Truth in a world of lies

By Alf



Welcome, dear reader! Welcome to my site, on which I host exactly one story, written in blog-length chapters because that's just the way I roll. Perhaps you are already familiar with neoreaction, the dark enlightenment or even some of my work. Perhaps you are not. Whatever the case, I assume no prior knowledge.

You ask: what is this story about? Pf, where to begin. The best comparison I can come up with is that it's kind of like how Neo searches the internet for answers at the beginning of the Matrix, and instead of not finding them, he finds them. But comparisons with the Matrix are cliche, and also you might disagree. Best you just read on, I suppose. Or not, who am I to tell you how to spend your time.

Now, let us start our story. Like all good stories, it starts dramatically: with the fall of a civilisation.

(PS I am in the process of proofreading greatly rewriting the first draft, the yellow highlight marks where I'm at. )


A Falling Civilisation

Imagine being born in 1200 BC bronze age Hittite empire, in what is now Turkish territory. For the first time in human history, empires have sprung up, and you are part of one. People are proud - why wouldn't they be? You have trade routes bringing in exotic supplies, people have figured out how to melt and shape metal. Your culture produces beautiful pottery, houses, chariots and even palaces. You breed strong horses, work the land. It is obvious to you and everyone around you that your civilisation is simply the greatest in the world.

Or so you think. For the bronze age collapse is just around the corner. Just a few decades later, the Hittite empire fell apart, plundered and destroyed by its enemies. Its men killed, its women raped. And you, our formerly proud Hittit citizen, are either dead or fleeing. A stark contrast. Why didn't your civilisational self-image match with what was actually happening?

Well, the obvious reason is that assessing a civilisational cycle is difficult. Especially if you're one of the first civilisations around -- how are you supposed to know all empires have an expiration date? Plenty of people peddling you nonsense, telling you the end of times are near when they are obviously not. So who's to know when the end is really near, and when a doomsayer is crying wolf?

But there should be plenty of signs of impending disaster, right? Stories about lost wars at the faraway borders, stock shortages, increases in distrust... That sort of thing. Yet still, many people tend to persist that everything's just fine. We call this normalcy bias, which is Newton's first law applies to humans: objects in motion tend to stay in motion. When your entire life has been normal, you assume that the future will be normal as well and plan accordingly. You will behave as if the stability of the past is a good indicator for the future, because your entire life that has been true and naturally, you want it to be true as well. Indeed, the past tends to be a reliable indicator for the future. Unless of course, your civilisation is about to fall apart. Then, old rules no longer apply, and if you ignore the new rules too long, you will find yourself %#$@ out of luck when the %#$@ hits the fan.

At this point you have probably figured out: I am not just talking about some ancient civilisation. I am also talking about our civilisation, let us call it Western civilisation. You know, the one you and I both live in. Led by America and its allies in Europe and Australia, with its vassal state littered all over the world. A grander empire has never existed. And yes, it is in the process of falling apart.

On this site you will find my version of this story, the story of the fall of the West. This story has been extensively documented and is being analysed during our lifetime. The majority of that documentation is nonsense -- a bunch of lies or bullshit indifferent to the truth. After all, if society at large understood why it was falling, it would stop the fall. Our misunderstanding of the situation is intertwined with our downfall. For instance, consider the generic explanation for the sudden bronze age decline: bronze age civilisations were invaded. OK, but why not repel the invaders? Well something something earthquakes and droughts.

Perhaps there were earthquakes and droughts, but as the whole story it just does not make sense. Compare with our situation: why is the West falling? Our experts tell us: well you see it's very complex but important factors are global warming and corona. But the West isn't falling because of global warming and corona. Much closer to the truth is: global warming and corona are either false or insignificant problems from an outsider's perspective, but they are made gigantic problems from our insiders' perspective. The decline is mostly internal. In terms of climate, which has recently only become more accommodating to human life, and medicine, which is as advanced as it has ever been, there is no reason why our society should fall apart. Yet in practice, it does. Why? And how do we survive the fall? In this story I will answer those questions. They are not answers I have come up all by myself. As our story will reveal, they come from a bunch of smart, mostly anonymous men who've had heated debates on obscure blogs on the internet.

Of course, since I am the writer, I can't help but give my own twist to the story. So already, let me spare you some trouble and give you the short answers to those questions:

That's the short version anyway. Now, the long version.




part I - The Dark Enlightenment




Mencius Moldbug and how the puritans conquered the world

Where when and how did things go wrong? For a long while it certainly did not seem like things were going wrong. If we look past the slaughter fields of the twentieth century (which we really shouldn't), things in the West were going pretty good: more prosperity, more technology, more of everything! Of course in hindsight signs of decline were everywhere, but it is hard to notice them when you have witnessed firsthand how we have landed on the moon.

Although some people might have instinctively felt something was off about modern society, it was not until 2007 that we uncovered how deep the rot really went. Why 2007? Because in that year an otherwise unknown programmer from San Francisco started a blog called 'Unqualified Reservations'. This blogger would become known as the infamous Mencius Molbug.

Molbug had the disadvantage of being very verbose: some of his blogposts were longer than my entire story. But he had the advantage of being a smart man. He was the first to lay the finger on the sore spot: American democracy and per extension Western democracy, he said, does not exist. The way we are taught our society works is simply not the way it works. Well OK, fair enough, but that is hardly a new opinion. Plenty of people will tell you our government sucks. But none of them could adequately explain why it sucks, or how it in fact really works. Moldbug could.

Moldbug said that, roughly speaking, America is a communist state.

Bu-bu-bu communist? Isn't America capitalist and the land of the free and money? Well, consider: who is telling you that? Are they state-sponsored journalists and academics and bureaucrats? Are they telling you American capitalists are evil and need to be restrained even further? If you hadn't noticed, the American dream is long dead -- being an entrepreneur in America has become mostly impossible. Start-ups have been strangled to death, small business owners are crushed, and Jeff Bezos was chased out of New York for being an evil billionaire.

But, say you, people still have their own land and guns and money. At which point a voice in your head might add: although not for the lack of the state trying to take those away. Indeed, it is hardly a secret that very powerful people in the West openly promote agendas stating that 'you will own nothing and you'll be happy'. Neither is it a secret that, after legalising gay marriage, the only thing on leftists' wish list was the banning of guns, for which they have made a big effort, and have been, in Europe at least, very successful.

Still, your point stands. America's increasing socialism is not an exact replica of USSR socialism. Your property is being infringed upon, but it has not been completely taken from you. Moldbug was well aware of this -- it is a crude comparison. An introduction to the truth if you will.

Moldbug's hobby was reading old books. In those old books, he found history by those who lived it described very differently than he was taught in school or in new books. Very peculiar. In time he put together the puzzle pieces and on his blog explains them in what we will call the story of How the Puritans Conquered the World.

Puritans? Who are the Puritans? Well remember how this is a story about meaning? What did we, historically, derive meaning from? Well, 't was religion, or in our case specifically: Christianity. The Puritans were a Christian community in 16th century England. Christianity around that time was not as universal (aka Catholic) as it once was. In fact, major schisms had broke out all around Europe, between Catholics and Protestants, the latter insisting that the former had become corrupt and decadent. The Puritans were a Protestant group, and they were special in that they insisted that the mainstream Protestants did not protest enough. They insisted on further 'purifying' the church. To give you an idea of how pure the Puritans were: they forbade Christmas on grounds that it was too much fun. King Charles the first, a Protestant, was of the opinion that the Protestant church was fine as is, and pushed back against these holier-than-thou troublemakers. And so in the early 17th century, many Puritans fled to North America. They settled in Massachussets where they continued their religious practices. For instance, they established a school to train their clergy, called it Harvard. Small little school, you might have heard of it.

This might confuse you if you're unfamiliar with the punchline -- isn't Harvard one of the, if not the most powerful university in the world, where truth and science are held in the upmost importance? Well yes and no. Indeed they are powerful, for the Puritans went on the conquer the world from their base in Massachusetts. However, that people think Harvard values truth is more a consequence of its power than anything else. Harvard today is very similar to Harvard in the days of the Puritans -- it is an institute of meaning, specifically the descendant of its sixteenth century Puritan meaning, spreading its religion to all corners of its empire.

The way you spread meaning is first and foremost by being a winner. The puritans were on the winning side for an impressively long time. First they sided against England during the American rebellion. Which conflict they won. Then they sided against the south in the American civil war. They won. Finally, they sided against the fascists and the communists in the twentieth century, and spoiler alert: they won. Mind you, we are fast-forwarding through two hundred years of history, so by this time the Puritans have reinvented themselves a couple of times. At this point we know them better as the Progressives, or Social Justice Warriors.

What is interesting is that none of this is really a secret. Progressives have always been fairly open about their goals. See for instance this newspaper dug up by Moldbug, in which they are aptly referred to as 'super-Protestants'.

What is the difference between Puritans and Progressives? To answer that question, we must first say what is the similarity between them. This turns out to be a zeal for holiness. They were holy nuts, from beginning to end. A holy nut wants power, but being a priestly man, he'd rather not hit you with a stick. He'd like to hit you with a stick, but he's afraid you'd hit him back. So instead, he simply proclaims he has more power. He is a better person, has better opinions than you, just an all-around good guy. In a nutshell: he is holier than you.

So for instance, because the puritans were holier than other Christians, they did not accept the authority of protestant bishops. Because they were holier, they did not celebrate christmas, took sabbath more serious than you, took essentially everything about Christianity more serious than you. They were simply better people than you! Charles the first disagreed, hence their banishment.

Just like any artist should reinvent himself to stay relevant, so did the Puritans. Back in the seventeenth century, everyone was Christian, so they were better Christians than you. But as Christianity's influence lessened, the puritans hopped on the enlightenment bandwagon, the idea of the enlightenment being that we had outgrown Christianity and had become rational and scientific. So today's progressives are rational and scientific. Only they are, of course, more rational and scientific than you. See if you recognise the following prog characteristics: - is very proud of driving electric because he cares for the planet - is vegetarian because he cares for the animals - is a feminist because he cares for women - partakes in civil rights activism because he cares for minorities - is horribly hypocritical

I'll put in a small disclaimer: not all SJW's are bad folk. Some are good folk, some are good sometimes, bad sometimes. But it is just like with communism: some communists are good folk, but all communism leads down the same path, for it's meaning, it's telos at some might call it, is always power at the expense of others.

