All posts by Alf

Jesus Christ, literal son of God?

All good things come in threes, so a final post, for now, on the Jimianity vs Christianity debate.

At central issue is who is ultimate priestboss: Jim or Jesus. Having this debate offends many Christians – I wonder if this will be linked at Social Matter.

Offending Christians loses their allegiance. OK, how strong are the Christians as allies?

Catholics seem pretty down on their luck. God seems to have sent a sign in that, just as I am writing these posts, Catholic scandal after scandal is paraded in the media. Seems like a raging case of teh gays. Church after church emptying, going broke. So they are up shit creek without a paddle.

What about the other group of Christians, Protestants? Seem to be doing better than Catholics, in that they seem to have a much wider spread of small-to-medium groups. Still, emptying churches and not so much power, but there’s enough exceptions to take note of.

Let’s take note of 2 such groups: Mormons and the Amish. Both are doing well. Mormons increased their numbers to 16 million, Amish rapidly approaching 300.000 (from 100.000 thirty years ago). How do they handle the Jesus situation?

Mormonism, from Joseph Smith. Amish, from Jakob Ammann. Both deal with Jesus by praising Him as the true and only path. Joseph Smith presented as a prophet of Jesus, visions and all. Jakob Ammann was much more sober, disciplinarian, no visions. Though he also wrote aloud that he was starting a new faith.

So, both successful Christian spin-offs are named after their new prophet, both prophets announced they were spreading new faith, both prophets denounced their enemies as ‘not true followers of Christ.’ So, different from my proposal, but successful nonetheless.

Up til now it seems Jim has also chosen this path, in the sense of allowing Christ veneration, denouncing calling Christ a miracle faker. My proposal is more aggressive: call Jesus, among his other great achievements, a miracle faker.

A counter could be: ‘alf, if it was good enough for Joe and Jake, it is good enough for Jim.’ To that I think: maybe. Perhaps. Though I do not get the impression that that is what Jim is going for.

Another counter could be: ‘alf, you are younger and impatient, best to play the long game, best to stay in (Charles the Second’s) Christian frame.’ Maybe. It is a tough question.

Here is my case.

Doing another attempt at summarizing Jimianity: Jim calls out liars. He is really good at it. It is what I integrate quite successfully in my own life: I call out liars, and through reading Jim I have a pretty good understanding of how to call them out successfully. It is dirty business, but it works. ‘Name the leftist’ you might call it.

Now, as I have repeatedly stated, Jesus did not return from the dead. It is a lie. Yes, it is a central organizing lie and central organizing lies are important and powerful, but it is a flagrant, obvious lie nonetheless. I don’t believe that Jim, with his keen sense of smelling bullshit, believes Jesus returned from the dead, in fact I remember him saying somewhere he believed the disciples paid off the tomb guards, although I have no clue where.

But perhaps I misremember. At any rate, so far no outholying of Jesus. No certain answer from Jim on whether Jesus is the literal son of God.

Continuing paraphrasing Jimianity… It also seems to me that one of its messages is to rain fire down upon enemies, or at the very least fight them when advantageous, and not blink when it is prudent not to blink. If we are to wrest the West back from evil doers, should we not practice what we preach and start to conquer? What portrays us as stronger: when we win back Christianity by kissing Christians’ asses or by conquering their asses? The latter wins faith and respect, the former wins a monument to compromise.

A counter to this might be: ‘if we make it disrespectful to call Jesus a miracle faker and we simultaneously make it disrespectful to call out people calling Jesus a miracle faker, we have a working allegiance.’ I think it is an unworkable allegiance. It requires Christians to at some point get the joke. Seems to me Christians are not getting the joke at all. I try, I hint and I wink, but they respond with anger and demand to know what I am hinting and winking. If they do not get such a big and obvious hint, what other big and obvious hints are they also not getting? Need to establish dominance.

An added benefit of putting Jesus in the right context is that it allows the conversion of atheists, who, for all their other faults, do get the joke.

Anyway, I think that is my position.

Advertisements

Why Jimianity

I guess the last post has enough comments to merit follow-up.

On this topic, during the rare occasions I’ve said my thoughts out loud, I’ve always said them out loud half laughingly, as if they are too silly to take serious. But I in fact am completely serious.

The Western empire, like the Roman empire, is shrinking and heading towards a final disappearing act. Now, they say that, since we have all this surveillance technology, instead of a disappearing act we might as well get a post-democratic 1984 dystopish Western government. I do not believe this, for surveillance technology requires a lot of maintenance and technical know-how, and it is exactly the group that is marginalized most in our supposed dystopia that is capable of performing said maintenance and know-how (white men). Need to keep your engineers happy, 1984 scenario does not keep engineers happy. Brave New World is similarly not our future, because it is increasingly obvious that our overlords are incapable of keeping their subjects drugged and happy.

