Category Archives: People

Jordan Peterson, YouTube prophet

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

I found this interview with Russell Brand quite enjoyable.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Lol Scott Alexander

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

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

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

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

Scott has a pretty straightforward business model.

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

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

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

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

The Rise and Fall of Owen Cook

For judging any man, I hold two principles:

  1. Does he practice what he preaches?
  2. Is he content with what he practices?


I recently watched an Owen Cook video with some friends. It’s been a year since I last discussed RSD. My opinion has not changed.

Gurus like Owen Cook remain fascinating figures. Men seek avatars to learn from and Owen explicitly is such an avatar, especially since he actually talks in front of crowds, as opposed to anonymous writers on the internet who might as well be keyboard-hitting monkeys.

But no one is perfect and sometimes the most ostensibly successful persons are the most fucked up. The greater the rise, the harder the fall. Such it was with Ken Wilber, as documented by Mark Manson (who himself completely sold-out since the days he garnered praise from Nick Krauser. My local bookshop sells Manson’s book ‘the subtle art of not giving a fuck’, yours probably does too).

Anyway. As with Ken Wilber, so it is with Owen. Below his most recent video.

We watched Owen talk for about 20 minutes, when my friend, who used to be pretty big on RSD, paused the video and exclaimed: ‘this is nonsense. He is just bragging and talking nonsense!’ My friend is right. Owen has no coherent message here. What Owen says here is a random collection of stuff he knows his audience expects him to say, and his audience plays along because Owen says what they paid him to say, but any sense of meaning is lost. It is noise, with little to no information.

It wasn’t always like this. Old Owen was better. For instance take the clip below.

Beardless Owen talked sense, had some good concepts. ‘Pinging’ always stuck with me, which refers to your dependance on other people as anchors for reality. Women ping all the time. Arrogant men ping little and if they are forced to ping they often do so irritatingly slowly. The person who pings less has most power.

But the seeds of his failure were already visible in the fruits of his success. Lemme explain.

Tyler’s big thing has always been deconditioning your social conditioning. What is social conditioning? Everything you’ve been taught by society, your parents, your teachers. You are taught to feel depressed, confined and self-hating. You are taught to shut up and keep your head low. In reactionary circles, social conditioning is known as the false life script.

So Owen wanting to end this makes perfect sense. So far, so good.

The problem arises with his proposed replacement. What is his proposed replacement? Well, in a nutshell: not giving a fuck, being your best self. Do what you like, when you like. Be who you like to be.

Which is great advice. For a fortune cookie. See, men need freedom, sure. But men also need direction, purpose. The reason traditions are important is that they provide a place of belonging for men. Just because our current societal rituals are rotten does not mean we can do away with rituals all-together. Need rituals.

What are such rituals? Rituals derived from the acceptance that we are imbued with genetic programming. As a white male this means you want territory, you want power, you want your own female, you want your female to give birth to your children, you want to protect and care for your family and be loved in return. More or less.

Deviation from this path is possible, but you do so at your own risk. The life-long bachelor does not age too well I think. Paraphrasing Spandrell, life-long bachelors have too much idle time on their hands, do silly things. Jim puts it stronger: if a man does not own a woman he becomes horribly broken. I for one think you end up feeling lonely.

How does this relate to Owen Cook? Well, his wife divorced him and took his 2 kids.

This piece of personal information is crucial. It is sad. But it is also strange. Here’s a guy travelling the world telling men how to achieve success with women, yet he could not convince the mother of his children to stay with him.

Owen Cook’s best teachings are as deeply purple-pill you can describe life without going red. He made all the right observations about women. He described social dynamics accurately. He went into the evolutionary background of it all. But he failed to draw the obvious conclusions that everyone who has taken the red pill has. Owen Cook’s genes want him to own a woman, want him to be patriarch of his family, and if the opposite happens, if his woman leaves him and takes away his children, he becomes horribly broken. Which is exactly what happened.

Men need freedom, but men also need chains of family. But men like hearing about freedom more so Owen did exactly that.

