“The Intellectual Dark Web”

A minor rectification of names. The Intellectual Dark Web (IDW) is supposedly intellectual, dark and on the web, but it is in fact just the newest generation of cuckservatives, of controlled opposition. Guys like Sam Harris or Ben Shapiro are the exact opposite of what the propaganda machine leads you to believe: they are the Boring Offline Tours (BOT). Only Jordan Peterson has some semblance of intellect, but unfortunately this interview is the final nail in his coffin as controlled opposition.

The thing about the IDW is that the name just does not apply. ‘Dark web’ implies anonymity, implies speaking truth to power, implies that if you took the dark web into the light of day, you’d be in jail. That members of the supposed IDW enjoy prominent media positions, big posters with their faces plastered on them and sold-out venues tells us they are the opposite of the dark web and that we are once again being conned by the media.

As for the intellectual part; it is absent, or at its very best it is packaging red pill truths in a sugary purple pill coating. Observe the ‘Intellectual Dark Web’ bending like leaves in the wind to justify journalists preaching white genocide, to justify rampant misbehavior by females, to change the conversation from what everyone is thinking into the conversation that those in power want you to think about.

Jordan Peterson stood out as a man of some eloquence and intellect, lending most credence to the IDW, therefore it is the saddest to see him fall so fast.

The earlier linked interview, titled ‘an Invitation to the Intellectual Dark Web’, is a 90 minute interview between JBP and an incredibly stereotypical virtue-signaling leftist, whose main point seems to be that he is incredibly empathic for the disaffected. In fact he is so incredibly empathic that he can’t help but hate happy people and wants them to suffer as much as he himself suffers for the poor.

Naturally his conduct and name, Hurwitz, made my spider senses tingle, and surprise surprise: Hurwitz is Jewish. Every. Single. Time.

When honest, investigative people watch this interview, they thus think: ‘a Jewish journalist writing for the NY Times who is highly involved in the democratic party? Isn’t that an extremely typical description of the radical left Peterson rails against?’

But instead of saying what is on everyone’s mind, Peterson redirects the conversation and introduces his leftist friend as an intellectual beacon of integrity and honesty to all his viewers. Peterson fails the shit-test.

To all of Hurwitz’ aggressive moral posturing, the appropriate response by Jordan Peterson is to call him out on that. That would be to do what is Right. Leftism is after all a giant shit-test: the leftist will agitate wherever he can and take advantage of the disaffected, but if you recognize the shit-test for what it is and call him out on it, you will have passed the shit-test and not be taken advantage of. Leftists are much like women in this sense.

JPB fails the shit-test, and he does this in exactly the same way, when you rub up against your woman and she says ‘not tonight honey I have a headache for the 50th time’ you say ‘oh huh that’s so sad I hope you feel better soon.’ Wrong answer: you were supposed to get the underlying hint and realize the conversation was not about the headache. In interviewing Hurwitz’ as if he were serious about cooperating with the right instead of what he is actually saying, namely wanting to kill the right, Peterson fails the shit-test, fails to speak for the disaffected white men he is said to represent.

Peterson rose to fame because he fought: first against radical left legislation, then against feminists. But it seems he is done fighting and is now breaking bread with our enemies while telling us these enemies are our friends.

The conclusion of the real IDW is that fighting is inevitable and good, and if a man after 2 fights is only seen breaking bread with our enemies, never with our friends, the only conclusion is that he too has become controlled opposition, has joined the BOTs.

To be entirely fair to Peterson, I don’t think it was his intention to be controlled opposition. It just sort of happened that way. We all have to come to terms with the demise of the West, and we all do it in our own way. In mourning, a person goes through different emotions before coming to terms with reality – denial, anger, depression, bargaining, acceptance, in no particular order, although denial is usually first and acceptance last. Peterson has gone through depression, has expressed anger, and is now obviously bargaining with his enemies, hoping for a peaceful resolution. Clearly his enemies are flattering him enough to make him believe a peaceful resolution is possible.