So we are heading towards not 1984, not Brave New World, but towards shrinking, and a final disappearing act.

While a superorganism dies it is the perfect time to diagnose what ails it. Many such diagnoses exist for the West. By far the best diagnosis was given by Moldbug, father of neoreaction, who diagnosed the West with a terminal case of communism, which he later redefined to a terminal case of progressivism, which Spandrell later re-redefined to a terminal case of bioleninism.

But the truth is that no one cares about the diagnosis as much as they care about the cure: so I have stage 3 lymphomatic pancreatic cancer – great, how do I get rid of itIt is also in the cure that we find the definite answer for the correct diagnosis of the problem.

Such it was also with the end of the Roman empire: historians debate endlessly over what caused the fall of the Roman empire, point to a myriad of reasons, but in the end it seems to me that it is the biggest cure following the demise of the Roman empire is what tells us most decidedly what it was that killed the Roman empire. That cure was Christianity.

What is Christ’s message? Well, 2 messages, basically.

1) Be nice to your neighbor. That this message resonated so loudly throughout the flailing Roman empire, so loudly throughout the Middle ages up to the industrial revolution, tells us that the fall of the Roman empire was due to people not being nice to their neighbor, and that once people decided to be nice to each other, they achieved great things.

2) That the only way to achieve these great things is through Jesus, son of the Holy Father. The path is through me. We see this sentiment echoed all over holy texts: in order to get your core message to work, need to make sure everyone is on the same page. If person A says he is nice to his neighbor because Jesus tells him so, it might be entirely different from person B saying he is nice to his neighbor because Jeezy tells him so. In fact, person B might and will probably subtly undermine person A and/or Jesus. So, Jesus established himself as the highest moral authority, just as Moses did with the 10 commandments: any morality but mine is the morality of a false idol.

Thus said Jesus: ‘use my story to work together and you shall be rewarded!’ and it turned out he was right. Christians colonized America, invented electricity, penicillin, computers, discovered evolution. Conquered the world, pretty much.

Now, in [The Current Year], approximately 200 years after the industrial revolution, Christianity is dead, or more specifically: it has been mutated into an abomination that tells us we need to be nice to our enemies, which is of course just short-hand for telling us that we should hate ourselves. This is not Christ’s fault: parasitation and entryism is simply bound to happen after Christianity fixed the problem it was supposed to fix.

So, back to the dying Western empire. We have multiple solid diagnoses, but the pressing question remains: what is the cure?

The cure is Jimianity.

Well, of course I don’t know if Jimianity is the cure, but my gut feeling is pretty strong.

I can’t summarize Jim as quickly as I can summarize Jesus, because it is too early to tell what part of Jim’s gospel will really make the difference. Jim can mean different things to different people. I like his stuff on women. His demand for throne, altar, freehold seems important also. His answer for the JQ is excellent also. Many things. Time will tell.

Jimianity is very much like Christianity, in that it re-establishes solid rules for cooperation. You could say that while Christ advised to cooperate by trusting others until proven otherwise, Jim advises to cooperate by distrusting others until proven otherwise, although once again I am summarizing Jim in a way that does not do him justice. Nonetheless, other comparisons, and I am just spitballing at this moment:
Jesus died for our sins so you don’t have to, Jim hides from Sauron’s eye so you don’t have to.
Jesus performed miracles so you don’t have to, Jim debates strangers on the internet so you don’t have to.

What Elon Musk misses to colonize Mars, what Trump misses to proclaim himself God-Emperor, all this is addressed and answered for.

I do not want to oversell Jimianity because I feel like if it does what I think it can do, there is no need to oversell it; the demand will present itself. My thoughts are that, essentially, if white men want to reconquer society and colonize space, they have no choice but to resort to Jimianity, or something very similar to it.

So, we have the cure, in theory, but just as we saw with Christianity, we need to ensure Jimians are on the same page, not being fed pages from Jim-imitating parasites, or, as we are currently facing, Christians still clinging to Christ. We do this by elevating Jim as the highest moral authority. There is little risk of Jim abusing his authority, for he is old and unlikely to change in character. The upside is the same upside Christianity experienced: by following Jim’s gospel we establish an accepted set of rules, rules which are righteous and fair, rules which will propel those who follow it into the next Golden Age, be that 50, 100 or 1000 years from now.

Jimianity over Christianity

I don’t like writing these posts, because of the risk of pissing in the own tent. At the same time, tent needs policing. Luckily I see that last time we discussed this I have been pretty straightforward in my thoughts so let’s continue where we were last left off.

