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.
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.
Finished reading a biography on Silvio Berlusconi by NY Times journalist Alan Friedman.
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.
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.
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.
TLDR; the Dutch government continues to function at relatively high level and continues its downward progressive spiral like the obedient American/European Union province it is.
Right after the 2017 Dutch election I had a short convo with John Rivers on Gab who, after listening to a Dutch drunk guy thought all hope was lost:
Turns out I was right. It was a close shave though: at first the VVD cuckservatives turned to the Greenlefts as a coalition partner! Luckily the mainstream Christians turn out to have some balls after all and the talks with the Greens crashed on immigration. So now instead of an openly leftist coalition we have Kukke III: the closeted cuck coalition. Like George W. Bush won a third term.
The 60-page coalition agreement summary reads worse than a bachelor student’s thesis, but from what I gather the following points are included:
– Taxes on products will go up (6% to 9%)
– Healthcare premiums will go up
– More EU
– Mandatory visit of Dutch art & learning of national anthem for high school students
That last point of course is the kind of consolation prize aboriginals receive from their new conquerors: ‘no no no of course your culture is still important. Here’s a complimentary museum ticket.’ Ah well, at least the Greens are not in the coalition. Alf’s overall judgment of the new Dutch coalition: it’s the party cartel all right, but not the worst part of the party cartel. Par for the course.
edit: 1/3rd of the minister positions will be filled with women. Go figure.
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.
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.
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:
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:
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.
It is common knowledge that all things hip cross the Atlantic from America to Europe, for in the same breath that Europeans hate on American McGloboWorld they bite down on a Big Mac.
Well, there is a new trend blowing across the ocean. It is not a hip trend as in Jake Paul hip, it is more hip as in EDGY AF FAM.¹ What is this new trend?
Why, it is anti-semitism! Yes, the same kind the nazis were into, the same kind babyboomers believe to be the epitome of evil. That anti-semitism. But that was stupid! Why would it be back?
Well, as Nick Krauser once bluntly put it, ‘most genocides in history were merely overreactions against a people who had it coming. That includes the Jews.’ Long story short, Jews are not just a religious tribe, they are also a genetic tribe. And it turns out their genetics predispose them to verbal trickery, phariseeism² and manipulation. Or, in layman’s terms: screw over whitey. Take a closer look at all industries with a bad reputation, you may bet your ass Jews are involved. Porn, banking sector, the media, Hollywood? The Jew never fails to make an appearance.
Perhaps an easy way to understand the nature of Jewish sneakiness is by looking at a few scenes from #1 Jew-beloved director, Mel ‘Kaminsky’ Brooks.
The genius of Brooks’ is two-fold: one, he ridicules white civilisation. Two, he gets whites to watch his movies and think it is funny. I’m sure plenty of babyboomers saw the ‘where the white women at’ scene and laughed out loud thinking how stupid racists are for believing blacks want to rape white women. But as it turns out, a large minority of blacks do want to rape white women. The movie viewer is thus tricked in a style that is typical of Jews.
And whitey is re-learning this. Anti-semitism comes surprisingly natural to us — even with near-uniform propaganda efforts it took only 70 years post-holocaust for the taboo to be broken once again. ‘Gierige Jood’ (Greedy Jew) is a perfectly accepted Dutch expression.
Stereotypical Jewish physiognomy
When the meme becomes real
So now we understand the origin of this new trend: anti-semitism is simply the rational response of white men looking for a reason to explain the downfall of Western civilisation.
It is the position of this blog that Jews have done a lot of nasty stuff and are still doing a lot of nasty stuff, but that the Jews are not the cause of the downfall. Whitey himself has started the downfall of the West over 200 years ago; the Jews ‘only’ exacerbated the situation. Whites are wolves to one another and nazis pronouncing the sacred holiness of Ze White Race keep glossing over this fact. We whites are at one another’s throat and online roleplaying that we are not is no where near a final solution. The Jew has to be named but should not solely be blamed.
