Monthly Archives: May 2019

Defecting from the right

A problem escaping the matrix is that in your search for fellow escapees, nine times out of ten, you find defect from the left, as in, they defect by being lefter than society, e.g. being holier than everyone else. Defecting from the left is easy, it is even encouraged: ‘oh man, the planet is going to shit man.’ +1 moral point to you. Or: ‘uh its only about the greens man, they dun care bout nothing but the greens.’ +2 for your eternal selflessness! Of course, the problem with defecting from the left is that it is defecting on bullshit by spouting even more bullshit. Consider: both of the above statements are lies. I have steadily observed the weather for the past years, and my observations tell me the weather is doing just fine. Whenever someone gives me photo evidence of the opposite, upon finer inspection the evidence always turns out to be bad or fabricated, such as comparing an image of the arctic in winter with an image of the arctic in summer.

Similarly, my eyes tell me clearly that money is not our elite’s prime concern, for if it was, we’d have occupied Venezuela, Iraq and Saudi Arabia, pumped its oil and mined its gold, instead of meekly occupying Iraq and Afghanistan in order to teach seven year old girls how to put condoms on bananas.

If making money was holy, I would encounter diminished taxing as I move up socioeconomically, while in truth my taxes increase progressively. The peasant with ten cows may sacrifice two cows to his team of lawyers and accountants in order to stay clear for now, but the peasant with two cows is pretty screwed already. It is obvious that our ruling elite’s prime concern is not money, it is humiliating whitey while at the same time failing in trying to stop themselves from humiliating whitey.

So, I defect. Mind you, not as hardcore as some, I have yet to purchase my first fake passport, but in spirit I have checked out.

A remaining debate between reactionaries is how bad things have to go to shit before we can start to fix them. My gut tells me things have to go to shit still pretty badly before we can start to fix them.

If Trump stays president beyond two terms, and Baudet becomes the first Dutch Stadholder since 1795,  we can start to fix things. But in the meantime, I defect.

So what is this blog about then? Well, as long as it is not banned like Heartiste (rest in peace), we shall, quite simply, be exploring how to defect from the right.

For instance, take the women issue. What I have long suspected and heard is what I now experience directly: the state hates families. I have been pestered with intrusive government tentacles that want to monitor my baby until adulthood, intrusive healthcare tentacles which demand three vials of blood for every protocol violation my girl makes, and intrusive economic tentacles that demands my girl be a a worker instead of a mother. Dealing with this is not impossible, but it is not easy. You get paranoid. Before nurses helped to take care of the newborn during his first week, as is customary in the Netherlands, my girl read the protocol to me. It said that the baby’s temperature needs to be measured three times a day. Rectally. At this point I interjected angrily: ‘we are NOT sticking objects in our son’s ass. These people are NOT turning my son gay.’

Was I paranoid? I dunno. I did vocalize my objection to the nurses, of course a tad more diplomatic. They were great.

See, the thing is this. Because I am a hundred percent Jimian in my relation, I have established peace in the war of the sexes. But, because I am at peace with my woman, I am at war with the state, because everything I do in order to establish peace with my woman enrages the state. You see the inverse with men who dó follow the state’s prescriptions. A friend of a darkly enlightened friend summarized it as thus: “Everybody I know who has kids is in exactly this situation. No time, energy or mood for sex because if we happen to have a little time to ourselves we will go out for a dinner or a theatre and happy to have survived, tiresome things like sex aren’t even on the horizon. Having kids is very much like war every minute every day.”

I refuse to live like that.

It is often said that to effectively resist power, need a religious community. Look at Islam, they’re doing pretty good! Yes, it’s true. But a successful religion cannot be established pre-story, if that makes sense. You can not say: ‘this is now a religion’, and expect the designation of words to have any sticking power. It is only after the story that people may or may not say: well, that was pretty powerful. As much as Scientology kicked the IRS to the curb, in the end L Ron Hubbard still goes down in history as a talented conman.

So, building a religion is harder than I initially thought. For the most part out of my control. We shall leave the religion building at rest for now.

But, while the state is powerful in its steamroller mode, it seems to be generally quite incompetent. Government tentacles, especially in the Netherlands, are everywhere, but it seems able to repel them. Well, except for taxes. But I pay my taxes, and so far find it doable to prevent myself being raped by other state tentacles. There’s enough breathing space still. So I do not necessarily need a new religion. Let us not let the perfect get in the way of the good.

So, lets embark on this adventure then, and see how we can successfully defect from the right. I think it is mostly an offline adventure, but I will try to keep writing posts at least semi-regularly.

Advertisements

All the World’s a Stage

all the world a stage

Sometimes you learn new stuff, which you, some time later, promptly forget. Probably, it wasn’t as useful as you thought it was. Time is an excellent judge that way.