There is no peaceful resolution, at least not one that does not first include war, does not include the dismantling of the Cathedral. If you want peace, prepare for war.

While it is understandable that Peterson does not want to see it, it makes him a pawn to does who do see it, or those who do not see it and do not care about it. Peterson thinks we can talk ourselves out of this mess if we just listen to one another. Mr Peterson, some people just want to see the world burn, and unfortunately these people are running the show and the way things are going, they will have their way before you can say ‘clean your room bucko.’



Break’s over, back to business.

Not entirely satisfied with my previous post so let’s try again.

Yesterday I was driving by a church and its big engraved letters on the front read: ‘JESUS WILL SAVE US.’ I wished my gut reaction was: ‘Yes! Deus Vult!’ but it was not. My actual gut reaction was: ‘yeah right.’

I can not pretend to be something I’m not. I’m not a Christian. But at the same time, I’m not not a Christian. My bloodline has been Christian for centuries. But that faith is gone and no amount of wishful thinking is bringing it back. Jesus was a wise teacher, and the bible is a wise book. But the dead will not save us.

That said, calling Jesus a miracle faker is futile and disrespectful – why would I hate on my ancestors? This to me seems a much more compelling argument for respect than Christians’ insistence that Jesus will save us. No, he already saved us, cut the man some slack, this time we have to come up with something new.

So debates about the literal versus metaphorical nature of Jesus’ miracles are not so relevant. Either Christians conquer society once again and I’ll bite my tongue, or something new comes along which by necessity will be respectful towards Jesus which will render moot my annoyance of Christians acting holier than me.

I have very little faith in Christians reconquering society. All I’ve met are cucked beta soyboys intermingled with the occasional silver tongued psychopath. Perhaps on the internet it is different, perhaps there are more shades of Christians, but so far I am not so impressed. I like Jesus, but I dislike these Christians. Well I like Christians, I dislike their moral posturing. ‘Jesus will save me’ said the young white girl surrounded by 5 black men. If everything around you is burning and you say: ‘this is fine, this is OK’, yet I see everything is burning, how the hell can I take your faith serious? Similarly, those Christians who do see everything is burning: how long am I supposed to wait for a miracle? How am I supposed to organize, if every time I quote scripture Christians meet me with some other scripture that is sufficiently vague that in their mind it counters my point? These are not fertile grounds for cooperation.

So. If Christians want to cooperate with me, they will have to show respect and trust me to do the right thing, instead of demanding me to show respect and trust them to do the right thing.

Saint Darwin in this sense is not so much a helpful suggestion as it is a statement of belief, a cross to ward off fake Christians. And there are many fake Christians, for rarely does a Christian accept the full implication of evolution; he tends to wriggle around it. I am told that the Catholic church holds no official position on evolution, yet with every Christian I meet it is never: ah, evolution..! It is always: evolution, but…. Similarly with vaccinations: yes some side-effects remain to be seen, yes the pro-vaccination witch hunt is out in full force, but polio was a nasty disease and we have eradicated it. Any child walking around with deformed hands in 2018 is a permanent advertisement that Christians can be pretty anti-Darwin.

If you, my dear Christian reader, are deeply and inexcusably offended by this, by all means: pray for me tonight and never read this blog again. That is all.

Now, back to where my faith does lie. If that church sign had said: ‘JIM WILL SAVE US’ I would have responded very enthusiastically. Unfortunately Jim misses that touch of delusion that makes him say: ‘the way to the Father is through me’. Sad. Though on the plus side it makes him humble and consistent and consistency is really the most you can hope for.

Part of me just wants to resolve this religion issue here and now, to draw borders around it, say ‘this is the new religion’ and call it a day. But it does not work like that. Life flows, changes, evolves. The religion that will allow Western society to rise out of its debris is at this point as undefined as Christianity was before it raised the debris of the Roman empire out of its dark ages. So even if I refer to the new religion as Jimianity, I am being preemptive, and it is best to let time take its course and see where this shining white pill takes us.

Christianity & Darwin

Still on my break, but I’ll squeeze out a post.

