bitter, Dalrock too soft, Jordan Peterson too purple pill¹. What makes our product better? Not only does our product get you laid like a champ, it gets you your own family with you as its patriarchal leader champ.

You get to decide what’s for dinner, you get to decide whether or not you feel like visiting your in-laws, you decide what the family will be watching on tv. Your wife shall dress pretty, because she wants to be pretty for you. She’ll also stop being fat and put on pretty make-up. Also, she won’t disturb you if you want to be left alone. The secret ingredient is that she now wants to please you! Sounds pretty amazing huh!

See, we’ve all heard the stories: the wifey becomes grumpy, gets ‘headaches’, kicks the man out of the bed, divorces the man takes all his money and kids, the man becomes a shadow of his former proud self… A true modern horror story! Life shouldn’t be like that.

And with our product, life no longer is like that. Our how to deal with woman program is designed to stop your woman from being a crazy bitch, so you (and her!) can get back to doing the things you love, including but not limited to enjoying your life together.

But wait, there’s more!

Being a happy-go-lucky patriarch is proven to increase testosterone, raise self-esteem and increase general wellbeing. Watch your body language correcting for years of brainwashing propaganda as you develop pride in yourself. Feel illnesses you once thought were serious disappear like snow in the sun. And notice the same effect for your woman: see how happy and feminine she can be when handled properly. Be amazed as she suddenly stops ‘having a headache’. Enjoy as she stops embarrassing you around other people and instead supports you in your endeavors as much as she can.

Since I want to be honest with you, I have to tell you about this one disadvantage…

If you use our product, you will be so happy that people will notice the change in you, while you will notice that many people are unhappy. Unhappy people resent happy people and will try to drag you back down into a life of prozac and apathetic sadness.

It is a sad truth that our product only works for those who want to use it, so try not to feel too bad when encountering jealousy, prejudice and hatred. Being happy is a choice, and unfortunately many people choose to be unhappy! Don’t make that mistake! Be happy! Call +31 J-I-M-I-A-N-I-T-Y right now and order our #1 best-selling product, how to deal with women.

Don’t wait, order now!

 

 


¹ Rollo Tomassi is a notable exception. His books on women are superb, also very normie-friendly.

Coming up short 2

I don’t think I’ve covered everything yet…

So far, told the problem of man’s biological limitations. We are like trees.

But we’re not trees. We rank higher in the evolutionary chain, even if we’re just as much part of the evolutionary chain as trees.

There’s a balance to be walked. On the one hand, it is safe to be a cynic and say nothing will ever change: ‘humans and their societies are pretty inert and you have to repeatedly whack them with a stick to make them move.’

On the other hand the cynic is predictable, and most importantly, wrong in crucial intervals. Look at sports. The best moments are always those when an athlete (or gamer) does something everyone thought impossible. The four-minute mile comes to mind. A natural moment of flow. That’s what everybody cheers for. A cynic denies those moments exist and thereby cuts off his own upper end-tails.

But if we want to remain truthful, it is best not to overshoot into the other extreme,  overconfidence. Thread below.

It is better to err on the side overconfidence than the side of cynicism. Overconfidence itself is a potent weapon. Think Jim’s game of chicken: he who blinks lasts, wins. No one taught me this aspect of game theory, but I find it very useful.

Let’s take Jim predicting a president-elect Trump coupe as a study case. If correct, he paces reality. If incorrect, he makes imaginable the previously unimaginable thought of a Trump coupe. Win-win.

Although, of course, failure to predict truth undermines reality pacing. Psychology books tell me that the failure of a doomsday only increases a cult’s dedication, but this to me seems bunkum. People on the edge of faith leave the cult, this decreases its power. Simple as that.

What then happens is that the remaining cult followers in fact correctly calculate that the value of the group has dropped, but they still calculate that total value of the group surpasses the value of dropping out of the group, into the cruel cold world. So cult followers become even more desperately devoted in response, which is also a very nice way to shit-test the bruised cult leader within the accepted rules of the game.

