Category Archives: Politics

Baudet’s trials continue

Have I written on the Dutch senate election outcome? I don’t think I have.

I’ve written about Thierry Baudet though. You know, the guy in the upper right.

Well, he won big time. Pretty awesome. He still needs a big victory in the house of representatives election, and even if he wins there, Dutch splinterization politics means he’ll continue to have a rough time. A 30% voting block is worth exactly that in Dutch politics: 30%. Baudet got 17%, and that already is very impressive.

But otherwise, very cool. Something is definitely cooking. Baudet is hot. He is cool. Not over-top-Pim-Fortuyn-cool, but pretty cool. A sympathetic snob. Smart guy, too. Check out this interview. Therein Mr. Baudet says “We represent a political philosophy that is fundamentally opposed to the principles of the French Revolution”. Has Baudet read Moldbug? I would not put it past him.

But of course, action begats reaction. The left is sizing Baudet up. Emotions are riled, shit-tests are thrown. A university priest tweeted: ‘Where is Volkert?’ referring to the murderer of Pim Fortuyn. He was temporarily suspended. An activist chanted: ‘When I say Thierry, you say poof’ and her squatter friends proceeded to do so.

Then there’s the politicians. Power in the Netherlands resides, insofar not entirely in the faceless bureaucracy, in a big clique of politicians dividing jobs. Experience in the government and the Second Chamber is the baptism of fire. If a politician does well there, e.g. does not step on too many toes, does as told, he/she is in. From there on, it’s a job carousel: this guy gets to be mayor, that guy gets to be head of a major advice organ, small bonus here, small favor there, oh and have I told you about this spot opening up in Brussels which I think would really be in your alley…? Everything is divided. It’s a big tent and at the top there’s plenty to get around. But of course, the system demands tranquility, does not like the boat being rocked. Which is exactly what Thierry does.

So, in the daily Second Chamber debates, the carousel politicians desperately try to mitigate him as a risk: the left does so by doing what they always do, namely lying and hoping for a murder (the stick), and the cuck-right does so by promising Thierry untold power and opportunity if he is just willing to… sell-out (the carrot).

To some extent, Thierry shows willingness. Nexit is no longer a hard campaigning point. Naturally I don’t like that: smells like sell-out. But otherwise Thierry keeps his head upright: on climate tax, on immigration and on general pride in the West, he sticks to his guns. So, pretty good.

Now, another shit-test has arrived. A highly placed FvD man, Henk Otten, has given an interview to the NRC, the Dutch New York Times. The headline says it all: SECOND MAN FVD SAYS THIERRY BAUDET PULLS PARTY TOO FAR RIGHT.

To address the obvious lie first: Henk Otten is not the second man, Theo Hiddema is. Theo is great. I’ve wrote about Theo before.

The gist of the article is obvious: it is the umptieth hit piece on Thierry Baudet, but this time with an inside confidant pissing on him. They did the same thing with Wilders all the time. Sow dissent in the party. Obvious question: why did this guy allow himself to be interviewed by journalists who hate his boss’ guts? Obvious answer: stupidity and ego. Even though his interviewer literally calls him fat and makes it entirely obvious he is only being interviewed in order to get to Baudet, something which Henk Otten even laments halfway through the article, our friend Henk cannot stop himself: the party is exploding, and Henk wants a piece of the attention.

Now, I am not privvy to the inner workings of the FvD, but seems to me that such behavior cannot be tolerated. Whatever Henk’s previous usefulness, a guy who unironically praises Donna Zuckerberg’s feminism has no place in a rightist party. Whether Henk needs to go or needs to be reprimanded, I don’t know, but I’d lean towards a nice promotion to flyer distribution manager. We’ll see how Thierry deals with it.

Advertisements

Staying a step ahead

blackwhitefungus

I will try to put a thought into words that I have been mulling over for a while.

What is the Right?

The Right is playing life by the rules. the Right is honor, loyalty, respect. A rightist participates in commonly understood rituals: the mating ritual, the territorial ritual, the hierarchy ritual. Perhaps he does not always win, but he always shoots straight, and even if he does not always win, he wins often enough for rightism to be one of two most viable strategies for survival and reproduction. A rightist builds a family like a bird builds a nest.

