Monthly Archives: February 2018

Lying works.

The aspiration of every man is to have at least a moderate amount of fuck-you money. As a young and spoiled brahmin I have long denied this, but as I get older I have to admit it is undeniably true. Money marks territory and allows safe exchange between territory. Money keeps peace between men.

But that’s not what I came here to write about. I came to write more about leftism.

Isn’t leftism interesting? Barely 30 years ago we saw it as a viable political ideology, nowadays we see it almost as a pathology. I’d say it isn’t, because pathologies are maladaptive, like homosexuality and transgenderism, while leftism, though destructive, is pretty adaptive.

The best explanation of leftism remains cuttlefish. Male cuttlefish fight each other in ritualized battles for the right to mate with female cuttlefish. Ah, the ritual fight! How honorable! How righteous! What an honest system to select for the strongest specimen of cuttlefish! Only, some cuttlefish figure that fighting is for suckers, disguise themselves as females, swim right past the fights and pork the ladies. To add insult to injury I gladly add that females are as enthusiastically porked by these cheater, leftist fish as they are by the honorable, righteous fish.

Gnon likes a cheater. That, in a nutshell, is the explanation for the existence of leftism. The point is, ladies and gentlemen, that lying — for the lack of a better word, is good. Lying works. Lying clarifies, cuts through, and captures essence of the evolutionary spirit.

But, lying does not scale so well online. Too many anonymous people watching and judging. Every lie is unique, but every truth is similar. This is why leftists are losing the internet wars — they can’t get their lies straight, whereas rightists by pure individual logic arrive at similar conclusions.

Jordan Peterson, YouTube prophet

Props to Spandrell for noticing Jordan Peterson well before he was fashionable. RT on an interview between Moldbug and Peterson.

I found this interview with Russell Brand quite enjoyable.

First things first: Russell Brand is communist. Not saying that in a hateful way, just a statement of facts. Observe his creative nonsense ramblings, his dirty looks (skinny, pale, tattoos), his Rasputin-like gaze. He’s not hiding it at all. Personally I like an honest charismatic commie. They lie so brazenly obviously in the face of so many people that the fact that people believe them at all is a testament to the evolutionary effectiveness of leftism.

So how will Jordan Peterson fair against a commie? As it turns out, pretty good.

First half an hour is them warming up to each other. Peterson obviously has the frame, likely because he has all the momentum while I’m guessing Brand has lost a lot of his. As Brand later on says: Peterson has loyal fanbase, Brand does not.

30:00 ‘That’s what artists do.’ I tip my hat to your flattery skills, mr Peterson.

41:30 ‘It seems you care about truth, that you search for truth.’

42:00 Great little bit on how Brand confesses many people for whatever strange reason don’t like his commie interference and Peterson pats him on the back.

52:00 Jordan says what I said 2 posts ago.

1:01:00 ‘the right doesn’t care, the left fails to do what it tries to do.’ Yeah, no. Peterson is a centrist. Peterson later describes himself as high on openness to new experience which helps explain his centrism. But, similar to how agreeableness is cooked in favor of pretending agreeable people go along with good behavior while they in fact go along with bad behavior just as easy, openness to new experience is cooked in favor of pretending open people going along with good exotic behavior, while open people go along with bad exotic behavior just as easy. Which Peterson demonstrates by repeatedly flattering Brand.

1:10:30 Brand vocalizing both his hatred and admiration of the right in typical leftist fashion.

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: while Jordan Peterson is an exceedingly intelligent man, his primary interest is not truth. Truth is sort of high on his list, yes, but spreading the gospel of Peterson is higher on his list. Quite understandably so, I might add. Truth is shouting against a storm, effectively spreading your gospel is like riding a storm.

Peterson’s story is quite good, quite solid. But he has quite some flaws in thinking, e.g. on Islam (on which he, like Pilate, washes his hands), on women (needs more Jim) and on individualism (indiloldualism). If I had more motivation I’d take more time explaining why Peterson has these flaws and why it is unlikely he will correct them, but whatevs. Moldbug has Peterson’s number.

OK I’ll leave you with one more observation. If I were to talk with Russell Brand, I’d tell him with a grin: ‘Russell, I rarely come across men who speak complete nonsense as eloquently as you.’ Naturally, he’d be irritated. But it would be completely true. If Peterson always speaks the truth, if Peterson always strives to find the truth, how come he has not said anything of the sort in the entire 90 minutes of conversation?

Answering Imperial Energy

OK I’ll take the quiz and throw out some answers.

Can USG be restructured? [Sure but it’s a coup-complete problem.]

1: What is your single, most important, goal or goals? [to secure the existence of my people and a future for my children.]

