Monthly Archives: October 2016

The first rule of patriarchy

The internet is a collective consciousness like the printing press but more powerful. The internet has no restrictions or has hitherto always found ways around restrictions. This has allowed men interested in truth to huddle together and describe parts of elephants to one another. One such elephant is the observation that a society in tune with natural law is patriarchal. Man is made to wield responsibility, woman is made to test man’s responsibility.

The first rule about fight club is that you don’t talk about fight club. Observing the dynamic changes it. The patriarchal dynamic works because it works and that is the end of story. So the first rule of patriarchy is you don’t talk about patriarchy.

Jim is the first blogger I read explicitly breaking the rule and talking patriarchy. His assessment of the situation seems as follows: patriarchy was the default modus operandi of white men until our priests deemed it evil. Power naturally lies with patriarchs so it has taken many years of subversion and educational propaganda to disrupt functionality all the way down to the most basic patriarchal networks: within and between families. It seems that modernity has accomplished exactly this; men are now scared of women and a scared man dare not lead. Hence the common complaint that no one is in charge.

Crucial in the modern undermining of the patriarchy is the submission of males and females to a greater patriarchal power. I am not sure what to call this power — it is the state, the leviathan, the Zeitgeist, the cathedral. It is what helps males rationalise away their retreat and what helps females rationalise away their childless careers. It is a fetishisation of patriarchy into a non-existent super patriarch. It is the belief that we are watched over by unseen masters that act in our best interest. It is the conviction that we must not shake the boat because it might disturb the flow of the fleet which is dutifully watched over by our admiral overlords.

But this fleet has no admiral. The so-called super patriarch of our age is by and large a poisonous mix of bureaucrats and career politicians whose main interest is neutering threats to the status quo, the main threat being patriarchy. Thus the undermining of patriarchy by any means necessary, including the promotion of divorce and sexual deviance, making big families too expensive, ostracising patriarchal behaviour, brainwashing through education and making men guilty until proven innocent and women innocent until proven guilty. Whatever works.

The survival of our particular species stands and falls with the reinstatement of patriarchy. The first rule of fight club might be that you don’t talk about fight club but somehow everybody still knows this rule. Can the same be said about patriarchy?

The Psychology of Leftism


Lets tie some thoughts together.

The cathedral and leftist memeplexes
Moldbug identified a major power structure he coined the cathedral. The cathedral has many names. Moldbug often called it universalism because he was into innocent euphemisms in order to stop your CRIMESTOP buttons from triggering. Progressivism and Ctulhu are less innocent names of the cathedral. For me leftism is the most straightforward term. Moldbug claimed the cathedral was a collective of leftists, or more specifically a strain of leftism originating from the English puritan settlers in Boston whose fundamental doctrine was as follows: we are all equal. 

Ideology like religion can be viewed as a collection of ideas or as Dawkins called them; memes and memeplexes. If a meme is a byte a memeplex is a gigabyte. Memes are thoughts, memes are information, memes are life. Christianity is a memeplex and so is Islam. Dawkins said that memes are not some magic entity as some followers of Kek would lead us to believe but that memes instead follow the laws of nature. The existence of memes like animals and genes depends on their survival in a meme-hostile environment. Memes in this sense evolve only with regard to their own survival. Whatever works.

A wild Dolan meme (RARE)

‘In the 20th century 3 memeplexes were battling for world domination: democracy, fascism and communism. What if not 2 out of 3 were bad but all 3 were bad?’ So goes Moldbug’s explanation in which he goes on to compare the universalism memeplex with a parasite. The medical metaphor goes as follows: memes are like bacteria in that they infect your body and/or brain. Not all bacteria are bad for your body – we live in tranquil homeostasis with many bacteria on and in our body. But bacteria like viruses and parasites will also turn against our body and make us ill. In the same sense a memetic infection may be of neutral, positive or negative consequence for its infected host.

Moldbug argued that progressivism is a memetic parasite that is adapted to especially infect politically-minded young ex-Christians/atheists. The parasite has many handy features that helped its spread througout the Anglosphere:

  • It actively denies being religious which allows for religious fanaticism without triggering the usual skepticisms religions have to deal with.
  • It is a mutated strain of Christianity which allows progressives to maintain posture towards Christians while in fact being actively hostile towards Christianity.
  • It makes its host feel good. You’re like, part of the circle of life man.