What is the Left?

The Left is playing life by breaking the rules. The left is deceit, lies and betrayal. A leftist sees a rightist participating in all these rituals and thinks to himself: ‘what a sucker. Does he not know you can game the system to you advantage?’ And the leftist proceeds to do exactly that.

Truth is, any system can be gamed to your advantage. Everything has weaknesses. It is a truth of life that it is better to be an unstoppable force than an immovable object, for it is harder to stop an unstoppable force than it is to move an immovable object. Attack trumps defense, because defense has to sit in place and wait, while offense has initiative and may attack from any angle. So, if the Right tends to play defense while the Left plays offense, well, it explains a lot about the past 200 years.

Lefties have a minor obsession with incest, in that they love to highlight how rednecks marry their nieces. I initially brushed this off as prog propaganda, but there is something to it. Rightists do have a slight tendency for mating with genetically closer relatives. Just take a look at royal families throughout history. Both William I and William III married their cousins. Why?

It ties into the defense/offense story. If you play defense, if you want to be left alone, you probably want to avoid taking too much genetic risk. Strangers are genetic risk — who knows what DNA a stranger brings to the table. You are introducing unknown variables, and rightists don’t like unknown variables. Better to stick with the gene pool you know and trust.

Of course, taking this logic to the extreme, you would be cloning yourself. You’d be static. Static is an immovable object. There is a reason nature forces us to mate with a female as opposed to cloning ourselves: genetic diversity is adaptive. Lefties are correct to boast that extreme inbreeding produces dysfunction. All that leftists are saying, in essence, is that rightists, when left alone, will build a giant castle which they try to freeze in time, and that if righties reserve the right to build silly static castles, lefties reserve the right to tear them down. What goes up, must go down.

Leftists are, and I mean this completely neutral, like funghi. Remember those biology classes with pictures of the ‘Circle of Life’? When life dies, its remains are digested and processed by funghi. That’s leftism. It is evil up close, but sensible from far away.

Thus, there can be no equality between leftists and rightists. It is not in their nature to cooperate. Well, it is in the nature of rightists to cooperate, but it is in the nature of leftists to defect. This tends to be a hard point for rightists to understand, but let me spell it out clearly: leftists might as well come from a different planet. They do not understand you, they do not know why you think what you think nor why you do what you do. Just does not compute. In the leftist’s mind, you are a bit of a sucker, a goody two shoes, the most attentive boy in class who always sits in the front and sucks up to teacher. Sure, he will pretend to understand you, because he knows being on good terms with a sucker has its advantages, but he simply cannot really understand you as much as a bicycle cannot understand a TV. The wiring is different.

The only way leftists and rightists communicate on the same level is through power. Everyone understands power. The one thing leftists respect in a rightist is power. Power means life, means growth. Means a castle that is not static. Means the leftist has no business meddling. You don’t converse with a leftist through words, you converse with a leftist through power.

All this leads me to conclude that for the right to become top dog, it must stop being static. Conservativism is literally a synonym for static: it represents everything that is wrong with the Right. Lefties love conservatism because a thing that does not move will always eventually succumb to attack.

No my friends, to actually stay ahead of leftists, one needs to keep creating. One needs to build something new. By building new stuff, you fend off leftists who are less inclined to take it down (‘what is this new thing? What are its weaknesses? Wait it is changing. Hm this is too difficult better scam a sucker instead. I wonder what Trump is up to…’). Whatever the opposite is of decadence, that is what a rightist needs to do if he wants to thrive.

By the way, while we are on the subject, I fully endorse Spandrell’s opinion on Trump. Trump has fallen into the rightist trap: instead of building something new, he tried to conserve the America of his youth. Very sad. But, I console myself with the fact that even at my most hopeful, I was pretty level-headed:

If [Trump] abides by the rules, he will be Reagan. Which is not bad, but not that great. We will still be in the same mess 8 years from now. Probably closer to civil war.

Yep, but when Reagan was Reagan it was still cool to be Reagan. Times have changed.

So, time for something new.

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez

Is looking to be the future for leftism. Brown Bernie.