2: Are the goals practically realisable? [yes.]

3: How are these goals to be realised? [by doing what all procreating men before us have done.]

4: How many men do you need? How much money? What materials do you need, how many and how much will it cost? [a männerbund helps a bunch. Enough to take care of self, wife and kids. Money and property. Enough to take care of self, wife and kids.]

5: Who do you proximately and ultimately need to convince/ persuade in order to obtain the goals? [convincing a männerbund helps, but no need to convince or persuade anyone besides your girl, who wants to be convinced anyway. It’s more that you need to know how to be a dancing monkey.] 

6: What obstacles are in the way? What obstacles could exist in the future? [the black pill. Leftist singularity and/or death.]

7: What is plan A? What is plan B? What is plan C? [Plan A: see above. Plan B: kill someone and bang groupies in jail without condom. No plan C.]

8: Who is or who could be the “receiver”? [?]

9: What are the possible ways that the system could be “rebooted”? [Coup.]

10: Is the new design – the New Structure – likely to be permanent? What potential problems could affect the stability and transition of power from the first generation to the second? [No. Stuff like getting the most competent man in power, generational decline, aristocratic decadence.] 

11: If you need to build a “machine” in order to achieve the reboot, how do you turn off this “machine” once a re-structuring has been accomplished? [you can’t, that’s the point. Damn brahmins always want to control all the variables.]

12: How might the machine be corrupted or taken over by actors with goals contrary to the formal purpose? [same manner leftism has always done. Can’t control all the variables.]

Leftism brings balance to the force

Leftism is the battle of the weak vs the strong, which inevitably ends in the strong using the weak against the strong, but what else are the weak going to do.

I keep running into the problem of money creating more money. Principles of rent and interest, which I believe are more Gnon’s principles than just the Jews’ principles, make it so. The rich get richer, the poor stay poor. From what I see I’d agree with the proposition that income inequality naturally grows.

Is this a problem? Not so in the sense that an aristocracy ensuring its own interests is preferable to a leftist clique slowly destroying its host society. But like the Ancien régime any unchallenged elite will eventually succumb to decadence and corruption which in turn will lead to a tipping point where destruction is inevitable.

Hence the evolutionary niche for a natural enemy. Hence leftism. Hens hens.

Baudet’s trials

In case you were wondering who the top right figure in the above banner was, wonder no more: it is the intelligent and charming Thierry Baudet. Who? Thierry Baudet. An upcoming Dutch politician who is making waves by promoting Nexit, denouncing traditional Dutch parties as a cartel, tweeting that global warming is a scam and stating that border protection is a hallmark of a healthy nation. He is, in short, the intellectual Geert Wilders.

Lately the attacks towards Baudet have taken on a nastier tone. The media- & party cartel are intensifying efforts to ruin Baudet’s reputation: supposedly he is horrible horrible person. That they are unable to show any evidence showing Baudet is a horrible horrible person, that no such evidence exists and that the accusation is entirely fabricated, does not deter them. It is a battle of frame.

Baudet displays admirable composure under the pressure and will find that if he maintains frame, like Jordan Peterson, the Dutch will sway to his side. The Hague is a cesspool of radical leftism — a lot of Dutch are silently on the side of Baudet. Observe how the overwhelming majority of the Dutch are in favor of Sinterklaas and Zwarte Piet, observe how everyone laughed when Rene van der Gijp put on a wig and jokingly became Renate van der Gijp. The momentum of the radical left is over. The cartel knows this, feels this, and therefore launches an offense that is reminiscent of the demonization of Pim Fortuyn. The cartel’s plan, in no particular order, is to isolate Baudet, intimidate Baudet, infiltrate Baudet’s party, get Baudet to lose his cool, get a radical leftist to kill Baudet, make it seem like no one likes Baudet.

Truth is, no one likes Sylvana Simons, everyone likes Rene van der Gijp.

It is becoming perfectly obvious to many rightist and centrist Dutch voters that the EU is very bad news for the Netherlands, that there is both a media- and party cartel, that warmism is a tax scam, and that border protection is the hallmark of a healthy nation. This is why the following election will not be about economy or healthcare or whatever, it will be about whether you are in favor or against the party cartel. The campaign slogans almost write themselves.

On truth

It seems ‘truth’ has become a returning rallying point of this blog.

A couple things about truth are good to discuss.

First. Truth exists outside human experience.

Humans are not built for truth. Humans are instead build for survival; we interpret truth, reality, as demanded for our survival, but our interpretation falls short of the real thing, for reality is only a means to our top priority: gene replication. We pride ourselves with approximation of reality, but only because it aids us with survival.