The problem of course is that, as Spandrell once pointed out to me, most contrarians prefer blaming the J00. People want easy answers and blaming the Jew is an easy answer. So I am not sure how that will play out. Fighting anti-semitism holiness spirals is an uphill battle. I laud Jim for his patience in explaining the nuance time after time. Not sure if I have this patience. I will however offer some final notes in Jim’s defence.
Plan Jim advocates for the re-institution of a grand inquisitor. In fact Jim openly solicits for this position. If Jim is secretly a Jew, we would expect the Jews to like his plans, right? Well, let us see what the Jews think of a grand inquisitor…
Seems to me like Jews hate hate hate plan Jim.
¹ short for ‘edgy as fuck family’ which used to be hip internet slang until every 14-year old started to use it on youtube, now it is only cool if used ironically.
² Religious hypocrisy, which is to say that Jews, in large part descendants from priests, are very good at being holier than thou.
The normie-right is the biggest group. Think your average non-leftist heterosexual male; he just wants some money, friends, entertainment, a girl. He does not want headache induced by heated political debates.
Because they are the biggest group they exert the biggest control over their superorganism. Yet they are the moderates, so they are most easily influenced. Per Moldbug: “if you were a moderate in Vienna in 1907, you thought Franz Josef I was the greatest thing since sliced bread.” And indeed the normie-right has been greatly influenced by progressive leftists in the past 200 years, been influenced so much that cuck has become a great and visceral insult.
The pendulum is now swinging in the other direction; the normie-right is being influenced by the dissident right (faction 2 3 4). For instance, on paper the normie-right has no reason to hate immigrants or browns; Human BioDiversity is an entirely dissident right science. Trump’s wall is ideologically defended by the dissident right, not by the normie-right whom mostly just enjoy the juicy drama surrounding the wall.
Within the dissident right the alt-lite is the biggest faction. They see problems with globalism, with the EU, with Islam and with immigrants. They are eager to pick up the 100 dollar bills the left has littered the pavement with. But they do not want to rock the boat too heavily. Civic nationalism for the win. They do not like to talk too much about blacks, Jews and women. They are as edgy as edgy gets before people become too uncomfortable.
The Alt-Right are proud white men, angry men, pissed at how the breakdown of Western society has left them with slutty women and low status. They enjoy rocking the boat. They openly discuss race, the JQ and the degeneracy of modern women. Gas the Jews, white ethnostate now, that sort of thing. Mostly they are anonymous, but rest assured: they are among us and they are more numerous than you’d think.
4. Dark Enlightenment
The smallest part of the dissident right, where ideas are not discussed on base of popularity but on their intrinsic truth. Here it does not matter how many clicks you receive, what matters is how truthful your observations are. This is just as messy as you might expect; man comes closer to truth mainly by bashing egos with other men and even then it is a questionable process. But it is undeniable that the Dark Enlightenment comes up with the dankest political philosophy memes.
It is the position of this blog that James A. Donald aka Jim has the best plan among the Dark Enlightenment thinkers. Jim’s plan is slightly similar to the Alt-Right, except more nuanced on Jews, more strict on women. If the Right is to save the West, to usher in an age of prosperity, to avoid the coming dark age, the closer it adheres to plan Jim, the better.
A progressive lie that has annoyed me recently is the idea of independent institutions. No institution is independent. Life chooses sides, has to choose sides, otherwise said life will be gobbled up by other life that chooses to side against said life. No easier enemy to defeat than the enemy that refuses to fight you.
So in practice all institutions choose sides sooner or later. And whenever interference by rightists in an institution is name-called by leftists as an ‘attack on its independence’ you may wager money that said independence is in fact dependence upon leftists. Is there any one who genuinely believes that Robert Mueller’s special counsel investigation into Trump’s connections with Russia is independent? It’s nonsense.
Similarly, Google has also chosen its side, or has perhaps been overtaken by Social Justice Warriors who force Google to be ‘on the right side of history’:
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.
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.