So leftism is a parasite. That is a controversial statement for most people in [current year]. I mean, a small portion of Dutch people vocally identify themselves as leftists and more have at least some sympathy for leftist ideas. About half of the power in the Dutch cabinet belongs to parties calling themselves leftist excluding the controlled opposition parties. If leftism is evil its evil has spread wide and far. Which is exactly what reactionaries have concluded.

What makes leftism so parasitic? Philosophically speaking it is evil because it is based upon the central lie that we are all equal which in practice is applied as the lie that we are all the same. We are observably not the same. Leftist standpoints flow forth from this central lie:

  • feminism because men and women are the same
  • mass immigration because whites and blacks are the same
  • democracy because all voters are the same
  • golden medals for all olympic participants because all athletes are the same
  • same-sex marriage because all sexual predilections are the same

You may have noticed the olympic standpoint not being true. It just as well could be true. The thing with organising around a lie is that no one knows what is actually going on. That is why it is a lie. If you believe condensation clouds formed by airplanes are meant to brainwash the people you might just as well believe that your neighbour is trying to kill you because he is infected by said clouds. In the same vein if you believe that all people are the same you might as well believe that it is discrimination to only give olympic gold to the winner. If that sounds ridiculous remember that the US was having a nationwide discussion about how excluded MtF transgenders with penises felt about not having their own bathroom. If you start from a core lie you can normalise the absurd.

Why leftism?
So now that we have identified the parasite and explained why the parasite is evil, the question remains: why leftism? What is in it for the people believing lies? To answer this question we turn to Spandrell’s story: point deer make horse. In short: when a minister wants to overthrow the president he needs a way to determine loyalty of the parliament. The easiest way to do so is to lie in an obvious manner. Take a horse to work and call it a deer. Those that praise the beauty of the deer are your allies. Those that are confused and ask why you call a horse a deer are your enemies. Work together with your allies and kill your enemies – the game is as simple as that. The horse itself is irrelevant. What is relevant is whose side you are on.

So it is as Spandrell points out: leftism is an easy excuse for defection. The entire point of leftism is to manufacture a point of disagreement with those in power and use it to funnel power towards yourself. Don’t like the king? Tell everyone he does not care for the environment. Don’t like your football coach? Tell everyone he hates women.

AnonymousConservative’s r/K selection theory boils down to the same thing. K-selected genes are programmed for honesty: ‘why my chap let us have a pistol duel at dawn so that I may defend my honor!’ r-selected genes on the other hand are programmed for sneakiness: ‘sure see you there.’ And find out how I rigged your gun asshole.

The leftist in the first place is a scam-artist and his psychological makeup is adapted as such. He is a martyr or as Matt Forney would say – a narcissist. He strives for a lie which will never be and he will lament upon that sad fact until the day he dies. This makes him better than you. ‘Don’t you care?’ he cries while he clutches your coat. Perhaps, perhaps not. But rest assured that the leftist does definitely not care about anything but the newest fashion in leftist defection.

So leftism is an evolved behavioural trait that aids survival by providing you with effective lies to defect when faced with life’s prisoner dilemma situations. Leftism is synonymous with scamming in this sense. What makes the cathedral unique as a scam is that it is such an elaborate scam. Why shouldn’t we all be equal is an unfalsifiable moral observation made originally by priests. Priests! It was a religious scam all along. You have sinned white man and at our altar you may atone for your sins.

What is leftism?
…Is the first question leftist readers will ask. My instinctual answer: unask the question. New question. Where does this rule of yours come from to define every word in every essay? New answer: it comes from academia which is generally cathedral territorium. Since the cathedral is built on lies clear thinking is never promoted. Therefore I distrust your inquiry into my definition and suspect you are looking for a clear dogma to defect upon. The cathedral likes discussing about definitions because definitions are always open for (re)interpretation. Ask the skypes.

You know leftism best when you encounter it. Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals is an excellent book of leftist strategies. Vox Day’s SJW’s Always Lie is an excellent book on how to counter leftist strategies (though I have read neither). I have found that the easiest way to counter leftism is by trusting your gut. Whenever you find yourself in a situation you feel uncomfortable with, ask yourself honestly: am I being scammed? If so, how?

