Baudet dealing like a champ

Too early to say too much on the issue, but since the Henk ‘Judas’ Otten interview the following has happened:

– Baudet was  unaware of the interview. Henk Otten spoke with the enemy media behind his back.

– Baudet was not happy. He tweeted that Otten was no longer a member of the lower chamber, although he would keep his position in the upper chamber. Otten made a statement that this decision was made without his consent.

– Theo Hiddema, Baudet’s real #2, made an appearance on Pauw, which is the Dutch Stephen Colbert, but more leftist Dutch, which is to say: a talkshow that has the pretense of intellectualism but is mostly snarky leftism. Theo had fire applied to his feet, but he held his ground like a madman; among others explaining that, of course, Henk Otten had to give up his position in the lower chamber, that this was decided long ago, that everybody knew about this, and that it was silly to make a fuss of it. Theo Hiddema was so charismatic that he made it sound like absolutely nothing was going on. Great stuff.

Theo did let it shine through that Baudet was not charmed with Otten’s performance. Great. Henk Otten, previously a member of Pim Fortuyn’s party, is an opportunist. Now, there is nothing wrong with opportunists, you’re going to attract them one way or the other, but the moment they stick a knife in your back like Henk ‘praise Donna Zuckerberg’ Otten, they got to go. Baudet has two years to go until the next big election cycle; I hope he gets his back office in order before then.

Baudet’s trials continue

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

If happy, don’t depend on unhappy

Mindlessly zapping through YouTube I watched a few minutes of this video essay on Amazon. Its content is standard leftist boilerplate: Amazon bad, Amazon evil, yay New York for booing Amazon away.

The premise in all these anti-Amazon arguments is: ‘Amazon used the free market to become a monopoly, monopolies are bad, therefore the state must interfere in the free market.’

This of course is Marxist history; it is a lie re-imagining capitalists as the ruling class, instead of the priesthood being the ruling class. The lie is intended to mask the actual feelings of the maker of the video, namely hatred and envy of Bezos’ success, and its purpose is to incite a mob against Amazon, which he hates and envies.

There is no such thing as a secure capitalist monopoly, for any free market monopoly is dependent upon its customers. Contrary to a state, which may force its inhabitants to be their customer at gunpoint, corporations cannot force their customers to do anything. Amazon thrives because it makes itself useful to customers. When it stops making itself useful, it loses its monopoly. Our video maker tell us that Amazon is tricking consumers into buying their stuff, but this is a patronizing lie that both undermines the impressiveness of Amazon’s business model and shows contempt for its customers, who our video maker views as stupid children.

Amazon has the biggest market share because it has the biggest customer base. If it loses its customer base, it loses its monopoly. That’s all there is to it.

Thus, there is absolutely no need to interfere in Amazon’s business plans — let them have their monopoly and let us see how long they can keep it.

But of course, that’s just like my opinion. The lefty’s envy of Amazon is too strong for him to listen to me anyway. So, whatever. Best of luck to mr Bezos. Hey, at least your ex-wife didn’t screw you over too badly, huh!

Anyway I wanted to write some cheesy stuff about happiness, so I’ll do that.

Happiness is reactionary, in that everything that makes Gnon smile is what makes a man smile: territory, money, hobbies, enjoyable work, a beautiful woman, some kids… The traditional stuff. But many people don’t touch the traditional stuff with a 2 meter pole. Very politically sensitive. I think, being happy has always been a tricky question, and perhaps at the best of times only about half the population could pull it off. But nowadays, most people are decidedly unhappy. It’s sad, but it’s a fact.

The problem with unhappy people is that they drag everyone down to their level. I am unhappy? You must be unhappy too! It is a monkey power move. That’s why work becomes such a drag when your colleagues, or god forbid, your boss, is not satisfied with his or her life. They inflict their unhappiness on you, for your happiness is an insult to their unhappiness.

Thing is, it is entirely possible to deal with these people. I deal with plenty of unhappy people, and I get along pretty well with them. But you can’t be dependent on them. You have to be sure you need them less than they need you. I personally am very happy with my life as it is right now. But I have definitely noticed not everyone is happy for you: you attract envious eyes. People want to bring you down, just to prove life is just as miserable as they experience it.

So, the #1 rule is always: if you want to be happy, don’t be dependent on unhappy people. Call me an asshole, but I’ve cut out unhappy people from my life, or at the very least distanced myself from them. Even close family: did not care. Very glad I’ve done so. There’s just no meaningful talking with unhappy people. They always drag you down.