Or, the way Moldbug originally put it: Progressives are bad folk with bad intentions. Opportunists who lie whenever it suits them. BUT, Progressives are also the people who rule the world as prominent politicians, journalists and academics! Which, recalling our opening chapter, goes a long way to explain the trouble we're in.


Liars, grifters and charlatans

So, liars. Bad men. I know, making such a sweeping generalisation goes against modern upbringing: 'you can't say some folk are evil -- it is much more nuanced than that!' Well, sometimes you need fine strokes, sometimes you need broad strokes. And this broad stroke, we'll see, is an essential one. Our society, unfortunately, belongs to bad men.

But... How? Why? Do I have any proof? Well, yes. And so had Moldbug. Plenty of proof. An absolute abundance of it in fact. Liars always leave behind a trail of clues.

Summarising the Puritans' takeover of the world: supposedly, following the enlightenment, the West shrugged off its superstitious religiousness. We instead became a society grounded in Progress and Science. But really, the Puritans were religious zelots, who hid their religious fervor behind those buzz words. Not much has changed since then, even though the Puritans have changed names a couple of times, one such name being Social Justice Warriors.

Because of all this, it stands to reason that when you look closely at the institutions claiming to represent Progress and Science, will you find neither. To follow a religion that denies being a religion necessitates lying all over the place. In the long-term this means liars will be rewarded for bad behaviour, and honest people will be punished for speaking the truth. All of these lies pile up, and in the age of internet are easily found, hard to be censored.

Moldbug gave many examples. Many of them you are likely already familiar with. Like how our politicians are corrupt liars. Democracy, Moldbug said, is a terrible form of government. It is a prerequisite for bad stuff to happen, and it is no surprise that the collapse of the French monarchy coincided with the Enlightenment terror.

But 'democracy' is perhaps too easy to dunk on. What about a hotter subject -- say global warming? Did you know 99% of all man-made global warming talk is absolute bunkum?

Climate change is an excellent example of the invasion by liars phenomenon because it
a) pretends to be scientific
b) is very obviously a huge pile of lies upon closer inspection.

I'll illustrate with a simple multiple choice question: what is the relationship between carbon dioxide and temperature?
a) Linear
b) Exponential
c) Inversely proportional
d) Logarithmic

If you know anything about climate change, you'll be going with either (a) and (b). After all, we are rapidly destroying the planet aren't we? Well, surprise: the answer is (d).

We know much less about the complexities of earth climate than you might think. We know some of the basics, mostly by inferring it through laboratory research. On the relation between carbon dioxide and temperature, we know that greenhouse gases increase earth's temperature by thirty degrees. Carbon dioxide makes up ten percent of that effect. Pre-industrial carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere was 280 parts per million, we are now at about 410 ppm. So that's about fifty percent rise in the last two hundred years or so. If the relation were linear, the math would work out to an equivalent rise in temperature. But it doesn't. What we see in the lab is that the relation is logarithmic, the log base being two, the multiplier being approximately zero point four.

Yes I understand the math will probably bore you, but I'm afraid we have to bite through the sour apple. I'll keep it to the point.

This specific log means that for every doubling in carbon dioxide concentration, temperature increases about 0.4 degrees. Since CO2 has not doubled over the past two hundred years, according to what we know from the lab, industrial CO2 will have increased global temperature with at most 0.3 degrees. And because it takes another doubling to increase it even further, we seem to have pretty much hit the ceiling in terms of CO2-related global warming.

In other words, what scientific investigation tells us, is that we just shouldn't be worried about the carbon dioxide concentration. In a different world, perhaps we should have been, but in this one, based on the scientific findings, we don't have to. Below graphs lifted from whatsupwiththat illustrate the point visually.

Graph one - graph showcasing logarithmic relation between carbon dioxide and reflection of heat in Watt per square meter

Graph two - same graph but starting from zero on y-axis. A logarithmic function is the inverse of an exponential function, meaning vertical growth slows to a halt.

Graph three - the same graph but in a way that displays the increase in temperature for every additional 20 ppm CO2. Every 20 ppm increase above 280 ppm gives us an increase in temperature of about 0.03 degrees, although the more ppm, the lower the increase in temperature.

Graph four - And of course, here comes the kicker: this is the IPCC climate model prediction stuck on top of our (now cumulative) previous graph.

The IPCC graph shows us what everybody is taught: that the world is going to end! We must act now! CO2 free society! This model is taken for granted, and is the foundation for pretty intrusive policy all around the world. After all, don't you want to save the world? But none of it is true! It is in fact, insultingly false, in direct contradiction with the actual experiments. Experiments which at this point go back decades. Yet no one driving these policies seems to care, no global warming expert will even mention something like logarithmic relation. In fact, they will dismiss these findings as 'conspiracy theories' or whatever, no matter that you can actually replicate the research in your own home. How incredibly strange.

Well, Moldbug said it wasn't so strange. He said, basically, that this is what happens when bad people take control: they invent a bunch of bullshit to justify taking your stuff. Global warming is exactly such bullshit, in which saving the planet is used as an excuse to take everybody's stuff. Yes, you have your share of useful idiots, but mostly it's a bunch of liars, grifters and charlatans robbing and destroying civilisation.

Unfortunately, global warming is just one example. Evil people in power means evil activity around the globe. Moldbug summarised this collective of activity as 'the Cathedral', alluding to the scammers' tendency to dress up their lies in religious clothes. Naming the before then invisible beast turned out to be extremely helpful. Nowadays folk all around the world are familiar with the Cathedral, even though they might use a different name, such as the Globalist American Empire (GAE), the International Community, or, derisively, Globohomo.

Because he provided such insight, Moldbug's writing became the catalyst for the intellectual movement known as the Dark Enlightenment, or neoreaction. Reaction because it 'reacted' against democracy, 'neo' because this isn't the first time people react against democracy.


A Story

Before we continue with the history of neoreaction and my humble role in it, perhaps it is good to tell you what this website is about now that you've already come a tiny way. This website is an idea, clothed in a story.

This means that, even though I may not be the best of writers, not a native English speaker, and at times I half-ass entire chapters, it's not such a problem. The form is not the most important thing here. I try to write as clear as possible for you, dearest reader, but what I am really trying to convey is an idea, which I can only vaguely summarise. Have you seen the movie Inception? It's kind of like that, where they try to plant the seed of an idea in someone's brain. Of course, whether or not this idea takes root, I have no clue. I'm just trying my best, y'know?

What this website is intended to be, is to summarise the story of where we currently are, as humanity, as life on earth. Our culture, our zeitgeist, whatever you want to call it. Our story will connect us back to the civilisational past of our ancestors, and project that into the future.

Another way I look at it is to consider life a game designed by some omnipotent programmer. In any game, the objective is to get to the next level. And so is the purpose of this story.

Or, even another way to look at it: what is truth? I know I know, it's all rather grandiose, maybe you'll even find it pretentious, but I'm just trying to provide some context. This is a story meant to be passed on from fathers to sons. If it succeeds at that, I'll let you be the judge.

Anyway, back to where we were.


NRx History

Moldbug was the first of those bloggers, and after him came the Neoreactionary Big Bang: Neoreaction was hot and happening. Blogs popped up like flies in spring. Everyone had a neoreactionary blog, discussed neoreactionary affairs and left neoreactionary comments. Lots of interesting concepts were developed, concepts which I can hardly all do justice. The best collection of posts I can suggest would be LD50's compendium called 'Rx*NRx: A miscellany of reactionary and neoreactionary writing', featuring an extensive selection of blog posts. It is a very pretty book, slick design, white ink on black pages... Here I'll show you mine:

Of course, LD50 was a physical, London based gallery. NRx, from the start, was antithetical to the power of the state. If you discuss how the West has become an evil empire, the elites of that empire are not going to like you. The great majority of neoreactionaries was and has always been anonymous, for this exact reason. As for the not anonymous LD50: they were eventually forced to close down because 'evil alt-right propaganda'. Would not be surprised if bricks and broken windows were involved. So I don't think you can order the book anywhere. But that suits our purposes fine, because I get to tell you my completely unbiased version of Neoreactionary history!

Needless to say, all participants were anonymous, white high IQ men. It felt dangerous to discuss politically incorrect questions, but for many it was just too darn interesting. I presume that, like myself, many felt society was heading off a cliff, but they lacked the words to describe how and why. Also, you could come up with a cool nickname so no one knew who you were. Such anonymity does have its limits, as for instance Mencius Moldbug was doxxed.

An important point of debate was: how bad is the situation really? Are we 50% f*cked, 60% or even 100%?

Well, pretty bad. As Moldbug would say: the cancer is everywhere, the patient is terminal. No transplant will save him. This was by no means a new discovery: it has been long-standing knowledge that democracy is dumb, even the form in which only land-owning men of good standing can vote. And we have a full-blown democracy where women, criminals and foreigners can vote. It is said that the problem with democracy is that it is the voice of the people, but that the people are dumb. There is truth in that -- sometimes you'll find the wisdom of the mob, which youtube dealt with by removing the dislikes, but oftentimes you'll find their madness, say at overcrowded festivals. Still, the even bigger problem in a democracy is that the people don't rule -- they never rule. An elite always rules. A vote, in the end, is just a small cross on a piece of paper. Sooner or later, you get a new elite that will find a million creative ways to generate a billion votes in their favor, be it through importing foreigners, propaganda campaigns or, how it always ends, with simple election fraud. And in line with what we've talked about: if your ruling class resorts to evil ways to stay in power, you bet your ass your ruling class is evil.

But the rot isn't just the political system. It's an entire belief system. Religious, cultural, everything. Every intellectual trend since the French revolution and the Harvard conquest of America has turned out to be maladaptive nonsense disguised as progress. Hence Moldbug's red pill metaphor: we had been living in the matrix and were only just coming to grips with reality. Personally the following he said always stuck with me: 'you'll keep coming back, because the truth is just too damn interesting.' So, if democracy and all it's associated values were bullsh*t, what was the truth?

Over time, a loose consensus was developed as to what Neoreaction, or NRx as the cool kids called it, meant.


Nullius in verba

Much of that consensus was based on Moldbug's writings. Moldbug, after all, embodied that central virtue that attracted so many to NRx: he sought and spoke truth. That seems arbitrary and even silly, but it was crucial. The truth is not often spoken, especially publicly, especially these days. I know I was starving for some truth. Could not find it anywhere. Could not find it in the universities, not in the newspapers, and only random snippets in books. Moldbug's story of how the Puritans conquered the world was the first explanation that finally made sense to me.

