Category Archives: Psychologie

Mao the Melonhead


Been reading this book on Mao Zedong, written by Mao’s physician. Interesting stuff.

Back when Koanic had a blog he wrote about what he called ‘melonheads’; men with highly developed prefrontal cortexes. Natural manipulators. Your average man is capable of living his own life and guarding his own territory, aka finding his spot within a superorganism. The power of a melonhead is that he subverts other men for his own purpose through extensive manipulation; he ‘hijacks’ superorganisms so to say. Mao seems to have been a natural melonhead.

Communism was never about building a better China. It was about leftists grabbing power for themselves and it was so from day 1. Mao could be charismatic and friendly, but moreso he was a scheming and manipulative son of a bitch. At every turn his actions are explained by securing more power for himself. He excelled at using psychological tricks for this purpose. For instance, with great aplomb he would encourage criticism of the party in the name of bettering China, but in practice only to:

a) get rid of voices he thought too critical of him
b) use criticism of other party members to get rid of those party members

Yes, Mao was a great fan of high and low vs middle.

Truth did not really concern Mao; what concerned Mao was loyalty to Mao. He thrived on gullibility (e.g. the gullibility the physician initially exhibited) and carefully cultivated his cult of personality.

Mao’s genius shined brightest in his ability to hijack and redirect China’s superorganism in its entirety. He traveled a lot through the country to get a feel for local politics. Whenever he’d feel the communist emotional high slipping away he would adapt his policies accordingly. It seems to me the Great Leap Forward was entirely a result of Mao fearing pre-Mao traditions overtaking the importance of Mao worship. A ‘calming down’ of communism would only serve to weaken Mao, so as a response he drove China into another frenzy with shitty agricultural communes and shitty steel ovens. Ruined the country, but solidified Mao’s power once again. Very effective.

While China starved Mao lived as an emperor. Personal entourage, personal train, lots of fat food. During the Great Leap Forward rice was replanted along the tracks Mao travelled through as to give the impression the harvest was great (likely Mao was very pleased that even though China was starving, the people were taking extensive measures to make Mao think China was not starving). Also, unsurprisingly, Mao slept with hundreds if not thousands of women brought to his ‘dance parties’, while officially being married (his wife was a wreck of a woman).

Last but not least Mao was very straightforward in his hatred towards the right. ‘Exterminate the rightist elements’ was a favourite party slogan. Knowing that the left is lies and the right is truth, we can observe that Mao gave himself the freedom to get rid of pretty much anyone he pleased.

Yes but how does this relate to me?

Ryan Landry says that from whatever angle you look Ctulhu has moved leftward in the past decades. Compelling evidence for this case is the success of democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders who almost toppled Hillary and is seen by Dutch youth as a swell guy. Landry points out that this is weird because (((Sanders))) is pretty much an out-of-the closet communist. Wasn’t communism retarded?

Sanders-021507-18335- 0004
Interestingly Sanders is likeable in his speeches but not so much in pictures

Yes, communism was retarded. But we tend to forget that kind of abstract stuff. I mean, what was communism anyway? Something about the workers of the world right? About how they are treated unfairly by the elite? That really doesn’t sound too bad. Sounds quite noble in fact. I mean I know Stalin and Mao killed a bunch of people but they were crazy anyway. It’s not like Sanders would ever do something like that. Sanders is likeable!

Guess who was also likeable

Yes, Sanders is likeable. Were Sanders a college professor he would be beloved by his students. He’d be the kind of professor that with a friendly smile would argue that communism gets a bad track record because it has never been done in the right way, which is akin to saying that while people tend to die when they jump out of a 10-floor window this does not mean that you won’t be able to fly like an eagle when you try it the next time.

In political perception charisma trumps content because the Overton window by its nature is a taboo. We are not evolved to understand reality, we are evolved to survive. Survival depends for the greatest part on our capability to get along with our main competitors: other humans. We easily form an opinion on people. Ideas by comparison are difficult to understand and easily distorted. The popularity of Sanders was never the result of his brilliant ideas; instead his fame was a direct result of his likability combined with the fact that his in fact very stupid ideas happened to fit with the 2016 Western Overton window.

The Psychology of Leftism


Lets tie some thoughts together.

The cathedral and leftist memeplexes
Moldbug identified a major power structure he coined the cathedral. The cathedral has many names. Moldbug often called it universalism because he was into innocent euphemisms in order to stop your CRIMESTOP buttons from triggering. Progressivism and Ctulhu are less innocent names of the cathedral. For me leftism is the most straightforward term. Moldbug claimed the cathedral was a collective of leftists, or more specifically a strain of leftism originating from the English puritan settlers in Boston whose fundamental doctrine was as follows: we are all equal. 