Conversely, when you re-remember something you learned a while ago, it is probably a sign that it is useful. I experienced this with the Dancing Monkey meme.

I noticed that lately I tended to get along better with people in my professional life than in my personal life. This puzzled me. I was still the same person, right? Then I realized: nonsense, I’m exactly not the same person.

In my professional life, my income is related to how well I get along with people. Consequently, I play a role that people like, which role I guess you might call a 17th-century gentleman. People like this role – it is colorful, mysterious and slightly larger than life. Thus, social success.

In my private life, I am less inclined to put energy into my act. I have come to the realization that, privately, I am a bit of an asshole. Well, professionally I am also a little bit of an asshole, but professionally I am a charismatic asshole. Privately I’m just an asshole. I am overly critical, including with friends. I must come around from my initial agreement with Aristotle’s definition of friendship; my new opinion is that Aristotle was a spoiled boomer whose high status ensured that his friends were yes-nodders, tricking Aristotle into thinking his friends accepted him for who he was at heart, and not his monkey dance. Nonsense. Your values never completely align with other people’s values. They might show great overlap, but they never completely align. You and your friends will have differences of opinion. That’s just the way it is.

The dancing monkey meme says we are performers. It is leftist nonsense that people accept you for ‘who you are’. No one accepts you for just who you are, or at least, no one cares for you as you are, not even your momma. It’s like, have the personality of a rock, get treated like a rock.

In my professional life, I have the personality of a minor rock star, so I get treated like a minor rock star. In my private life, I have the personality of a curt asshole, so I get treated like a curt asshole. This realization made a lot of sense to me, with the only thing still puzzling me being the fact that my girl loves me for who I am in my private life, but then I realized that women love curt assholes, so even that made sense.

There is no way around the dancing monkey meme, no way to get away with ‘just being yourself.’ Your dance must add value. If it does not, you can always turn to leftism, but if you turn to the left, be prepared for the left to turn on you.

The world’s a stage. When you interact, you act. You put up a small show. People can pick up on some subtleties, but generally, bigger gestures do better. As you grow older, you become a more pronounced version of yourself, because that makes it easier for everyone to make sense of your dance.

And everyone means everyone, including friends. Good friends are merely men who enjoy acting together, enjoy dancing together, if that metaphor does not sound too gay. Thus, the eternal introvert realization: if I spend my social energy performing professionally, why should I want to exert much more social energy performing privately?

Which leaves the final question: what role am I performing on this blog, for you, my reader dearest of dearest? I guess I’ll leave the answer to you.

Slavoj Zizek, a second time

OK, I lied. Zizek is interesting enough to merit a round two.

What makes Zizek interesting is that, besides the fact that he is easy on the ears, he is a pretty honest commie, insofar an honest commie is of course not an internal contradiction.

The left has a narrative problem. In the twentieth century, all narratives were leftist, as all dominant religions were leftist – progressivism, fascism, communism. In the twenty-first century, it has become obvious that every single one of these religions has spiraled out of control; killing lots of people, bringing chaos to its normie adherents. So, mass faith dwindles. It is in this faith vacuum that we operate: we offer an alternative faith. A pretty good one. Our biggest weapon is that we are cool, which of course is mostly best left unsaid. But of course this is a market with heavy competition, and the left will not move aside without putting up a good fight. Zizek is one of those fighters, he is sort of cool, and he offers a coherent leftist narrative. Let us take a look at three of his videos to see what he has to offer.

I think this gets to the core of Zizek’s ideas. Notice how he is exactly on the same line with Carlylean Restorationist in his anti-capitalism. He talks about ‘early critics of capitalism’ – what is early? Well, ‘a few decades before the French Revolution.’ Zizek thus assumes capitalism is recent, while we are pretty sure capitalism is ancient, demonstrated among many by the capitalist Phoenician ship industry some 3000 years ago.

Nine of out ten times, when a leftist thinker talks about the world, he is really talking about himself, because that is his only point of reference. Observe that when Zizek argues that capitalism is a religion, he is really saying communism is a religion. Zizek argues that capitalists were 18th century priests that took the power, are still in power today. Capitalists were never in power, never took power. Zizek applies his own priest mindset and projects it onto entrepreneurs, willingly blind to the fact that entrepreneurs don’t think like him at all. When Zizek says ‘a capitalist is someone who is willing to stake his life to ensure production grows’, again projects a false script on capitalists. He imagines capitalists act like priests, as he acts like a priest, while in reality capitalists just like to create stuff and earn a buck. While a capitalist might care mighty much about a business he built with his own sweat blood and tears, not a single capitalist will ‘stake his life’ for production growth the way a commie will stake his life for a chance to kill the peasant with two cows. There’s no holy aspect involved in the entrepreneurial life, hence the inability of capitalists to band together into a church, which, if I can readily observe, if Alinsky can readily observe, Zizek can also readily observe, hence Zizek is a liar.