The larger scam is of course the way society is being scammed which happens in many ways but most definitively through the importation of hundreds of thousands of muslim men. Not much you can do about that right now.

Current and future leftism
No one can predict the future positions the cathedral takes because the cathedral itself does not even know what future positions it will take. Truth you can take a swing at but a lie is arbitrary. Both Clinton and Obama were against same-sex marriage before they were in favour of it as recently as 2008. In retrospect this seems incredibly silly seeing as how gay marriage has become such a hallmark of [current year] leftism. But they didn’t know that 10 years ago!


A scam always comes to an end. ‘Truth goes the longest’ as they say. The problem with a scam based on holiness is that a rival priest can always be holier than you. Priest 1 says that it is good for the family if women vote, priest 2 says women are oppressed by the men in their family and it is good if they vote AND pursue careers. Both priests are lying but the second priest lies more blatantly (closer to the core lie) which makes him holier than the first one. So we get holiness spirals  in which those competing for holy power descend further and further into a labyrinth of ever ascending madness. No one can stop it because everybody is a hypocrite. There is a Dutch word for this, schijnheilig, which translates literally into pretendholy.

Because holiness spirals are directly involved in affairs of power they are usually shrouded in secrecy. Power protects itself. But it seems like the American progressivist scam is slowly coming to an end and Wikileaks is exposing its secrets. The cathedral threatens to kill Julian Assange but so far they can’t make true on their promise. Assange strikes me to be a leftist who defected on the meme ‘sharing is caring’ which makes the drama all the more tragic. When the spiral spirals out of control we get a leftist singularity which is the priestly equivalent of what happened to Bernie Madoff when his pyramid scam fell apart. The USSR had a relatively peaceful singularity at the end of the cold war. What will happen to the West?  The left is eating itself – no leftist likes Hillary who surprise surprise turns out to be a crooked scammer. But the alternative is Hitler so leftists find themselves in a pickle. If only Bernie Sanders had defected on Hillary when he was asked to campaign for her new school leftists would at least have someone to believe in. But the poor man was too loyal to the old school cathedral, oh sweet irony.


So now the cathedral is shaking like Ganondorf’s castle during the final boss fight. What will happen when it falls? Chaos? Civil war? Nothing? Peaceful Trump takeover? AI overlord Zuckerberg I? Islamic Europe? We sure live in interesting times.

There is a Dutch story from the middle ages called ‘Van den vos Reynaerde’ or ‘About Reynard the fox’. It was about a fox who tricked everyone. In the end he even scammed the king, a lion called Nobel by convincing him other animals were conspiring against the king. It was a funny story with a lesson: some people are natural scammers because most people are natural suckers.

Laughing at your neighbour’s sinking house is funny until your house starts sinking

US election craze has once again hit the Netherlands for we are always interested in seeing how our masters of the Western world are doing. Naturally what we see appals us. Who are these presidential candidates you’ve come up with – a populist asshole and a corrupt hag!? No one likes them! Silly Americans, what are you doing! This is not how you do democracy! At least in the Netherlands we have the decency to talk thing over with each other and not resort to shit-flinging. As you no doubt infer from my tone we are a decent down-to-earth people who prefer civilised discourse and listening with open heart to all opinions. Frankly we do not stand for this pussygrab and wikileaks nonsense!

Yes, Schadenfreude is a beautiful thing. That is until the self-righteous stop shaking their fists at the Atlantic ocean and turn towards the European situation. How’s that Brexit going? How’s the Ukraine referendum? How’s the EU? How’s the UN? How’s that ISIS and immigration thing? Laughing at your neighbour’s sinking house is funny until you realise that your house is built on exactly the same swamplands.

Music as Territorial Marking

I lived next to a sales unit for a while. Not sure if ‘sales unit’ is a salt of the earth term. It refers to a small company of street salesmen, the type of company that has become quite popular in Dutch cities. Employees usually sell subscriptions for feelgood NGOs or newspapers. They do most of their work on busy shopping streets which means that by day the sales unit is quiet. Afterwork times however is a different story. Since oratory is the greatest value of our time there is no shortage of youngsters wanting to practice their charisma by selling stuff to strangers. You might tell them they are selling crap wrapped in bullshit, they will tell you it is part of their personal growth. Besides, it pays well if you have got the skills.