Christianity is an old and dying giant. It can not be restored the way it was. I get flak for asserting this, but it is true. If it were not true, where are the great Christian defenders of the faith? I can not find them. I find incidental wise Christians that tell me incidental wise stuff, such as that the point of fixing our current problems with religion is to have less of it, not add on to it, but whenever I go look I can not find communities of these people. Where are they?? Legends say the Amish rode out in horse carts on the Day of the Election to stop the she-demon from devouring the world, but who has heard of the Amish since? And I mean, that’s the amish we’re talking about; there’s less Amish in the world than people living in Utrecht (American reader: what’s Utrecht? me: exactly). A community of red- and/or whitepilled Catholics seems to be even rarer. I have in fact not found it. Not on the internet. And I have no choice but to conclude, that if it is not on the internet, it does not exist.

The observation that there is no red and/or whitepilled Christian community fits with the observation that Christianity is dying, and that the process of dying is irreversible. In the age of smartphones, Jesus has lost his status as the son of God, has instead become ‘just’ a wise man.

Like progressivism lost its moral high ground in the 21st century, so did Christianity lose its moral high ground in the 18th century.

They say a lie is important to organize around. Yes, but the lie has to be good. If the lie is too obvious, it does not work except to select for excellent liars, which we see happening abundantly in the Catholic church nowadays. This is the opposite of what we are trying to accomplish.

My point as messenger of bad news is: Jesus just did not literally come back from the dead. Hate to be the one to break it to you, hate to repeat myself, but a final time in case people think I am playing word games with the word ‘literal’: Jesus did not come back from the dead. His disciples made it up. It worked very well. That’s it. That’s all there is to it.

Now that we are fighting an enemy that clothes itself in the flayed skin of science, we cannot claim to be in favor of real science if our organizational point revolves around some men 2000 years ago making up stories about Jesus Christ. It is not an effective viral meme, it is in fact the opposite, dead in the water. Like our enemies, we need to evolve.

While setting the clock back on most social contracts is viable and good, we can not set the clock back to ‘Jesus Saves’. Jesus Saved for 1800 years, let the man have some rest. Such things come to an end.

(Similarly, I disagree with the notion that the Bible should’ve never been translated into English. I’m glad it was, I’m glad everyone is able to read the Holy book for himself. If we like an open internet we should like a translated Bible.)

Of course, I don’t expect Christians to go: ‘good job alf, glad you cleared that up, guess we’ll be getting on with our new lives now!’ People don’t like you taking away their beliefs, at least not without providing a workable alternative, although they as a rule of thumb just don’t like you taking away their beliefs, whatever alternative you provide. Especially older people. Anyway. I sort of have an workable alternative, Jimianity, it’s just that it’s kind of a prototype and we’re figuring it out as we go along.

I guess I can summarize basic idea of Jimianity vs Christianity pretty succinctly: Jim has moral superiority over Jesus. If a Christian quotes Jesus to me, and I quote Jim back, my quote has more weight. That is all.

Well of course that is not all, that is only the beginning. But first it has to be established: Jim has moral superiority over Jesus.

Age of Stupidity

So Mac Miller died at age 26. Drug OD. I used to listen to some of his music. Wasn’t half bad.

Course dying at age 26 because of an OD is stupid. Yeah yeah, troubled mind shouldn’t judge don’t know the guy at all, I get it. Still really fucking stupid.

The grand illusion surrounding famous people is of course that they supposedly know what they’re doing. They don’t.

Jim exclaimed: ‘where are the smart people? Show yourself!’ The insinuation being that there are no smart people left among the elite, that they are flailing and clueless. When I look at Mac Miller I see evidence for that assertion.

Alf this is entirely different, this is just some guy who became famous and couldn’t handle it.

Sure. But still really fucking stupid.

When I think of a celebrity mindset, I’d like to think Kanye West, but I mostly think Justin Bieber. There’s this interview between Post Malone and Ethan Klein (both Jews in case you were wondering) in which Post gets an impromptu call by Justin Bieber. Their conversation goes something like this:

JB: You’re amazing. You make people happy. You have the best smile in the game. 
PM: I think YOU have the best smile in the game. I think you are the best singer in the world. I think you have beautiful abs. I think you make the world a more beautiful place.

JB: I love you.
PM: I love you more baby.

Men, friends, just don’t talk like this, and if they do, they do so sarcastically, or genuinely perhaps on rare occasions. So if this is your standard conversational tone with another man, you are not friends. What you are doing instead is… How do I say this…? You are acting out how you think it should be with close friends. From this blurb it seems like Bieber is more into it than Malone, but the premise is the same for both: if you are complimenting another man this excessively, you are not actually close friends, you are merely excessively kissing each other’s ass, and chances are you will soon be saying the opposite from what you were saying previously.