It is ironic that the same thing that brought Owen success, namely telling men what they wanted to hear without setting off too many CRIMETHINK alarms, led to his own downfall.

Not that he has literally hit rock bottom, of course. Dude is still richer than I’ll ever be. But a guru always cares more about his reputation than his bank account, and the end of Owen’s reputation has arrived.

Heartiste’s 1 pretty lie

Some are not going to enjoy hearing this, but needs to be said.

It is not that Heartiste outright lies. I have previously heralded Heartiste as the greatest shitlord of our age. Which I still stand behind. But he is not fully honest.

Heartiste lies by omission. What is the omission, you ask? The omission is that 80% of Heartiste’s male readers are born a beta, will die a beta. Heartiste does not tell them this, in fact, Heartiste tells them the opposite: most men are too stupid and low-T to get this, but you too can be an asshole with a shit-eating grin drowning in pussy! Here’s how to get nudes and bang that hot chick in the bar! Stay tuned with Heartiste, the Trumpocalypse is on its way!

Heartiste sells the fantasy of blog-canned alpha. He makes his readers feel like badboys by association, but never acknowledges that the majority of his readers are not badboys, will never be badboys.

He is making a sales pitch. And judging from the many comments he gets, a pretty effective sales pitch. But not the right one. What is the right pitch?

We may cut a knife between NRx and the Alt-Right, and say Heartiste is on the Alt-Right, I am on NRx. Which I think is fairly accurate. But we can do slightly better.

The best use of the knife is to cut between Jim & Heartiste. Heartiste says you too can be shitlord, Jim says society must be realigned so you too can pretend to be a shitlord. The difference is crucial.

In Jim’s view, ordinary men will never be arrogant, violent and murderous enough to wet women’s panties. Women’s view of male status is simply too harsh, like the view of a child living among cannibals. Women want a man who commands other men, who shoots death-rays out his eyes and who will knife someone for giving him a wrong glance. In short: women want to fuck men who routinely kick puppies out of boredom.

This is the crucial difference between Jim and Heartiste: Heartiste says men can learn to enjoy kicking puppies to get laid. Jim says men are dancing monkeys pretending to enjoy kicking puppies because they want to get laid. Jim is right, Heartiste is wrong.

Thus, Jim’s solution is better than Heartiste. Heartiste’s solution is to enjoy a poolside view of the decline with beautiful women while fanboys cheer him on. Jim’s solution is to make those fanboys high status: reintroduce patriarchy, make women soft property (first to their father, then their husbands) and ban careers for women until after marriage & children.

If that pitch sounds too abstract, imagine it like this: you are in charge of your house, your wife and your children. Your friends, your colleagues, your family and your in-laws all agree with you that you, not your girl, are in charge.

In this world, women suddenly feel attracted to all men, not just the Heartiste-types, because we have realigned societal incentives as to make all males high status.

Heartiste gives you tools to get laid in the age of thots.
Jim gives you tools to end of the age of thots.

I’d like to live in a society that is not dying, so I prefer Jim.


Finished reading a biography on Silvio Berlusconi by NY Times journalist Alan Friedman.

Screen Shot 2017-12-20 at 13.05.19

The first thing that strikes the eye is that Berlusconi appointed a NY times journalist to write his biography. Likely he thought Friedman would reach a broad Western audience, but throughout the book it is quite obvious that Friedman harbors typical leftist resentment towards Berlusconi and finds him arrogant, shallow and egotistic and deserving of condemnation by the international community. Yet Friedman cannot help but reveal envy in his writing, because every man would envy the Italian version of Donald Trump. This made for an interesting read.

Screen Shot 2017-12-20 at 13.05.07
Is Alan Friedman Weinstein’s twin brother?

Berlusconi’s life is impressive. Started as a singer on cruise ships. Made his fortune in real estate, exploiting every grey area in the book. Went on to buy and quite actively coached AC Milan. Then made an even bigger fortune by building the first privately-owned Italian media empire. Finally topped it of by becoming prime minister 4 times, getting cozy with Bush Jr. and Putin in the process. Eventually taken down by the judicial system on the charge of corruption and bad press on the charge of bunga bunga, although financially he is still good for some 8.4 billion euros, putting him in the top 500 richest people in the world.