So, it seems Christianity not entirely dead like the parrot in the Monty Python sketch, at least Jim does not think so, and some of my readers don’t think so either. The reasoning goes as follows: Christianity worked great for many centuries, most especially in England from 1660 to 1820. If we can go back to that, if, say, king Trump does like king Charles the Second and reinstates Christianity as the state religion, suddenly holiness spirals are low status again, science is high status again, and white males are high status again. Problem solved.

To this my objection has been that Darwin and his natural laws falsified Jesus’ miracles. But, says Jim, I am not the first to think of this, in fact saint Augustine already thought of this many centuries ago and warned people not to take Jesus’ miracles overly literal, overly Gnostic. Since Augustine was Saintified, his views have been incorporated into Christianity, therefore for me to bring up the plausibility of Jesus’ resurrection and hammer on it is me being holier than saint Augustine, hence me being disruptive.

I can get behind that logic.

The main purpose of religion is to prevent holiness spirals so we can all just get on with life. If Christianity can do that once again like it used to do, who am I to reinvent the wheel? I have no problem getting behind Christianity if it is capable of what Jim thinks it is capable.

Now there are those that accuse me of not having faith, or of faking faith in order to use religion for my own selfish purposes. This accusation is stupid. Well not the accusation that I use religion for my own selfish purposes, that is obviously true, but the accusation that I fake faith . I burst with faith. Always bursted with faith. When I was a prog child, I organized charity drives to raise money for poor children elsewhere in the world because I bursted with faith. Now that I am older, I still burst with that same faith, I just do not want to be burned again by fake prophets. I want to get it right, so I am cautious and approach the matter as detached as I can before I get attached. That is all.

In order to get Christianity right, there remains one important matter, namely to merge Christianity with the Dark Enlightenment. How? Simple. Saintify Charles Darwin.

Saintifying Darwin kills many flies in one swoop. For one, evolution is as obviously true as the coffee I just drank. Take the example of the giraffe’s recurrent laryngeal nerve — it branches off the vagus nerve towards the larynx, and just like in humans it does so by traveling under the aortic arch of the heart. In mammals with short necks this is no problem, but with the giraffe this means the laryngeal nerve, which connects the brain with the vocal chords, is about 5 meters long, about 4.8 meters longer than it needs to be. This makes perfect sense from the perspective of incremental evolutionary changes (e.g. a longer and longer neck) leading to unnecessary complexity.


Darwin was right, absolutely revolutionary in his thinking while remaining humble throughout his life; it is Righteous to praise him for his feats.

Then, it blows the mind of As-Holy-As-Jesus Christians, who invoke God’s power every other sentence and claim that it is not the 3 laws of combustion that make a matchstick burn, it is God’s will. These Christians are the reason Christianity is on the brink of death, for their dismissal of evolution, of Darwin, of nature, of natural law, makes them low-status in the eyes of everyone with an open and fair mind. Many people have an open and fair mind.

Then, it also blows the minds of progs and atheists, who every time a Christian yells ‘evolution is not true!’ gloat and feel superior to Christians. By taking away their prime scientific weapon, saying they never fully understood it and that it belonged with the church all along, I would be very surprised if not at least 1 prog head would literally explode.

Finally, it answers the riddles of the enlightenment Christianity has been struggling so much to answer. Why shouldn’t we let in hordes of Muslims? Because Darwin said it’s stupid. Why shouldn’t we be cucked? Because Darwin said it’s stupid. Why should we control our women? Because Darwin said it’s stupid not to do so.

So. #SaintifyDarwin. Let’s make it happen.


Getting it right is the hard part [2/2]

So the Bhagwan amassed tens of thousands of followers. Pretty successful, you’d say. Yet, what is left of his teachings today? Not so much. Even during his lifetime, his magnum opus, the city of Rajneeshpuram, built on American soil, failed to stand the test of time and collapsed. What went wrong?