I did not mind these people hanging out next to my house, smoking on the streets. I lived too close to the city centre to expect total silence. Their afterwork music did get to me though. Mostly because of the bass.

Modern music is not very different from classical music. There’s more different sounds nowadays but the bolts and nuts are the same. Music is rhythm and people like rhythm. The bass is different though. Modern music greatly ups the bass. Where classical music supposedly makes you enjoy the achievements of civilisation, modern music is designed to make you forget everything that has to do with civilisation. The bass drowns your ears, which is not a design flaw but rather an expected evolution.

We are territorial creatures and we like to signal ownership of the territory we occupy. Ownership is however increasingly uncool – ‘in the future we will all be leashing’ as a friend recently explained to me. Territorial music fills this gap by giving us a sense of ownership. The DJ serves as a spiritual alpha to share with us his musical territory.

In the Matrix Zion party there is of course a very strong sense of tribal ownership: the people are dancing the night before the war starts and they all might die. It’s quite dramatic. In the real-life versions of these rave parties people experience similar tribal feelings but their feelings are generally meaningless, since real tribes are illegal. Tribal music belongs to outlaws such as these guys:

Anyway, a lot of people hate on modern music but I for one enjoy the *diversity* by which I mean the wide selection of cool music. Here’s some nice bass-heavy territorium markers.

YouTube wars

Lately there has been drama going on at YouTube. For one, YouTube HQ is cracking down on advertiser-unfriendly content by demonetizing videos that contain sexism, misogyny, bullying, hatespeech, cussing and other equally vague terms. Also Basically free speech on YouTube is now an unprincipled exception and as Jim reasons, unprincipled exceptions seldom last. Unsurprisingly youtube HQ has already banned many videos.

Simultaneously something is happening among youtube celebrities: they’re fighting! What started the fights is as unclear as what started world war I since each youtuber is shouting his own narrative from the rooftop, but here at The Dark Enlightenment(c) we know we can explain both the HQ crackdown and the youtuber wars in a single blog post.

Politics is power. Power is life. Life is everywhere ergo politics is everywhere. Youtube is a very successful company, one might call it the media platform of the future. Old and senile people watch tv, kids and cool people watch youtube. Status, fame and money is involved and we may confidently state that people will fight over power as natural as day follows night.

So about YouTube HQ turning into Gestapo HQ — any organisation that is not explicitly right-wing will turn left-wing sooner or later because entropy demands it (‘what goes up must come down’). YouTube like so many other companies is being taken over by Social Justice Warriors because leftists are in power.

So about youtubers turning on each other. Who is actually waging war upon whom? What is the narrative, the story? Well the only ones that really understand what is going on are the youtubers involved in the war, so as a spectator there is a lot of stuff you’re missing. But the patterns of warfare are always the same and it is no different with youtubers. Let us pretend you’re cheering for a football team. Do you care about the behind-the-scenes drama? Not really, as long as your team wins when they play. Similarly youtuber wars only make sense in the context of their function: collecting views. May the most views win.

That being said I will offer one bit of narrative. Leafy receives a fair amount of hate. My AlfaNL analysis is as follows: conflict is a natural law of life which means that those who are good at handling conflict prosper and become defacto alphas. Leafy is a natural at conflict engaging. He essentially is the youtube alpha gorilla in the playground, speaking out his mind unfiltered about all the other weird kids. Alpha is as alpha does. It leads to other guys roleplaying that they are going to kill him and it leads to girls roleplaying that they want to be fucked by him.

Of course such a power grab will not go unopposed. How to handle the playground bully? Defect against him, naturally. Posture yourself to be holier than him. Tell people you will not stand for this vile behaviour, that not just you are better than that, but surely everyone is better than that! Of course every time you rant against your enemy you are engaging in the exact same thing you are accusing your opponent of but that is exactly what leftist evolutionary tactics boil down to. You give yourself moral permission to be a hypocrite because you can not honourably defect without being a hypocrite. So while I may personally dislike H3h3 for being a hypocrite in the end my opinion does not matter. What matters is whether the defection works.