I wanted to say Ocasio-Cortez is a dumb broad, but she’s not. She’s not exceedingly intelligent, but she’s not dumb. She is however extremely try-hard. She’s that new co-worker at the office who really wants everyone to like her and acts obnoxiously dramatic to make sure you know just how fun she is to hang with.

Usually it is a matter of weeks before such a girl learns her place, stops being try-hard and partakes in the girl gossip mill. So far not the case with Cortez.

Instead of people telling her she’s try-hard, they tell her she’s awesome amazing grrrrl power. This feedback loop makes her a walking cringefest. High on her own supply.

Of course, such things do not last. Obama aged 16 years during his presidency and he took it relatively well. Cortez, once she stops being able to yell whatever she feels like without consequence, will take it even harder. Women in politics tend to take things harder.

I don’t personally hate the women in politics. I have a soft spot for Angela Merkel. I feel like I could talk with her. But man does she look tired. Big bags under her eyes, likely crying more often than she should… Every time I see her, I just want to hug her and tell her it’s okay, that I know she did what she thought was right. It’s just that, sometimes, doing what you think is right does not turn out to be right. I hope she retreats from politics and lives her old age in peace.

Even Hillary I have some empathy for, if the littlest, because if one woman looks like she’d carve up a man’s balls while whispering in his ears how much she loves him it’s Hillary. But a woman’s a woman; she is Bill’s, and Bill, funny man he may be, brought out the worst in her, and she in return brought out the worst in him.

Bottomline is, females make terrible leaders. Notable exceptions are when they are owned by a good man, as for instance Margaret Thatcher. But even then, why not cut out the middle man and put the good man himself in charge?

As for Ocasio-Cortez, she is undoubtedly turned on by Donald Trump, as all female politicians are. Perhaps we will be lucky and she will be seduced by a shitlord who turns her Trumpist overnight. But more likely, she will keep spouting socialist clichés and do hipster social media stuff until she wins the presidential run in 2024, triggering the 21st century American version of the French guillotine revolution.

Everyone’s feeling it now

The mood on YouTube:

“Even on Fiverr you can get banned nowadays. I guess Fiverr is owned by the same people that own everything else” *raises eyebrows at camera.*

I remember seeing things 15 years ago that were completely opposite to what everyone told me I saw. I distinctly remember concluding, approximately 5 years ago, that if either the world was crazy or I was, I guess it had to be the world because I did not want to lose my sanity. Then I found NRx and it turned out the world was a little crazy after all. Then, and I remember this moment very distinctly, immigration suddenly became a mass normie issue — something NRx had exactly predicted would happen suddenly had happened. I felt an immense wave of vindication at the time: holy shit, I’m really not crazy, the world is.

Fast forward to today and it is hardly a secret anymore that the world has gone crazy. It’s everywhere now: you tried to not be interested in politics, but politics has become interested in you. They’re everywhere: at your work, on your internet, in your hobbies, in your family, in your money… There is no escaping it. Which again, we predicted would happen: as chaos escalates, repressive terror escalates with it, which escalates chaos, which escalates repressive terror, etcetera… The leftist singularity approaches.

Now you might say: alf, cool story bro, love how you were into dissident rightism before anyone else, you fucking hipster, but why dwell on it?

I dwell on it because I like doing my told-you-so-dance, thank you very much.

But I also dwell on it, because the combination of accurate prediction -which is hard- and mass dissatisfaction turns into momentum, which means an important thing: we will have a window of opportunity.

That’s right, we will have our chance. I am convinced of this, because where I used to think the elite had their hands on the ropes too strongly, I now think they have lost control. The holiness spirals have become too much, to the point where they can’t even keep the population doped with games (which they can’t help but ruin) and entertainment (which they can’t help but ruin). It is like with the French revolution: no one can say it was a ploy by the elite to amass more power, because near the end of the revolution the elite had its head guillotined off.

We are heading (heh) towards the same point, which inevitably means that at some time someone will step in and says: enough is enough, for which the population will be eternally grateful. So, we have a window of opportunity.