For example. To build a house a contractor does not need to know that wood is made up of 50% carbon, 42% oxygen, 6% hydrogen, 1% nitrogen, and 1% other elements. He merely need to know how to build four walls and a roof that does not collapse on you. But, to a chemist publishing articles on the make-up of wood, the above knowledge suddenly becomes very relevant, while the knowledge on how to build a house is irrelevant. Same pieces of woods, different purposes, different truth models. We learn only what we need to learn, both by necessity and by natural limitation. Practical truth thus only presents itself to humans in the form of feedback loops: trial and error.

Second. Truth for the sake of truth is like shouting against a storm. 

Our inability to reach ABSOLUTE TRUTH does not negate the power of our ability to approach truth, despite the relativistic nonsense leftists love to throw around: because we can’t know everything, we know nothing. Bullshit! As follows from the first point: we don’t need to know everything, we just need to know enough. And we know enough about plenty of stuff. The world is chock-full of truth, and men all around the world observe it daily.

But we have no interest in truth for the sake of truth. No one is interested in hearing random truths unless they stand to benefit from it. My wooden cupboard has a scratch on it. I ate some bacon. I’m slightly tired. All of this is true, but all of it is useless information to you, the reader.

Another problem is that men often benefit more from lies than from truth. Truth is often dangerous. Lies are comforting, binding, empowering — the right lies bring status, and status goes much further in gene replication than truth. Truth however is cold and uncaring. Men, having to perform like the dancing monkeys they are, haven’t much patience for harsh truth (it goes unsaid that women have no grasp of truth whatsoever. For women truth differs from moment to moment).

Of course truth is beneficial on a long enough timescale, but who has time for that? Some low time preference high IQ neoreactionaries perhaps. But generally people figure they only live about 80 years before they’re dead, add another 40 years if you care about your kids, which is still nothing in the grand scheme of things, so why bother?

The exception is of course when a man lives a lie so flagrant it is unsustainable. But a man can cope with quite a few flagrant lies before life becomes unsustainable.

So, most people are not interested. Speaking truth for the sake of speaking truth is like shouting in a storm, meaning people raise their shoulders and say: ‘eh, whatever.’ If it is not like that, something else is going on.

If people like listening to your truth, it in some way benefits them.

If people dislike listening to your truth, it in some way hurts them.

Take Socrates. Socrates had young admirers who enjoyed an eloquent man speaking truth to power. Conversely Socrates was hated among those in power who disliked being ridiculed for their point deer make horse lies. The only logical conclusion was that Socrates had to drink from a poisoned cup for speaking the truth and thereby he became the archetypal prophet of all truth-speakers. Truth-speakers often can’t help being an insufferable bunch.

Third. What remains is using truth as a holy weapon. 

So we’ve established that nobody cares about the concept of truth, much like how no one cares about freedom of speech. We don’t care if this world is a simulation, if this is the Matrix, if I’m actually talking to you in your dream. We work with the information we get, that is all. All else is tribal marking, religious warfare. What is true? What I say is true, what my enemies say is false. 

It is an interesting human trait that both my enemies and I find it very important to say we value truth, while experience shows we don’t care so much about truth. In communication, the word truth is a synonym for cooperation. The act of being beneficially truthful means you can trust me, means that what I say is useful information. I lie to my enemies, but to you, my friend, I speak the truth.

This is why shouting that you care about truth is a prerequisite to gain other people’s trust, which is why so many liars tell you how much they care about truth.

Thus truth by necessity becomes a holy weapon — if truth is on our side, so must God. Indeed, truth becomes a synonym for God. Or G-d. Or Allah. Whatever. Are you ready to discover what is true?

So there really is no escape from weaponizing truth.

*suddenly, a tiny devil appears out of thin air*

tiny_devil_by_m_clone-d4lsd8z– ‘cool story Alf I’mma let you finish but here’s my 2000 word response on what truth means…’ 


‘Yeah that’s great but my version is better. That’s what weaponizing truth means.’

tiny_devil_by_m_clone-d4lsd8z– ‘but Alf if your version of truth is to simply scold everyone who disagrees with you then you’re no better than a leftist!’


‘Well, there is another, simpler way to look at things, a very concise summary of all discussed above.’

tiny_devil_by_m_clone-d4lsd8z– ‘what could that be!’


‘Don’t virtue signal. Don’t be a hypocrite. That is all.’


The tiny demon disappears with a loud pop, knowing it has been defeated… For today.

Part VIII — smoking in Ipswich



Colin took a deep drag of his cigarette as he looked at the newspaper in front of him with disbelief.