Privately he has 5 kids with 2 wives and not quite impossibly a couple of bastard children. He seduced his 2nd wife, an actress, in the theater while he was still married with his first. Eventually married her. Funny story: when he inevitably grew bored with his 2nd wife, she did not go down easy and published letters in anti-Berlusconi media attacking Berlusconi for ‘hurting her dignity’ (a.k.a. flirting and boning anything with a vagina). The result was a divorce after which Berlusconi had to pay her 1.5 million euros in alimentation each month. Lol.

I like Berlusconi. Guy is a charmer, a natural Italian alpha oozing with life force. How can you not like the guy? (when you’re an envious leftist like Friedman, that’s when.)

Talking about leftists, guess what Berlusconi’s explanation of his eventual downfall was? He said it was leftists, especially in the judicial system, who conspired against him. Yes, Berlusconi throughout his life repeatedly blamed a conspiracy of leftists! Friedman predictably waves this away as an example of a man who believes his own propaganda, but seems obvious that Berlusconi was on the money and that the Italian cathedral was out to get him, eventually got him.

Hilariously, while Berlusconi knew leftists hated his guts, he did not understand the nature of the leftist beast, the cathedral. The best passage in the book is when Berlusconi attends the 2011 G20 with Obama, Merkel and Sarkozy and the following happens:

“Obama looked speechless when Berlusconi stood behind him, laid a hand on Obama’s shoulder and greeted him. ‘How are you?’ Obama asked courteously. ‘Good, thank you’ said Berlusconi, who went on a rant about Italian prosecutors in front of the flabbergasted president. While Merkel and Sarkozy observed the spectacle with surprise, Berlusconi complained minutes on end to Obama about the ‘dictatorship of leftist judges’ in Italy and how he wanted to reform the judicial system. This went on for a while until Sarkzoy made a call for order and ended Berlusconi’s little tirade.”

So basically Silvo Berlusconi explained the nature of the cathedral to the PR department of the cathedral. Fucking L.O.L. I can only imagine Obama, Sarkozy and Merkel huddling together afterwards, speaking in hushed, angry voices: ‘who the fuck does this clown think he is?’ ‘he’s gotta go.’ ‘definitely.’ I would not be surprised if this stunt signed Berlusconi’s death warrant.

The other interesting thing about European politics is how serious we are supposed to take these very temporary leaders. Sarkozy, for example, is presented as an authoritarian figure who tries to reshape Europe in his own image. Obama is presented as a wise intermediary who tries to get all the parties to listen to one another. The book is written in 2015, it is now 2017. Where is Obama, where is Sarkozy? Gone, forgotten. They were much less important than we were told they were, their only legacy being further movement leftwards. Thus we can conclude that the story the media tells us about European politics is like the Bold and Beautiful for men.

Did Berlusconi deserve his political downfall? Seems to me not so much.

The 2 charges made against Berlusconi are corruption and hedonism.

Corruption, the use of money to reach an illegal agreement, is a natural way of life in Italy. It has also become a natural way of life in a world where illegality and legality is the difference between mobile bandits and stationary bandits. Thus suing people for ‘corruption’ is like suing people for peeing. Berlusconi became the victim of an unprincipled exception that for him no longer was an unprincipled exception.

The second, his rampant partying and sleeping with women and whores, I am not so offended about either. I can hardly be outraged about Berlusconi banging 17-year old Ruby the whore, except, predictably, out of jealousy.

Screen Shot 2017-12-20 at 12.42.44
17-year old Ruby. Would you bang? Rhetorical question.

Did he set a good example for men? Well he is Northern-Italian, so barely inside the Hajnal line. Also it does not seem to me that Berlusconi slept with wives of important men, it seems to me he slept with whores and un-owned women. I can hardly call his Bunga Bunga partying decent, but neither would it be reason for me to enter the streets with torches and pitchforks demanding his resignation.