Of course, the question is, who is this ‘we’? My political allegiance is pretty obvious: I’m on team Jim first, team NRx second, team Alt-Right third. Which is to say, if we want to get it exactly right, must go with Jimianity. But you have to be practical, so might be necessary to expand to NRx, but you have to be even more practical, so might be necessary to expand to Alt-Right, but you might have to be even more practical and expand to the boomer right but at some point you’re going to have lost what you were aiming for in the first place and at that point I’m out. So in practice it is always tougher and messier than in theory.

But I do believe the window of opportunity does not exclude me prematurely. I used to think Jim was too optimistic on Trump’s coup, and he probably was, but I get the need to push for a coup. We must prepare for the worst case scenario, which is hundreds of years of darkness following the end of democracy, but we must also fight for the best case scenario, which is a coup within our lifetime followed by the first American king, be it Trump or someone else.

While this political corner of the internet has always been small, it has been growing relatively explosively. And while we have many enemies, I notice we have many friends, even if they are observing us in silence, disinclined to speak in fear of revealing their hand. I believe there is a silent majority on our side, if not a literal majority in bodies, a majority in capable men. I hope we can put it to use.

 

What the left has going for itself

so i got that going

What is leftism?

Leftism is lying, in order to knocking over apple carts, in order to take fallen apples for oneself.

The bad news is that the left is in control of most Western apple carts, and leftists being leftists they cannot help themselves but knock them over their own apple carts. This is their nature, and it will not end well. But we already knew this.

The good news is that leftists, in the face of strength, will not be able to knock over your apple cart, just like a thief cannot rob a well defended house, just like the media cannot  touch Donald Trump. Lies need to sneak past the truth, but if the truth is stated loud and clear, lies cannot be sneaked past. Leftists fold in front of strength (despite their strongest protestations to the contrary) and will go looking for greener, less defended pastures.

Lies come in many forms. There is no use trying to list all the lies, since the list of lies is endless. However, leftism has a recurrent core theme, since it is motivated by envy, covetousness, hate and jealousy of people who have apples – the rich, the successful, the happy. Thus we see a core lie, over and over, being that leftists tell us that these groups are evil and deserve to have their apples taken from them.

Why do people fall for leftist tricks? One part is that a minority of people will always have the majority of apples; not as skewed as the tinder market in which 20% of males bangs 80% of women, more like 10% of the rich owning 45% of the apples. The remaining 90% of people is apt to want some of those apples for themselves, are likely to at some level support leftist lies in favor of taking apples from the upper 10%. Which is why democracy is stupid.

The other part is that rightists are human, all too human. There exists no such thing as the perfect rightist; the perfect honest, upstanding, strong truth-teller. We all have weaknesses. The left seeks out these weaknesses, mocks them, seeks to abuse them. Sometimes they succeed, sometimes they don’t. That is the game. Thus we are always reminded of our limitations.

Return to the Left

It has been years since I looked at leftist thought for more than 10 minutes, but I figured today was a nice day for a Return to the Left.

Leftism is the power of lies, of chaos, which power is demonstrated in the observation that whenever there is chaos, there is loot. Leftism is the conscious attempt to create chaos in order to loot. Leftism, executed properly, is rewarded by God, which is demonstrated as early as Genesis, when Jakob successfully deceives his brother and father. Although Jakob has to flee because of his deceit, he is rewarded with many children, and his only minor punishment comes when he himself is deceived by Laban, which deceit in turn profits Laban.

There are 2 branches of leftism – spontaneous leftism and power leftism. Power leftism is leftists in power; it is the globohomo superstate, the Cathedral, the deep state. To hear its voice one needs to only watch a Stephen Colbert clip. Currently, it is a very nasty voice. Seethes with anger. Shouts with frothing mouth and pieces of spit that Trump must be stopped or the world will end. Thus all their policies: they ban memes because memes turn white men horribly racist and sexist and they import refugees to replace evil white men.

Spontaneous leftists are leftist not in power. They’d like to, but they’re just not. Because of this they are friendlier, easier to listen to. For instance, they’ll wholeheartedly agree that banning memes is terrible and that, contrary to power leftists, they will fight for justice and honor and everything that is good in the world.

Which is of course a scam. Spontaneous leftists will say anything that raises their status. They will pretend to be on your side, but given the right opportunity they’ll turn into a power leftist faster than you can say ‘weren’t you in favor of free speech just a minute ago?’

