Heartiste, a final time

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

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

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

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

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

Schermafbeelding 2018-06-23 om 15.52.33

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

22 thoughts on “Heartiste, a final time

  1. Is it the job of a priest to be right? I wonder if this metaphor (intellectuals as priests) gets overstretched.

    An intellectual talking about something factual is just a knowledge worker. The intellectual acts in a priestly role only when he makes a moral judgement, a value judgement, stating what is holy and what is abominable.

    The second now eclipses the first – because intellectuals are convinced sexism is morally wrong, they are unable to understand factual sex differences, they are just afraid of it. Hic sunt leones.

    Now, true facts are highly important in using power correctly. But they are not related to just HAVING power as. As in, the warrior says, do as I say or I kick your ass. The priest says, yes, this is morally good, because he is the divine right king or something. Facts do not play a role in this, only in how well he rules.

    So what is the priest-intellectual’s job? First of all to get the fuck out of the way of factual intellectualism. Never make moral judgements that tend towards distorting facts. But other than that, the priest-intellectual doesn’t have to be right because he is not in the business of facts. He is in the business of moral judgements, and those aren’t as much right or wrong but rather useful or harmful.

    1. I see no difference between the intellectual and the priest.

      I have yet to meet the first intellectual who is able discuss facts without getting morally involved. It just doesn’t happen. All these intellectual experts, ‘history’, ‘psychology’, ‘sociology’, ‘[insert nation]’, they all get morally involved at one point or the other. Because that is their evolutionary niche.

      There is no market for factual intellectualism.

        1. That’s the market for engineers. It’s about producing stuff you can touch and hold and see work.

          The market for intellectuals is different. It’s about ideas, stuff you can’t touch. I maintain that no one makes it in the market for intellectuals by sticking to factual information.

          Which is not to give out a blanc cheque to lie, just that the strength of an intellectual lies in how strong his conviction is conveyed to the audience, and truthful facts are in practice only a tool to attain this goal, not the goal by itself, because truth as an abstraction is meaningless. Hence, every NY Times journalist.

      1. So the humanities and the social sciences. They have an interesting history. Originally they were practiced inside the Church and had very clear and explicit value judgements. John Medaille’s economics is a throwback to that period, very honest about value judgements: https://www.frontporchrepublic.com/2009/05/the-economics-of-distributism-ii-political-economy-as-a-science/

        Then due to penis envy of natural sciences, the myth of a value-free social science was created. Comte etc. But you are right they never managed to do that because it is impossible.

        Nowadays we can hope much of social science gets outcompeted by aspects of value-free natural science: HBD, genetics, sex differences, evopsy, generally biology. These are as value-free as the periodical tables of elements.

        What is left of social science and humanities IMHO needs to return being explicit and honest about value judgements, thus, a religion.

    2. Jim would say that a priest-intellectual (priestellectual) should only make moral judgments that accord with Natural Law and empirical truth; any deviation therefrom — such as egalitarianism (“all men are created equal”) or victorianism (“women only behave badly because men make them behave badly”) — risks leading down the path of holiness-spiraling. A good priestellectual is one who derives morality from reality, rather than deriving reality from morality. Which means that there are practically no good priestellectuals these days, except perhaps people in our corner of the internet.

      1. Yes.

        In due time priests will use Natural Law to justify new atrocities (after all, natural law is just 2 words), but for now the dominant priest class is so caught up in its own holiness spirals that our memes are jaw-droppingly better.

  2. You lack the intersection between priests and soldiers. Call them paladins or templars, but the two sides need a connection point. Somewhere where they can find common ground. Jim is one of those, but you need more.

      1. Why reject connection? Why does he not want priests? I understand both priests and warriors. As a priest, you make a lot of sense. As a warrior, you sound weak. What use are weak priests? Why bother? Need strong priests, first.

        1. I am triggered by Heartiste’s refusal to acknowledge the Dark Enlightenment. Which is my fault, not his. I misjudged him in the predictable way of taking his message at face value instead of considering the product he’s selling. So, my weakness. But without pinpointing the weakness, can’t fix it.

          1. Your comment made things clearer. As far as I know, he sells nothing. He is a warrior, speaking as a warrior, to other warriors. Self-authorizing message, language. As a priest, you did not understand, spoke accordingly. Revealed yourself as unauthorized user, thus banned.

            You need priests who can understand warriors, or your evangelism will fail. Need more like Jim, who can speak to priest and warrior both. Need priests who can beat up warriors, gain their respect, attention.

          2. Heartiste sells a product, just like Vox Day, just like Paul Joseph Watson. If he were not selling anything, would not ignore Jim, Spandrell, Moldbug, though Jim at the very least. That he makes an effort to ignore them is a tell that he sees us as competition for the sale of his product.

            Heartiste sells bropulism.

          3. He ignores you because NRx is non-viable. You have failed to make the case to warriors. This is an old concern of mine; I have raised it before. You cannot provide a replacement priesthood/state apparatus if the warriors will not have you.

            Find more Jims or make them. If all of NRx save Jim sounds like a bunch of pussies, warriors will give Jim the man the nod and ignore Jim’s ideas. Jim must not be the only based NRx voice. Learn to speak to warriors.

  3. Heartiste and Dalrock are both cowardly faggots if you want my opinion as they so super moderate their blogs that literally nothing gets through unless it’s 1 billion % in agreement with their ideology and they are heavy believers in the use of censorship and blocking and deleting comments

    The ironic thing is, these faggots have the cheek to criticize the liberal left SJW’s for their use of censorship but then these pathetic cowards go and do the same thing!

    I have a strict policy which I have no exceptions for: you moderate your blog, delete comments/and or not publish comments unless it sits in moderation for days and weeks then you don’t get my time or support, I wipe you from existence and I never return
    Censorship and super moderating your blog is the practice of gutless cowards who wish to sit in an ideological echo chamber where they can propogate their garbage without fear of censure and at the moment that’s where Dalrock and Heartiste currently sit: they are cults pure and simple

    1. Yes, they are cults. So what? You have probably read about discussions that we need a new religion (here or at Spandrell’s blog). Religions start small, i.e. as cults. If you don’t argree that a (new) religion is needed to replace the cathedral, then please give us your reasons.

      I also don’t see your problem with censorship. We wouldn’t be in the present mess if some Institution like the Spanish Inquisition would have censored anti-Christian or anti-western opinion in the last 200 years or so.

      Freedom of expression was a lefty Slogan to attack our western civilisation. It was quite a successful weapon. They won’t give us freedom of expression. Why should we give it to them?

      1. Obviously we are not opposed to censorship. But I am against Dalrock’s censorship of discussing the nature of women, and I am against Heartiste’s censorship of discussing Jim.

      2. @Karl

        “Yes, they are cults. So what?

        At least you admit they are cults, but a “cult” is nothing to be proud of….they need to be exposed then refuted
        The trouble is, because Dalrock is a dangerous cult he knows this already and he takes extreme measures to insure he doesn’t get exposed by his absolutely retarded super moderation of his site and by his use of heavy censorship so that no one can critique his content

          1. @Karl

            I can’t refute them because none of my comments get through whereas as you can see in here, all my comments show up because @Alf is not a coward and he publishes all my posts

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.