Let me put it this way: if an English king acted this way, it would be severely frowned upon. If an Italian king acted this way, it would be slightly frowned upon. Different people, different standards.

Not that it matters for Berlusconi, who in the end was neutered pretty effectively. But Berlusconi was just one man with few allies (he got along very well with Bush Jr, who was a useless ally, and with Putin, who was a dangerous ally). In the age of Trump, should be interesting to see more strongmen rising and cooperating with each other against the GloboHomoBezos ministry of propaganda.

Poor Eminem

I recently caught Eminem’s freestyle rap against Trump. I felt bad for Eminem.

I listened to his old albums quite a few times (from Slim Shady LP up to Encore). I liked them. Too be honest he never had the best beats. In fact there’s this signature Eminem-beat, it’s a sort of staccato rhythm that vaguely reminds me of hardcore music, which is surprisingly popular in the right Dutch subcultures but revealing of lack of taste in music. Too aggressive, too unimaginative. For me at least.

But as a rapper Eminem was one of the greatest, even if rap is the most overrated genre in the modern music game. He had good flow, was good with words, didn’t shy away from rapping about fucked-up shit that just made you laugh. And at his peak he was Big. Eminem got as close to being a rap god as you can imagine.

But of course, in the end, he is still a white boy in a black neighborhood. Prior to being famous he had a shitty life. Then Dre came along and Eminem blew up. Saved by the black man. What an interesting fate. Leftists may say this, rightists may say that, but Eminem thanks his entire fortune to an industry dominated by blacks embracing him into their midst. So it is no wonder he now stands with them. He simply feels more loyalty towards the music business’ diverse ethnicity than to the ‘plight of the white man’ (a problem shared by Dutch white hip-hop artists whose Dunbar make-up makes it impossible for them to think Diversity+Proximity=War thoughts).

Yes, Eminem is vapidly virtue signaling, but really, who cares? The failed campaigning by Beyonce, Jay-Z and Katy Perry for Hillary Clinton taught us that artists’ impact on politics is quite small. Fans don’t change political opinions for stars.

I suspect that most of Eminem’s original fans, angry young white males, dislike this freestyle anyway. I know I do. He looks like an old man with a midlife crisis. Listening to a creative rapper with something interesting to tell was fun, listening to this self-righteous useful idiot, not so much.

At any rate, when J.K. Rowling came out as a frothing-at-the-mouth Social Justice Warrior, I felt scammed for ever having read Harry Potter. I don’t have so much hate towards Eminem. He had a good run while it lasted. R.I.P.

Arjen Lubach, or: how to kiss the ass of Power

Arjen Lubach is a non-Jewish leftist entertainer who dreams of being the Dutch Jon Stewart. In fact, he already pretty much is the Dutch Jon Stewart. Congratulations Arjen!

The above video is a very recent hit. Which is to say, a huge viral hit according to the media, but with less than 2 million views it is barely half the views of a daily Jake Paul video. To be fair though, Lubach’s first viral video on Trump got 25 million views, but that was a funnier video.

The authorities tell us a story about poor li’l Lubach, just tinkering in his garage with his under-appreciated content, who through sheer talent and perseverance is slowly recognised as the beacon of funny truth that he is. “America Hates His Rifle-Skeptical Guts But Damnit If He Doesn’t Speak Truth!”


If you hadn’t heard yet: countryside Americans have lost on all major issues: they’ve lost marriage, healthcare, abortion and even the right to assemble. And let us not forget the statue storm destroying conservative statues as we speak. Guns are pretty much the last thing they have left.

City Americans love Lubach, which is to say: those in power in America love Lubach. Why? Because Lubach perfectly parrots the party line, just as Jon Stewart, John Oliver and Stephen Colbert perfectly parrot the party line. They are messenger boys. It is only as long as Lubach’s message is in line with the powers that be that Lubach is lauded as great content creator.