What Zizek is really saying is this: ‘don’t you hate the peasant with two cows? I sure hate the peasant with two cows. We should do something about it. In fact, it is our moral imperative to kill him and take away his cows! But, in the twentieth century we killed too many people, took away too many cows and for some reason people got upset with that. So, let us think harder about how we are going to kill the peasant and take away his cows without too many people getting upset about it.’

Thus, when righties like Zizek for how he mocks other leftists, bear in mind: he might mock them, but whenever their disagreements run too wide, Zizek will always play his Joker card: ‘yes, well, we might disagree on this, but at least we both hate the peasant with two cows’, which is the central reason he is on the payroll of the left.

Video number two: Zizek on women.

Zizek is blue-pilled on women, which is to say, he is the kind of guy who will steal your stuff and murder you -and you can’t help but still sort-of like him while he does it- but he will not rape your wife. On women, he shows weakness – ‘in principle we should support #metoo’ he says, but of course, ‘it is not really about the working class appropriated by the bourgouisie and so on and so on.’ He criticizes Metoo from the left. Makes perfect sense, it’s the easy answer, but: women hate it. Women much prefer the man who calls them out for their bullshit, not the man who encourages them to create even more bullshit. So here he is weak.

Final video: ten Zizek jokes. Some of them are good. I especially like the first one by a young Zizek.

The joke about the dusty balls is a good way to convey his edginess: he knows he is on the payroll of the power left, but he is always looking for opportunities to eat the power left. Such is the relation of the lefter left to the central left.

The joke about Jesus Christ is telling. Perhaps I am looking too much into it, but it is true that Jesus was weak on the women question, and a good case can be made that it was the women question that eventually undid Christianity. So the joke is a useful meme: it is funny, but it also conveys information on the enemy’s weakness.

All in all, while Zizek is a dirty-cool intellectual, he says nothing we have not heard before, nothing we cannot handle. His memes are stale, in that at their core they are boilerplate Marxism, and we are in the last stages of having fully refuted boilerplate Marxism. Put Zizek up against a purple pill man such as Jordan Peterson, and Zizek will take him down, for Zizek is a holier leftist than Peterson, but pit Zizek against one of us and he will lose, for we will call him out for what he is actually doing. This is good news for the Dark Enlightenment.

Slavoj Zizek, first and last time

Occasionally I hear about reportedly rebellious intellectuals with good platforms. Of course, always turns out that the reason these rebellious intellectuals have good platforms is that they are given these good platforms by power, e.g., they are on the left’s payroll. Observe what happened to Milo, who refused to be on the left’s payroll, while Jordan Peterson happily accepted fat cheques signed by the left.

So, all these intellectuals and philosophers are, without exception, cookie-cutter leftists. They all sell the same leftism, merely in slightly different flavors.

I was wondering what flavor Zizek was selling. This video seems pretty representative.

OK, ok. Zizek is a cocaine commie. That was easy.

When Zizek says ‘this is not communist propaganda’ he means: ‘this is communist propaganda’. He is pretty obvious about it. His entire point on communist leaders clapping along with their own ovation is, after all, that fascist leaders are egomaniacs, while communist leaders are part of a greater cause. Ergo, communism is better.

Nonsense. Both fascism and communism are nuts.

What is important during an ovation of any leader is not whether the leader claps along, it is that the leader receives an ovation. That ritual is the showcase of power, and Zizek’s claim that the leader clapping along with his own ovation somehow negates the hierarchy of power is nonsense. In fact, pretty sure that if someone did not clap along during an ovation of Stalin, much more likely to be executed than someone not clapping along during an ovation of Hitler. Zizek is selling us that the murderers in the 10/10 no pressure video are actually genuinely interested in protecting the environment, not at all in murdering people.

He then goes on to defend communism by saying that ‘prisoners in communism are allowed to totally objectively pass judgment on their own betrayal.’ I first thought he was being sarcastic, but he continues: ‘this is a consequence of dialectic enlightenment‘. What? When he calls the system of communism ‘universal reason‘ I am officially out. Slavoj Zizek is a murderous liar.

There is no dialectic enlightenment in Marxism, only insofar the French enlightenment was a total lie, for the so-called revolution of the proletariat and the assumed recent rise of capitalism are lies and nonsense the commie uses to convince the peasant with one cow to murder the peasant with two cows, after which the commie will murder the peasant with one cow. The commie is aware of his lies, as Zizek is aware of his lies, demonstrated in the ease with which he switches from ‘I am not defending communism’ to ‘communism is the language of universal reason’.