Spontaneous leftists are more creative. Have to be creative if you’re out of power. It is said that leftists are more creative than rightists, but these are more leftists lies. Leftists and rightists are both creative, in different ways. Leftists have the creativity to spout bullshit. Leftists are great at twisting reality, at showing the absurdity of life. This can make some fine art, see Picasso, and decent humor, see George Carlin, but as always art is downstream from power, so essentially all this talk of leftists being so creative is just power leftists enjoying the smell of their own farts. Rightists are very creative as well; their creativity lies in capturing reality. Classical sculptures have a very rightist touch to them. The best memes are very often rightist memes. That leftists don’t like righty art and suppress it does not make it any more true.

Anyway, I went on reddit. Checked out some socialist subreddits. From where I’m standing, leftists be grasping at straws, and maybe not even that since they outlawed straws.

Western leftism has traditionally centered around bioleninism — the alliance of racial and gender equality, e.g. the lie that a white man is the same as a black intersectional xemale. Post-Obama, in the era of Trump, this alliance has come under considerable pressure, has lost momentum. So, the left is seeking new strategies. Socialism seems to be their next strategy. But we’ve already had lots of well-documented socialism in the world. Venezuela has socialism right now. And Every, Single, Time, socialism is a cancer that kills everything it touches.

Which of course will not stop leftists from defending socialism. See for instance this most upvoted comment. Socialism a failure? Nonsense comrades!

I like how that comment is so stereotypical leftist that literally every single sentence is a lie, as opposed to good leftism where the lies are sprinkled with enough truth as to make it as convincing as possible. Here, I can just safely assume the opposite stance on everything Squidmaster129 says. He praises Lenin? Lenin was a piece of shit. He calls Stalin a sexist and anti-Semite? Hm, Stalin wasn’t irredeemably bad. Mao a great man for ending famine? Mao was the biggest mass murderer in the history of the world. Deng Xiaopeng did nothing good? Well, you get my drift…

The problem for the left is that in order to create chaos, you need a plausible reason. The left has currently run out of credible reasons. Socialism is so thoroughly discredited that even for centrists it holds no persuasive power.

Another problem for the left is that while they are excellent at breaking, bending and abusing rules, they are terrible at making rules. It’s just not what they do; they game the system, not build it. Building systems is a rightist thing. All leftist government eventually devolves into chaos and murder until a strongman puts an end to it.

For these reasons the left has run out of momentum while the right is picking up speed.  Such is the circle of life; the right builds and defends a system until the left overtakes it and slowly destroys it. We are in the slow destruction part now, so it is only a matter of time before rightists build new systems (provided we survive the destruction, naturally).

My contribution to a new system is Jimianity, which is basically just pointing at Jim’s blog and saying: this guy seems to have his head on his shoulders, let’s roll with this. If more rightists agree, and we in fact roll with it, we indeed might create a new Western civilization, one which is capable of colonizing Mars, which current power leftists promise us but are utterly incapable of delivering. Of course the cycle will continue, and our new system will inevitably be infiltrated by leftists who will, in the end, bring it down once again. But that is the game, and defending against these entryists is part of the fun.

Over at Jim’s blog some entryists are already doing some fine attempts at infiltration. The commenter ‘Carlylean Restorationist’ comes to mind, whose ‘how are you doing fellow rightists?’ is hilariously cringeworthy. Even his name is a fine demonstration of infiltration: Carlyle being a hero of Moldbug, he attempts to show familiarity with our shibboleths. But of course, when you probe a stranger proper, and you know how to probe, the leftist will always reveal himself. How exactly does a leftist like Carlylean Restorationist reveal himself?

The answer is hard to summarize. I think it boils down to the following: deceit is difficult. You can pretend to be something you are not for a while, but it is hard to keep up the charade perfectly. Many things give you away, tiny things you are not even aware of. If a rightist knows what to look for, all leftists can be unmasked.

This is why leftists always prefer to deceive the weak: the weak are worst at defending against deceit. Also why leftists switch social circles often; once unmasked as result of their deceit, they often find their status lowered beyond repair.

