Monthly Archives: September 2016

Pledging fealty to Hestia

So in my last post I made a case for organised religion which laid the groundwork for this spergy if natural follow-up. With the demonic takeover of Roman-Catholicism I have little faith in the vatican and its churches. Protestantism begat progressivism so that is not an option either. Non-Western religions don’t really appeal to me, even if Buddha said some good things.

But everyone wants to be part of something. So hereby I pledge internet fealty to Hestia Society whose members I believe are closest to following the will of God. May Trump be king, may Hestia establish an American vatican, may Jim be grand inquisitor and may Leafyishere spread reactionary propaganda.

Final Boss: Spandrell

This post has been cooking for a while and with good reason: you come at the king, you best not miss. But prudence should not become cowardice so I’ll take aim and try not to miss.

Spandrell is smarter than I am. He has a better mind for facts and information, whereas I forget most of what I have read. He has made many excellent points on the nature of politics which any good thinker would be wise to keep in mind. Nonetheless I am taking a swing at him, so what is up with that.

Spandrell is in many ways the guardian of Gnon, God of nature, whose motto might well be that we shall all drown and no one will save us. Spandrell is a down to earth thinker who points out that the history of mankind has been one of stupidity and struggle. Think you can outsmart Gnon? Think again, Gnon will cut you down. Spandrell gives plenty of examples from Eastern history which confirm this.

But I am not satisfied with this. I am a spiritual man, a brahmin who is as much concerned with religion and morality as with the material world, probably even more. I believe in God. I believe in Christianity, the dying animal that it is. Spandrell does not help me with religious matters; he dryly points out that religion is your genes looking for a group to cling on to. We are all social animals after all. He is probably right, although not necessarily.

In essence Spandrell is rejecting God, or at the very least the capability of humans to follow the will of God. This is the crux of the issue. I believe in God and to some extent I believe in the capability of humans to follow the will of God. This is a matter of faith and either answer is valid. You either believe in God or you do not and whatever you believe the consequences of that belief will follow. If I understand correctly this has been an earlier subject of blogosphere debate, then referred to as the split between HRx / NRx. So far I find that there is no real use in distinguishing yourself as HRx. It’s not like I am a church goer anyway. And personal faith is personal; one man’s faith need not be another’s. It is pointless to wait until either Spandrell or I change our religious beliefs. But I will make the argument for the need of organised religion in accordance with natural laws.

Organised religion is an attempt by humans to follow the will of God, as ridiculous as that may sound. It is concerned with questions of existence and morality: what is Good? What is Evil? Even if morality is indistinguishable from natural law, a man-made morality needs an organising principle for modernity teaches me that man is not necessarily in tune with natural law. If a man is told his property is not his own he ends up a spiteful cuck. If a woman is told not to marry she ends up a bitter spinster. But why own property? Why marry? Why? The age old question has never been satisfyingly answered by humans and likely never will, but at the same time it has already been answered by theology: question: why? Answer: because God. Easy. There is no better Schelling point than God. Hence the need for brahmins aka priests, hence the need for organised religion.

Organised religion is of course human, all too human. Its priests will make mistakes at their best and may serve evil at their worst. But the acceptance that there is good and there is evil is enough to justify religious institutions from defending good and vanquishing evil. Why marry? Because it is good. Why own property? Because it is good. Why fight leftism? Because it is evil.

To put all this in another way: God is a better sounding story than nihilism. I prefer the story of God. If that makes me a LARPer for holy status points in the eyes of Gnon’s guardian, so be it.

Critiquing the Alt-Right from the Right

It is said to have no enemies to the right. This is sound advice in a leftist-dominated modernity. But it has also been said that the Alt-Right inevitably ends up leftwards of reaction and that is exactly what has happened.

The greatest strength of the Alt-Right is also its weakness: it has no core. No core equals strength because when one head is chopped off three more will grow in its place. No core equals weakness because emotionally driven movements are ephemeral. The Alt-Right is bound together by truth in the face of lies by SJW’s and cucks which means it is defined by that which it opposes. Since leftism will inevitably collapse that which binds together the Alt-Right will also inevitably collapse. The angry teenager may scream he does not need his parents, but he always does.