How did Moldbug figure that out? By returning to the scientific method. What I mean by that is that Moldbug observed, tested and adjusted his worldview accordingly. Which might sound obvious, but again, I could not find anyone else using the same method. For instance, while at university, I learned that most university research was sloppy, rushed and edited to force the required results.

The gist of the scientific method, on the other hand, is simple: you use your own eyes. This method, though as old as man itself, rose to scientific prominence in the seventeenth century when king Charles the second backed the Royal Society. The Royal Society was a collection of physicians, scientists and chemists who felt that the world could be explored through experimental investigation. For instance, through this method, its initial leader, Robert Boyle, rejected the established 'everything is made of four elements theory' and instead laid the groundwork for modern chemistry. Later presidents would include Isaac Newton and Ernest Rutherford.

The Royal Society's motto, in turn borrowed from the Romans, summarised their method: Nullius In Verba. Take no one's word for it. Which is the opposite of how universities nowadays conduct their research, namely through peer review, where an anonymous committee evaluates your work behind closed screens and you pretty much have to take their word for it.

But on the free anonymous internet, men are free to return to Nullius in Verba. And that's what they did. You'll note that our takedown of global warming theory followed this method. Lucky for us, there are several other topics where reactionaries successfully applied this method.




On a long enough timescale, lies are bland and boring. The truth is juicy. It sticks with you. After I got into NRx I simply stopped caring about mainstream media. I started to understand some very fundamental things.

Let's take economics. I never understood economics in high school. I mean, I understood the basic stuff like supply and demand, but not the more 'complicated' stuff like macro-economics, Keynes and Fisher. It was only through NRx that I understood that high school economics is not meant to make sense.

It is meant to justify the high school's boss, the state, getting up in everyone's business.

Take insurance: historically, the point of insurance was to have a closed group of trustees take care for one another. In modern times, the state forces you to take out many insurances from total strangers in the employ of the state. Insurance companies do not know their customers, their customers do not know their insurance companies, ergo no one trusts anyone and everyone tries to screw everyone over. Nullius in Verba tells us: do not get involved in insurance, unless you actually know and trust the company, which, let's face it, is rare. But high school economics, justifying the state getting up in everyone's business, says: yes well in order to pay for everyone screwing everyone over we just need more useful idiots paying money, so we should make insurance mandatory for everyone. This kind of 'let's solve a shitty situation with more shittiness' is par for a state in decline, and in biology is referred to as parasitism.

Many such examples. Take debt. It never made sense to me that a state could be billions of dollars in debt. If I was a billion in debt, I'd be: a) pretty sure I'ma never be able to repay that b) hiding under my bed for fear of having my face smashed in But the state does not seem to be hindered by neither and is in fact cheerfully borrowing billions more. What's going on?

Well, in a nutshell, because it is borrowing money from itself. The state borrows money from its central bank, the Federal Reserve, and in the case of the euro, the European central bank, the ECB. Ask an economist and you'll be told these banks are of course very much separated from the state. Look at what is going on and you'll quickly see a revolving door in terms of personnel. For instance, who is the head of the central bank at time of this writing? In America, Jerome Powell, who previously worked for the US state department of treasury. In Europe, Christine Lagarde, who previously worked as the French minister of finance. You see the point.

But wait, it gets worse! For where do the central banks get their money from? I found it stupidly hard to find a straight answer. I was told vague terms such as 'quantitative easing' or a 'relief bill'. Which, NRx finally explained, are all euphemisms for printing money. Literally. Or nowadays even easier: digitally. Just add an extra zero. It really is that simple.

But wait, it gets even worse! For it is not just the central banks that create money out of thin air, all the other banks can do it too! The general deal is, for every dollar they actually have in store, they are allowed to lend ten dollar, no matter that the other nine dollar doesn't actually exist.

The path this leads towards on the long run should be clear: economic crisis, hyperinflation. Creating 'free' money has been tried many times throughout history, always with the same predictable results. As Moldbug explained: imagine you have one thousand dollars and I have one thousand dollars, and that is all the money in the world. Now imagine I print two thousand dollars. Previously, you owned fifty percent of the world's money. Now, you only own twenty-five percent. And because money's worth is directly related to its scarcity, you have become twice as poor. This is the standard manner in which socialist parties run their country into the ground: first you hand out free money, then the economy dies because hyperinflation. And socialism is as American as apple pie!

All in all, neoreactionary economics paints a picture of a rather shitty, duct-taped monetary system that relies on those in power not abusing it. And who did we say was in power again..? Oh yeah, bad folk...

So suddenly that 1.9 trillion cover relief bill seems less appealing. Suddenly the government promising more money for this, more money for that, feels like they are offering your cigars to strangers. Which they are. Kind of depressing no? Depressing, but very sensible. Much of NRx fit into that category.



Another topic, arguably the topic ninety-nine percent of NRx concerned itself with: politics.

As we've established, neoreactionaries hate democracy. We find it a shitty system of governance.

Which leads to the big question: why is it shitty?

There's many ways to answer this question. Some give historical examples, some quote Aristotle hating democracy, but I like to answer the question using another of those nifty NRx terms: natural law.

What is natural law? Essentially, it is combining all the insights of (evolutionary) psychology, politics and biology, and saying: 'just like in physics, it is only logical that there are certain laws by which humans and human society operates.' So, just like we'd say that according to E = mc^2, when m increases so does E, so in society it follows that certain societal changes lead to predictable societal outcomes. We call those natural laws, and that democracy is always correlated with a decline of society is such a natural law.

But of course that does not explain the 'why' of the law. So let's talk about that.

Neoreactionaries, really, are just a bunch of hippies wanting to live in harmony with nature. Of course, contrary to hippies, we believe nature is cold and harsh, and that the fittest survive and all that. Which is why we love eating steak, while hippies are malnourished vegetarians.

It is also why we view humans as risen killer apes, and while we may differ from other animals in important aspects, we are very similar in others. To conquer and kill, to build and reproduce, to seek power. "We are but meat golems for our genes" if you will. However poetic you want to wax about it, there is this fundamental biological aspect of humanity which quite accurately predicts what we want and what we do.

So we look at these man monkeys and we say: 'they sure are a busy species. What are they doing all the time?' Many things, of course, but the answer we're looking for is: they are cooperating. Humans, when cooperating, achieve amazing feats, and are much stronger than when alone. Societies, cultures, empires: they are all humans working together on a massive scale. But there is a catch.

Cooperation is hard. When you are merely responsible for yourself, it is also hard, but likely you can trust yourself to look out for yourself. It is much less so in groups. In groups, you need a lot of loyalty to be able to trust one another. Loyalty you probably don't have. Which is why many, if not most members of groups tend to be lazy, inattentive, looking for better opportunities, or whatever.

Now imagine how that scales up to a society...

Which goes a long way to explain how our politicians have the most idiotic debates imaginable. We are witnessing a cooperation breakdown.

But not every group is breaking down. There are in fact many examples of groups still working relatively fine: businesses. Whether it is the contractor and his team building your house, or Amazon delivering a package at your door, they do what they are supposed to do. They work!

Naturally, we look at what it is that makes these businesses work. Which is kind of obvious. Businesses are decidedly not democratic. They are hierarchical: you got the owner, his circle of trustees, and the grunts. It is the same model over and over, no matter the scale of the organisation, perhaps except that the bigger the corporation, the stricter it must adhere to its hierarchy in order to stay functional.

So now we are very close to the 'why' of democracy sucks. Can you imagine Spacex having an election on whether Elon Musk can stay CEO and voting 'nay'? It would mean the literal end of the company. Yet that is exactly how we govern our society. We vote in temporary owners, who because they are temporary are not owners at all, and inspire no loyalty. They are immensely insecure in their power. Which creates a power vacuum that gets filled up by the bureaucracy behind the elected officials, who have much less power, but at least don't lose their position every four years. But it's not like bureaucrats are known for their efficient rule...

So what Moldbug proposed was quite simple: we ought to run our nations as companies, with a CEO at its helm, responsible to its stakeholders. Just like any ordinary business. Which might sound radical until you realise it's how we used to run things for the majority of history -- it's called monarchism. Kings are awesome. They feel responsibility towards their people, they have vested interest in seeing their country do good, and they add that flair of personality that democracy so lacks.

I know, this triggers all kinds of alarms in a democracy. Kings are dictators! Dictators are bad! Evil! Well we disagree. Kings are in line with natural law; just like the alpha gorilla leads his troop, so does the king lead his nation. They may not always be perfect, but they work. They are in line with how humans work.

It is said that every civilisational cycle is as follows: first a strong leader established order and peace. A monarchy is created, possibly with a dynasty. Because no king can rule alone, a strong and virtuous elite grows. After a few generations, the royal dynasty might grow weak and lack a strong successor, at which point the elite steps in and a republic is established. But as we've said, cooperation is hard, and after a few generations, the elite's trust in itself erodes as its ability to govern erodes. To maintain its legitimacy, a democracy is established as to 'share the power fairly'. The same erosion of trust happens with the voters, and in time, chaos and violence grows nationwide. At which point the people cry out for a strong leader, which eventually happens, and the cycle repeats...

Neoreactionaries like order and peace. We admire the great empires of the past, such as the Roman empire, the British empire, the French empire, and yes, even the Dutch republic. We believe that all this wealth and technology we have today was a direct consequence of their rule, and our democratic leaders are rapidly flushing it down the toilet. And that is why all neoreactionaries are monarchists.




Sadly, we do not live in a monarchy. We are democratic citizens, part of the global American empire. As talking heads on the tv'll tell ya: 'we proudly defend the values of our democracy!' Whatever those values may be...

Bad governing sucks. It sucks immensely. If those in power are insane, their insanity spreads and infiltrates to all facets of life. Architecture turns bad. Taxes keep going up. Art goes to shit, including music, film and video games. Prizes keep going up. Goods become unavailable. You can't trust the police, you can't trust the law. Big projects no longer work. Big institutions no longer work. The list goes on...

Take crime, which has increased greatly over the past century. A London mayor might tell us that it is 'part and parcel' of modern life, but that does not mean it has to be. In fact, it wasn't. As Moldbug pointed out: the Romans and Victorian English would be horrified at the amount of crime we suffer in our cities. The notion that you don't feel safe in entire neighbourhoods, even in your own house? Unheard of. And when you are robbed or beaten these days, good luck going to the police. You'll have to invest much time for zero return.