Bhagwan’s religion was too short-term. It was optimized to attract followers in the here and now: he connected with disillusioned hippies, promised them purpose, housing and free sex. This worked pretty well, but as any reactionary knows, free sex is bound to result in drama as women inevitably betray mr Good for mr Horrible. In fact this is exactly what happened to Bhagwan himself when he was betrayed by his #1 women, Sheela.

But it goes further. Bhagwan thought children were a hindrance to enlightenment and encouraged his followers to sterilize. Perhaps he took a note from Christian priests and figured that the only way to outholy them was to have all his followers not have children? Who knows. At any rate, it is pretty obvious that sterilizing all your followers will not result in a fruitful longterm religion.

Now there are more mistakes he made, such as rounding up thousands of homeless people all around the US and bringing them to Rajneeshpuram. Bhagwan thought he could a) enlighten them by the power of his movement and b) use them to democratically overtake Oregon. Surprise surprise, he could a) not enlighten them, in fact had to sedate them to keep them under control, and b) in a Moldbuggian turn of events, his homeless were barred from registering to vote.

But you get my drift. Bhagwan’s religion was not sustainable in the long run; it’s flames burned bright for a few decades or so, then they extinguished.

Now, this is the part where I make a bridge to that one prophet who did build a sustainable religion: Jesus. It is at this point that I should mention a fierce debate I recently had with some devout Christians, here and here. I do not feel like repeating everything I said, but I will continue on the theme here.

First, I understand Christians’ visceral reaction to what they perceive to be my sacrilege. I feel like my argument is not as solid as it could be. I’d ideally make my argument without setting off their ‘burn the heretic’ alarms. The discussion reminds me of how, back when I was single, I’d go on dates with women and tell them stories of how sexy I was, which to my great frustration failed to result in sex. Technically I was correct, in that women have sex with sexy men, but you can be as technically correct as you want and still be completely wrong.

But on the topic of Christ, as I am still formulating my argument, there is no way not to offend devout Christians, since formulating a good argument requires a decent bit of iconoclasm.

Christianity as it once was is dead, and while my Christian critics accuse me of dancing on Jesus’ grave, I am in fact performing an autopsy to see what went wrong, how we can fix it.

Lies are a great way of organizing. You want the lies of your religion to be unfalsifiable, unlike with progressivism, whose lies have all been falsified. The argument goes that Jesus’ miracles are unfalsifiable, therefore great to organize around. My argument is that Jesus’ miracles have been falsified in the past 200 years, and I stand by that argument. I in fact can not not stand by that argument, because pretending I literally believe Jesus walked over water would be to fake faith. I just don’t.

I do believe that Jesus was God’s son. I can get behind that, since in a sense we are all God’s son. Jesus merely said it out loud and by doing so prevented usurpers from claiming they were more God’s son than Jesus. And the proof of Christianity is in the pudding: contrary to Bhagwan, Jesus started out small, with a band of disciples, grew Christianity during his lifetime, set up things in such a way that it exploded for centuries after his lifetime. This is highly successful, highly respectful.

But it is folly to believe we can go back to that and pretend the last 200 years haven’t happened. They have happened, and we should learn from what has happened. The power of faith is that people believe the lies, but if the lies are too easily falsified, faith falls apart. This is what has happened with Jesus in the age of smartphones, and no amount of putting fingers in ears and shouting LALALALA I CAN’T HEAR YOU will undo that.

Perhaps I am wrong. After all, Mormons believe Joseph Smith was in direct contact with God, and Amish founder Jakob Ammann made the Amish flourish without claiming any miracles to himself, without calling Jesus a miracle faker. But judging from the Mormon’s  most powerful leader, Mitt Romney, they are pretty cucked, and it is worth noting that the Amish forbid smartphones. So I think my case does not look too bad.

The recurring problem is that, if Jesus were to return to earth for a second coming, he would for unexplainable and mysterious reasons never be able to repeat the act of infinitely dividing bread and fish in front of a crowd, not with 100 smartphones filming him from every angle. This means he can also not perform that miracle in retrospect, after his death, because there will be 100 videos of him on the internet showing that he most decisively did not perform that miracle.