In this sense there is no reason to fear the left. The leftist’s place is always in subjugation to the strong; their natural role is to cower in front of the emperor, to scoff in front of the waiter. That is what they do. Like women, they shit-test, and just like women, shit-tests are designed to be passed, and it is only when you consistently fail them you will find hell unleashed upon you.

The power of the left is perseverance: that the right cannot possibly defend against all matters of deceit. Some deceit will get through. This does not have to be a problem, similarly to how a cold does not have to be a problem for a healthy human. But in time, all humans grow old and die, and so will our new system be overtaken and left to die. Let’s hope we’ve colonized Mars by then.

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.

Leftism brings balance to the force

Leftism is the battle of the weak vs the strong, which inevitably ends in the strong using the weak against the strong, but what else are the weak going to do.

I keep running into the problem of money creating more money. Principles of rent and interest, which I believe are more Gnon’s principles than just the Jews’ principles, make it so. The rich get richer, the poor stay poor. From what I see I’d agree with the proposition that income inequality naturally grows.

Is this a problem? Not so in the sense that an aristocracy ensuring its own interests is preferable to a leftist clique slowly destroying its host society. But like the Ancien régime any unchallenged elite will eventually succumb to decadence and corruption which in turn will lead to a tipping point where destruction is inevitable.

Hence the evolutionary niche for a natural enemy. Hence leftism. Hens hens.

Rightists, leftists and centrists

There’s 3 types of political genetic strategies.

The first is the rightist. The rightist conquers and defends territory, uses nature’s hierarchy, builds civilization. He creates order. The rightist wants things to be fair, not because he cares about others, but because he knows it benefits him in the long run. He values honesty, loyalty, integrity. The rightist might be an asshole, but he is an honest asshole.

Being a successful rightist demands your value of being right to be greater than other people’s annoyance at you being right. This is risky. Ergo, rightists make up a minority of the population, say 10%.

The second is the leftist. The leftist is the evolutionary consequence of a recurring natural phenomenon, namely that in a prisoner’s dilemma it is very beneficial to defect. Leftism is entropy, the leftist creates chaos. The leftist says he values honesty, loyalty and integrity but only because he understands the power of an effective lie. Leftists are natural defectors, always on the lookout for a way to gain the system, the most popular current way being what Spandrell calls biological leninism.

Being a successful leftists demands you latch onto a greater body and leverage said body to your advantage. There are plenty of bodies to latch on to, so being a leftist is generally a sound strategy. I’d say leftists makes up about 20% of the population.

The third and final is the centrist. The centrist is about cooperation — not always honest, not always lying, just pragmatic cooperation. ‘Let’s just get along’ is the slogan of the centrist. Genes and life situation nudge the centrist in a rightist or leftist direction, but keeping the peace is always top priority.

Being a successful centrist demands not rocking the boat too much. It is quite a safe evolutionary strategy, hence centrists make up the bulk of the population, say 70%.

Leftists and rightists fight for control of society because both factions realize all flows downstream from power. Those in power decide, and those underneath that power follow. Centrists complain about radical leftists this and radical rightists that, but in the end their thinking processes are entirely dependent upon the Overton window as defined on the left side by radical leftists, on the right side by radical rightists. Or, spoken as a rightist hipster: centrists, otherwise known as normies, are a bunch of basic bitches.

Of course the right can not have too big of a mouth. After all, the right has been losing like there is no tomorrow. Centrists like winners and the left has been the clear winner of the past 200 years. Thus in normie society it is perfectly tolerable to be an outspoken leftist like Stephen Colbert but it is a faux-pas to be an outspoken rightist like Alex Jones.

Evolutionary entropy turns out to be a pretty powerful force.

On a final note, because the above strategies are genetic, people are very rarely swayed in opinion. No matter how watertight an argument is, if it doesn’t feel right it will be forgotten. Thus even a highly intelligent man like Jordan Peterson does not actually sway the masses in favor of rightism. He is simply a center-right intellectual explaining to fellow centrists that our current leftist overlords are moderately insane, which is only possible because our leftists overlords are extremely insane. Hence the relative ease with which he dismisses the label ‘racist’, which real rightists wear like a proud nick name.

 

Berlusconi

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.