Many Alt-Righters will disagree and say that there is very much a core to Alt-Right philosophy to subsequently argue among each other over what those beliefs are. I have identified 2 core Alt-Right beliefs:

  1. Nature trumps nurture.
  2. We have to fight for change.

Point 1 is the mainstreaming of human biodiversity. What used to be only whispered in closed rooms is now shouted loudly for all to hear: Diversity + Proximity = War. Multiculturalism is a scam and the Alt-Right is effectively pointing it out by weaponising everything we know about genetics and shoving the obvious conclusions in your face.

Unfortunately pointing out the problem does not a solution make. If you go down the road of genes you end up with white supremacy, for which I am not in the slightest bit allergic yet for which I have some reservations. Africa for the blacks, Asia for the yellows, the West for the whites! Yes but who are the whites? What is this racial purity you are talking about and who really is loyal to whites as a tribe? Hillary Clinton is white. I see whites fucking each over all the time. Man I’d rat out an Italian white for a couple of bucks no problem. Hell I’d even rat out a Dutch white if I got away with it and the reward was high enough. The concept of Whiteness as a rallying point is fantasy land stuff. Muh whiteness is a Schelling point for rightists to signal temporary allegiance just as much as global warming is temporary allegiance signalling for leftists.

The entire white supremacy angle is a pushback to the leftist scam that is ‘racism’. Angry parents shout ‘racist!’, angry teenager shouts ‘reality is racist!’ Angry teenager is right, but still a teenager.

Point 2 is where Alt-Righters show balls and Reactionaries show vaginas. Or so it is said. But the Puritan hypothesis is true and the puritan hypothesis says that democracy is set up to fail. You can not meaningfully improve a democracy through democratic means. Yes you can give the patient a new liver, but it seems this patient has already passed away. Reactionaries are cynical in this way. Alt-Righters are more idealistic and passionate. But again, so is the teenager. If the Puritan hypothesis holds we will not see any structural change in Western government for the better. Some exceptional men might halt the downfall, but down it will fall.

Alt-Righters and reactionaries want to feel hope and not despair. But on a long enough timescale the Alt-Righters will feel despair when the wall of bureaucrats turns out to be immovable. Which does not mean you should lose all hope — just keep it real.

Rob Wijnberg is een B-filosoof

Het moet een keer gezegd worden: Rob Wijnberg is een B-filosoof. We kunnen dit makkelijk infereren door de positie die Wijnberg als redacteur en schrijver van linkse media inneemt (NRC next en de Correspondent). Vanuit de Verenigde Staten leren we hoe de linkse media aan èèn stuk liegt. Wijnberg is een kind van de NY Times, ergo Wijnberg liegt.

Maar ik zal er iets dieper op ingaan. Neem dit artikel van hem: ‘Zo ontstaat de illusie dat je de wereld begrijpt.‘ De titel is al tegenstrijdig: ‘ik vertel jou dat het een illusie is dat je de wereld begrijpt. Waarom weet ik dat? Omdat ik de wereld begrijp natuurlijk. Gekkie.’

Wijnberg begint met een quote van Nietzsche: “Ieder begrip ontstaat door het gelijkstellen van het ongelijke.” Prima quote. Nietzsche adresseert de onmogelijkheid van taal om tot perfecte waarheid te komen – taal is een verzameling symbolen. Één blad is het andere blad niet.


Als Wijnberg het hierbij zou laten dan was er niks aan de hand. Let op je woorden, je kan er wel eens naast zitten is een prima moraal. Maar Wijnberg gaat verder:

Nu is dat in de meeste gevallen niet zo erg. Niemand zal het je kwalijk nemen dat je alle bomen en alle bladeren over één kam scheert. Problematisch wordt het alleen wanneer je bedenkt dat we dit ook aan de lopende band met mensen doen.





Door een Nietzscheaanse bril denk je opeens: wie houden we hier eigenlijk voor de gek?

Door een Nietzscheaanse bril houden we helemaal niemand voor de gek want Nietzsche had geen enkel probleem om met generalisaties zijn punt over te brengen. Zo schreef hij dat Jezus een 2000-jaar complot van de Joden was om de elite omver te werpen. Over Duitsers schreef hij dat ze hun passie kwijt waren en zichzelf moesten overstijgen. En wie kan natuurlijk vergeten wat Nietzsche over vrouwen schreef: histrionische wezens die niet in staat tot vriendschap waren. Hij vergeleek ze met katten en vogels. Of koeien op hun best. Die Nietzscheaanse bril toch!