What's even worse, on the off chance you'd catch a thief in your house and knock his teeth out, you may rest assured that you will stand trial for being violent. Moldbug called this state of affairs 'anarchy-tyranny': there is anarchy on the streets, but anyone trying to restore a sense of order will quickly feel the tyrannical fist watching over the anarchy. Just ask the McCloskeys.

At the heart of the problem is that democratic government is in conflict with natural law. That is, democracy is simply not built into mankind. People do not, in their hearts, believe rule by mob is fair, just like no gang of monkeys will be found voting on who their leader should be.

This ties into our natural law on hierarchy: cooperation requires the rule of a few, for a few can rule cohesive. It's an old Machiavellian principle: there is always an elite in control. In a democracy, we are told, the people are in control. But that's just not how life works; it's a lie. In practice we see an elite still in control, telling us what we should think and on who we should vote. Because this entire shtick is based on deception, you might imagine how it grows unstable with time. Democratic politicians cannot not lie -- the job simply demands it.

But since this ruling elite can not officially call itself the ruling elite (after all, it is you, the voter, who is in charge!), their power is insecure. Any lone news reader, any journalist or professor or bureaucrat is expendable. All it takes is one scandal, whether manufactured or not, and out you go. That's just what you get in a low-trust environment. So an unhealthy equilibrium develops, in which everyone is primarily concerned with a) covering their own ass and b) expanding their own power at the expense of everyone else.

It is because of (a) that you will find the bureaucracy so goddamn unhelpful. In any interaction with a state employee, either you are completely rule-compliant or you are a potential liability. Which would still be OK-ish if it were not the case that because of (b), the rules are ever-changing. After all, the only way a bureaucrat can draw in more power for himself or his department is by making more rules.

It is this bloating aspect of democracy that makes it so ugly over time. There's always the same, predictable pattern.

Say there is a problem. It might be a natural problem, it might be iatrogenically caused by the state. The problem might be real, it also might be imagined. These things do not matter so much. What matters is that someone, somewhere, sees an excellent excuse to get involved and expand their power. Members of the state follow an easy four step program:
1. We see a problem.
2. We have to solve this problem.
3. To solve this problem, we need more power.
4. More power.

What does 'more power' mean in practice? It means more rules, regulations and committees. Created because the state wanted power at the expense of others, not because the intent was ever to solve the problem. So inevitably they worsen the problem. Which becomes an excellent excuse to repeat the four step program once again. Everyone loses, but the state wins!

This pattern is ubiquitous in democracies, and you would not be wrong if you thought it resembled socialism. Late stage democracy is indistinguishable from socialism. Take the following examples.

Medicine: the market cannot be trusted to provide healthcare, the state must provide it! But the market can always be trusted for good healthcare, whereas the state always fails at it. Long waiting lists, even longer working hours, unsustainable costs, bloating management. -- state healthcare turns hospitals into the same dysfunctional bureaucracy the state is.

Housing market: the market cannot be trusted to provide houses, the state must provide it! Never mind that the free market has always provided plenty houses. Never mind that open border policies and environmental regulations caused the housing crisis in the first place. Never mind that state buildings have that inevitable brutalist touch to them as no state architect designs with beauty and functionality in mind. None of this matters, except that the state sees a fine excuse to get one more finger one more pie.

Education: people cannot be trusted to educate themselves, the state must provide it! You'll note that nobody ever learns anything useful in primary school, high school, nor university, only that one should sit still, shut up, and recite whatever is written in some state book nobody really cares about. A drop in educational standards you say? Don't worry, the state is closely monitoring the situation, and we can trust it to come up with a solution!

Law: people cannot be trusted to do the right thing, the state must coerce them! As is often complained, in a democracy, you only ever get more rules, never less. It is said that every man breaks, on average, several laws each day. Our societal laws and rules have grown so immensely intrusive that every man is a criminal by law.

The pattern is predictable. It is shameless, it is society-wrecking, it is evil. But what are you going to do? Democratic bureaucracies gonna Democratic bureaucracy. Here's a visual representation.



OK, one more reactionary topic. Biology. A tricky one.

Why tricky? Because a central, if not the most important meme the Cathedral operates on is denial of basic biology. Which is to say, it forces you to lie about very obvious truths, such as that a man can also be a woman. A key reactionary insight was that lies are a fairly effective way for cooperation: if you nod and say 'Caitlyn Jenner is a brave woman' you both signal your allegiance and become complicit in the lie. If, on the other hand, you recoil in disgust, you have put a target on your back as an enemy.

NRx blogger Spandrell explained this strategy very well -- he called it 'bioleninism.' Leninism, he said, is how Lenin and the communists ensured loyalty: the party gave power to the poor peasants, who had never had any before. The peasants knew that they would have nothing without the party, of which Lenin regularly reminded them, and so they stayed loyal to the party. The inverse being that anyone with any nobility, money or status would be excluded from positions of power. After all, if someone can get by fine without you, why would he be loyal?

Our progressive overlords use a very similar trick, only they hand out power based on biology. Hence, bioleninism.

Of course to understand bioleninism we need to address the elephant in the room. What does it mean when we say that 'some people can't handle power based on their biology?' Sounds hella racist. Are we saying that some people can't handle certain tasks based on their genetic makeup?

Yes, that's exactly what we're saying. Nature trumps nurture. You can't train a chimpansee to build an airplane. In a saner world that was common knowledge. In fact it was common knowledge for the longest time. And today still, people instinctively know it to be true and many have trouble squaring the circle of these weird progressive trends. But in the Western elite, bioleninism is the standard, so we get these grotesque spectacles that everyone has to clap along to.

Unfortunately, to reject that, we have to accept being called racists. And truly, we are fine with that. Like many progressive slurs, we think they are just nonsense words that convey no other meaning than 'You belong to the outgroup.' Might as well call me a poopyhead.

The good news is that once we get beyond this black box of bad thoughts, we can actually reconnect to the great scientists of the past and learn a great deal about the world. Neoreactionary interest in biology is, after all, more than opposition to progressive madness. In NRx the study of human biology was called HBD - human biodiversity. I'll admit, I was not a hardcore reader of these blogs. They were fairly technical. Scientific biology is complicated and our absolute knowledge of it quite limited still.

Luckily we don't need to be versed in the Proto-Indo European Y-haplotype in order to talk race. We can just fall back on nullius in verba and say what our own eyes tell us! And one thing they tell us clearly, as Darwin explained a while ago: different races have different ancestry, different abilities, different loyalties. And no, they are not equal.

Let's start with one that pisses off Progressives greatly: blacks. Negroes are, evolutionary speaking closer to plains apes than are most other races. Take IQ for instance.


Black IQ is notoriously low. It is just too low to uphold a complex civilisation. And you can barely change that. General intelligence is about as fixed as height, meaning that you might add or deduct a point of two through nurture, but mostly it's just a manner of the body reaching its natural potential.

It shows in many more things as well. They are more agressive, more prone to short-term thinking, quicker to reach maturity. All this succinctly explains why Africa is by and large a shithole, and why NRx consensus is that Africa did better while still colonised by the white man.

(You might imagine what happens when you put Shaniqua, a ghetto, obese, low-IQ girl, in a high-paying position and tell her she is strong and empowered. She'll receive far too much pay for far too little work. Which means that there will be plenty of people whispering that Shaniqua does not deserve her position. Since Shaniqua likes being important, the whispers will anger her and serve to increase her loyalty to the party, because the party tells her she can do no wrong and contrary to the whispers, will not fire her. That is bioleninism in a nutshell.)

Anyway what are my impressions of the other races...

Asians in general -- conformist, don't cause so much fuzz. Chinese are industrious and smart, but also greedy, sneaky and they seem to have a sadistic streak. Japanese are big children but I totally get why their culture appeals to Westerners. South-east Asians are friendly to be around. Indians and Pakistanis, I trust them as far as I can throw them.

Arabs, I've always found overly rigid in their thinking. But I like their straightforward masculinity. Of the Arabs I like Iranians the most; no mystery there, they are whitest out of all their neighbours.

Generally I dislike Africans. On the northern side of the Sahara they overly aggressive sell you hasjish and all but rob you in broad daylight. On the southern side barely anything functions because of aforementioned reasons.

Eastern Europeans I find comparable to Arabs, though smarter and less cartoonish in their masculinity. I don't know why they play so much counterstrike.

Western Europe I have the most experience with. French and anything further south -- they're relatively lazy and prouder of their culture than they should be. But I generally have no problems with them, even if the EU needs to burn to the ground. North-Western Europeans work hard and are among the smartest. Yes I am patting myself on the back. What can I say, I like living in a country where everything functions. We are a strung-up bunch at times, I'll say that.

Let's see who else... South Americans, I have little experience with. For North America, I have mostly covered the races that traveled there. Otherwise, American women tend to be loud and obnoxious which I guess is what feminism does. As for the men, I am greatly fond of the 'Amerikaner' stereotype which is the gun owning Christian family on the countryside. Less fond of the big city liberal.

Oh yes, the Jews! The Jews are a peculiar people. We will get back to them much later. For now we'll say that NRx initially was slightly shocked to discover that Jews have a disproportionate role in cultural degeneracy after all. Something about a tribe that is forced to roam the earth seems to lead to trouble always...

Finally, gays. Is homosexuality genetic? Is it nurture? Tough to say. One of those open questions still. What we can say is that NRx returned to the biblical position on gays, allbeit from an evolutionary perspective. Homosexuality is a lifestyle of STDs and unhappiness which tries to assert itself at the cost of heterosexual families. It goes against natural law, in other words.

Now, there is one group of humans we ought to talk about. Are they a separate race? Not really... But they occupy a large portion of our mind nonetheless... I am talking about women off course.

What is interesting is that early NRx did not discuss women so much. Moldbug spoke honestly on the races, but avoided the women question. Which was a shame, because perhaps I'd have read early Moldbug if he did. Instead, I have to confess that twenty-year old me had little interest in these dense political discussions I have hitherto summarised. In fact, I did not get into NRx until Moldbug was pretty much retired from blogging, and I had to resort to reading all the backlog. What was I doing before then? Well, my interests were rather more banal... I was trying to get laid.