This is why I didn’t even have to watch the video to know what Lubach was going to say. It’s about Trump? It will be hating on Trump. It’s about guns? Yeah it’ll be about restricting gun control.

And I hear you asking: ‘isn’t Lubach making good points?’ No, he isn’t. Controlled for race, Americans murder at about the same rate as people in countries with strict gun control. Gun control seems to play a negligible role in homicide rates. See the 2015 Paris massacre. See Jim. It is the opinion of this blog that every Dutch male with a house and a wife be given a government-issued Desert Eagle with 10 clips magazines and a laser pointer.

So why are leftists so adamant about gun control if it isn’t about saving lives? Because leftists are the priests, and the priests hate it when warriors have power in the form of guns. What is really at stake is just another struggle for power.

So no, Lubach is not speaking truth to power. He is kissing the ass of power. Which is probably the smart thing to do. Just, not so interesting.

Leftist pathology: a case study

The point of a cellular make-up is to optimise evolutionary advantage. A strong man uses strength to deter his enemies from attacking, an emotional man uses theatrics to seduce women and an intelligent man uses his IQ to outsmart others.

No personality is designed to fall within a certain bound, though most personalities naturally fall within a certain bound because average is what tends to work best. But extremes always exist, for if 1 ‘strong’ gene makes you strong, 2 ‘strong’ genes make you superstrong, but 3 ‘strong’ genes give you muscular dystrophy.

Extremes are dangerous, evolutionary speaking. They might be dead-ends. Take homosexuality. A few homosexual genes make you bi-curious. Being bi-curious gets you laid more often. Boom, evolutionary advantage! But too many homosexual genes and you lose interest in girls, preferring instead to spend your time catching and spreading AIDS in dark basements of bars called The Golden Fist and The Happy Sausage. Boom, evolutionary dead-end!

A leftist personality is also optimised for evolutionary advantage: it is optimised to lie and to cheat. Yet too many leftist genes and the product becomes obviously defective. Take for instance Judith Sargentini, a Dutch GreenLeft politician who has recently been promoted to the EU anti-terrorism committee.

Screen Shot 2017-09-11 at 22.37.52.png

Heartiste is absolutely correct: physiognomy is real. And if you think she looks unreliable in this picture, observe her when she talks.

Sargentini’s opinion on terrorism? it has nothing to do with religion! Her opinion on the idea that some immigrants might harbour terroristic ideas? Ludicrous hysteria!

The central realisation about leftists is that they do not give a flying shit about others. They care about themselves, they lie to promote themselves. Observe the passive-agressive way in which Sargentini supposedly stands up for refugees. Funny thing; she does not actually see refugees as real people. She sees them as status objects whose sole purpose is to be used as value-signals for her personal superiority. Similarly, the environment: Sargentini does not give a flying shit about it. She has no interest in how ecologies work, how farmers work, how animals work. She just cares about about herself while posing, quite aggressively, as someone who cares about others.

And it’s not just immigration, not just the environment. Literally think of ANY topic in which you can value-brag to others and you can be sure that ms Sargentini has tweeted on it, made commissions for it, or written on it in order to further her own interests : child labor, developmental aid, amnesty international, islamophobia, transgender rights, gay marriage, African democracy, diversity on tech etcetera etcetera.

As always, the leftist’s personal life speaks volumes: at age 43 ms Sargentini has neither husband nor kids. What she no doubt does have is a long list of pump and dumps, likely including several Syrian refugees.

In the past such a woman was politely shunned from serious conversations and people would shake their heads whenever they’d encounter the bitter vitriol of a spinster like her. But alas, we live in a progressive dystopia where diversity=equality and terrorism=good, hence ms Sargentini’s position on the EU anti-terrorism committee.

Remember Jiang Qing, who wanted her doctor killed because he was a doctor. Sargentini is much like Jiang Qing, in that she wants white men to be killed because they are white men.

