I figured out how to deal with women before I figured out how to deal with men. For me, women have always had a special glow, something enticing. Turns out women, for me at least, are easier to deal with — it is instinctive for a woman to want to belong to a male’s in-group, if the fundamental requirement of the male demanding the need for the woman to belong to his in-group is met. This goes for all women, whether you have sex with them or not.
(so, theoretically, if a woman ever accuses you of raping her, the correct response would be to treat her with the fury of a thousand suns, while a single tear rolls down your cheek.)
With men it is different. It looks similar, but it’s totally different. Both shit-test, but if a woman shit-tests you, it is to figure out if you are strong enough for her to want to belong to your in-group. If a man shit-tests you, it is to figure out if you are weak enough for him to take your status. One tacitly invites conquerors, the other tacitly seeks to conquer.
Women belong to any in-group that conquers them, men form their own in-group.
Leftism is turning on the in-group by breaking down borders between in-group and out-group. Hence leftist fathers sacrificing their sons to the out-group; the ultimate in-group betrayal.
The Dark Enlightenment has broken free from the enlightenment by re-establishing in-group and out-group borders: you say you are with me? Prove it. And then prove it again. And again. Only in the act of cooperating with me do I know you are on my side.
The consequent question has been: how wide do we re-establish our in-group? Human eyes have big whites around their irises for communication, so it is obvious that we are at our strongest in a group. But which group?
The lie of white nationalism is that all the white men in all the nations share a special unspoken bond. This is nonsense, as observed in the leftist white father sacrificing his sons to the out-group. Similarly, I have heard enough war stories from my granddad to know that even close friends may betray one another when life or death is on the line. White men have a long history of stabbing each other in the back.
So we aim for a better means of cooperation. We consider religion — after all, religious movements are required for large scale cooperation, as nazism descended from lutheranism and as progressivism descended from puritanism, although neither of these are the religions we are looking for. Christianity did pull it off for a long time, so perhaps Christianity is the religion we’re looking for, but obviously, has its issues.
The thing about religion is that personnel is policy. You may have the most beautiful scripture in the world telling you how to do good, but if the preacher interprets it to do evil, it don’t mean squat. So it is not a matter of writing the scripture and calling it a day, it is a matter of tinkering and adjusting and tinkering, depending on your personnel.
The conclusion for optimal political cooperation is that we need a king, or an emperor, or a CEO, or a dictator. Whatever you want to call it. Put a white hetero male at the top. Well does not have to white, hetero, or male, it is just extremely likely that the person who by capability rises to the top will be white hetero male. Apex predators tend to do that. Like Trump.
In its simplest form, all our religion needs to say is that it is just for the apex predator to sit upon his throne. Essentially we’re saying: ‘look at this group of gorillas. Look at the alpha silverback. It is good that he is the alpha silverback. It is natural that he is the alpha silverback.’ Our intent with this is not some power-fantasy in which imagine ourselves as the alpha silverback, our intent is that if the chain of authority leads to a formalized leader, the chain of authority works, entirely in line with natural law. By giving the leader the power to say ‘no’ and to follow through on the act of saying ‘no’, we grant respect, honor and cooperation to the leader and his subjects. The system becomes human, as opposed to the mindless bureaucracy that inevitably accompanies a dying democracy.
Every functional group has a leader. That is simply the way things work.
So we are monarchs after all. Of course, we realize the system is imperfect: Trump will surely be a wise king, but what about his son, his grandson, his grand-grandson? There is no guarantee for quality through the generations. That is why it is the Dark Enlightenment: it recognizes that humans are imperfect and thus all attempts to bring in the next world into this are misguided at best, blatant lies at worst.
So we see that while men are not buddies 4 life, they aren’t islands either, and they in fact instinctively respect the chain of command. It is just that the need for the chain of command has to be demanded by its leader, has to meet an actual need.
On a Sky King twitter thread someone broke down how friendships between white males work. He said something in the lines of: white men share an unspoken understanding that they go through life alone, that each bears his own responsibilities. I thought that was very nicely said. I think that adds to the thing I felt missing from Aristotle’s description of friendship but couldn’t quite put my finger on: implicit in any good friendship is the knowledge that, while you share a laugh today, you may never know what tomorrow holds, and hopefully it is more laughs, but it might just as well be something entirely different. That’s just how life works.