A cartoon underneath depicted a crazy-eyed Farage punching a shocked Sadiq Khan, the latter draped in the flag of England. ‘FARRAGED’ read the caption.  Normally Colin ignored the papers as much as possible, but this rattled him. Especially after the phone call he received last night. First a friend of Nigel calling help, now this? Something big was going on. Colin glanced around the shady harbor bar. It was his favorite place to visit in-between work. Nothing fancy, just friendly personnel, decent coffee and a bunch of sailors and fishermen drinking and smoking, minding their own business. If only things everywhere could be as peaceful as in this bar, Colin thought to himself. With the smoldering butt of his cigarette he lit another cig and read the article.

‘A GRISLY turn of events as UKIP-leader Nigel Farage without provocation PUMMELED Prime minister Sadiq Khan in the FACE during a diplomatic dinner gone awry. Doubts on the Brexit-instigator’s sanity were raised earlier but…’

Colin stopped reading as the bar door opened and a tall young man with sunglasses and a blue hat entered. Which is exactly what the voice on the phone said he’d be wearing. Colin held up a hand. The youngster came over and sat down. Colin, watching him intensely, caught him glancing at the newspaper. ‘You know anything about this?’ The youngster stayed quiet. Something about him seemed very familiar to Colin. ‘Who are you?’ The young man looked around, as to check no one was listening in. Colin pressed. ‘C’mon man, give me something. Who are you? Why did Nigel give you this number? Why should I help you?’ Slowly, the youngster took off his sunglasses and with no small surprise Colin realized he was sitting opposite the son of the uncrowned God-Emperor of the United States of America. ‘Holy shit. You are –‘
– ‘Yeah, I know.’
‘So that explains how you know Nigel.’
– ‘Yeah.’
‘And I guess this brawl’ -Colin pointed at the newspaper- ‘involved you.’
– ‘Yeah.’
– ‘Can you get me to the Netherlands?’
‘Uh, what? Probably. Yeah, sure. Sorry I kind of need to process this.’
– ‘I’m not sure this disguise will fool anyone looking for me, and I’m sure they’ll be looking for me. Can you get me to the continent without anyone ehm… Authoritative finding me?’

Colin straightened up. ‘Well… It just so happens mr Farage sent you to the right guy. I’ve got just the thing that will get you straight to mainland without anyone knowing.’ For the first time since he met him, Colin saw a glimmer of hope cross Barron’s face. ‘Great. How soon can we leave?’
‘Ehhh tomorrow, actually. Be here at 6 AM. ‘
– ‘OK. Great. Don’t tell anyone about this. See you tomorrow.’ Barron stood up, but did not leave before taking a last look at the newspaper. ‘And don’t believe everything they tell you in the paper’ he said. Colin smiled. ‘Don’t worry, never do.’

Once alone again, Colin ordered himself a pint and absentmindedly took a sip. So he was going to smuggle the son of the Donald to the continent? He lit a cigarette and blew out a big cloud. God damn, these were exciting times.


Lol Scott Alexander

Can not promise this is the last time I write about Scott Alexander, because:

a) his audience is large enough that making fun of him is worth it
b) he is a juicy target

It is not hard to see why Scott is a successful blogger. He writes a lot, he writes well, and his sentences seem intelligent. So what’s the deal with Scott Alexander?

The deal with Scott Alexander is that he is the kind of man who makes signals you’d normally associate with intelligence, much like smoke gives off the signals of fire. Yet when you take a closer look, there is no fire, just a bunch of nerdy men in the comment section who all really really do their best to pretend there is a fire.

Scott has a pretty straightforward business model.

On day 1 he paints a blue pill purple. He will say something along the lines of ‘I am not saying we live in an age of repressive censorship, but if we were living in an age of repressive censorship it would not be wise of me to say we live in an age of repressive censorship. Wink wink, nudge nudge.’ This makes all the non-leftists go: ‘woooo this guy is so edgy!’

Then, on day 2, he paints a red pill purple. He will say something along the lines of ‘although it seems like official truth is just a bunch of lies, it seems that in this instance official truth is in fact the truth.’ This makes all the leftists go: ‘wooo one of us, one of us.’

Rinse and repeat and you have his business model. Basically Scott Alexander’s entire blog is a never-ending exercise of playing good cop bad cop with himself and his commenters.

Scott Alexander constantly holds up 2 pills, like Morpheus, and whenever you go for one he will close that hand and offer you the other. It is a shtick and it will eventually get old. Unfortunately for Scott, I am sure that leftists dislike his shtick as much as I dislike his shtick, hence the not insignificant risk of Scott eventually getting himself killed, much like that other smart guy.