So the remaining cult followers escalate the holiness spiral. Which results in the leader resorting to mass suicide to maintain his moral leadership. A mass suicide is a flailing cult leader flipping off the world: ‘fuck you all, I hate life, but at least I left an impact.’ Charles Manson did the same thing with the Tate murders, which is to say, he had no clue what he was doing, but man was it groovy.

(This of course is different from soft torture which serves to increase cult loyalty. Soft torture does not undermine reality pacing, it is a measure to pace reality. ‘Only important people are allowed to hurt me and get away with it, therefore if these people hurt me they must be important.’)

But I mean, here I am saying failure to predict truth undermines reality pacing while I laud Jim for failing to predict a 6-month Trump coupe. I can explain. Which you might say is just a rationalization, but that would only tell me you’re just looking for a reason to disagree.

See, the cult leader has a lot of freedom in pacing reality. His most important asset: his crowd wants to believe him, wants to give him the benefit of the doubt. Observe Jesus bringing the dead back to life, which is one of those interesting situations where the cynic is factually right yet the overconfident miracle faker still wins.

But back to Jim’s prediction. I think I am being fair to Jim, in that it isn’t his best trick, but  still a pretty good trick. I judge it as an act of calculated overconfidence, not blind overconfidence.

Blind overconfidence is not bravery. If in a game of chicken you don’t know your enemy and you don’t blink… Well you will be surprised with what you can get away with. But you lose in repeated iterations of the game, so you end up losing. (Which interestingly enough is not as big a problem for leftists as for rightists because it’s easier for leftists to disengage and retry elsewhere. Hence, leftists’ love for weak targets.)

But, seeing Gnon to my right, calculated overconfidence is what it takes to launch a successful religion. You need to be careful, cautious, meticulous, conscientious, but you also need to say fuck it, roll with it, and own it.

Coming up short

When I was young, I looked at trees and thought: ‘Silly trees. When someone attacks you, you’re stuck! You can’t move, can’t fight, you just have to accept your fate.’ That is why I felt superior to every tree I met.

When I was slightly older I visited Spain where friends of friends took me to an artificial lake. It was created by Spain’s last dictator, Franco, in his attempts to provide Spain with hydroelectric energy. Consequently there used to be land where the lake now was, and in fact plenty of trees were still keeping their ground, sticking out of the water. They weren’t doing so well of course, slowly rotting away and all. So swimming circles around those trees confirmed my feeling of superiority.

Of course, the older I get, the more I think we aren’t so different from those drowning trees after all. Take Europe. We see she is drowning, we sort of try to address the problem, but truly we are flailing and failing while Europe of old rots.

The good thing is that we are developing contingency plans. Just like the tree, right? After all, the tree in the lake might die, but probability tells us the tree has likely successfully seeded 20+ descendants just a couple of kilometers¹ downwind. So the tree has the last laugh after all.

The trick, and I am having a hard time formulating this succinctly, is to realize that whatever system we build, it will be just as vulnerable to change as the tree in the lake. That is a core tenet of the Dark Enlightenment; that no such thing exists as a perfect system, that any system can be gamed for individual gain against the interest of the system’s functioning until it collapses. In time all systems collapse.

Every new system we build will have weakness we can not predict and will ultimately collapse due to unseen weaknesses. All we can do is build a system that protects against the most obvious weaknesses and see what happens.

So while the old system collapses we are in the unique position to devise a new system. Need new warrior caste, need new priest caste. The new religious class will be Jimian in nature, by necessity. The pushback against emancipation has to be high in testosterone, has to find a way to get women to cooperate with men once again, and only Jim has the decisive answer on this matter. Well, so does Islam, but Islam is not a white man’s religion.

The problem of course is that very few men are like Jim. Even I, with my bloated self-esteem and charming brilliance, have to admit my superior in Jim. I am smart, Jim is genius. That is the problem with genetic freaks — they are outliers, often emulated, rarely surpassed.

A new system which is devised by genetic outliers creates the problem that most men are not genetic outliers and as such will never fully live up to the outlier’s expectation, or, at least not to the outlier’s expectation of himself. This in a nutshell is the problem every religious leader encounters; ‘I am enlightened, my followers listen to me in order to be enlightened, yet many of them do precisely the same dumb shit they’ve been doing all their life.’