Wait, let me rephrase that… You can meaningfully talk with unhappy people… But it needs to happen in the context of you being the dancing monkey who has the frame and who gets to keep the frame. It’s like unhappy people shit-test you, and you need to be able to pass the shit-test. Defend your territory, yo.

Yes well what did you expect

twitter hopeless

If you party in someone else’s garden, you play by someone else’s rules. And we know the progressive rulebook: unrestricted hatred of beauty, elegance and everything needed for prosperity.

So, who is still surprised about Twitter having the fun sucked out of it? Not me. Who is still surprised about Trump cucking out? Well me a little bit, in that I had hoped he would have gone out with more of a bang, instead of this whimper, but otherwise not really. Trump has changed into NPC Trump. It was the most probable outcome.

But we should not act completely surprised, as if this is a gross betrayal and omg I can’t even. It’s just the logical outcome when one man goes up against a system of which the course is already decided. It’s like the Titanic elected a new captain after the iceberg was hit whose campaign slogan was: Fix That Hole! Only of course it turns out that the hole is way too big to fix and that the Titanic will sink anyway, just with a captain who is slightly more realistic about the situation.

Seems to me that a government, like fire, always chooses the path of the least resistance. Whenever conflict arises, it is suppressed, and only when it can really not be ignored, the most minor possible concession will be made, which will suppress the conflict for little while longer, and then a new small concession will be made, and a new one, and a new one… Until the concessions no longer work and the system of government collapses.

It is like evolution: we can see how a giraffe’s laryngeal nerve is meters long while it could be only centimeters, but the giraffe’s DNA can not fix it, for it only operates on the base of small concessions, the small concession being that the laryngeal nerve grew along with the giraffe’s neck. Either the giraffe sucks it up, or he will have to do without his majestic giraffe voice.

Now the giraffe is unaware of his predicament, but hoomans are pretty smart. We are aware: Moldbug stated that democracy was a cancer patient beyond saving, and all the events of the past years have confirmed his diagnosis. Now, since this cancer patient, after its death, will lead us to a situation resembling France in 1793 or Russia in 1917, Jim, being the ever sensible man, hopes for a true king to halt the madness, much like Napoleon halted the madness of 1793’s France, and Stalin halted the madness of Russia’s 1917. Jim hoped this man might be Trump.

I hoped so too. But, in accordance with society choosing the path of the least resistance, such a king will not rise until after we experience some of the same madness as France’s reign of terror and Russia’s white terror. Trump is far too early to garner support for, what in the eyes of the normie elite, must seem like the draconian extremist measures we of the dark enlightenment propose he make. We say: ‘lol beat ur wife shell  be happy’, the normie elite says: ‘lol wtf Id rathr divrce.’ And so it goes.

So, even if Trump wanted to preemptively end the madness, he will not get the support he’d need, because people don’t think ten steps ahead, instead barely thinking one step ahead. That’s the bad news.

Of course the good news is that we are thinking and talking about this. Lefties communicate in the language of power distribution, righties communicate in the language of truth — the free anonymous internet favors righties. Here, we talk and think freely. Lefties don’t do that and don’t get it. All a lefty reading my blog understands is how I rank on the power scale; he does not get the meaning behind my words, only the power. Essentially, he does not even register my posts, just the amount of comments each post receives.

But a righty understands. We speak a common language. We see what is happening and we can discuss and plan ahead. I’m just gonna come out and say it: Trump is not the true king. He is too old, too invested in the belief that a few small concessions will save America. He is an absolute madman, but not the true king. So, we have an open position: who wants to be true king? Who wants to enforce the next series of concessions? Paging Bronze Age Pervert…Well, paging any righty with posters of Bolsonaro, Duterte and Putin in his bedroom.

But also paging righties in general: we are still living in an age of general prosperity. Despite what righty twitter has you believe about clown world, and yes it is a clown world, airplanes still fly, supermarkets are still stocked with food, and you can still say politically-incorrect stuff to your friends without having you and your entire family executed. Enjoy these last throes of prosperity.

Now, there is another thing. We have talked about the true king to stop the leftist madness: the Cromwell, the Stalin, the Napoleon, the Deng Xiaoping. But often these men can only halt the madness, not completely reverse it. It is my belief that, for a true reversal, one needs the vision of a religion, of a prophet. Charles the Great left a legacy for a century, Jesus Christ left a legacy for two millenia. Religion scales much better across time. I have repeatedly hailed Jim as such a prophet. But Jim, being the ever-humble man, rather stays within Christian framework rather than proclaim himself to be the next Jesus.

