Category Archives: Politics

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.

Advertisements

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.

New Dutch Government: par for the course

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:

Screen Shot 2017-10-20 at 16.35.04

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.

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.

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.

The Jewish Question

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?

Screen Shot 2017-08-01 at 14.24.21

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.

 

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.