This is an important point. A balance needs to be struck between ‘you should not compare yourself to others’ and ‘you should pay attention to those wiser than yourself’.

Take LeBron James’ website. First thing it says: ‘Nothing is given. Everything is earned. You work for what you have.’ Typical example of a genetic outlier who was given a whole damn lot (2.03 meters, 113 kg²) but loudly shouts that EVERYONE CAN DO THIS IF THEY JUST WORK HARD. Bullshit. Fuck you LeBron.

Well not really fuck you. I mean, I get it. To say the opposite is to be an asshole as well: ‘Most is genetically given, like my height, muscles and athletic talent.’ It’d be truthful, but it’d attract many more ‘fuck you’s’ than he is receiving with his current slogan.

So for our new religion: the way to get people to cooperate is to balance the notion that most people are not like you with the notion that most people want to be like you. We want to foster cooperation — the kind that led to the high tide of the Roman empire, the Renaissance and the industrial revolution.

A recurring complaint of Jim, and one I share, is that many males seem entirely comfortable with the most outrageous behavior by females. A firm hand can solve so many troubles, but most men refuse to see it.

(The funniest objection I got was a friend telling me he, when his girlfriend caused trouble, would rather use his ‘masculine energy’ than resort to violence, to which I laughingly responded that masculine energy quite obviously is violence. The threat of violence without actual violence backing it up is a bluff women prick through sooner or later.)

The problem is that males tend to care a lot more for their status relative to other males than their status relative to their woman. Seems to me an evolutionary thing; females allow you to reproduce, but men allow you to live. If you can’t reproduce, you can at least live. But if you can’t live, you can’t reproduce. So the opinion of other men takes precedence. And if the men in power say it is evil to hit a woman, most males will follow suit and internalize that it is evil to hit a woman.

The solution once again is coup-complete, in that if men in power say it is a-okay to hit a woman, most males will similarly follow suit and breathe a sigh of relief.

A religious coupe is slightly different from a warrior coupe. I don’t think you can have a religious coupe without a warrior coupe. A religious coupe is akin to successful hypnosis, but you can’t have successful hypnosis if warriors keep beating you with sticks. Also you need allied warriors to hit rival priests with a stick.

Conversely, you can have a warrior coupe without religious coupe, but you run the risk of holiness spirals, as England discovered after king Henry broke with the Catholic church to divorce Catherine.

A religious coupe is truly a coupe of faith. It is winning the trust of key people, who in turn allow you to spread your religion like an oil slick. Faith means taking up the mantle of moral authority, to assume responsibility of judgments at the highest levels of power. Basically what every journalist does with Trump, although it is blatantly obvious that they project on Trump everything they are themselves: childish, short-sighted and arrogant beyond redemption.

A successful coupe of faith creates a new identity on a deep level. It starts out invisible, like a seed, but over time makes even the most sober, down-to-earth warrior say: this is my home, this is where I belong.

But, to earn trust, have to solve the problem of Coming Up Short. We want to get white males to cooperate with each other once again, so we have to speak to their strengths and accept their shortcomings. To accept both reality and people as they are.

For people to feel free to truly express themselves, that is the sale we want to make.

 

 


¹ die Imperial System die.
² die Imperial System die.

A Kingdom for the Introvert

Just finished reading John the Peregrine’s A Kingdom for the Introvert. It’s a rather personal book about being introverted. John describes the hardships of growing up an introvert in an extrovert society. Being a staunch introvert myself I figured I’d pick it up.

First, praise. I enjoyed it much more than I expected. Every day I looked forward to reading the book, and I find those kind of books harder and harder to come by as the years pass. You read one NY Times book, you read them all. The Peregrine on the other hand has his own recognizable, easily digestible style, true to his theme of being a societal outcast. His sentences speak to the mind, there is flow in his words. It comes across as genuine, which is something I find disturbingly lacking in every single book in my local bookshop.