Funny thing is, they both won’t see it this way, and neither will their fans. But being pretend-friends is the underlying dynamic, and their unawareness to it makes the whole thing seem… Rather silly. The conversation makes it obvious these guys are just riding the wave of fame while not really having a clue of what wave it exactly is they’re riding.

Alf, why should I care how two celebrities treat each other?

Because these men have the hearts of your women, and part of the restoration program is restoring proper ownership of women.

Art is downstream from power, so looking at the big picture it is obvious that artists like Miller, Bieber and Malone enjoy their fame only at the graces of those in power.

(Apologies for stressing the disproportionate Jewish influence, but it is hard not to notice here: Miller is half-Jewish, Bieber’s manager is Jewish, and Ariane Grande after leaving Mac Miller got engaged with another half-Jew. Did I mention Post Malone is Jewish?)

Take for instance Ariane Grande’s new fiancee, who, apparently no fake, though probably fake, has a Hillary Clinton tattoo on his leg. Can’t kiss power’s ass more obvious than that.

When power blesses artists, artists have their power magnified. I imagine this is a surreal experience — suddenly the whole world is involved in your personal life. So many prying eyes raises the inevitable question for every artist: what does it all mean? And you might be as stone-cold sober a warrior as can be, at some point you have to answer that question.

So for celebrities, who do you think they turn to when they ask themselves that question? Obviously, to those in power, those that gifted them with their position. Bieber goes to celebrity church. But we know the answers power gives:

Artist: what does it all mean?
Power: it means love, unity, equality. It means we bring the next world into this one.

Really bad answer. But art is downstream from power, so the artist works with it, at his own detriment.

(Luckily there’s a few exceptions, not in that art is not downstream from power, but in that some artists don’t seek answers from the wrong kinds of power. Kanye West is pro-Trump, and Kanye West seems to be doing pretty good with a thicc wife and 3 kids.)

So I guess my overarching point is: these people really have no clue what they’re doing. They’re as oblivious of what they’re doing as a tree is oblivious of the fact that the sun’s heat will in 1 x 10^9 years have increased such that all the water on earth will have evaporated, if I am to believe what scientists tell me.

Similarly, this business with the anonymous NY Times op-ed describing a conspiracy against Trump, supposedly written by a high ranking official in the White House. Is it a rare piece of genuine brilliance by the left? Of, have they simply been looking at QAnon, and thinking to themselves; ‘damn, rumors of a pro-Trump coupe really hit our morale. Maybe we should spread rumors of an anti-Trump coupe?’ Seems to me the answer is obvious.

They have no clue what they’re doing.

For the past 2 years, all the left has been doing is digging its heels in and slowly, ineffectively responding to the shadowy force they only know as the alt-right. Putin’s Puppet was a slow response to Trump. Killing Pepe a slow, ineffective response to Pepe. Lodestar is a slow response to QAnon. #metoo is a slow response to the manosphere. The FAGS banning Alex Jones is a slow, ineffective response to Alex Jones. And Occasio-Cortez is a slow response to the alt-right pointing out that, according to the left’s own logic, all white men are evil.

This fits with the idea of leftism as a shit-test: when the right was unaware that leftism was a shit-test, we invariably failed it. But now we are realizing it is a shit-test, and suddenly the left finds it has lost its most powerful weapon: the moral high ground.

Of course the question remains whether we can build a better empire. Luckily, we seem to have history on our side: the Republic of the Seven United Netherlands seems to be pretty cool, so did the Roman empire, so did a bunch of other empires of which I really do not know so much about. Jim points to the British empire under the Charles the Second as proof that we are capable of pulling it off, and I am very much inclined to say: sounds good to me.

Content is downstream from power

… Which is just another way of saying art is downstream from power.

Art changes, evolves; used to be paintings of successful hunts in caves, clay figurines of fat women, then became paintings of rich people and classical music, now has become video games and, last but not least, online shenanigans like videos, social media, blogging, streaming and whatnot, which we colloquially refer to as ‘content’.

So a content creator is just the 21st century term for an artist. As always, everybody wants to be an artist, a free-fought spirit. But the golden rule of art has not changed, will never change: art is downstream from power.

The myth is that art somehow exists in a vacuum, that it transcends its environmental limitations.It does not. Art is an expression of the elite, of those in power, for those in power are the ones that allow said art to exist. Who decides which art is worthy of fame, is worth millions? Only those that can actually pay millions.