Perhaps this is enough. Perhaps Jim’s ideas are, by their own merit, wholesome enough to serve as the blueprint for the coming centuries. But I’m not sure. I think people need faith, they need something to believe in, something they can pour their whole heart into. When my in-law grandmother talks of Jesus, you should see the love in her eyes. She truly loves Jesus, even though the man has been dead for 2000 years. A prophet needs to inspire that kind of love.

But to do so, a prophet needs to take great amounts of risk, at no guarantee that he might succeed. How to accomplish this, I am not completely sure. But that is the current situation we are in.

Also, a final note: I will get to work on fixing Garden of the Internet, mainly to sell more books and earn e-bucks. I have lost everything I wrote there, which is frustrating, but that’s the way things go sometimes.

The RedWhite pill

black white chick

We sell the RedWhite pill.

We live the Red pill life, meaning we see women as they are, not as others tell us what they are, or what our cowardice makes us pretend they are. We laugh or feel sorry for blue pill men such as Ben Shapiro, who try their utmost best to treat women like men and are baffled when these women don’t give them the time of day. We, meanwhile, know: nice guys finish last, a bit of assholery goes a long way. The red pill gets you laid.

We are wary of purple pill merchants, such as Jordan Peterson: men who pretend to know the red pill secrets of women, but actually sell blue pills coated with some red paint. They loudly proclaim to know how to interact with women, but when push comes to shove, you will observe their women treating them with the disrespect they deserve.

Only the red pill makes women blossom into the beautiful creatures they can be. Whenever you hear a woman singing a love song from the heart, rest assured: she sings it for a red pill man.

So we are greatly fond of the red pill. But, we do not think all red pills are equal. We prefer our red pill mixed with a white one: the white pill standing for optimism, hope and happiness.

Too often red pill men turn to the black pill: nihilism and detached cynicism. It is an understandable step, for if you have been lied to about women, what other lies have you been told? What hope is there for a world that has so much evil? How can women be so goddamn cruel?

But giving in to such dark temptations is not our way. When the red pill is fully digested, it makes you love women for the same traits you previously hated. I interact with a fair deal of women in my daily life, and I enjoy pleasant relations with all of them. I am dominant and demanding, but also fair and understanding. Because of the red pill, I understand what makes women happy and I give it to them. In return, they treat me like a high-status man and act to please me. It is a happy balance, one I could have never made without the red and white pill.

The RedWhite pill eventually leads a man to monogamy: to own one woman and build a family with her. That is the way things should be, what our brains have been optimally wired for. There are many different ways to go about life, but deviations from your role as family patriarch are taken at your own risk, and are deviations for a reason.

There is no such thing as enjoying the decline by poolside. It is a rationalization a man tells himself when he has swallowed too many black pills. The decline sucks. End of story. But to build something within that decline, something that defies that decline… Now that is enjoyment. And to build such a thing with a woman: that is the RedWhite pill.

King, high priest, prophet


So I’ve hit a ceiling concerning the Jimianity meme. I have been thinking it over.

If you want to start a new religion, as I have been attempting, you need a prophet. What is a prophet? Someone who goes all-in, someone who, if you want to be melodramatic, sacrifices his life for the greater good. The prophet is beholden by no one. He says, through me is the path to God, which in monkey terms translate to: follow me!

But being a prophet is dangerous business. It’s not something you can backwards engineer, even though backwards engineering is often very effective. To be a prophet demands a balance between supreme self-confidence and excellent perception of reality. This is difficult. Propheteering is risky business.

That’s why history tends to find balance between kings and high priests; the high priest is a bit like the prophet in that he has the role of sage, but his role is not to outrank the king, his role is to support the king. Of course a prophet might also support the king, but a prophet might not do so; this unpredictability is what makes the prophet a liability, the high priest a trusted advisor.

The high priest guides for decades, the prophet guides for millennia. But, the high priest lives a good life, the prophet a tumultuous one. High risk high reward.

Currently the De Facto prophet for the West is either Jesus Christ or Karl Marx, which is to say, all rightist priests are pro-Christianity, all leftist priests are pro-Marxism.

So, rightist priests, in the reactionary sense, are followers of Christ, because that’s basically all we have in terms of grand civilization vision. Yes there’s some others, but none compare.

