Category Archives: Philosophy

On truth

It seems ‘truth’ has become a returning rallying point of this blog.

A couple things about truth are good to discuss.

First. Truth exists outside human experience.

Humans are not built for truth. Humans are instead build for survival; we interpret truth, reality, as demanded for our survival, but our interpretation falls short of the real thing, for reality is only a means to our top priority: gene replication. We pride ourselves with approximation of reality, but only because it aids us with survival.

For example. To build a house a contractor does not need to know that wood is made up of 50% carbon, 42% oxygen, 6% hydrogen, 1% nitrogen, and 1% other elements. He merely need to know how to build four walls and a roof that does not collapse on you. But, to a chemist publishing articles on the make-up of wood, the above knowledge suddenly becomes very relevant, while the knowledge on how to build a house is irrelevant. Same pieces of woods, different purposes, different truth models. We learn only what we need to learn, both by necessity and by natural limitation. Practical truth thus only presents itself to humans in the form of feedback loops: trial and error.

Second. Truth for the sake of truth is like shouting against a storm. 

Our inability to reach ABSOLUTE TRUTH does not negate the power of our ability to approach truth, despite the relativistic nonsense leftists love to throw around: because we can’t know everything, we know nothing. Bullshit! As follows from the first point: we don’t need to know everything, we just need to know enough. And we know enough about plenty of stuff. The world is chock-full of truth, and men all around the world observe it daily.

But we have no interest in truth for the sake of truth. No one is interested in hearing random truths unless they stand to benefit from it. My wooden cupboard has a scratch on it. I ate some bacon. I’m slightly tired. All of this is true, but all of it is useless information to you, the reader.

Another problem is that men often benefit more from lies than from truth. Truth is often dangerous. Lies are comforting, binding, empowering — the right lies bring status, and status goes much further in gene replication than truth. Truth however is cold and uncaring. Men, having to perform like the dancing monkeys they are, haven’t much patience for harsh truth (it goes unsaid that women have no grasp of truth whatsoever. For women truth differs from moment to moment).

Of course truth is beneficial on a long enough timescale, but who has time for that? Some low time preference high IQ neoreactionaries perhaps. But generally people figure they only live about 80 years before they’re dead, add another 40 years if you care about your kids, which is still nothing in the grand scheme of things, so why bother?

The exception is of course when a man lives a lie so flagrant it is unsustainable. But a man can cope with quite a few flagrant lies before life becomes unsustainable.

So, most people are not interested. Speaking truth for the sake of speaking truth is like shouting in a storm, meaning people raise their shoulders and say: ‘eh, whatever.’ If it is not like that, something else is going on.

If people like listening to your truth, it in some way benefits them.

If people dislike listening to your truth, it in some way hurts them.

Take Socrates. Socrates had young admirers who enjoyed an eloquent man speaking truth to power. Conversely Socrates was hated among those in power who disliked being ridiculed for their point deer make horse lies. The only logical conclusion was that Socrates had to drink from a poisoned cup for speaking the truth and thereby he became the archetypal prophet of all truth-speakers. Truth-speakers often can’t help being an insufferable bunch.

Third. What remains is using truth as a holy weapon. 

So we’ve established that nobody cares about the concept of truth, much like how no one cares about freedom of speech. We don’t care if this world is a simulation, if this is the Matrix, if I’m actually talking to you in your dream. We work with the information we get, that is all. All else is tribal marking, religious warfare. What is true? What I say is true, what my enemies say is false. 

It is an interesting human trait that both my enemies and I find it very important to say we value truth, while experience shows we don’t care so much about truth. In communication, the word truth is a synonym for cooperation. The act of being beneficially truthful means you can trust me, means that what I say is useful information. I lie to my enemies, but to you, my friend, I speak the truth.

This is why shouting that you care about truth is a prerequisite to gain other people’s trust, which is why so many liars tell you how much they care about truth.

Thus truth by necessity becomes a holy weapon — if truth is on our side, so must God. Indeed, truth becomes a synonym for God. Or G-d. Or Allah. Whatever. Are you ready to discover what is true?

So there really is no escape from weaponizing truth.

*suddenly, a tiny devil appears out of thin air*

tiny_devil_by_m_clone-d4lsd8z– ‘cool story Alf I’mma let you finish but here’s my 2000 word response on what truth means…’ 


‘Yeah that’s great but my version is better. That’s what weaponizing truth means.’

tiny_devil_by_m_clone-d4lsd8z– ‘but Alf if your version of truth is to simply scold everyone who disagrees with you then you’re no better than a leftist!’


‘Well, there is another, simpler way to look at things, a very concise summary of all discussed above.’

tiny_devil_by_m_clone-d4lsd8z– ‘what could that be!’