In the same vein, art is vulnerable; you can never be sure if your content appeals to the elite that allows its existence, but if you want to make a living out your art, you better well sure it does appeal to the right people.

So here we also see why there is the myth that art exists in a vacuum: it is a leftist lie, originating in the leftists’ desire to barnacle himself to power by kissing power’s ass: ‘this show is amazing and unique and special, you should really watch it!

In truth we have the inevitability of the patron system. Patron → Artist. That is the way. Lorenzo D’Medici pays Michelangelo, Michelangelo sculpts statues that Lorenzo likes. Lorenzo D’Medici dies and power falls into the hands of someone who does not like Michelangelo, Michelangelo flees. The principle is not so hard.

It is a truth of nature that a disproportionate amount of power tends to fall into the hands of a small group. Similarly, a disproportionate amount of content platforms are in the hands of a small group. Youtube is owned by Google, so you bet that content out of line with Google’s ‘be evil’ policy is demonetized or banned, exactly like Trump tweeted. Similarly, Instagram is owned by Facebook, so you best not fall out of grace with Zuckerberg if you want to be on those platforms. My personal favorite however, is Twitch, which in this blogger’s humble opinion is where the freshest content is at. Twitch  is streaming, like live tv on the internet, but included is a chatroom in which every viewer can type their thoughts as they watch the stream, and the streamer can live read those comments and respond to them. It’s the best; pure live content, created by streamer and audience simultaneously.

Now, who owns Twitch? Drumroll… Jeff Bezos bought it in 2014! It is part of the Amazon empire. So once again, it is obvious that Twitch content creators best not fall out of line with their patron, whose opinions are channeled pretty clearly on his personal blog, the Washington Post.

(Also, to stress the power relation between the patron and the artist: watch this excellent video. It’s a great napkin analysis of how much money the biggest streamers earn on Twitch in comparison with Bezos. Basically, Ninja, a Fortnite streamer and the most famous content creator on Twitch, who on a daily basis draws a filled Amsterdam arena of viewers, will make perhaps 100 million dollar in his lifetime, which Jeff Bezos makes on a daily basis. For Bezos, Twitch is chump change.)

Now while it is scientifically proven that 95% of power lies with the top 1%, if you find enough small fry patrons to directly sponsor you, that works just fine. But even here we find no such thing as a safe vacuum. After all, you need some sort of sponsoring platform. Take Patreon: owned by Jack Conte, operates in San Francisco, just around the block from Silicon valley. You bet that Patreon removes artists not in line with its politics, which it in fact has already done multiple times.

Or take it even a step further: direct peer-to-peer sponsorship. How will your patrons pay you? Through Paypal? Silicon valley baby!

Which is not to say Paypal blocks every artist it politically disagrees with. After all, you can still donate to Heartiste through Paypal. But they have banned other artists, and perhaps they will ban Heartiste one day if he becomes too large of a threat, like Alex Jones.

So we see that, once we start tracking the money we end up with the institutions that control the flow of money, and surprise surprise, the people heading these institutions are the elite, are linked to the same people that head Facebook, Google and Amazon, are part of the same group who decide what content gets through to the mainstream.

So where does this leave us.

First and foremost, this information is a red pill, not a black pill. If it were a black pill, we would conclude that the only option is to go full sell-out mode, to produce only art we know will be liked by the elite. This is a valid strategy. But not the only one.

The simplest strategy is to simply not monetize your content. Stay under the radar. But although some fine art has been created this way, the fact of the matter is that a) everyone wants make money and b) most people like to reach an audience.

If you are not concerned about (a), by far the the most insane strategy would be to build a self-sustainable grid hidden outside the reaches of those in power. With the use of crypto, self-built energy grids, property, anonymity and several passports one could theoretically pull this off. But you’d have to be a true madman. I know of only 1 man who claims to be pulling this off.

Another, slightly saner strategy lies in riding the tiger, which is to say: to test the waters, see what you can get away with and what not and adjust accordingly. It is obvious that those in power are not in power like Ingsoc is in 1984: there is a lot of chaos, a lot of infighting. It took years before Alex Jones was banned, arguably too many years to effectively squelch his voice. Murdoch Murdoch, after being banned from Youtube, is still advertising on Youtube. Even the Daily Stormer, which for a while seemed to be stomped into the ground, is back and very easily googled.

So, the red pill is that content is downstream from power, that power is mount Olympus and content is the city at its foot. But the white pill is that [The Current Year] is not like 1984, and that where there is a will, there is content.

The Adjustment Bureau is crap

I hate small talk, almost as much as I hate repeating myself. I’m just not that kind of guy.