Goodbye to the place I was always able to go to

Ryan Landry has taken a step back as content creator, citing time constraints and frustrations with being a keyboard warrior. The internet has lost a talented man. Landry was a professional blogger with an impressive amount of knowledge on many topics, including but not limited to economics, history, politics and of course, World War 1. He had a knack for condensing that knowledge in well-paced articles; Ryan was a natural story teller. I especially enjoyed his ‘phone calls with Nixon’ series. I always imagined Nixon’s lines spoken with an Al-Capone-kind-of voice.

And Landry wasn’t just a blogger – he was on Twitter, on Social Matter, he hosted the well-spoken smooth Jazz-intro’d Weimerica podcast, he heads a family and probably does a ton of other things I’m not aware of. An impressive track record indeed!

The only blot on Landry’s internet career was his public accusation that Spandrell was toxic. This was silly. You can’t demand that a gloomy realist becomes a positivist. It’s like demanding that Trump talks like a Harvard man. It’s just not what they do. The day Spandrell’s blog becomes a motivational positivity blog will be the day World War 3 breaks loose.

But hey, Judean People Front, People’s Front of Judea… It’s all good. Landry is undoubtedly one of the good guys. A beautiful thing of the NRx-blogosphere is its breath-taking honesty in comparison with all other modern day writing – Landry was one of those honest bloggers, and a talented one at that.

Thanks for the blog and all the best in your future endeavors. (Which hopefully includes writing, ‘cause I’d probably read your book.)

On the Death of Pim Fortuyn

I remember where I was when the murder of Pim Fortuyn happened (at a friend’s place).

Fortuyn’s killer was Volkert van der Graaf, a white leftist, whose motivation for the murder was that he ‘wanted to protect the weak in the Netherlands’. Back then this was a surprise — not a brown but a white killer? In retrospect it all makes perfect sense of course.

Hardcore leftists are psychopathic status maximisers. By killing Fortuyn Volkert traded 12 years in Dutch prison for Godlike status among his leftist peers (he has been out of prison since 2014). Sure, there’s people who hate his guts, but no doubt he enjoys great prestige in his preferred social circles. Plus chicks dig a killer. Volkert pulled off a great trade.

Now the question remains: were higher powers aware of Volkert’s plan to kill Fortuyn? Theo van Gogh seemed to think so. In his movie 06/05 he suggests that the AIVD, the Dutch secret service, had infiltrated Volkert’s activist group the Environment Offence. In the movie a journalist uncovers that powerful people plotted to get rid of Pim Fortuyn and secretly assisted Volkert by keeping the police away on the day of the murder. Their motivation? According to van Gogh, approval of the Lockheed Martin Joint Strike Fighter program for which the Netherlands was set to invest 1 billion euros. Fortuyn opposed the program, and for this the deep state allowed or perhaps even instigated Volkert to off Fortuyn.

So what’s my take on this? I think it is mainly a question of competency. It is clear Fortuyn was a splinter in the foot of the American/European deep state and not just because of the JSF program. That the deep state wanted to get rid of Fortuyn seems obvious. But how involved were they in his actual murder? It is impossible to say exactly, but my assessment is that Theo van Gogh was onto something. The Dutch are generally competent and the AIVD is more than equally competent. Consider: the AIVD has so far managed to prevent all terrorist attacks in the Netherlands from happening, except for the public murder of Pim Fortuyn in 2002 and Theo van Gogh in 2004. So yes, I judge it more likely than not that the deep state was at some level aware of the danger Pim Fortuyn was in and chose not to interfere while the public media continued to promote his assassination.

In the aftermath of Fortuyn’s death the LPF received a whopping 17% of the vote, an unsurpassed record for a new party. But it did not matter – the party crumbled. To replace Fortuyn the formerly unknown Matt Herben was pushed forward as leader, who completely crashed the party into the ground, although not before voting in favour of the JSF program. And, get this, Herben became a lobbyist for the JSF program after his LPF career ended.

LPF’s last shred of dignity was destroyed when prominent LPF member Hilbrand Nawijn recorded a hilariously crappy music video starring himself:

Thus ended the legacy of Pim Fortuyn: with a fat guy using him and a Dutch dance hype for attention. Sad.