Now, up till this moment I have always sold Jimianity as a post-Christian religion, meaning it builds upon Christianity, meaning I think Jim is as much the son of God as Jesus. But Jim, while open for new ideas, has not yet jumped aboard. Jim seems to go with the route of high priest, e.g. seeking to cooperate with kings, as he has attempted to cooperate with Trump.

I believe the time has arrived for a post-Christian religion; that we need a new religion, the next big thing. I believe this requires a prophet, not a high priest.

BUT, who am I to decide who is prophet and who is not? History decides in retrospect. So while the theoretical groundwork is there, the practical side is that if Jim does not want to be teacher, who am I to demand him to be one.

And who knows, perhaps I will be proven wrong, perhaps a king and a high priest are enough to fix the West. One should not let the Perfect get in the way of the Good Enough.

Staying a step ahead


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

What is the Right?

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

What is the Left?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So, time for something new.

Fear in the Eyes of the Elite


Something interesting happened last week.

Just a day after the NZ shooting, a shooting happened in the Netherlands. Incomparable in terms of victims: the shooter, a Turkish immigrant, killed three people in a tram in Utrecht. But if you listened to the media that day it would have felt as if the shooting was three times as bad as the NZ shooting. Utrecht was shut down for the day. All political and governmental events were shut down. Level 5 National Threat was declared – the highest level. For two days every important person was in deep mourning — how horrible! How terrible! My god the humanity!

This completely over the top response puzzled me, still puzzles me a bit. Seems to me this sort of shooting is inevitable: you invite termites into your house, you shouldn’t complain when they eat the furniture. But that is exactly what happened: not only did our elite complain, they seemed genuinely baffled and horrified by the shooting. How strange.

So, here’s what I think is going on. One, it is a cover-up. Of course it’s a cover-up: the shooter was a typical immigrant with typical immigrant beliefs; here he is, years before the shooting, telling a reporter she is a slut. Also he was a drug dealer with an extensive crime record, including drunk driving. Islam gonna Islam.

Part of the loud lamentation is to drown out all these critical noises: ‘how dare you politicize what has happened! Don’t you have any respect for the victims! Let us mourn them today and forget this whole thing happened tomorrow.’

But this does not cover it all. If the outcries were purely strategic, they would not have felt so… Panicky. The response was not just crocodile tears, it was genuine fear. Where does this fear come from?

Part is that the elite fears losing control, and that such an event is a premonition of just how badly they will lose control. Fear of immigration is a very hot topic in Europe, reflected in the exit polls of the very recent senate elections: Dutch Trumpist Thierry Baudet skyrocketed from 0/75 seats to 10/75 seats, crowning him the second biggest party in the Netherlands. The ruling coalition, meanwhile, has lost its majority.

But again, this only partly explains the palpable panic felt on the day Gökmen Tanis killed three people. The ruling elite still sit pretty firmly in their seats. Nexit is years away still, especially with Brexit turning out to be such a clusterfuck. And, the leftist singularity has not yet spiraled out of control as badly in the US.

So what is going on? Here’s what I think: it’s the emancipation.

Women are ruled by fear. The point of the patriarchy is to calm down women’s fears: ‘don’t worry babe, it’s OK, we got this.’ Such an assurance is the only thing that calms a woman down. But without patriarchy, with forced equality and thus without such assurances, women’s fear start to consume everything. Government and healthcare becomes a giant exercise in risk-mitigation. The slightest storm becomes a Level Red Natural Disaster, and, of course, a man with a gun becomes a Killing Machine for which it is justified to shut down an entire country. Overreacting? Well of course, that’s the whole point of what women do! But the men are powerless to stop it, because to do so would require telling women they are overreacting and that would be horribly sexist. So, the men play along. Sad.

It goes without saying that a society that is so swayed back and forth by the mass hysteria of its women is not one that will last the ages, but, I said it anyway.



It is important to know how to be angry.

A big part of being a man is being good at games of chicken. A game of chicken happens when you have a dispute with someone, and neither has the decisive power to end it. In such a case, men circle each other, looking for weaknesses in the other to exploit. However, since you know the other man is doing the same, uncertainty follows. Uncertainty gives stress. Therefore, when such conflicts drag on too long, men tend to want to settle the dispute rather than prolong it. But, blinking first in a game of chicken means you lose, the other wins.

So the dominant strategy for a smart man is not to blink first. This is why war is easy, peace is hard: no one blinks, end up with war. Someone needs to blink, for peace. That is how patriarchal hierarchy is established.