Because I hate repeating myself I do not pinpoint this blog into a specific category. It is not exactly a political blog, but it is not not a political blog. It is also not a sewage culture commentary blog; I’ve done my share of sewage culture commentary, I do not want to make it too repetitive.

But you can not always escape the machine; if the entire mass entertainment industry is geared towards sewage, some of it is bound to spill over in your personal life. So maybe the occasional venting will turn the spilling into a force for good, namely dank content.

I just watched The Adjustment Bureau, and it was a glaring reminder of why I avoid Hollywood movies like the plague. In it, Matt Damon plays a promising US politician who might one day be the next president. He falls in love with a girl, but discovers the existence of mysterious men with hats who are actually angels following a mysterious plan made by ‘the chairman’ who is actually God. In that plan Matt Damon is not supposed to fall in love with the girl, so the angels stop them from being together. Matt Damon protests because love = love but the angels say that The Plan must be followed and Matt Damon must become president of the US and the girl must become a famous dancer which won’t happen if they are together. Since the angels have superpowers it seems like Matt has no chance, but lucky for him a black angel takes pity and helps Matt teleport through doors, stopping the girl from marrying an NPC. Together they try to escape by teleporting to the Yankee Stadium and the Statue of Liberty. A confrontation with the angels ensues, but God admires Matt Damon’s bravery and rewrites The Plan so love can be love. The End.

The movie is pretentious, boring and empty. It was obviously made in the pre-Trump era. Matt Damon supposedly represents a new kind of politician, one that is raw, honest. In his ‘best speech’ he so refreshingly honestly tells his audience that everything about his outfit is calculated and that they paid an expert 7400 $ to tell them exactly how scratched his shoes are supposed to be. It is of course obvious that Trump, who wears big red ties down to his crotch just because he likes it, is this president, although the movie makers are no doubt horrified by the comparison. Matt Damon is raw and honest, but not thatraw and honest! Matt Damon was liked by CNN, was featured in the New York Times, made high fives with Daily Show folk! In other words, Matt Damon was supposedly raw and fresh, entirely within Hollywood-accepted political system, which at the end of the day makes him just another empty suit, while Trump, breaking with Hollywood morals, is actually raw freshness embodied. You can’t change a broken system by playing by the rules, yet that is exactly what the Adjustment Bureau tell us.

The movie of course completely lacks this bit of self-reflection, and as a result is pompous and pretentious in its propagation of progressive values. The nod towards homosexuality acceptance (love = love) can not be missed, including the message that somepeople just stick to the bible too much but never fear because HollywoodGod changes the bible! That the 1 angel who helps Matt Damon is black can also not be missed. And of course there is the speech by an archangel about ‘God retreating when Christianity picked up steam, leading to the tewwible Dark Ages, and God later returning to give the people the Enlightenment’ which was incredibly cringe-worthy, though probably the best part of the movie in that it rewrites history in a way that is opposite of the truth yet understandable to normal people, making them feel like they have insight into history on similar level to Harvard history professors, which indeed is very true, just not in the way you’d expect.

Can I think of any good qualities? … No, not really. The Adjustment Bureau is really just Hollywood wearing the skin of Christianity to make God say progressivism is the one True religion.

Youtube

C’mon man, write something…

I like to watch Youtube. I wished I still liked reading books as much as I used to, but I find I rarely have the patience. Books have too much ego; why read 80.000 words on a subject if I can find the same information online, condensed in a 10 minute clip, or a 500 word blog post.

The internet has saved me, in that without the internet I would never be the man I was today, in the situation I was today. Without the internet, chances are I would have ended a bitter man. Instead I feel blessed for where I am today.

The trick about the internet is to integrate it with your life. Being an anonymous blogger makes this harder, because you are always filtering what to say and what not to say, although it is not an insurmountable obstacle. I was watching a video on Casey Neistat in which he said that the purpose of his vlogs was never to give people full insight into his life, merely to provide good content. I get that.

It’s funny how the internet allowed abstract thinkers to piece together the forgotten laws of the natural world. Once you have pieced something together, those pieces cannot be broken again without you knowing they are being broken. For me, those pieces are abstract, like fractals. But different people work in different ways, so the function of the internet differs accordingly. Yet the principle of that which has been seen, cannot be unseen, remains.

Hence the reason Youtube content leans right even if Youtube organization is left; what you see happening in front of your own eyes is much harder to deny than what you never see. For instance, in the offline world, I might say that Sub-Saharan Africans are primitive, feral. Which would freak out a random leftist. An argument would ensue, including statistics, counter-statistics, arguments, counter-arguments, and without audience little possibility of mutual understanding. Lots of energy involved for minor gain.