Part II - Women






It's fairly typical of our time that no one has a good plan for their life, whereas everyone has a bad fantasy of what their life should be. And so did I: I'd been raised to trust the system, and believed what I was told. So I figured that it did not matter what I studied. Surely, I would land on my feet! I did not realise that universities in the 2000's were a complete scam.

But while I was coming to terms with becoming the state serf my college education was steering me towards, I at least had one pursuit that filled me with excitement: game! What is game? Why, it is the art of seducing women! Which is exactly as cheesy as it sounds. There's just as many losers, snake-oil salesmen and general female haters in that business as you'd expect. But there also seemed to be answers I desperately sought. I had been rejected by girls all throughout high-school and dumped by a girlfriend late in college (she 'needed space'). It frustrated me because I was doing everything the way I was supposed to: you were supposed to be a gentle and nice to girls and then they'd reward you with sex.

And then I discovered game.

The history of game is pretty funny. In the early 2000's, a bunch of misfit men try to approach clubbing like playing a video game: every woman they talk to is a mission to see how far you can get. It is robotic and silly, but some man 'crack the code'. One such man calls himself Mystery. He plays the character of a magician complete with eye shade and tall hats. He gets laid and teaches his method to men. A journalist, Neil Strauss, followed Mystery around for a while, wrote an entertaining book on the subject, and boom, the 'gaming community' was born. Turned out there were misfit men everywhere trying to get laid, and plenty of gurus online willing to share their secrets. I found loads of information on the internet. I was very impressed. I read about being alpha, pestering the girl a bit ('neg') and escalating for sex. Stuff I sort of instinctively knew, but repressed because only bad men did stuff like that. Now this is by no means a how-to-get-laid-instructional, but what I learned, and it took me years to really understand this lesson, is that girls love a bit of an asshole with options.

Since game was hot and happening, there were websites where you could find wingmen and even entire communities. The quality... Varied. I remember joining a meet-up where we did 'day gaming' -- approaching women by day, in the streets. Requires massive balls. I met this kid, like really a teenager, who was really into game theory. Wouldn't stop talking about it. He'd stop girls, and start asking them straight up if they had a minute to visualise 'a cube'; which was some story designed to create rapport. It was terribly cringe, and at the time I felt bad for everyone involved. It was also really funny and to this day I respect the brass balls on the kid.

In time I found a group of like-minded men to hang out with. Some of these guys were natural players; one of them, call him 'Tinder Tim', pioneered the art of sex on first Tinder dates, which we found mind-blowing. He casually explained: 'you just meet with them on a square, take them to your place, have some wine and then boom sex.' Others were having threesomes, pulling pretty girls from the club and even having success with daygaming. And I wasn't doing so bad myself either; I actually got laid! With different girls!

That members of our gang were successful was inspiring, but it was also a hint towards a grander sad state of schemes: you couldn't help but notice how quick girls were giving it up. And not just the 'sluts', as haters always point out. It was good girls, bad girls, girls of all types, who were giving it up. If a girl did not give it up for player A, she gave it up for player B. Society encouraged girls to experiment, and all we did was act out the roles of the badboys the could experiment with. Back then I could not put into words what I can so easily now: we were pumping and dumping an entire city of daughters.

As for us: as happy as we were supposed to be, we weren't. It sounds cliché, but having sex with a rotating harem doesn't make you happy. The girls would always cause drama. The men had player burn-out. We were running into the exact same problem Mystery ran into -- you can get laid all you want, but you're still depressed underneath. Turns out that, in the end, we all just want the same thing: love. I know, barf right.

So in the end, I found one girl I particularly liked, and we hooked up. Must've been about eight years ago now. I still love her very much. We have two small kids now. One's watching cartoons on the couch next to me right as I'm typing this. So game worked out pretty well for me.


The difference between men and women

It might sound strange, but my adventures with game were directly tied into neoreactionary theory. There is after all, something strange about a young man like myself having to search the internet for instruction on how to deal with women. Why was I not taught by society? Why was I not taught by my father? Why did finding love mean I had to 'unlearn' most of what I knew beforehand?

I am a practical man, in that I treated learning game like I'd treat learning how to repair a car. At a certain point you know the basics and you can move on with life. For many men, however, game remains this 'dark art' reserved for losers. I have some sympathy for this point of view, although I disagree. Ideally, you'd not have to point too much attention towards it. People fall in love, get married, have families. It's the natural circle of life, right? But I mean... Look around. Just look around. We got incels, simps, divorcees, broken families, women whoring themselves out... It is an absolute mess. Somewhere, ancient knowledge regarding love and relations has been lost. And it was game, later incorporated into NRx, which rediscovered that knowledge.

So, what is this knowledge?

It is of course impossible to summarise women, as any woman will confidently tell you. Yet at the same time, it's not that hard either. So let us give it a try.

Let's start with the fundamental difference: eggs are expensive, sperm is cheap. We are Darwinists here. If the biological goal of life is to survive and procreate, women have a slight edge over men, because a woman's womb is where procreation happens. A woman has but to offer her fertile womb and she shall conceive. She starts life with a fixed number of eggs. Every month, one may be fertilised, until there are none left. Of course, conception for her comes at a high prize - motherhood is a long energy-intensive process.

For men, it is much more hit or miss. Some men will not reproduce. Some will have a few children. And a very few will have dozens if not hundreds of children -- King Salomo boasted a harem of hundreds of wives.

Men produce seas of sperm at a low prize. What's more, they have the option of a hit-and-run; just nut in the woman and disappear! So even though the woman has the power before sex, once the sex has happened, the power dynamic shifts in favour of the man.

But what about the intra-competition between women? And for that matter, between men? You might tell yourself you're in a league of your own, but rest assured she's comparing you to other men. Similarly, you're comparing her to other women. What is each sex looking for in the other?

What do men want? Well, let's be honest: we are simple creatures. Men want a young, pretty, feminine woman. Young means her eggs are at their healthiest, pretty means she has good genes and feminine means she will be a good mother and lover. There is more nuance of course - you might also prefer intelligent women, for instance, but you get the general gist. When a woman sizes up her competition the first question on her mind is always: 'is she prettier than me?'

What do women want? Well, like we've discussed: they want a bit of an asshole with options. But what does that mean? It means that women want the strong horse -- the top dog. Women want the men other women want. Men tend to organise in hierarchies, and women want the guy on the top of the hierarchy. This does not necessarily mean the official hierarchy; it means the real hierarchy, with the alpha on top. What determines who is the alpha? Well, there is some nuance, but it is quite accurate to focus on one single aspect: the ability to do violence. Of course there's more: beauty, intelligence, creativity and whatnot. But the single best predictor for whether a man is getting laid is and will always be his ability to do violence. Power, in the end, all boils down to violence. Women like an asshole because he is not afraid to use violence. Women like powerful men because they have the ability to organise coordinated violence. Women are simple like that.

It is for this reason that women rather sleep with the good-for-nothing drug dealer than with the corporate careerist. The drug dealer will hit her if she gets uppity. To a woman, that means he's sexy. And men know this -- one reason the club is so degenerate is that all the men, in their attempts to impress women, pretend to be violent thugs.

Just to be clear, you don't have to pretend to be a violent thug. Here's what NRx blogger Aidan had to say on the topic: “You do not have to larp as a dumb thug. Your heritage as a European is smart men who were very good at war. Embracing your masculine love of violence as a high-IQ man feels incredibly good. You are going to have much more success with women within your IQ communications range anyway, so might as well learn to live with it. Go for smartiepants girls, and get yourself a group of male friends.”

I fully agree.



This is not an instructional 'how-to-get-laid' story. However, there is one piece of advice that has always stuck with me throughout the years. And that is how to deal with a shit-test.

What is a shit-test? It's this thing women are notorious for doing, of which men often complain and say: why did she create that drama? It made no sense! Well, it actually does make sense from a female's perspective.

A woman wants to know who the baddest man in the room is. But that is easier said than done. If she asks the men, they will all tell her: I am the baddest man around here! So she has to find out more discretely. Which she does rather ingeniously, by stirring up drama. If you are too weak to deal with the drama, it is obvious you are not the baddest man in the room. If you effectively deal with the drama, and many bonuspoints if you recognise her for creating the drama in the first place, you have passed and might just be the baddest man in the room.

Women throw all kinds of shit-tests at their men. It's just an instinctive thing. Although I have been together with my woman for many years, she will still ocasionally throw one at me. I find it helpful. Keeps us sharp. But naturally, the heaviest shit-testing is always reserved for the early mating phase, when you are both still unsure where to go. Sometimes she will suddenly act weird, she might insult you out of the blue, she might change her opinion a couple of times. Women are wonderful at inventing plausibly deniable shit-tests. They are easier to deal with when you keep in mind that her throwing a shit-test at you means she is interested in you. She just wants to see how you deal with her shit, because if you are able to deal with her shit, you are likely able to deal with the rest of the world's shit. Which is not to say that some women will demand absurdly criminal behavior from you to pass their shit-test. Sometimes it's healthier to just walk away.

Now here is the tricky part: sometimes it's not a shit-test. Sometimes she is just genuinely bothered by something and want it addressed. Knowing the difference when to take her serious and when not is, to my mind, the biggest sign of a man who knows his way around women. Yes, you can swat her down all the time -- works better than the opposite. But women are intelligent and helpful, and they see many things that men tend to miss. I have learned many things from my wife, and I intend to keep doing so.

So in conclusion: in dealing with women, a man's got to have one fist of steel and one hand of velvet, and to know when to use which one. And that's all the advice on women I offer.


The prisoner's dilemma

Here's a different, but similar way to view love and relations: economically, as a market. We rate everyone's attractiveness on a scale from 1 to 10, and watch how numbers of similar size match up. It's a bit crude, but it makes intuitive sense, right? There's supply and demand of women, just as there's supply and demand of men. It's the free market at its best!

Only, as we've seen, the dating market can be a difficult place to navigate. Especially these days. Something seems to have gone very wrong. We've gotten heaps of divorces and broken families. Lots of unhappy women who slept with many men. Lots unhappy men who slept with very little women. What is going on?