Content wise it was a feast of recognition. John pours his heart out over the crushing dominance extroverts exert over introverts. He talks extroverts bullying, harassing, and just not understanding anything different to them (while, and this is still my pet peeve, loudly proclaiming the importance of EMPATHY and CARING). How can I not identify with that? Fucking extroverts. So much noise, just for the sake of noise. And yes, they indeed come down like a ton of bricks on introverts who dare disagree with society’s norms.

I don’t think I had it as rough as John, but I’ve had my share of bullying, of not fitting in, of close family members telling me over and over that something was definitely wrong with me. I empathize with that and I do think introverts have it rough.

But, the way I dealt with my position as an outcast differs from the path the Peregrine takes in the book and it is worth to explore that a bit.

The Peregrine’s path is essentially to break with extrovert society; they don’t understand you, they are too outwardly focused, so fuck em. Perhaps one day introverts may rule society instead of the extroverts, but until that day, disappear and don’t let them get you.

Personally I have found the exact opposite path most effective: I don’t disappear, I loudly signal my presence. Of course not by talking, but in my non-verbal communication. I take up space, I hold my chin up high, my clothes are bright, good-fitting and out of the ordinary. Even though I am a skinny ectomorph I work-out and display my muscles as if I were Arnold Schwarzenegger himself. Ask my friends: I stick out. And consequently I fit in much better than I used to.

The most important lesson I learned as an introvert is this: don’t show weakness. Extroverts, hell, people in general, come down on weakness like a ton of bricks. They sniff out weakness, and introverts in public society all too often display body language revealing that they are uncomfortable, that they want to disappear, that they want to be ignored. They signal weakness. Displays of weakness arouse disgust. I’ll repeat that once again because it is such a crucial point for introverts: displays of weakness arouse disgust. It’s like seeing a cockroach.

So, I stopped showing weakness. In fact I do the exact opposite: I signal that I am a threat, that if you disturb me I will come at you, like those poisonous animals in the jungle with bright colors. Works like a charm.

Korreldragende-gifkikker-3
A successful introvert, yesterday

The more I go looking for a fight, the less fights I get in.

The thing about introverts is that we have no right of existence just on the basis of being special snowflakes with rich inner worlds. This is Darwin’s world. If you want to survive, need to adapt. I identify with other introverts as much as I identify with whites; we cool and all, but I’m not into any activist group based around our identity. Sounds too leftist for my taste.

The trick is to make your introversion work for you. The Peregrine delves into this; use your focus to master a craft. Be useful. He is correct. I’d add that for me, cooperation with extroverts is a skill that has brought me much joy in life. I find that extroverts have good use for introverts: introverts are just better at thinking things over, especially when group dynamics are concerned. It’s a delicate balance of course; the introvert must not get overly cocky (the King In Your Own World syndrome) but also not show too much weakness. Though, just like with game, it is always better to err on the side of overly cocky than overly friendly.

I do not share the Peregrine’s bitterness towards extroverts or society in general, although I understand the sentiment.

I know a few extroverts who are very well attuned to different people around them. Generally, I think it is a good principle not to exclude people on a specific psychological trait but on their unwillingness to cooperate with you.

Anyway, I hope all that does not come off as being overly critical. I liked the book a lot, specifically because it talks about this subject in an open manner I rarely encounter, and it is a subject I have spent considerable time on. Would recommend.

Heartiste, a final time

I have written about Heartiste twice already, once in praise, once critical. It is time for the final verdict.

Obviously Heartiste, or the guys behind Heartiste, are cool guys, and I’m pretty sure that if I met them in the real life I’d like them. But are they on our side? Not really, I am sad to conclude. Thread below.

I was looking for an opening to describe what irks me about Heartiste, and I think this article suffices as a springboard. In it, Heartiste theorizes that the reason women tend to support open borders is because it raises their sexiness relative to the increasing ugliness around them.

Well yes, sort of, but it’s more of a collateral effect. It does not get to the heart of the matter. The heart of the matter, Per Jim, is that women in absence of an owner import new owners. That is all. It is not about feeling pretty, it is about feeling owned, from which feeling pretty naturally flows.

So I figured I’d post a comment in response. Interestingly, it did not pass moderation. Banned from Heartiste, who’da thunk.