For instance, I might say: ‘have you seen the Ugandan parliament brawls?’, implying that its participants act like monkeys. Yes, says the equalist, but the exact same thing happens in Ukraine, implying whites do the same.

But if I then link the video of an Ugandan brawl and link the video to the Ukrainian brawl, it is obvious that they are nothing alike. In the former, members of parliament shout on tables, throw chairs across the room and hit other members with a microphone stand. In the latter I count 6, maybe 10 guys actively participating in the brawl, with the remainder of members calming them down, breaking up the fight. It is an entirely different matter of conduct, and it is obvious to any viewer. It makes the point damn effectively.

So I guess the next big breakthrough for leftism will be technology to create fake videos.

It is infinitely true that the right generally just wants to be left alone. Personally I would like to be left alone and do my own thing. But retreat is unwise, weak. Need to be strong, build strong borders.

The fighting itself often gives no direct positive feedback, which can weigh on one, but sometimes you suddenly find yourself in a very favorable position, without notice, without anyone telling you so, but like it was always so. Funny how that works.

Pewdiepie also fights in his Pewnews videos, videos which are better than any official news channel, since in every video he stresses that ‘he is not supposed to give his opinion’ but continues to do so anyway.

I wish I had more to say, but this is all I have.

Male chain of command

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.

“The Intellectual Dark Web”

A minor rectification of names. The Intellectual Dark Web (IDW) is supposedly intellectual, dark and on the web, but it is in fact just the newest generation of cuckservatives, of controlled opposition. Guys like Sam Harris or Ben Shapiro are the exact opposite of what the propaganda machine leads you to believe: they are the Boring Offline Tours (BOT). Only Jordan Peterson has some semblance of intellect, but unfortunately this interview is the final nail in his coffin as controlled opposition.

The thing about the IDW is that the name just does not apply. ‘Dark web’ implies anonymity, implies speaking truth to power, implies that if you took the dark web into the light of day, you’d be in jail. That members of the supposed IDW enjoy prominent media positions, big posters with their faces plastered on them and sold-out venues tells us they are the opposite of the dark web and that we are once again being conned by the media.

As for the intellectual part; it is absent, or at its very best it is packaging red pill truths in a sugary purple pill coating. Observe the ‘Intellectual Dark Web’ bending like leaves in the wind to justify journalists preaching white genocide, to justify rampant misbehavior by females, to change the conversation from what everyone is thinking into the conversation that those in power want you to think about.

Jordan Peterson stood out as a man of some eloquence and intellect, lending most credence to the IDW, therefore it is the saddest to see him fall so fast.

The earlier linked interview, titled ‘an Invitation to the Intellectual Dark Web’, is a 90 minute interview between JBP and an incredibly stereotypical virtue-signaling leftist, whose main point seems to be that he is incredibly empathic for the disaffected. In fact he is so incredibly empathic that he can’t help but hate happy people and wants them to suffer as much as he himself suffers for the poor.

Naturally his conduct and name, Hurwitz, made my spider senses tingle, and surprise surprise: Hurwitz is Jewish. Every. Single. Time.

When honest, investigative people watch this interview, they thus think: ‘a Jewish journalist writing for the NY Times who is highly involved in the democratic party? Isn’t that an extremely typical description of the radical left Peterson rails against?’

But instead of saying what is on everyone’s mind, Peterson redirects the conversation and introduces his leftist friend as an intellectual beacon of integrity and honesty to all his viewers. Peterson fails the shit-test.

To all of Hurwitz’ aggressive moral posturing, the appropriate response by Jordan Peterson is to call him out on that. That would be to do what is Right. Leftism is after all a giant shit-test: the leftist will agitate wherever he can and take advantage of the disaffected, but if you recognize the shit-test for what it is and call him out on it, you will have passed the shit-test and not be taken advantage of. Leftists are much like women in this sense.

JPB fails the shit-test, and he does this in exactly the same way, when you rub up against your woman and she says ‘not tonight honey I have a headache for the 50th time’ you say ‘oh huh that’s so sad I hope you feel better soon.’ Wrong answer: you were supposed to get the underlying hint and realize the conversation was not about the headache. In interviewing Hurwitz’ as if he were serious about cooperating with the right instead of what he is actually saying, namely wanting to kill the right, Peterson fails the shit-test, fails to speak for the disaffected white men he is said to represent.

Peterson rose to fame because he fought: first against radical left legislation, then against feminists. But it seems he is done fighting and is now breaking bread with our enemies while telling us these enemies are our friends.