Well, as the theory goes, flowing from the previous chapter, there is not exactly an equal exchange of goods on the dating market. You might imagine that a 6 hooks up with a 6, an 8 with an 8 and so on. But men and women are different! They want different things, they behave differently. Sperm is cheap, so a man will grab what he can get -- might not be the prettiest woman, but hey, still had sex. Eggs, however, are expensive, so a woman is picky. Which means that in practice, women are always looking for the biggest alpha. But the pyramidical nature of the male hierarchy means that she is looking for mister 1-in-30, ignoring misters 29-in-30. Another problem is that mister 1-in-30 is an asshole with options, and so the relation is unlikely to work out. In other words, in the free and unrestricted sexual market place, women hook up with badboys who pump and dump them. Which a woman tends to keep doing until she hits thirty and her beauty starts to fade. At this point she has a 'change of heart' and is ready to settle down with the nice guy she ignored for so many years. Naturally, she will compare the boring nice guy to all the adventurous badboys she's been with, so you might imagine how that works for the stability of the relationship... Hence the common complaint that modern women are bitchy, unhappy, and unfeminine.

Here's a visual illustration of the principle:

There's also this meme statistic of how women and men rate each other differently on dating sites, which illustrates the same point: men rate women on a bell curve with its peak in the middle, women rate men with a heavy skewer towards the top.

With this in mind, the craziness of modern dating makes a lot of sense. The average man, in today's dating market, simply loses out. He is not mister 1-in-30, and so the best he gets is leftovers, if he gets any. Which is why many men are either incels (involuntary celibates) or even drop out of dating completely as MGTOW (Men Going Their Own Way). Better to play video games in mom's basement and jerk off to porn than be rejected time after time after time.

As I alluded to, I refused that fate and turned to game. Which we now understand, is nothing more than learning you a bunch of tricks to pretend to be mister 1-in-30! Well, pretend is the wrong word, because women are pretty good at sniffing out pretenders. But statistically, it is impossible for every man to be the biggest alpha, and so putting on a little show is an inevitable part of seducing a woman. Which again, I personally attest, works.

So at this point you might think: 'OK, so the average man loses out, the average woman loses out, but I guess mister 1-in-30 is the only one who wins? Well, no, not really... Players are unhappy for the simple reason that it is better to have one bird in your hand than ten in the sky.

The extreme version of a player is a pimp. A pimp is a loser -- he is constantly managing women's impressions: acting as if he is capable of much violence, as if he is mister 1-in-100, because that is what women want. All pimps dress as if they are mister 1-in-100, all pimps hit their women: because that is what their women want. But it is very tiring for the pimp, and most woman will eventually call your bluff: if you're really that tough, why don't you kill this other man competing for my attention? And most of the time, for reason X Y Z, you are in no position to kill the other man. There's always mister 1-in-200, and for mister 1-in-200, there's always mister 1-in-500...

So in short, everybody loses! The only way to win is to grab yourself a pretty lady and get out as soon as possible. But it is easier said than done...

There is a way to model this problem with one of the few mainstream ideas neoreactionaries actually are fond of: the Prisoner's dilemma. The prisoner's dilemma, in a nutshell, is when two parties (two prisoners) have the choice to cooperate or betray one another. If they cooperate, they'll get a bit of prison time, but not that much. However, if one prisoner betrays the other, he'll receive a reduced sentence, while the other prisoner will get maximum time. But, if they both betray each other, they'll both get maximum time.

Reactionaries love this model because it illustrates a core problem of society: getting people to work together is hard. Ideally, you'd want both prisoners to be in cooperate/cooperate equilibrium (top left in the picture), as it is the best for all parties. But choosing what is best for you at the expense of others is just so tempting! And if that's what both parties do, you end up at defect/defect and everybody's worse off...

Which is exactly what is going on with the modern dating market: men and women are stuck in defect/defect. Women date the guy all her friends warn her about (defect) or end up lonely spinsters with cats. Men play the role of asshole (defect) or end up lonely bachelors with video games.

The end result is that you get a culture with cheap hook-ups, one night stands and insecure relationships. A society filled with sluts, incels, broken families and so on. That is what defect/defect equilibrium gets you, and it fits our theme of a society in decline perfectly.


From PUA to the Manosphere to NRx

Although we have pretty much completed our journey from getting laid to the intricacies of the dating market, let's summarise this journey in chronological order.

At first, you had the Pick-Up Artists, or the PUAs. They were kind of sleaze bags who figured out that if you'd said things an asshole would say, women would have sex with you. They then taught men these 'secrets' for money.

But even though PUAs had a fairly good understanding of female psychology, they were not yet able to see the bigger picture. There was an infamous incident in which Julien Blanc, a coach from a big PUA company got caught up in a scandal. What he'd do? He posted a video in which he boasted to his students that, while in Tokyo, he'd push women's faces towards his crotch and yell 'Pickachu!' Not exactly a class act, but very much in line with what we know works with women. But the video went viral and the media attacked full frenzy -- he was a rapist, a woman-hater, a predatory man. In fact, it grew so big that Julien was banned from entering the UK, Singapore and Australia!

In order to calm down the situation Julien went on CNN in which he apologised profusely for his terrible, terrible deeds. At the end of the day, the PUA industry is an industry after all, and Julien's publicity was costing his company money. Accepting his public humiliation, the media frenzy went away and Julien's company, although laying low, continued selling its courses to men.

PUA Mystery

But marvellously, on the internet, information wants to be free. You can sell all the $999,- (OFFER ONLY LASTS TWO MORE HOURS) courses you want, soon all these PUA 'secrets' were openly discussed on the internet. Men did start to think about the bigger picture -- what did it mean that Julien was treated like an international terrorist? Why was he cancelled for teaching men how to get laid? An online movement started to grow, collectively known as: the manosphere.

The manosphere took PUA teachings to the next step. Since women and men really were so different, it made no sense to treat them as if they were the same. The manosphere rejected feminism. Instead they promoted traditional masculinity: muscles, beards, sunglasses, slapping uppity women, that sort of thing. To be part of the manosphere meant to unapologetically be a man.

It also meant to rebel against society. A manospherean, unlike a pick-up artist, would tell the media to go f*ck itself when attacked and/or banned from countries. Which is exactly what Manospherean Roosh V did when he was accused of very similar things Julien Blanc was accused of.

Manospherean Roosh

The manosphere understood many other issues the PUAs missed. They understood that modern dating life was lose/lose. While Pick-Up Artists would say hilarious bullshit like: 'you must leave the girl better than you found her', Manosphereans talked about the 'thousand cock stare' you could see in certain girls' faces. Again, the metaphor of the red and blue pill returned: blue pill meant being deluded about the nature of women, red pill meant to accept it.

But as much as the Manosphere rallied around these truths and rejected modern society, they ran into the classic problem of the contrarian: what was their alternative? Did they have a solution?

Well, somewhat. It was generally agreed upon that things used to be better in the past, when men and women got married early and did not party away their best years. But that went further than rejecting just the latest wave of feminism. Frivolous divorce goes back at least 50 years. Female suffrage goes back over 200 years. Understandingly, manosphereans had a hard time figuring out what life in that time was like. Generally, the reasoning was that 200 years ago, society was patriarchal, so patriarchy must have been good. But what did that look like? And how the hell were you supposed to accomplish that in a society that only allows the exact opposite?

Some manosphereans had some ideas. But it seems to be a rule for intellectual movements that they can only rally around their founding idea. The manosphere meant opposition to feminism, embrace of masculinity. Once its members understood that, they might expand on those ideas, but find little or rather scattered support in the community. So in the end, manosphere activity fizzled and ended.

Nonetheless, I, like other men, did feel like expanding on those ideas. For there was somewhat of a shared goal men were coming to, that goal, despite all the tough man language, being almost cute: 'I just want to be happy, with a wife, some kids and a nice house.' But how to get there...?




Late stage NRx

Around this time I felt I understood the women thing and it got me wondering what else I was lied to about. One blog led to another and that I how I rolled into NRx, to which, as I've said before, I arrived late. Now I did not understand it at the time, but NRx in its late stage was suffering from the same problem as the manosphere: it had exhausted its founding idea, namely: opposition to democracy, embrace of monarchy.

But it has to be said: that is an extremely potent idea. At its peak, the neoreactionary blogosphere was a rich ecology of many different branches. Let's enjoy ourselves and take a bird's eye view of those branches, shall we?

There were three NRx 'factions', so to say. All of the factions agreed on the founding idea and really agreed on many other things as well. But they emphasised different parts of the story.

Let's start with the techno-commercialists. It included folk like Nick Land and Moldbug. The techno-commercialists imagined what would happen if Steve Jobs or Elon Musk ran the country. They wanted countries to be run like CEOs run their companies. A CEO-king. Which makes much more sense than you might think. Everything that has ever been made has been made by tiny CEO-king. Every single company, after all, works as a monarchy, led by a CEO. There is no such thing as a company that works democratically, because it would go broke within a week. Monarchy works, and all the stuff you use proves it. So, use what works and drop what doesn't. Smart people doing smart things. CEO-king. It's monarchy, but with stockholders and double-entry accounting.

But then you had this other group, the theonomists. The religious folk. It had guys like Nick B Steves and Jim. They said: 'well that's all fine and dandy, but you nerds have no tribe, no sense of loyalty. You are fighting an evil religion, and to fight an evil religion you need a good religion, like Christianity.'

In mainstream philosophical debate, this used to be where atheists would respond 'shut up religion is dumb'. But in NRx, the theonomists' point could not be denied. Progressivism really is this evil religion in which, for instance, children are sacrificed to demons. For instance, progressives demand that your kid sit on the lap of a drag queen, and if you refuse you are a racist and bigot. Or, higher up the ladder, you've got actresses boasting that they wouldn't have gotten their golden statue if she didn't have that abortion. Such things are very intuitive to understand as demons demanding sacrifice. Note that I'm not saying that demons are real. Just that it is very interesting that modeling reality as if they were real works out surprisingly well.

So all in all, religious morality suddenly made a lot of sense. But since many neoreactionaries were not Christians, there was a slight communication gap. Nick Land came up with the solution: he proposed 'Gnon': Nature or Nature's God. Gnon was a deity that presented both God and natural law, natural law meaning mostly Darwin and the insights that follow from evolutionary psychology, and God meaning... Well, God.

Finally you had the ethnicists-nationalists. Spandrell was in this camp. They were into HBD, physiognomy and eugenics. The guys who were most at risk of being called Hitler. But again, their arguments made too much sense to be ignored. And they had very little to do with Hitler anyway. If it weren't telling enough that Moldbug is of Jewish origin, the NRx opinion on Hitler is simple: Hitler was a leftist. Like pretty much everyone in the twentieth century, all the cool kids were communists or socialists at the very least, be it in the West, center or East. Hitler happened to be a national socialist who emphasized socialism for the Germanic worker class, but he was a socialist nonetheless, and all his policies showed. Calling neoreactionaries nazis is thus in the same camp as calling them racists -- might as well call us poopyheads.