Ideology like religion can be viewed as a collection of ideas or as Dawkins called them; memes and memeplexes. If a meme is a byte a memeplex is a gigabyte. Memes are thoughts, memes are information, memes are life. Christianity is a memeplex and so is Islam. Dawkins said that memes are not some magic entity as some followers of Kek would lead us to believe but that memes instead follow the laws of nature. The existence of memes like animals and genes depends on their survival in a meme-hostile environment. Memes in this sense evolve only with regard to their own survival. Whatever works.

A wild Dolan meme (RARE)

‘In the 20th century 3 memeplexes were battling for world domination: democracy, fascism and communism. What if not 2 out of 3 were bad but all 3 were bad?’ So goes Moldbug’s explanation in which he goes on to compare the universalism memeplex with a parasite. The medical metaphor goes as follows: memes are like bacteria in that they infect your body and/or brain. Not all bacteria are bad for your body – we live in tranquil homeostasis with many bacteria on and in our body. But bacteria like viruses and parasites will also turn against our body and make us ill. In the same sense a memetic infection may be of neutral, positive or negative consequence for its infected host.

Moldbug argued that progressivism is a memetic parasite that is adapted to especially infect politically-minded young ex-Christians/atheists. The parasite has many handy features that helped its spread througout the Anglosphere:

  • It actively denies being religious which allows for religious fanaticism without triggering the usual skepticisms religions have to deal with.
  • It is a mutated strain of Christianity which allows progressives to maintain posture towards Christians while in fact being actively hostile towards Christianity.
  • It makes its host feel good. You’re like, part of the circle of life man.

So leftism is a parasite. That is a controversial statement for most people in [current year]. I mean, a small portion of Dutch people vocally identify themselves as leftists and more have at least some sympathy for leftist ideas. About half of the power in the Dutch cabinet belongs to parties calling themselves leftist excluding the controlled opposition parties. If leftism is evil its evil has spread wide and far. Which is exactly what reactionaries have concluded.

What makes leftism so parasitic? Philosophically speaking it is evil because it is based upon the central lie that we are all equal which in practice is applied as the lie that we are all the same. We are observably not the same. Leftist standpoints flow forth from this central lie:

  • feminism because men and women are the same
  • mass immigration because whites and blacks are the same
  • democracy because all voters are the same
  • golden medals for all olympic participants because all athletes are the same
  • same-sex marriage because all sexual predilections are the same

You may have noticed the olympic standpoint not being true. It just as well could be true. The thing with organising around a lie is that no one knows what is actually going on. That is why it is a lie. If you believe condensation clouds formed by airplanes are meant to brainwash the people you might just as well believe that your neighbour is trying to kill you because he is infected by said clouds. In the same vein if you believe that all people are the same you might as well believe that it is discrimination to only give olympic gold to the winner. If that sounds ridiculous remember that the US was having a nationwide discussion about how excluded MtF transgenders with penises felt about not having their own bathroom. If you start from a core lie you can normalise the absurd.

Why leftism?
So now that we have identified the parasite and explained why the parasite is evil, the question remains: why leftism? What is in it for the people believing lies? To answer this question we turn to Spandrell’s story: point deer make horse. In short: when a minister wants to overthrow the president he needs a way to determine loyalty of the parliament. The easiest way to do so is to lie in an obvious manner. Take a horse to work and call it a deer. Those that praise the beauty of the deer are your allies. Those that are confused and ask why you call a horse a deer are your enemies. Work together with your allies and kill your enemies – the game is as simple as that. The horse itself is irrelevant. What is relevant is whose side you are on.

So it is as Spandrell points out: leftism is an easy excuse for defection. The entire point of leftism is to manufacture a point of disagreement with those in power and use it to funnel power towards yourself. Don’t like the king? Tell everyone he does not care for the environment. Don’t like your football coach? Tell everyone he hates women.

AnonymousConservative’s r/K selection theory boils down to the same thing. K-selected genes are programmed for honesty: ‘why my chap let us have a pistol duel at dawn so that I may defend my honor!’ r-selected genes on the other hand are programmed for sneakiness: ‘sure see you there.’ And find out how I rigged your gun asshole.

The leftist in the first place is a scam-artist and his psychological makeup is adapted as such. He is a martyr or as Matt Forney would say – a narcissist. He strives for a lie which will never be and he will lament upon that sad fact until the day he dies. This makes him better than you. ‘Don’t you care?’ he cries while he clutches your coat. Perhaps, perhaps not. But rest assured that the leftist does definitely not care about anything but the newest fashion in leftist defection.