Zelf-ontwikkeling en boerenverstand

Enkele oud school lezers hebben geklaagd dat ik de laatste tijd teveel over politiek schrijf en niet meer over zelf-ontwikkeling zoals ik dat in het begin deed. Mijn gedachten over het onderwerp zijn wat geëvolueerd, maar dat is misschien juist een goede reden om erover te schrijven.

Ik dacht vroeger dat zelf-ontwikkeling een kwestie was van de juiste gewoontes aanleren, meer niet. Gewoon je hele dag uitplannen weet je. Ik zag zelf-ontwikkeling als een 10 stappenplan dat je stapje voor stapje moest uitvoeren. Zoals zoveel dingen is dat waar, tot op een bepaalde hoogte. Dichter bij de waarheid is dat leven niet lineair van A naar Z verloopt. Leven is kriskras, soms willekeurig, vaak onvoorspelbaar en praktisch onmogelijk om tot je dood uit te plannen.


Veel zelf-ontwikkelings gurus verkopen de droom van een gestandaardiseerde transformatie naar succes. Ze praten over ‘dat ene geheim dat alles op zijn plaats doet vallen’ en ‘de 100 ijzeren wetten van het leven’. Ze liegen. Of althans; ze zeggen ook goede dingen, maar hun product is een leugen, want hun product is niet bedoeld om jou te veranderen maar om jouw ego het idee te geven dat je verandert. Het probleem is dat wanneer je ego verandert je definitie van succes ook veranderd en dat hetgene dat je dacht dat je wou eigenlijk helemaal niet was wat je wou. Geen zelf-ontwikkelings guru heeft iets aan een klant die hem niet meer nodig heeft, vandaar dat zoveel zelf-ontwikkelings gurus geen verandering maar validatie verkopen.

Bepaalde fundamenten zijn universeel; zie wat ik hier en daar heb geschreven. Maar je pad naar succes of geluk of hoe je dat ook noemt verschilt van persoon tot persoon en wat geldt voor mijn ego hoeft niet per se voor jouw ego te gelden.

Persoonlijk ben ik de laatste tijd bezig met eerlijk zijn op een zo fijn mogelijke manier. Met mezelf, met anderen. Ik kan niet goed met leugens leven, ze verwarren me en doen me vergeten wat ik belangrijk vind. Ik ben leugenaars uit mijn leven aan het wegsnijden. Ik ben minder actief bezig om alles te controleren en te beïnvloeden; ik neem meer momenten rust om even na te denken over wat zich voor mijn ogen afspeelt en hoe ik daar het beste mee om kan gaan. Ik leer dat je niet bang moet zijn om te vechten; conflict hoort net als zen bij het leven (yin en yang). Ik leer ook dat je je gevechten uit moet kiezen — je moet niet wild om je heen gaan slaan. Tenslotte leer ik dat je niet altijd meer moet willen; soms is het goed zo.


What’s up guys Alf here with another post on the god-damn internet.

ReactionaryFuture has gone all out and broken with pretty much every post-Moldbug blogger. This is a completely logical step because RF is the Chosen One, the only One who has interpreted the true will of Moldbug. This was not an easy task for RF since Moldbug’s teachings only make sense when combined with de Jouvenel in a ritual that requires its participant to slay a French sheep during full moon whilst reciting backwards the essay ‘how Dawkins got pwned’. When a secret of the universe is so well hidden it is no wonder no one understands what RF is talking about.

You might think the next logical step for RF would be to sell his earthly possessions and go camp outside Moldbug’s house, but RF would then no doubt discover that even Moldbug has forgotten Moldbug’s teachings! So no. Instead, the next logical step for RF is of course to gather his own following (likely spergy guys with issues but preferably young fertile chicks), establish a successful cult and live off their pussy and money. I wish him the best of luck.

Let’s you and him fight

Men instinctively know when a woman is turned on. Men with game fine-tune this instinct and learn that women respond well to being an asshole. Thus modern men want to become assholes.