So what were the ethnicists-nationalists saying? They said:'that's all nice and dandy about having a religion, but we don't have one. Christianity is cucked, probably dead. Islam is hip and happening. Tribes are mostly genetic, and have you been paying attention to the borders recently? We are flooded with immigrants who share neither our culture, our history and our genes. They have average iq's of about eighty points and no loyalty to our customs whatsoever.

Ah yes, the biology thing. As the saying goes, whites invented and maintain the electrical grid, browns can barely maintain it, blacks can not maintain it. As the other saying goes: proximity + diversity = war.

There are many reasons why leaky borders are an excellent marker of civilisational decay. There's the historical reason: the Roman empire declined in direct proportion with its inability to keep barbarians out. There's the biological reason: a functional body is picky about what it allows in. This goes for all forms of life, including cells, of whom the effectiveness of their cell membrane is a direct reflection of their health. Yet here we are, as nations, with virtually no functioning border, and with every politician informing us of the 'need to care for refugees'.

It is worth a small pat on the shoulder that in NRx, the permanent problems of mass immigration were discussed in the late 2000s, early 2010s. The actual immigration crisis, as in how everybody discusses it nowadays really only started around 2015. I remember this distinctly, because before that time it was lonely to be a neoreactionary. I would argue that society was going downhill, but average folk, especially in the Netherlands, would say that we are living in the wealthiest, happiest, most advanced cvilisation in the history of mankind. Reactionaries would retort that technological advances mask social decay, but it was no use. You were essentially making the argument that the world was crazy, not you. And so, when the immigration crisis hit, I was almost happy: 'you see, I told you sh*t is f*cked up!' And oh boy did I get to say that again many times...

The thing was that ethnicist-nationalists had no solution to this problem, short of mad fantasies of ethnic genocide perhaps. Spandrell especially put it very straightforward: maybe it is simply the end for the white race. There is no rule that we have to survive. Maybe we won't. Which others disagreed with. But it was telling of the situation NRx eventually found itself in. On the one hand you had these riveting discussions of truths long-lost. On the other hand they were reaching a depressing conclusion: we weren't going to have a monarchy. We weren't going to stop demons. We weren't going to turn around mass immigration. As Spandrell would say: we were all drowning, and help was not on the way.


NRx dies

Despite the pessimism, most reactionaries would still like to fix the problem. Surely, something should be done! Heated debate followed. A general points of agreement was: you cannot fix the system from within. For instance, since democratic right wing parties are effectively controlled opposition, it is of little use to join them. Starting your own right wing party and participate in democratic politics was equally frowned upon. You would be stopped in a thousand manners that would be highly illegal, but reported upon in the media as just and fair. As for protesting and rioting - forget about it! Only works when those in power want you to riot and reward you for doing so. If they don't have your back, it will end bad. All this theorizing would be confirmed as accurate a couple years later, when BLM protestors who burnt and looted neighbourhoods were protected and saintified, while covid protestors were knocked down and arrested.

So what do? The obvious solution was to build new systems. But how do you do that? Especially when this old system is breathing down your neck? Moldbug had a few ideas. One of them was building a so-called 'antiversity', as a counter for the university. Just like universities spread lies, so would the antiversity spread truth. Truth, insofar it is useful truth, can assist in the gain of power, so in time, the antiversity would become a powerful institution to which people, and most importantly, the elite, flocked. The idea was that you do not challenge power directly, but instead offer a better alternative. In Nietzschean terms, you'd become worthy of power, and thereby in time assume power. Or as the Chinese called it: those worthy of rule will receive heaven's mandate, or Tian Ming.

The gist of this idea still stands, and really is the core idea of any reactionary movement. We are in the business of spreading memes! In this sense, this entire site is a proud antiversity branch.

But the solution went further than just the spread of memes, even if that is a core part. We'd need not just alternatives for universities, we would require alternative systems for all the instititions overtaken by progressives, up and until eventually the political system. Unfortunately, this turned out to be quite the challenge...

The first real attempt at reactionary organisation was Hestia society. Hestia was a secret society, explicitly serving as an antiversity for the gain of power. It's online flagship was Social Matter, on which articles were posted. They even had a public forum. I was not on the inside, so I can only describe what I saw from the outside. Which is that it started out well enough, with some established names taking part. The website design was very slick. Initially they had some quality articles, including one by an undercover Moldbug. But in time, quality deteriorated. They made some questionable choices, for instance to exclude 'dangerous' reactionaries for the sake of PR. Less articles were posted and the forum died. In the end, the website's plug was pulled.

What happened? Well, as the story goes, the organizers simply did not agree on what direction Hestia had to take and it fell apart due to infighting. I do not mention this because I want to point any fingers. Rather, I appreciate the effort and would like to use it as a learning opportunity to name a very persistent problem in human cooperation: entryism.

So far in cooperation we have encountered one big problem: that a movement can only stick to its original idea, and if that idea is exhausted, the movement falls apart. But here we have our second problem: entryism. Entryism is when the original idea is subverted by those hostile to it. These days it is better known as 'shilling', a shill being a paid mole. The thing about shilling is that there are many levels of it -- yes, it is standard operation procedure for governments to employ shills. It is very useful, both to gather intel and to disrupt enemy communications. But shilling comes in other forms too. For instance, although one may not rule out paid shills in Hestia, it is fairly safe to assume they were not yet important enough for shills to be sent to. Yet, Hestia did have an unpaid shill problem.

In terms of the prisoner's dillema, a shill is just someone who is secretly defecting on the group. He does not necessarily have to be paid to do so. Using the group for your own gain is often beneficial, and if the group has no safeguards against that kind of behavior, it falls apart, the safeguard of course being adherence to the original idea of the group.

In the case of Hestia, we must admit that the original idea was very vague, arguably making it impossible to protect against shills. 'We must become worthy to attain power.' What does that even mean? I guess there was some sort of many-year plan to build a network of based monarchists, but in practice I'm sure it was a bunch of dudes downing beers, spitting hot takes. Or rather I'd hope.

The death of Social Matter coincided with the death of NRx. People pretty much discussed what was to be discussed. Blogs shut down, conversation wilted. So, what were the final takes?

There were a couple of them. We've heard about Moldbug's one: build the antiversity, convert the elite, put a crown on the head of a billionaire CEO. Moldbug has always stayed true to this vision. He did get doxxed and is nowadays known under his real name, Curtis Yarvin. This has caused him predictable grievances, such as that he was denied his own bank account. But otherwise he has impressively turned himself into a reactionary pundit and has been a guest on several right-wing media outlets.

We've also heard Spandrell's take: shit's going down, we're not going to save Western civilisation. Maybe the white race will disappear completely, who knows. Move outside American hegemony before it's too late. This is, last I heard, also what Spandrell himself has done.

Then there's a couple of other takes. For instance, Nick Land, among many other ideas, promoted accelerationism -- the idea that you might as well encourage trannies and gays and whatnot, because the sooner this wretched scum of a society crashes, the better. Personally, I like it when society functions, but it's an interesting take nonetheless.

Here's a fun one from ReactionaryFuture: absolutism, which was essentially neoreaction on steroids. "It's not just that we need a king, it's that all our problems can be solved by channeling as much power as needed to that king." I always took this as a shill take -- no one man should and could have all that power. There is a natural limit to what one man can do, and he does best not to overstep it. Sun king Louis the XIV was an absolutist, and he ran into all the predictable problems that those who want to fly too close to the sun run in to. Chief among them was that he could only be in one place at the time, but since he wanted to control everything he created an army of bureaucrats to help him out. Of course it was this same bureaucracy which, two kings later, led to the overthrow of the French monarchy... Which is why NRx generally advocates feudalism, or more specifically: that the king delegates responsibilities to his elite as much as he can as not to overstretch himself.

Another take, by Jim. Jim's advice was initially similar to Spandrell's, all be it that Jim also advised having several fake identities including fake passports and fake addresses. But over time Jim hoped for a strong leader to take control and re-establish order. This was a somewhat mainstream NRx idea espoused by Moldbug too. The historical parallel was the late Roman republic, which was decadent and corrupt until Caesar crossed the rubicon with his army and took control. But Jim opined that just having a strong leader was not enough -- he had this yin/yang idea in which a strong warrior can not reign without a strong religion. "When our Caesar arrives, he will need a priesthood to back him up". But what priesthood? Spandrell's response to this question was that, yes, we need a new religion, but since we don't have one and since Christianity is dead in the water, it's simply not an option. Jim however insisted Christianity was not dead, and that we should return to it.

Finally there's my take, since at this point I was contributing, yay. I'm not going to tell my take yet though, for it is still too early and too cringe. We'll get to it in time. Suffice to say that although I did not consider myself a Christian, I was an immense Jim fanboy. I saw Jim as the natural continuation of Moldbug's ideas, and over time as much more. I mean, maybe you thought we've covered all there is to cover, but oh boy are we about to go down the Jim rabbit hole and discover a whole new level...


Part III


Make women property again

So in what way did Jim differ from Moldbug? Well let's dive right into probably the biggest one: the women question. If you recall, Moldbug didn't touch the WQ. To my great frustration, because here were these two world, the manosphere and NRx, that I had trouble merging. That is until Jim addressed the issue. Jim was never one to beat around the bush and his stance on women was simple: 'make women property again'.

Perhaps this still offends your sensibilities. But perhaps not. After all, for the majority of history, women were property. Let's walk it through, shall we.

Last time we discussed women, we addressed a problem that we did not completely solve. Namely, that women
a) like violent men
b) in a free and open sexual market keep relationship-hopping until their looks and fertility fade

On the male side, we see that men either drop out of the dating game completely or that they play the game of players and bitches in which they bang girls for a short while. We compared this situation to the worst outcome in the prisoner's dilemma: defect-defect. Everybody loses.

How to turn this around? Well one way is to learn game, wade through a sea of sluts until you find a woman you like. This is what I did. But it is a rather depressing method. Should there not be a more sustainable way? Yes there should be, there in fact was, and there could be again. And that is Jim's solution.