So leftism is an evolved behavioural trait that aids survival by providing you with effective lies to defect when faced with life’s prisoner dilemma situations. Leftism is synonymous with scamming in this sense. What makes the cathedral unique as a scam is that it is such an elaborate scam. Why shouldn’t we all be equal is an unfalsifiable moral observation made originally by priests. Priests! It was a religious scam all along. You have sinned white man and at our altar you may atone for your sins.

What is leftism?
…Is the first question leftist readers will ask. My instinctual answer: unask the question. New question. Where does this rule of yours come from to define every word in every essay? New answer: it comes from academia which is generally cathedral territorium. Since the cathedral is built on lies clear thinking is never promoted. Therefore I distrust your inquiry into my definition and suspect you are looking for a clear dogma to defect upon. The cathedral likes discussing about definitions because definitions are always open for (re)interpretation. Ask the skypes.

You know leftism best when you encounter it. Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals is an excellent book of leftist strategies. Vox Day’s SJW’s Always Lie is an excellent book on how to counter leftist strategies (though I have read neither). I have found that the easiest way to counter leftism is by trusting your gut. Whenever you find yourself in a situation you feel uncomfortable with, ask yourself honestly: am I being scammed? If so, how?

The larger scam is of course the way society is being scammed which happens in many ways but most definitively through the importation of hundreds of thousands of muslim men. Not much you can do about that right now.

Current and future leftism
No one can predict the future positions the cathedral takes because the cathedral itself does not even know what future positions it will take. Truth you can take a swing at but a lie is arbitrary. Both Clinton and Obama were against same-sex marriage before they were in favour of it as recently as 2008. In retrospect this seems incredibly silly seeing as how gay marriage has become such a hallmark of [current year] leftism. But they didn’t know that 10 years ago!


A scam always comes to an end. ‘Truth goes the longest’ as they say. The problem with a scam based on holiness is that a rival priest can always be holier than you. Priest 1 says that it is good for the family if women vote, priest 2 says women are oppressed by the men in their family and it is good if they vote AND pursue careers. Both priests are lying but the second priest lies more blatantly (closer to the core lie) which makes him holier than the first one. So we get holiness spirals  in which those competing for holy power descend further and further into a labyrinth of ever ascending madness. No one can stop it because everybody is a hypocrite. There is a Dutch word for this, schijnheilig, which translates literally into pretendholy.

Because holiness spirals are directly involved in affairs of power they are usually shrouded in secrecy. Power protects itself. But it seems like the American progressivist scam is slowly coming to an end and Wikileaks is exposing its secrets. The cathedral threatens to kill Julian Assange but so far they can’t make true on their promise. Assange strikes me to be a leftist who defected on the meme ‘sharing is caring’ which makes the drama all the more tragic. When the spiral spirals out of control we get a leftist singularity which is the priestly equivalent of what happened to Bernie Madoff when his pyramid scam fell apart. The USSR had a relatively peaceful singularity at the end of the cold war. What will happen to the West?  The left is eating itself – no leftist likes Hillary who surprise surprise turns out to be a crooked scammer. But the alternative is Hitler so leftists find themselves in a pickle. If only Bernie Sanders had defected on Hillary when he was asked to campaign for her new school leftists would at least have someone to believe in. But the poor man was too loyal to the old school cathedral, oh sweet irony.


So now the cathedral is shaking like Ganondorf’s castle during the final boss fight. What will happen when it falls? Chaos? Civil war? Nothing? Peaceful Trump takeover? AI overlord Zuckerberg I? Islamic Europe? We sure live in interesting times.

There is a Dutch story from the middle ages called ‘Van den vos Reynaerde’ or ‘About Reynard the fox’. It was about a fox who tricked everyone. In the end he even scammed the king, a lion called Nobel by convincing him other animals were conspiring against the king. It was a funny story with a lesson: some people are natural scammers because most people are natural suckers.

Why Leftism?

I’m working on a new project so traffic will likely slow down on this blog. Anyway.

It seems to me that reaction-wise the most important stuff has been said. We’ve realised mankind is still as religious as ever. We’ve realised that democracy sucks and that modernity is spiritually speaking a complete scam. We’ve realised how and why Western society is falling apart. We’ve reconnected ourselves with traditional common sense, which means that when we read old books in which it is observed that emancipation of blacks was a bad thing for the blacks we nod to ourselves and say: well that makes sense.