‘Don’t virtue signal. Don’t be a hypocrite. That is all.’


The tiny demon disappears with a loud pop, knowing it has been defeated… For today.


The terrible truth

Screen Shot 2018-01-12 at 21.57.44

A recurring theme on this blog is acceptance of the world around us. See the world as it is, not as other people tell you it is, or as you’d like the world to be. Big difference. Truth tellers need metaphors to explain the difference. Hence the allegory of the Cave, The Matrix and They Live.

Personally my favorite image for ‘waking up’ comes from an Asian horror movie I saw so long ago I forgot its name.

[EDIT: thanks to a very helpful comment I now know the movie is called Nang Nak. Trailer. Movie. Spoilers below so stop reading if you want to watch it.]

In the movie, the protagonist, a jungleman, returns to his wife and newborn child after a long absence (I believe he fought in a war). He is overjoyed to see his wife’s pregnancy went well, to see he now has a family and that they love one another. They live happily together in their bamboo house on the jungle riverbank.

However, other villagers act differently. Since his return they avoid him as if he were cursed. The man does not understand but does not mind so much. He is happy after all.

Then an older man comes to him and says: ‘my friend, something is terribly wrong. I have to tell you: your wife died in childbirth and so did your child.’ Our protagonist gets angry. His wife is at home, in good health! How dare this grey goon say something so horrible! But the old man insists. ‘Your loved ones have passed. Evil spirits have taken their place. If you want the truth, bend over and look through the opening between your legs. Then you will see.’

Our protagonist shakes his head in disbelief. ‘Crazy old man, who does he think he is.’ He goes home, finds his wife and child smiling and laughing. He kisses them on the forehead. All is well.

But something feels wrong. He never sees his wife eating, for instance. His wife never goes out into the village, for another. Other strange things keep happening. And the villagers still retreat in fear whenever they see him.

Eventually it is too much for the man, and one day he stands in his bamboo living room, bends over and looks through the hole between his legs. The first thing he sees is cobwebs and dust everywhere. The second thing he sees is the rotting carcass of his wife, lying on a chair, cradling the remains of a dead baby. Naturally, he freaks the fuck out.

I don’t remember how the movie ended and I’m sure I’ve misremembered some parts, but that scene of the rotting wife carcass always stuck with me. That is the red pill at its worst. Not some ‘I know Kung Fu’ bullshit, just some plain old ‘nothing is what you thought it was, the people you thought loved you actually hate your guts’. Truth can be horrible like that.

Horseshoe theory is bunkum

It has become popular among centrists to discredit the Alt-Right, saying that while alt-rightists ostensibly are the inverse of SJW’s and Antifa, Alt-Rightists are in fact the exactly the same as their leftist counterpart. I notice Sargon of Akkad and others pushing this point. I observe it is an instinctive response by normies against the political upheaval of our times. Let us take a closer look.

First, a representative illustration of Horseshoe theory:

Screen Shot 2017-09-06 at 11.55.53

The top reveals how the advocate of horseshoe theory sees himself: as a person led by classical liberalism, science and reason.

The left and right sides are fairly accurate in the eyes of today’s normie: the left is into environmentalism, feminism and socialism while the right is into Catholicism, chauvinism and nationalism. At the ends both sides grow toward each other, symbolising the idea that the extreme left and extreme right are in fact the same.

Which is bunkum. It is intellectual laziness at best, purposeful obscuration on average.

It is like saying virgins and players are the same because they are both extremes ends on the spectrum of the sexual market. It is like saying good and bad are the same because they are both extreme ends on the spectrum of morality. It is bunkum.

The only thing that can be said in favour of horseshoe theory is that people with strong political convictions occasionally switch sides to the other political extreme; e.g. young leftists turning rightist when they grow older. This is because politically minded people by nature understand the game of power and sometimes find it in their benefit to play the game differently. It is not because they have not changed.

The left is defection, the right is cooperation. The left is chaos, the right is order. A leftist lies, a rightist talks truth. It is as simple as this. Stretch out the horsehoe, make it into a ruler, and already you have a much better illustration of reality.

What is actually going on is that the centrist wants to avoid the responsibility that comes with choosing one side, fearing repercussions from the other. This is fair game. But it has nothing to do with truth, for sitting between truth and lies makes you a soft liar.

A much more accurate representation of the political spectrum is the following illustration provided by Radish:

Screen Shot 2017-09-06 at 11.45.19

As you can see, fascists are in fact quite similar to communists, just not for the reason horseshoe theory tells us. Fascists are leftists. It was in fact literally in the name of Hitler’s party: the national socialists. Hitler used leftist government to supply his army, hence the failure to supply his army.