Take Jim for instance. Jim says a lot of stuff. How serious are we to take his stuff? I’d like to take it pretty seriously. But, say Jim has passed away, say the dissolution of the monasteries happens, say Christianity is reinstated as state religion. Who is to say we should still take Jim serious? After all, Jim was just a fat bald old man, while Jesus literally came back from the dead. Jim says no civilization has ever peacefully coexisted with Islam, but Jesus said that you should turn the other cheek, and Jesus came back from the dead. Did Jim come back from the dead? I didn’t think so.

You’re leaving yourself open for the same kind of holiness spirals that killed old Christianity.

Perhaps Jim can perform some miracles, maybe even some miracles after his death, and in doing so elevate himself as a continuation of Jesus? Maybe that’s too much to ask. I don’t know, I’m just throwing out ideas.

I understand that it is disruptive to shout that Jesus is a miracle faker, but I am wholly convinced it is more disruptive to shout that Jesus performed literal miracles and that anyone who does not believe that is a faithless cretin.

Anyways, that’s all for now. I’m off to take a well deserved break from all this internet shenanigans. I’ll be back.

Starting a religion is the easy part [1/2]

Atheists say: ‘yeah man, we really need a new religion.’ ‘Oh ya man, for sure.’ ‘Yeah someone should make a new religion.’ “Yeah someone should really do that.’

Look, the new religion meme was hot when Spandell first mentioned it, but it has become stale. The reason is that atheists don’t understand religion. They think it is some kind of abstract magical machine of strange beliefs. They’d wish they could believe something like that, but in their hearts they know they are too smart to believe in such strangeness. Hence the shift of responsibility: someone should really make a new religion.

Now, forgive me for sounding cheesy, but the truth is that the capacity for religion has been in our hearts all along. It is the most natural thing in the world.

Take Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh. Indian guru. He looked at Western hippies’ culture, at capitalism, at Indian mysticism, and thought to himself: I can melt those things together in a new religion! Which is exactly what he proceeded to do, and boom: 100.000 followers all over the world, a collection of 93 Rolls-Royces, and enough Assabiyah to build an entire city out of nowhere in America, Oregon. Very impressive.

I like Bhagwan. I watched some his videos, read up on the man, and to me he looks like a man who generally has his heart in the right place. That said, I do not share his faith.

Now I’m pretty sure that adherents of the Bhagwan’s faith will tell me the usual things people of faith say to people who don’t share their faith: ah man you don’t understand his teachings, he was different from other religions, he specifically says he is not a religion, etc etc. Yeah, no. If it acts like a religion, smells like a religion, looks like a religion, it is a religion.

New religions happen all the time, all around us. Scientology, anyone? L. Ron Hubbard was a 20th century man. Mormonism, same story, even if Joseph Smith was a 19th century man. Oh and then there’s Russian Jesus, what’s his name, Vissarion, though he only has a ‘meagre’ following of 10.000 people.

People want to believe, which is really just another way of saying that people want to cooperate. So, starting a religion is the easy part.

Beta male blindness

For a while I wondered why males tend to be so blind to female bad behavior. I think I understand now.

It is not that males are blind to female bad behavior per se, more that in order to cooperate with other men, they acquiesce to those in power, and if those in power tell them that noticing female bad behavior is low-status, lo and behold, men stop noticing female bad behavior. This ability to adapt to value incentives is what enables males to cooperate with other males.

This is why there is no such thing as a pure alpha male. Every man has moments of weakness, even if some hide it very well. Alpha and beta are states of mind you enter and leave, depending on the context of the situation.

I said that males are not blind to female bad behavior per se, but it still seems like they are blind to a lot of female bad behavior, regardless of what anyone tells them. So what is this reason, besides the religion of equalism?

The reason is that the cold truth is quite nasty, namely that women by nature are primarily attracted to horrible, Horrible men. Such men are relatively rare, for horrible men tend to be ostracized by good men working in groups, tend to be ostracized also by other horrible men, but nonetheless women flock to them like moths to a light.