On the list of things I still wonder about is leftism. Why leftism? Why did Harvard take over the West so relatively unopposed? Why was communism implemented in the East? Why is it that no one is leading this ‘conspiracy’, yet every leftist spouts the same predictable lines as if they were answering to a central party?

Once you know what to look for leftist rhetoric is always the exact same thing: gas lighting, evasive manoeuvres, hypocrisy, cuck behaviour, outright lying and when finally push comes to shove: disappearing. I see the behaviour over and over in many different people. Leftism is a very universal human trait.

The problem with the Alt-Right is that it tends to define leftism as an elitist globalist group, e.g. the Clintons and the George Soros’s. I understand these globalist motives loud and clear: money and power. It is plain to see that they are evil people who will slither and crawl to achieve their goals. But Hillary’s power is not just the millions of dollars she funnels away through her foundation, it is also the millions of voters that stand with her. Who are these millions of people? Are they being completely misled, just yearning for someone to tell them the truth and set them free? Or do the mainstream media lies appeal to them, perhaps in a way they can not articulate? After all it takes 2 for a con to work.

I’ve had 2 passionate leftists as friends. One is a female poster child of leftism who is of above average intelligence, now in her thirties. She levered her intelligence into high status value signalling – feminism! The environment! EU Song festival! She used to be in an open relation with a beta boyfriend until she dumped him for a higher status boyfriend who subsequently dumped her. Last I heard of her she was moving in with a new boyfriend of whom she was always complaining of. She maybe wants  children one day, but for now she is focusing on her career.

My other friend is the male poster child of leftism. Great orator. Real casanova. Natural narcissist. I’ve known him for years and although I do not think he is the incarnation of evil it finally struck me a while ago: whenever he opens his mouth he spouts complete bullshit. He is the master of the 10-minute monologues of convincing sounding utter bullshit. He will contradict himself within the same minute and make you feel bad for noticing the contradiction. He will sleep with your daughter and tell you she is a stronger woman for it. He will go on and on about female emancipation, about systemic racism and about white male privilege. If you push him really hard you will get him to admit that yes, it is probable that the Netherlands will be a muslim country somewhere in the future, with which he is ok. However he will always forget all your points the next day.

The psychology fascinates me. I think r/K selection is a very good start in explaining leftist psychology: K is honourable, r is scavenging. Despite of our heroic stories, mankind’s biology includes a lot of scavenger genes between and within individuals. Modernity has developed in such a way that honourable genes are marginalised. Scavenger genes are rewarded, as well as their accompanying emotions: envy, greed and lust.

It’s coming to an end

Through Ricky Vaughn I stumbled on a photo report on Obama’s visit to Singapore. I don’t know. I look at those pictures and it seems to me like the writing is on the wall. There is despair in those pictures. Michelle does look like a body builder in her bulking period. I imagine the PM’s wife greeting her and thinking ‘oooh why she so fat!’ Obama smiles but  doesn’t really smile. The toast he gave honoring prime minister Lee Loong must have been a drag.

My guess is they all start to realize the jig is up. Yes we can – no we couldn’t. There is some interesting psychology going on.

What natural rightists not always understand is that leftist dreams are really appealing. They are appealing because they seem real, they feel real. When Obama ran for president it was a huge deal among the interested parties who were mainly young students who saw ‘their’ cathedral bringing hope and change for the world. In retrospect it was of course all a scam, but retrospect is easy talking.

So regarding the psychology of Barack Obama: my analysis is that he genuinely believed in the cause. He likely thought of himself as the son of Martin Luther King and a president who would guide his people through troubled times (although natural leftist narcissism might dictate that he was more deluded). The momentum of his campaign meant people around him also believed and he thrived on that. But 7 years later the cause is in shatters. People are losing faith. Like Adolf in der Untergang so is Obama unable to filter all the negative feedback he is receiving. Also Obama has to deal with a pissed-off wife who probably feels like she was sold a beta in an alpha suit.

edit: Steve Sailer makes sense. “Obama’s 17-year-old mother arrived in Hawaii in 1960 and quickly became pregnant by an exotic black man.” That’s your prophecy right there.


When I was young I thought I could be anything. So I invested in everything, kept an open mind for anything. I was friendly towards strangers, open towards different points of view,  trustworthy of systems as education and academia. I trusted modernity. Of course the act of trusting modernity implies a necessary level of narcissism for a healthy individual will only function well in spite of modernity, never because of modernity. In order words; I was conceited as fuck.

It does not rest my conscience if I remind myself that I always had some doubt. If a girl senses a guy is a player but is still pumped and dumped by him it does not matter. The proof is in eating the pudding. I ate the pudding for plenty years. It fills me with disgust.