Nietzsche zegt nergens iets dat ook maar enigszins lijkt op ‘niet generaliseren dat Grieken lui zijn.’ Integendeel, Nietzsche zou het als eerste bombastisch van de daken schallen. Nietzsche begreep namelijk de functie van taal: informatie over brengen en daarmee waarheid te benaderen. Het feit dat een begrip ontstaat door het gelijkstellen van het ongelijke betekent dat elk begrip een benadering van de waarheid is. Dat is heel wat anders dan claimen dat elk begrip een leugen is, zoals Wijnberg op bizarre manier doet. Dat hij daarmee de goede naam van Nietzsche door het slijk sleept is extra beledigend.

Niet alleen zal niemand het me kwalijk nemen als ik bladeren over één kam scheer, men zal het mij in dank afnemen als ik accuraat groepen bladeren samenvat in plaats dat ik ze één voor één benoem. Weer, dat is de functie van taal: effectief informatie overbrengen. In dezelfde zin is het woord PVV’ers heel accuraat om de mensen samen te vatten die op de PVV stemmen. Grieken is eveneens een prima woord om bewoners van Griekenland te omschrijven en per extensie geldt hetzelfde voor de generalisatie dat de gemiddelde Griek liever aan een strandje Tzatziki en Ouzo drinkt dan een 40-urige werkweek maakt. Mediterrane genen. Bankier is een prima woord voor iemand die hoog in het management van een bank zit. Allochtoon is een prima woord voor iemand die niet Nederlands is. Per extensie is Islam prima te generaliseren als een religie van oorlog en haat. Per extensie zijn Turken en Marokkanen prima te generaliseren als immigranten die agressiever en dommer zijn dan Aziaten en Nederlanders.

Al met al mag het nu wel duidelijk zijn dat Wijnberg ons niks leert over de ongrijpbaarheid van waarheid. In plaats daarvan misbruikt hij Nietzsche om ons typische linkspraat te brengen: ‘Maakt u zich vooral geen zorgen over de immigranten die Nederland binnenstromen. Hier is niks te zien en het is racistisch, haatdragend en xenofoob om er nogmaals over te beginnen! Tsja, ofwel realiteit is racistisch ofwel Wijnberg is erg veralgemeniserend als hij mij een racist noemt. Die paradox zal hem zelf waarschijnlijk de rest van zijn leven ontgaan. Maar het is nooit te laat.

Kortom: Wijnberg kan eloquent de partijlijnen van Harvard napraten, maar als filosoof is de beste man niet serieus te nemen. Ter afsluiting om het verschil tussen Nietzsche en Wijnberg nog even te benadrukken:

Dit is Nietzsche de filosoof.

Dit is Wijnberg de filosoof.


Random blurbs.

  • The Puritan hypothesis is true. At least I believe it is true. When will we know for sure? If president Trump fails to turn the tide? What if Trump crowns himself king? Leftists will have lost at any rate. Alt-righters, NRx and dark enlightenment will continue debate. But leftists will always creep back into the debate, finding other weak spots in the coalition to defect against.


  • Elections are fascinating. Especially now. Why do we like elections? Because we get to decide about the fate of powerful people. We like that, it makes us believe we are special, that we matter. But there is a worm turning in the background making sure the powerful stay the powerful. They are the powerful for a reason. Trump catches the worm in the act of turning. Such showmanship!


  • Good news. Literally. An Algerian rapper is arrested for inciting violence against the police. Turns out he was also collecting social insurance while touring around Holland. I was surprised to hear about it. I imagined the Dutch press had censored these racist xenophobic news stories by now. I can’t imagine it being a big item in the states. Lowerstomachfeelings are moving.

Why Leftism?

I’m working on a new project so traffic will likely slow down on this blog. Anyway.

It seems to me that reaction-wise the most important stuff has been said. We’ve realised mankind is still as religious as ever. We’ve realised that democracy sucks and that modernity is spiritually speaking a complete scam. We’ve realised how and why Western society is falling apart. We’ve reconnected ourselves with traditional common sense, which means that when we read old books in which it is observed that emancipation of blacks was a bad thing for the blacks we nod to ourselves and say: well that makes sense.