Good men, who are liked by the majority of other good men, liked even by a minority of horrible men, make up much larger part of the male gene pool. Women will fuck Good men, but, and this is the cold truth that is just really counterproductive for Good men to know, women will never escape getting more hots for mister Horrible than for mister Good.

Now, in a world where women get married off young and are prevented from having affairs with horrible men, and good men are stimulated to act as patriarchs, this cold truth does not matter so much, because women are blissfully unaware of their own fatal attractions, and will defer to the family patriarch, which is win-win for Good men.

But in a world where women are free to explore their fatal attractions, mr Good finds his wife spitting on him, divorcing him and cheating on him with mr Horrible. This greatly angers and confuses mr Good, because he genuinely wants to do good, yet finds himself punished for it.

It is a matter of faith and genes: the Good man believes himself better than the Bad man and believes he should be rewarded for his good behavior. Otherwise, why be a Good man? Simultaneously he can’t stop himself from being a good man; that is just who he is.

Being a Good man, from a male perspective, leads to civilization, prosperity, and peace. However, from a female perspective, she does not really care that he is Good. In fact she finds it slightly boring. It is the power, domination and control she wants. She does not care that her husband is Good, she cares about the deep love she feels for the power that Good men are rewarded with.

If no power, no attraction. The good man in response becomes confused and depressed, but of course, being unable to change who he is, whenever someone points out that women are attracted to horrible men he balks at the mere suggestion: why would you say such horrible things! I know that there is Good in this world and I refuse to be evil! So bad it is for some Good men that the day they come to terms with the Horribleness of the world is the day they take their life.

So, the solution is to not explain the cold hard truth to people who do not want to hear it, while also not denying the cold hard truth to people who want to hear it. The coup-complete solution is for horrible men to take power (in their horribly mysterious ways), for them to reward good men with pussy and make it high status for men to notice female bad behavior.

The 3rd wave of game

Used to be that men learned how to handle women naturally by observing brothers, fathers, friends and naturals and copying their behavior. Since it is now illegal for a man to treat a woman in the way that makes her love him, we have fewer and fewer role models. This is why young men today have a hard time getting laid, and old men live in constant fear of their wives kicking them out of bed.

Luckily, men improvise, adapt, overcome. Enter game.

The 1st wave of game, the PUA wave, was Jews figuring out that if you pretended you were alpha, you would get laid. Gentiles caught on, and soon a budding community of young men were pretending to be alpha. And while you may argue with the method, you couldn’t argue with the results: men once again got laid.

But, as PUA godfather Erik ‘Mystery’ von Markovich demonstrated in his bouts of suicidal self-doubt, pretending to be alpha is a bad longterm plan. For a man to pretend to be something he is not, eventually leaves him horribly broken. Also, impossible to have any longterm relation with a girl, because women shit-test pretenders until they break, and while it is doable to pretend to be unbreakable until sex, it is impossible to keep up when you live together. So, time for a change.

Enter the 2nd wave of game: call it the Inner Game wave. I include 2 big schools of thought in this wave: Real Social Dynamics (RSD) and the Manosphere. RSD is a company founded by Owen ‘Tyler Durden’ Cook, an ex-pupil of Mystery. RSD did very well, in big part thanks to Tyler having learned from Mystery’s mistakes and making the in retrospect obvious connection that pretending to be alpha sucks, and that it is much more effective to be a cool guy that is at peace with himself.

The 2nd wave of game found that in order to bang women and be happy, have to reconnect with lost masculinity. Why pretend to be alpha, when the mindstate of alpha has been inside of you always? Lift, raise testosterone, raise your voice, make an effort to seduce women, and boom: happy sex life, relations become feasible.

Now, in the end RSD was just a company looking to make a buck so when push came to shove and the media accused RSD of being racist misogeny Hitler, Tyler’s #1 Julian groveled like a little bitch in front of CNN, thus proving he was still sort of pretending to be a cool guy that is at peace with himself. Tyler met a similar fate.