Schermafbeelding 2018-06-23 om 15.52.33

So, how does this tie in to my bigger issue with Heartiste?

The theory is as follows: the world is divided into warriors and priests, ‘doers’ and ‘thinkers’ if you will. The warriors rule, the priests judge. They tend to dislike one another; the warriors think the priests squishy nerds, the priests think the warriors unsophisticated rednecks. However, Per Jim, the best arrangement is when they cooperate, when warriors are in charge and their rule is given the mandate from heaven by the priests. This way the warriors give priests protection from violence and the priests give warriors protection from holiness spirals.

Heartiste is an obvious warrior. He is the playground bully, the loud asshole. What he is not, is a priest. He makes mistakes in his thinking that a priest does not make, the above article being one such obvious mistake.

Which of course isn’t a bad thing, as his strength is not in thinking but in acting. What however is a bad thing is when he pretends he is also a priest who does not need actual priests. A) he is not a priest, and B) he does need actual priests.

When people say that adult life is just a repeated simulation of high school, this underestimates the power of priests. In highschool, priests get beaten up by the warriors. In adult life, priests route around warriors by denouncing them as evil and elevating themselves as good. A priest plays games with morality, and a warrior does not really know how to play this game (you can’t kick morality’s ass like you would a 1st grader), which is why priests are so evolutionary persistent.

Currently we are in a situation where the priestly class has effectively overpowered the warrior class by exactly those means; hence why the US military can no longer win any wars. Of course, these priests are bugmen and I hate their guts. Just as there’s many shades of warriors, there’s many shades of priests.

Once again, the winner combo is warriors and priests cooperating. The warriors rule and the priests bless their rule. It is a very effective arrangement; the warriors get to act out their best strength, which is cooperating with a group of men, while the priests get to act out their best strength, which is guarding for people who think themselves holier than the king.

From the priest’s side, the arrangement demands that the king has the last word, for the king rules.

But, from the king’s side, the arrangement demands that the priest is right. That, after all, is the priest’s task: to be right. Does not mean the king has to agree with everything the priest says, but does mean the king acknowledges it is the priest’s task to be right, and that the priest is pretty good at this.

Heartiste does not give us this acknowledgement. He represents the warrior side of the Dark Enlightenment, yet refuses to acknowledge the priest side of the Dark Enlightenment, refuses to cooperate with us. And defection begets defection. Obviously if he thinks he does not need us, a post from yours truly will do little to persuade him otherwise. But, being the priest I am, it at least feels good to be correct in my analysis. Also it is of course his loss, because in absence of solid priests he will attract fake priests who will loudly proclaim their undying love of Trump while keeping Paul Ryan’s number on quick dial, just in case.

So, for the moment we are stuck in defect/defect equilibrium. Too bad.

Love 3

Concluding thoughts…

Thanks to happenstance my girl actually read the last two posts. She loved them and found them very touching.

Her first reaction to the ‘hitting women’ part was indignation: why didn’t I say that she hits me as well? I lol’d because it’s true. Women have no moral problem whatsoever hitting guys; 9 times out of 10 it’s playful, 1 times out of 10 it’s serious. Of course, I hit a lot harder. We tried to remember the reason I hit her that one time. We couldn’t remember.

She laughed at the image of a man slapping a woman on her knees. She also laughed at the abduction part. Overall she was very flattered and thought it was the cutest thing ever.

We used to have some arguments concerning my… ahem… Counter-societal opinions. I remember one fight in particular, I don’t know what we argued about, but I know Jim was involved. She really didn’t like him, even more than she disliked Heartiste’s Dating Market Value Test for Women. That was a while ago though.

Nowadays, we never argue over this stuff. As a woman learns that she has nothing to gain from a particular shit-test, she stops that particular shit-test. Or, in her own words: she just doesn’t care as much about this stuff as she used to think. Instead, she is supportive, and we share the occasional laugh about her ex-friends who intern at clichè NGOs and alternately post on Facebook how incredibly morally superior they are for saving the world and how depressed they are with their shitty work, shitty debt and shitty pay.