Blink too often and you are judged weak. Blink too little and people know you’re full of shit.

Most men blink too often, especially soyboys. Turns out not blinking is pretty hard to do right; apt to get in trouble if you pretend to be tougher than you are. Therefore, evolutionary average tends to produce men that blink under pressure.

Then again, men instinctively realize blinking too often displays weakness and so sometimes veer to the other extreme: they don’t blink at all. While it is always better to err in the side of too little blinking, it is still an err. Too little blinking prevents cooperation.

Knowing when to be angry is part of playing games of chicken. A pet peeve of mine is boomer anger. When a boomer is angry, it is about how the trash is picked up late or, I dunno, about how the service isn’t what it used to be. Young people, meanwhile, are expected to live in trash, accept trash salaries, and don’t even have the money to be serviced, instead working shitty jobs in restaurants where they have to serve complaining boomers.

But I mean, I get it. You get angry about the stuff that irks you most, and if a late garbageman irks you most, well, you have a pretty good life otherwise.

Games of chicken are much fun to play with women. Women play them all the time, hoping you win them. They love it when you win. They want to see you win. Playing games of chicken with women is warm-up practice for playing games of chicken with men.

How to win at games of chicken is hard to explain. It’s mostly trial and error. Bluffing at the right time is a crucial skill, but so is bowing your head. It always stuck with me that Stalin, no matter how powerful he was, was increasingly paranoid. So was Mao. This was because they were playing a lot of games of chicken, on a level where too big a mistake cost their life. Pretty sure they were excellent at playing games of chicken.

With women, because they want to see you win at the game of chicken, life can be lots of fun, although it is less fun when they set you up against another man whom they also want to see winning at the game of chicken, which women are prone to do. This is the reason why we like patriarchy: so women can’t engage in their favorite pastime, namely getting men to fight each other. But otherwise, women are lots of fun to hang out with.

In this we are white-pilled: why do we play the game of chicken? Because we are having fun. Roosh and Heartiste are more black-pilled: they have let the game of chicken gone to their head. Heartiste for instance writes this post on love, but it is not really love. It is harem management: how to deal with unhappy women who want to be owned by you, while you are refusing to take ownership of them. Of that list, my girl has said three or four of those things to me, all of them during our courtship phase. Of course she still occasionally calls me an asshole, but mostly she rests her head on my shoulder and tells me that she loves me. That is how a girl says she loves you: she says she loves you. Not that hard.

A successful man in his 40s who is still a bachelor raises eyebrows, and rightly so. I think it is accurate to say that the reactionary position is, quite obviously, that a woman completes you. You maintain house, she maintains cleanliness. You make dough, she makes children. Yin and Yang. This gives peace of mind. You still play games of chicken, but they are fun, and if they are no longer fun, you can always hit her.

A long time ago, I was hanging with a successful man, professionally. One time, he got angry with his subordinates. I don’t remember what over. But I do remember the response of his subordinates: they were ashamed. They took his anger serious, for they knew he would not be upset without good reason. Consequently, they adjusted their actions and the man’s outburst fixed the problem. That is anger done right.

Generally, the best way at getting better at games of chicken is blinking less. Most people blink too often – hence the failure of Western men in passing Western woman’s shit-test. When in doubt, puff up your chest a bit.

But, even more generally, the best way at getting better at games of chicken is simply playing games of chicken and see what happens.

While the garden is in maintenance…

Might as well drop a note and say what’s up.

Here’s a thought.

The hype game these days is Fortnite, a Battle Royale shooter game. A hundred people drop in one island with weapons. The ring in which people move gets smaller and smaller. Last man standing wins. Fortnite is as popular now as the Pokemon was in my time. If that is too grand a claim, perhaps better to say that BR games (PUBG, Fornite, Apex Legends) are as popular today as Pokemon was in my day.

So I was thinking: what does the popularity of a game say about a generation?

Pokemon people want to explore, discover the world. Gotta catch ’em all! Which fits the millenial ‘I’ve traveled through Asia for six months’ attitude.

BR people, however, want to survive in a shrinking circle. I mean… Lol. The metaphor for the shrinking circle as the downfall of Western civilisation just seems kinda obvious.

Pokemon is a game for an r-selected world, Batte Royal is for a K-selected world. Millenials still trusted the adult world, Gen Z isn’t so sure.

But who knows. Maybe I’m reading into it too much. At any rate, it is pretty amazing how far games have come.