This is why the Manosphere is cooler than RSD, since when Roosh was confronted by the media he held his ground. But, in philosophy the Manosphere is not as different from RSD as they’d like to be, since the Manosphere’s answer, just like RSD, was to reconnect with masculinity. Turns out that defining what it is to be a man is pretty hard. Basically the manosphere’s answer to masculinity is to hang out in male groups (männerbunds), work out and smoke cigars while sharing a hearty laughter about the silliness of women.

The problem is that that is not exactly what men do. It is close, but not exactly. It is hard to get right, not sure if I will get it right, but it is something more like this.

Men are not by nature friends with one another. Men are wolves to other men. Even among brothers, who share half their genes, competition is fierce, so fierce that brothers might break all contact and never speak to each other again. If two brothers so easily act like wolves to each other, what does that say for unrelated men? The Manosphere ideal of a männerbund is that men bond by doing stuff together and they are loyal to the group because ‘tribal instincts loyalty HONOR’. That is not how it works. Men are constantly looking for ways to game the game, for ways to subtly screw over other men as to gain status for themselves. Any natural männerbund is constantly in a state of shifting alliances, as males constantly test and re-assess positions within the group, and if the group falls apart, no biggie, on to the next one, and if the next one fails, well there is always the männerbund I can join in the comfort of my house, by turning on the TV/YouTube.

Now, there is a reason why we are attracted to männerbunds; they allow for amazing feats of cooperation, the kind of cooperation that crowns kings and conquers nations. Naturally, such cooperation requires strict in-group loyalty: the stakes are too high to allow dissent. That is the kind of cooperation Manosphereans dream of when they talk ‘tribal instincts loyalty HONOR’. But, in the absence of a feasible goal for said cooperation, there is no use for members of the männerbund to organize in such hierarchical loyalty. If me taking your shit does not directly raise my status, why would I take your shit? Fuck you I won’t do what you tell me. That is natural law.

Truth is that social groups formed at work outweigh männerbunds, because work pays the mortgage, männerbunds do not.

Truth also seems to be that männerbunds for the sake of männerbunds have gay undertones, which seem to be a recurring theme in the Manosphere. This is why gays are a signaling hazard, but it is also a warning that there is a reason you don’t want to drop the soap in male prison, if you follow my drift.

So the Manosphere fell apart in bickering, gossiping, and internet posing, just like any männerbund without singular purpose.

To recap: the 1st wave of game was to learn how to get laid, the 2nd wave of game was learning how to keep a girl around. But, we were still looking for the purpose of keeping a girl around. Enter the 3rd wave.

The 3rd wave is about ‘clicking’ game back into society; to repackage it in such a way that, once again, men naturally learn game by observing brothers, fathers, friends, naturals and copying their behavior. To come full circle.

The purpose of game is to own a woman, to start a family and to enjoy what is best in life.

What the 3rd wave of game does is reconnect masculinity with spirituality, religion, God. It attempts to get males to cooperate on a mass scale, not because cooperation sounds nice, but because in order for males to flourish and not have their women fucked by drug dealers who steal their cars, have to conquer society. The 3rd wave accepts that men are wolves to other men, will always be wolves to other men, but that they may also display amazing feats of cooperation, and the trick is to set the stage for such cooperation within the framework of natural law.

The 1st wave had something sleazy, the 2nd wave something overcompensatory. The idea of the 3rd wave is to get it right, to judge any man by his ability to keep his house in order, that if someone’s girl is acting up, his friends may strongly hint to him: dude, fix that shit, and in doing so cooperate in a manner in which wolves can also cooperate.

The demand for our product is obviously there: increasingly we see men who are sick of divorce, sick of being spat out by women, sick of dating ugly tatted slutty bitchy women who aborted her child because scared for her career, scared that Jeremy Meeks would cross her off his booty call list. The 2nd wave of game offers these men rationalisations to exit the gene pool. The 3rd wave of game however promises a life of joy, adventure, and descendants.

About doubt & love

Do I have a special post today! None other than miss Alf herself proposed to write a guest post. 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]




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.