On the list of things I still wonder about is leftism. Why leftism? Why did Harvard take over the West so relatively unopposed? Why was communism implemented in the East? Why is it that no one is leading this ‘conspiracy’, yet every leftist spouts the same predictable lines as if they were answering to a central party?

Once you know what to look for leftist rhetoric is always the exact same thing: gas lighting, evasive manoeuvres, hypocrisy, cuck behaviour, outright lying and when finally push comes to shove: disappearing. I see the behaviour over and over in many different people. Leftism is a very universal human trait.

The problem with the Alt-Right is that it tends to define leftism as an elitist globalist group, e.g. the Clintons and the George Soros’s. I understand these globalist motives loud and clear: money and power. It is plain to see that they are evil people who will slither and crawl to achieve their goals. But Hillary’s power is not just the millions of dollars she funnels away through her foundation, it is also the millions of voters that stand with her. Who are these millions of people? Are they being completely misled, just yearning for someone to tell them the truth and set them free? Or do the mainstream media lies appeal to them, perhaps in a way they can not articulate? After all it takes 2 for a con to work.

I’ve had 2 passionate leftists as friends. One is a female poster child of leftism who is of above average intelligence, now in her thirties. She levered her intelligence into high status value signalling – feminism! The environment! EU Song festival! She used to be in an open relation with a beta boyfriend until she dumped him for a higher status boyfriend who subsequently dumped her. Last I heard of her she was moving in with a new boyfriend of whom she was always complaining of. She maybe wants  children one day, but for now she is focusing on her career.

My other friend is the male poster child of leftism. Great orator. Real casanova. Natural narcissist. I’ve known him for years and although I do not think he is the incarnation of evil it finally struck me a while ago: whenever he opens his mouth he spouts complete bullshit. He is the master of the 10-minute monologues of convincing sounding utter bullshit. He will contradict himself within the same minute and make you feel bad for noticing the contradiction. He will sleep with your daughter and tell you she is a stronger woman for it. He will go on and on about female emancipation, about systemic racism and about white male privilege. If you push him really hard you will get him to admit that yes, it is probable that the Netherlands will be a muslim country somewhere in the future, with which he is ok. However he will always forget all your points the next day.

The psychology fascinates me. I think r/K selection is a very good start in explaining leftist psychology: K is honourable, r is scavenging. Despite of our heroic stories, mankind’s biology includes a lot of scavenger genes between and within individuals. Modernity has developed in such a way that honourable genes are marginalised. Scavenger genes are rewarded, as well as their accompanying emotions: envy, greed and lust.

The Purple Dome

This is what I believe to be my best post.


Imagine you step out of a cave into a forest. It is a dense forest with fog obscuring your sight.


You decide to explore this forest. You walk underneath and between the big trees for a while, until you find yourself suddenly swallowed whole by the fog. Everything turns black.


When the fog lifts you find yourself right where you started, in front of the cave you had previously exited. You walk into a different direction, you make some progress until the fog swallows you and transports you back again. Whatever direction you try, you experience the same outcome. It seems like you’re doomed to never get anywhere.

That is until you notice fluorescent arrows on the ground, like emergency lights in airplanes.


When you walk on these lines, the fog does not swallow you whole. You follow the lights for miles on end – it seems like the lines are all interconnected with one another. You start making a map of this strange place. The forest turns out to be ovally shaped, like a dome.




Using this map you travel to what is logically the edge of the forest, expecting to see something befitting the end of your world, something like this:


But instead there is nothing. Just more trees, fog and lines that curve backwards. If you step out of bounds, the fog swallows you once again and teleports you to where you started. What is out there, beyond the edge of what you can reach?

The answer is simple for those of us who know the story: if you were able to look from the outside in, you would see a purple dome floating through space.

dome schilderij


But you can never take a look from outside in – you are stuck inside the forest. The best you can do is reason that a thing such as the purple dome exists and that it always lingers just beyond your reach, containing everything. Mankind has done exactly this for centuries. Only they didn’t call it the purple dome, they called it God.