Furthermore Radish tells us that mainstream 2013 has moved frightfully far to the left, far away from it’s purported liberalism of, say, Tabula-Rasa-Locke, who was in retrospect also an obvious leftist.

We see now the silliness of centrists imagining themselves above political extremes: centrists are shaped by the political extremes. 200 years ago centrists thought the emperor of Habsburg was the best thing since sliced bread and women belonged in the kitchen, today centrists think emperors are evil dictators and women belong in the office. The Overton window is the delicate balance between extremes and its make-up is decided by its extremes, not its middle. The middle follows the history’s current, has always followed history’s current, and is therefore neutral, neither good nor bad, though passively good in that they hope to have a good life which is best accomplished when civilisation flourishes.

All of which is as friendly a manner in which I can say: Sargon of Akkad, know your place.

Left vs Right I: etymology

Life is complex, but life is also simple. Dualistic. It seems thinkers of our time have settled on two main terms to describe the divide that splits the modern world: right and left.

Before we get into the theorising let us take a look at the etymology. In their original meanings left and right are instinctive words, yet hard to explain. Your left is simply, on your left. The side of your body where your heart lays. Your right is the opposite side, housing your liver. Left and right are coordinates for navigating your environment, similar to directions on a compass, but more primal.

The origin of the political left and right stems from the French revolution. In 1791 French revolutionaries rewrote the French constitution such that the old legislative body was stripped of its power. In its place came a new body, the Legislative Assembly, in which the revolutionaries enjoyed all the power.

Now, because the Legislative Assembly was brand new, fresh traditions were shaped every other day. On such tradition was the observation that there were two opposing groups in the Assembly: the group on the literal right side favoured a constitutional monarchy, felt things had escalated far enough. The group on the literal left side wanted the king dead, were in favour of more evermore equality and fraternity. Of course the conservatives lost, the Jacobins won and France endured all the lovely perks of having leftists in power.

Screen Shot 2017-07-08 at 12.55.48

So that’s it for origin stories. On to the good stuff. Why is the right/left divide so accurate? Because nature is dualistic. Every organism has 2 choices: to cooperate or to defect. Life in many ways is a never-ending series of prisoner’s dilemmas, a constant choice between working together with others or screwing others over. Eve cooperated with Adam until she defected on him. The choice turns out to be so fundamental to our survival that we’ve come to genetically specialise in one or the other. Rightism is cooperating, leftism is defecting.

Let there be no surprise that leftists categorically deny this label. In their defence, our definition pretty much puts them in a position where we are asking them how long they’ve been beating their wives, so they are in a bad position to defend themselves. But the truth speaks for itself, and the truth shouts that leftists by nature are defectors.

For cuttlefish, there are 2 main mating strategies. The first is to adhere to the mating ritual, which fighting other males for dominance (co-op/co-op). The strongest male gets to mate. This is good for the species, not so much for the weaker male. So many males employ an alternative mating strategy: pose as a female and sneak past the strong males (co-op/defect). If the bluff is successful, the weak male mates. Bad for the species, good for the weak male.

This in a nutshell is leftism vs rightism. The rightist wants to co-operate because he knows he is strong and he has the most to gain with all-around honesty (it is probably correct that the rightist does not care about what is good for civilisation either, that any boon to civilisation is merely a side-effect of his personal preference to play it straight). The leftist wants to defect because he knows he is outmatched in straightforward co-operation. The rightist builds the system, the leftist games the system.

From Socrates to Jesus to Nietzsche to Jim

I do like that title.

Western philosophy pretty much peaked with Socrates. Aristotle was nice with his classifications, Plato was okay with his cave riddle but Socrates nailed it: the only thing we know is that there is stuff we don’t know. Beyond that Socrates seems to have just gotten on with his life,; speaking truth to power and paying the price for it. Socrates’ life shows the veracity of his philosophy.

But Socrates did not catch on in Greece. He was too high-brow.

Western religion pretty much peaked with Jesus. Damn man, that guy man, Jesus… King of the Jews, huh. What year are we living in again? Year X after you-know-who, amirite? Jesus knew how to occupy the West for a millenium or 2.

But Christians see their churches empty. The faith is dying. An event Nietzsche predicted over a hundred years ago: God is dead. Hail übermensch! But is God really dead, or is it Jesus who is dead, and with Jesus our connection to God? That remains to be seen. (although Socrates is raising his hand)

But like Socrates, Nietzsche did not catch on. He demanded too much. I have to transcend myself? That sounds like a lot of work. I dunno man. I work to live, I don’t live to work.

Maybe that’s why Jim is an old, fat and bald man. It is a nice counterpoint.

Will Jim catch on?

Screen Shot 2017-06-13 at 23.47.16
Socrates has something to say