Lies are everywhere. Turn on the tv, then turn it off in disgust. Turn off your music to hear other people’s opinions, then turn it back on louder to drown out the nonsense. Lies lies lies, spread with the sole purpose of tearing apart the long-term fabric of tradition for short-term PROFIT. Comforting lies that even your loved ones vomit from their mouths. A successful con always involves 2 people for an innocent man can not be conned. We crave a good lie and I fear modernity’s lie is too powerful for this generation to shrug off. We shall sacrifice our lives to this idol. Perhaps future generations will learn from our mistakes. Perhaps not.

I never built anything for myself because I was operating on the unspoken assumption that everyone builds for everyone. But this is not how life works. Life is to eat or to be eaten. In my teenage years I felt my body was invincible and I treated it as such. Now I am older and I start to feel weaknesses in my body. Nothing all too frightening, but the first cracks nonetheless. It scares me. It fills me with regret over lost years.

The system is set up in such a way that entropy will increase. The older generation does not care for they will die before the pension system collapses. The younger generation does not care yet for they believe that the system will keep them safe. I share neither conviction. The man with open eyes knows he is very vulnerable. He must build something that he may call his own or else this monster of modernity will surely devour him.

De INTJ Leven


Ik was een tijdlang geboeid door Myers-Briggs, een psychologisch model om de persoonlijkheden van mensen te classificeren. Myers-Briggs deelt mensen in op basis van 4 paren van karaktertrekken:

– Introversie vs Extroversie
– iNtuïtie vs Sensitiviteit
– Thinking vs Feeling
– Perception vs Judging

Een combinatie van deze trekken maakt je dominante persoonlijkheid op. Voorzover ik het begrijp is het vooral de specifieke interactie tussen die trekken die belangrijk is. Neem vooral zelf online een test af als je benieuwd bent.

Overall was ik teleurgesteld door MB. Ja, het systeem is een stuk accurater dan wat Barnum over je persoonlijkheid zou zeggen, maar de meerderheid van de mensen passen niet goed in één van de 16 persoonlijkheidstypes. Voor overall betrouwbaarheid is the Big 5 toch beter.

Toch kan je sommige mensen met MB bijzonder accuraat classificeren. Ik ken een aantal mensen die ik zonder twijfel in een MB-hokje kan stoppen: ENFJ, INTP en ESTP, om maar wat te noemen. Bovenal is er een hokje waar ik mezelf helder als laptoplicht in kan stoppen: INTJ.

Er zijn blijkbaar veel MB-fanaten die zichzelf zien als INTJ. Heel vaak hebben ze het mis – er zijn erg weinig INTJ’s. Online ken ik eigenlijk alleen Nick Krauser als een Bona fide INTJ. En natuurlijk mijzelf. Waarom weet ik dat zo zeker? Omdat een INTJ van jongs af aan op gespannen voet staat met de samenleving om hen heen. Een INTJ leeft in een eigen wereld van eindeloze mogelijkheden welke maakt dat ik constant aan de buitenwereld vraag: ‘waarom?’ De buitenwereld ergert zich hieraan en laat mij dit weten door  te antwoorden: ‘daarom.’ Voor een INTJ is alles in het leven een abstracte puzzel die opgelost dient te worden, op wat voor manier dan ook. Voor anderen stel ik teveel vragen en kan ik mij beter aan de regels houden.

Te vaag? Ok, concreter voorbeeld.

Stel, we staan in een nachtclub. De speakers pompen luide dansmuziek, felgekleurde lichten weerkaatsen van discoballen en vernevelende rook wordt de ruimte in gespoten. In zo’n omgeving is mijn gedachtenstroom een beetje als volgt: ‘Wat doe ik hier? God m’n oren gaan hier morgenochtend van suizen. Had ik maar een boek meegenomen. Hebben deze mensen hier echt plezier? Ja blijkbaar wel. De bartender heeft het in ieder geval naar zijn zin. Zal wel geen tekort aan poes hebben. Maar beter nog om zijn baas te zijn. Hoewel ik vraag me af op dat op de lange termijn lucratief is. Veel nachtclubs gaan failliet. Je bent even populair en dan weer niet. Hoe zou je hip kunnen blijven als nachtclub? Misschien doe je dat niet, misschien is het hele punt wel om je club failliet te laten gaan om vervolgens als een alcoholverslaafde feniks onder een nieuwe naam een doorstart te maken. Wat nou als… HEH WAT ZEG JE IK VERSTA JE NIET.’

Met andere woorden, de nachtclub is niet de omgeving waarin de INTJ van nature floreert. Tenzij hij de eigenaar is van gezegde club.