Why are assholes sexy? Because they get away with being an asshole which equals power which equals chick magnet. The problem is that not everyone can get away with being an asshole. Women are acutely aware of this and test to see if you’re really the badass you portray yourself to be. Individual shit-tests are easily passed with rudimentary game knowledge. But women are smart and know that not everyone can get away with being an asshole. If a woman asks Ronald if ‘he does this often’ Ronald replies ‘only with cute chicks’ because Ronald has read Heartiste. The same woman then asks Steven if he’ll make her dinner to which Steven responds ‘I’ve got some skittles’ because Steven has read Heartiste. The woman however knows that not all men can get away with being an asshole and so does the only thing that makes sense to her: get Steven and Ronald to fight.

Women love men fighting over them and seek out opportunities to provoke men in doing so. Game sells us the fantasy that we can pimp every chick as long as we don’t give a fuck, but whenever possible women will test that assertion by setting you up against other men who also claim to not give a fuck. Most men by design give a fuck as much as they shout that they do not. Even Heartiste admits that many alphas are good at pretending not to give a fuck.

Thus women call our bluff: ‘you say you are a tough guy, but so does this other guy. How about you fight?’ Since only outlaws dare to fight, only outlaws pass modern woman’s shit-test and get laid. Average, law-abiding men on the other hand are stuck paying thousands of dollars for RSD courses which teach them that whenever they fail it is their own fault because they are pathetic men that need to learn how to man up.

To anon or not to anon

They won’t imprison you or kill you (yet) but they will deny you the ability to make money to feed your family.
– Ryan Landry

The cathedral is real and it is cracking down on dissidents. It works slow and lazy, but its tentacles drop heavy on those who it perceives to be its enemies. In a way it is refreshing to see accounts on Twitter being shut down live – here’s a bunch of guys who have been calling out that the emperor has no clothes, let us see how the emperor reacts! Well the emperor is appalled and shocked. He calls his advisers – what to do? This enemy has too many heads, they can not all be droned to death! Fret not, the advisers tell him that he has other means of warfare. After all they own this town and this town includes Google, Facebook and Twitter. Thus dissenters are banned including even Scott Adams, the creator of Dilbert.

Scott Adams has pointed out that his only speaking engagement has been cancelled and that leftists have tried sabotage the sale of his books. I wager he has become a persona non grata in politically correct circles.

A test to show loyalty to the cathedral is simple. They present you with 2 paintings, one red and one blue. They ask you: are these paintings not exactly the same? And you answer: yes, they are exactly the same and that is wonderful, after which you will be showered with praise.

The central defection lie that ‘different = the same’ has made it so that truth has become hatespeech and hatespeech is forbidden and punishable. Talking truth is samizdat and if you are reckless you and your loved ones will be targeted and shut-out. The cathedral is by no means as effective a killing machine as the USSR, but that is due to its inherent madness, not its lack of hatred.

In short; there is a price to pay by openly speaking out. Scott Adams like other bigger names in the Alt-Right has paid that price, perhaps even found a way to thrive in antifragility. I have considered breaking anonymity but decided against it.  I am not sure to what extent reactionaries can stay under the radar (is WordPress even safe?). I think I leave too many traces to stay hidden if someone really goes looking. But methinks there is no reason to unnecessarily prod the cathedral by shouting out my name.

The war on white heterosexual men: Dutch fraternities

I have found that the easiest way to explain reaction is by taking Jim’s approach: point out that there is a war going on against white heterosexual men. What you lose in terms of sounding dramatic you win in terms of predictive power – once you reason from the hypothesis ‘leftists fight a war against white heterosexual men’ many things make complete sense.

For instance the recent media ruckus around the most infamous Dutch student society Vindicat. Quality journalism has uncovered that higher ranking men in Vindicat were circulating a ‘bang-list’ which rated its 22 hottest & sluttiest female members. This evil behaviour will of course not stand and the right people were consequently outraged. Pressure started from the media, including Rob Wijnberg’s media outlet comparing the men of Vindicat with terrorists. This prompted the female minister of education to criticise the university for not intervening enough which prompted the Groningen university to promise a more active involvement in much needed ‘cultural change‘ in fraternities, including illegalizing hazing procedures. Men of Vindicat, I am sorry to tell you this, but your student society will be stomped in the face with a leather boot until it submits to progress.

The media-political-academic complex strikes and Ctulhu is moving left yet again. This of course is nothing new for our American friends, who have described the exact same procedures happening overseas. Nothing new to see in the war against white heterosexual men here.