Now, you don’t need to be a rightist geek such as myself to figure out that communism is thoroughly evil, but when a slobbering man claims that communism is dialectical enlightenment, you can be pretty sure he is out to murder you. Add to that the fact that he is relatively high on the left’s payroll and you would be correct to conclude that the left is out to murder you.

The Dutch Constitution

grondwet 1

I’ve had some discussions with Americans who believe that their constitution, written in 1787 following the successful American rebellion against the British, outlining the rules of a Trias Politicia democracy, will protect them against a coup, whether by Trump or the Democrats. ‘A coup is unconstitutional’ they argue, and since politics is governed by the rule of law, the original law being the constitution, a coup cannot happen.

This seems silly to me. As if a bunch of words on some paper have the magic power to prevent government collapse. Nah, they’re just words on some paper. But let’s take a deeper look at this constitution fandom by comparison with the Dutch constitution, whose history is pretty interesting, at least, insofar I can piece together the story using the Moldbuggian strategy of going straight to the historic source.

The very first Dutch constitution was written in 1798, under French revolutionary occupation. It opens with a proclamation by the French: ‘Dear Batavians, long have you been oppressed by the Spanish, but following your independence in 1588 you have still been oppressed by your own evil aristocrats! This all ends now, with our generous and kindhearted occupation.’

Interestingly, the constitution itself is not democratic. Rather, it affirms the existence of something which ominously translates to an ‘all-controlling supreme creature’, which I interpret to mean a faceless committee of revolutionaries.

The constitution is short. It stresses, among others, equality among the people and in front of the law, respect for private property, the strangely Christian ‘don’t do unto others as you wouldn’t do unto yourself’ and obedience to the all-controlling supreme creature. Compared to any modern political document, it is very readable.

Of course, the French were defeated, because when are they ever not, and the Netherlands regained independence. What do?

Well, Willem VI, descendant of Prince of Orange Willem I, Willem I being the assassinated leader of the independence war against Spain, wanted to be king. He convinced other royal houses to support him, returned to the Netherlands and gave a speech that would be the first proclamation of the Dutch 1814 constitution, in which he basically said: ‘dear countrymen, I have missed you terribly much, and you have missed me terribly much, and now that we have been freed from these terrible foreigners, I shall rule as your king and we shall be stronger than ever!’

Other proclamations in the constitution include the States-General inviting Willem VI to be king, Willem VI accepting the position of king (now as His Royal Highness Willem I), and His Royal Higness Willem I telling the Belgians that he is their king also (that last one would bite him in the ass).

The 1814 constitution itself is, again, refreshingly short, written in a way that even an amateur like myself can understand two hundred years later, very contrary to the ubiquitous byzantium nonsense found in modern legislature. It covers many more points than the French ‘we are boss and that’s all’ constitution, but every point is concise. It is monarchical: Willem I has the power and his descendants will have the power after him. The king may declare war, may declare peace, leads the army. The king rules in cooperation with the fifty-five men of the States-General, who represent the will of the people (take a wild guess how that unfolds…). Interestingly, locally, Willem I introduced democracy: cities would vote on their representatives every year.

The constitution posits four ministries – the ministry of Justice, ministry of Finance, ministry of Defense and ministry of Water (of course only the Dutch would have one of four ministries be a ministry of Water).

The final chapter in the constitution is interestingly titled: ‘on Religion, Public Education and Care of the Poor.’ What did the Dutch constitution say on Religion? Well, surprise surprise, it says that the Netherlands is a Christian country, that public education is meant to promote Christian values, and that other religions are permissible as long as they do not disrupt public peace. L O L.

Let us flash forward: Willem I loses the independence war against Belgium, is angry that being a king isn’t turning out the way he wanted, abdicates throne to his son Willem II. Willem II is a bit of a pussy, observes royal houses falling apart all over Europe, so when pushed, he allows the liberals led by Thorbecke to radically change the constitution in 1848. The Netherlands is now a parliamentary democracy, e.g., its constitution is just like the US constitution. King no longer has the power, parliament (previously the States-General) does. Rule by committee is back.

And from here on we see the predictable ever-leftward movement of Ctulhu. The constitution has since 1848 been changed three more times: near the end of king Willem III’s rule, after world war I, and in the aftermath of the hippie rebellion. Every time, predictable changes: among others, voting rights for women, more democratization, more expansion of education to teach Progressive values, and the addition of wonderful leftist ministries such as the Ministry of Economic and Climate Policy and the Ministry of Social Affairs and Employment. The original constitution is pretty much memory-holed, and if a Dutch normie even knows the contents of the current constitution, he usually knows only its very first rule: everyone is equal, discrimination is forbidden.

So, to make a long story short, my point to my fellow constitution-loving American is the following: while you may believe that the American constitution is better protected against such radical changes, I believe that the Dutch are simply better at formalism. That is, the modern American constitution very much resembles the modern Dutch constitution, but the Dutch are more honest.