The conclusion of the real IDW is that fighting is inevitable and good, and if a man after 2 fights is only seen breaking bread with our enemies, never with our friends, the only conclusion is that he too has become controlled opposition, has joined the BOTs.

To be entirely fair to Peterson, I don’t think it was his intention to be controlled opposition. It just sort of happened that way. We all have to come to terms with the demise of the West, and we all do it in our own way. In mourning, a person goes through different emotions before coming to terms with reality – denial, anger, depression, bargaining, acceptance, in no particular order, although denial is usually first and acceptance last. Peterson has gone through depression, has expressed anger, and is now obviously bargaining with his enemies, hoping for a peaceful resolution. Clearly his enemies are flattering him enough to make him believe a peaceful resolution is possible.

There is no peaceful resolution, at least not one that does not first include war, does not include the dismantling of the Cathedral. If you want peace, prepare for war.

While it is understandable that Peterson does not want to see it, it makes him a pawn to does who do see it, or those who do not see it and do not care about it. Peterson thinks we can talk ourselves out of this mess if we just listen to one another. Mr Peterson, some people just want to see the world burn, and unfortunately these people are running the show and the way things are going, they will have their way before you can say ‘clean your room bucko.’

Christianity

Break’s over, back to business.

Not entirely satisfied with my previous post so let’s try again.

Yesterday I was driving by a church and its big engraved letters on the front read: ‘JESUS WILL SAVE US.’ I wished my gut reaction was: ‘Yes! Deus Vult!’ but it was not. My actual gut reaction was: ‘yeah right.’

I can not pretend to be something I’m not. I’m not a Christian. But at the same time, I’m not not a Christian. My bloodline has been Christian for centuries. But that faith is gone and no amount of wishful thinking is bringing it back. Jesus was a wise teacher, and the bible is a wise book. But the dead will not save us.

That said, calling Jesus a miracle faker is futile and disrespectful – why would I hate on my ancestors? This to me seems a much more compelling argument for respect than Christians’ insistence that Jesus will save us. No, he already saved us, cut the man some slack, this time we have to come up with something new.

So debates about the literal versus metaphorical nature of Jesus’ miracles are not so relevant. Either Christians conquer society once again and I’ll bite my tongue, or something new comes along which by necessity will be respectful towards Jesus which will render moot my annoyance of Christians acting holier than me.

I have very little faith in Christians reconquering society. All I’ve met are cucked beta soyboys intermingled with the occasional silver tongued psychopath. Perhaps on the internet it is different, perhaps there are more shades of Christians, but so far I am not so impressed. I like Jesus, but I dislike these Christians. Well I like Christians, I dislike their moral posturing. ‘Jesus will save me’ said the young white girl surrounded by 5 black men. If everything around you is burning and you say: ‘this is fine, this is OK’, yet I see everything is burning, how the hell can I take your faith serious? Similarly, those Christians who do see everything is burning: how long am I supposed to wait for a miracle? How am I supposed to organize, if every time I quote scripture Christians meet me with some other scripture that is sufficiently vague that in their mind it counters my point? These are not fertile grounds for cooperation.

So. If Christians want to cooperate with me, they will have to show respect and trust me to do the right thing, instead of demanding me to show respect and trust them to do the right thing.

Saint Darwin in this sense is not so much a helpful suggestion as it is a statement of belief, a cross to ward off fake Christians. And there are many fake Christians, for rarely does a Christian accept the full implication of evolution; he tends to wriggle around it. I am told that the Catholic church holds no official position on evolution, yet with every Christian I meet it is never: ah, evolution..! It is always: evolution, but…. Similarly with vaccinations: yes some side-effects remain to be seen, yes the pro-vaccination witch hunt is out in full force, but polio was a nasty disease and we have eradicated it. Any child walking around with deformed hands in 2018 is a permanent advertisement that Christians can be pretty anti-Darwin.

If you, my dear Christian reader, are deeply and inexcusably offended by this, by all means: pray for me tonight and never read this blog again. That is all.

Now, back to where my faith does lie. If that church sign had said: ‘JIM WILL SAVE US’ I would have responded very enthusiastically. Unfortunately Jim misses that touch of delusion that makes him say: ‘the way to the Father is through me’. Sad. Though on the plus side it makes him humble and consistent and consistency is really the most you can hope for.

Part of me just wants to resolve this religion issue here and now, to draw borders around it, say ‘this is the new religion’ and call it a day. But it does not work like that. Life flows, changes, evolves. The religion that will allow Western society to rise out of its debris is at this point as undefined as Christianity was before it raised the debris of the Roman empire out of its dark ages. So even if I refer to the new religion as Jimianity, I am being preemptive, and it is best to let time take its course and see where this shining white pill takes us.