Just like Moldbug called out global warmists as charlatans, so did Jim call out the emancipation movement. Jim argued that emancipation, historically, has always been a sign of civilisational decay. Not only has it never worked, it actively ruins relations between the sexes. This millenium-long tradition of patriarchy which feminists always railed against? It worked. It was great. But I am strong and independent! says woman. Well you are quite strong but you are also quite dependent.

What it all comes down to is that, for whatever reason, society is at peace when women are treated as property by men. Well, not for whatever reason, because in a way it is very obvious. It is a natural law: cooperation is hard, and in order to cooperate, just like any society needs a king, any family needs a patriarch. It seems like some kind of evolutionary specialisation mechanism is at play: by not being responsible for big decisions, women have specialised in operating within the framework of these bigger decisions. Like how a woman never knows what she wants in life, but exactly knows what bathroom she wants. Similarly, a man might have all these grand ideas of how he will grow his business, but he cannot even clean his socks. Specialisation.

The working theory is that life on earth started out unisex, as tiny cellular organisms that multiplied through mitosis. As time went on, life grew more complex, and recombination of DNA proved to be more effective at evolutionary adaptation than cloning. So sexual bifurcation happened, although fluid at first. Many species of fish can switch between sexes at will. But again, as time went one, sex specialisation proved to be more effective at evolutionary adaptation than arbitrary sexes. One sex specialised in violence, the other in family. Fast forward a couple of million years: mankind descends from killer apes, who cooperated to murder the male apes from other tribes and take their women. And we today are not far off from that. Women have always been spoils of war. Boiling it down as simplistic as possible: men are war-machines, women are breeding-machines. It is the war-machine that safe keeps the breeding-machine, not the other way around.

Perhaps there are more elegant ways to say this. But then again, perhaps not. It's just one of those things that everyone with a happy marriage knows, even if they are unable to verbally express it. Women like being owned, and men liked to own women. It's not like owning a piece of furniture nor like owning a dog. It's like owning a woman, y'know?

So what are some implications for this meme? Well first of all, we can explain why females like violent men: it is because violence is the best indicator of strong ownership. He who is violent tends to be the boss, and women want to be with the strongest boss.

Why do females shit-test? Because they want to make sure that their men are still in control of the situation, so they test their resolve. From this perspective there is no erratic, emotional or hormonal behaviour: it is all very logical. Women depend on their men, so they occasionally test whether their dependence is still justified. If a man shows repeated weakness, fails several tests, she'll start looking for another man.

Another implication is the Jimian 'emancipation-fertility hypothesis'. If women *like* being owned by strong men for evolutionary reasons, it follows that there must be a biological pay-off, eg they procreate when owned, and will not, or very little, if not. Which is exactly the pattern we observe all over the world: emancipation directly and most strongly correlates with lower fertility rates. War, poverty, technological progress, nothing makes as much a dint. But not emancipation. Women want to feel owned, and if they do not feel comfortably owned, they do not feel comfortable in having children. So feminism is not just a matter of inconvenience, it is a matter of survival. Emancipate your women, and they stop having children. Today's women are having about 1.7 children, which is well below the infamous 'safe zone' of 2.1. Trace the line over the past century and the dramatic downward trend is undeniable. What only makes matters worse is that in the absence of male owners women vote in favor of mass immigration, in hopes that perhaps they will take ownership. After all, evolutionary speaking, Stacey's current office job with no kids and one cat is an evolutionary dead-end, while if she were forcibly married off and have five children... Well she wouldn't exactly be in a worse position, would she? At any rate, Western demographics speak for themselves. It resembles what I'd call slow, ritualistic suicide. A mirror of the decline we see in other aspects of life.

Jim says: return the property rights of women to their rightful owners. An unwed girl is the property of her fater, and later, when she marries, she is the property of her husband. There is no such things as marital rape: a husband is free to do with his wife as he pleases. That does not mean women have nothing to say. Quite the contrary: nature has, after all, given women precious eggs, and men thirteen a dozen sperm. Women by nature have too much power for men to ever take away.

By universally acknowledging property rights, you instantly solve this whole modern dating mess. No more sleeping around for young women -- if she is caught doing so, she'll be shotgun married off to the man she was sleeping with. No more incel armies -- if a young man is an upstanding member of his community, he will find plenty of women whose fathers will approve their marriage. And finally, no more fear of frivolous divorce, for if a man is publicly expected to pass a woman's shit-tests, he will actually be able to pass those shit-tests. Happy wife, happy life. It is win-win all around.

One last thing. Some folk you can never convince of such obvious truths. Where do you get the preposterous idea from that women like to be owned? If that were true why did they fight for emancipation? Well I mean... I simply observe it. When I treated girls as if they were independent, they dumped me. When I treated them as if I had the rights to their body, they loved me. As simple as that. The one nuance I can give is that women are very often blissfully unaware of their own behavior. For instance, women naturally put up resistance against men taking ownership of them. This resistance completely disappears once ownership is successfully taken, revealing it was a test all along to see if you were strong enough to take ownership. But some see only the resistance and conclude that women do not like being owned. To this I can only say: to each their own. People have their reasons for being blind to the truth, and some of them are surprisingly valid.


Warriors, priests and social technology


The division between warriors and priests was another idea, discussed in NRx, that Jim fleshed out, or rather revived, as it used to be well-known in the Medieval ages. The idea is essentially that in order to have a functioning society you need two parties working together: first, the warriors, meaning the king and his army, ready to use violence on anyone who challenges their position. And second, the priests, who give the rationale for why it is good that the king and his army are in charge. The priests are important, but ultimately, the king is in charge. As the old joke went, NRx were a bunch of nerds who argued that it was good that the jocks were in charge.

But we've talked about the king part. Let's talk about the priest part. What does it mean to be part of a priest class?

Well, obviously it somehow relates to a religion. We have touched on the religion part briefly before -- in NRx, religion is taken seriously. Very seriously in fact. Well to be fair, not by all in NRx. Sadly, this is where we definitively say goodbye to Moldbug, for Moldbug did not touch this topic either, even though it became a crucial discussion point in later NRx.

The NRx love affair for religion is perhaps easiest to explain through the concept of social technology. Just like you have technology to build cars and airplanes, so you have social technology to build families and societies. A technological manual might instruct you on how to repair a leaking valve. A social technological manual might instruct you on how to repair your marriage. Said differently, social technology is but the collection of a society's norms and values, which, hopefully, serve to help you navigate the complexities of life as best as possible.

Religion, according to the Dark Enlightenment, is the most effective manner of social technology. Think about it - it is authoritative, in that it each religion claims to be backed by the most powerful deities in the universe. It is complicated, but at its core very easy to understand -- everybody knows the story of Jesus. It creates a tribal feeling - 'us' Christians, 'us' Muslims and so on. And also it is literally filled with life lessons -- don't steal, don't covet, don't blaspheme, turn the other cheek and so on.

For all these reasons, religion, more than any single philosophy, has stood the test of time. This is also what separates NRx from all academic philosophy -- it's not that we don't think some philosophers, some times, say smart stuff, it's just that we don't think philosophy is effective social technology. Does anyone, besides a few philosophy majors who are up their shoulders in debt, care about [insert philosopher name]? I did not think so. Long esoteric books don't scale well outside niche college networks. Said differently, neoreactionaries think philosophers are failed priests.

So naturally that means neoreactionaries tend to think of themselves as priests. But for what religion? Ah, that's where it get's interesting... But just before we delve into that, one final remark. Religion is in large part about separating good from bad. It has no problem saying this is good, this is evil, and one might even argue that that is a core function of religion. It makes simple moral judgments. You'll note this fits reactionary analysis like a glove -- whether you believe commandment [A] must be obeyed because God said so, or whether [A] must be obeyed because it is in line with natural law makes little difference. Both lead to the same desirable outcome: peace and prosperity. So even from a non-religious standpoint NRx led to a simple conclusion: there is good in this world, and there is evil. Just like most religions will tell you. Which leaves only one question: which religion should we follow?


Jim's blog

BUT before we get into that mainstream good stuff, we must first stay in our post-NRx bubble a little longer. After all, I, perhaps quite randomly, give an extremely favorable impression of Jim. Who is this man and what makes him so special?

Well, in a nutshell, Jim is, in my eyes, the man who brought neoreaction full circle. Internet reactionaries felt something was wrong with the world as is, and at first could not explain it, until Moldbug explained it. But just because you have the right diagnosis does not mean you have the cure. Jim explained the cure. Turns out, the cure is pretty old. On his blog, Jim's blog, Jim embodies the wisdom of ancient men, the link to our forefathers, which link is mostly lost and forgotten in these days. This wisdom is what gives meaning to life, to civilisation, and without it we wither like flowers. It is so important in fact, that this is core of what this story is about. And Jim, whether or not he is the focal point of our story, is an important conduit of that message.

So, what is this 'ancient wisdom'? Well, just like game, it is hard to put into words. But in the end we have put game into words pretty well, so let's try and start putting this wisdom into words as well.

A good start is Kipling's poem 'The Gods of the Copybook Headings.' You may read the poem if you want to. I have, and thought it was OK for a poem. I'm not much into poetry. But I am into a good idea, and the idea behind the poem is great. 'Copybook Headings' are ancient proverbs and wisdom, and the poet laments that these are forgotten. And they are.

Life is hard. Well I mean, in a certain sense it is very simple; you eat, sleep, fuck, have a kid, work and one day you die. But the way all those facets tie together... With technology, society, cultures, and whatnot... It is hard. Life is hard. And the more you zoom out, from the individual to a collective, the more complex it gets. Which is why we have ancient wisdom and traditions -- they are instruction manuals that guide us in how life works. Old people pass them down to young people, and when the young people become old, they pass it on to the new young people. Such wisdom can be conveyed in different ways - in stories, expressions, rituals, books, or these days, memes. Some are funny, some are highly context-dependent, some are dated, but all follow that same spirit of helping you and those around you ease your life.

The thing about such wisdom is that, contrary to popular belief these days, it does not change that much. Or rather, it changes, but the fundamentals, the copybook headings so to say, remain. Jim would for instance argue that whether you have a fridge or a grocery man delivering fresh food, it does not matter so much. Food preservation techniques have been around for ages. And the same goes for pretty much all amazing inventions; electricity is upgraded fire (energy), cars are upgraded horses (motion), and the internet is upgraded clay tablets (communication). You'll forgive me for grossly simplifying, but I hope to make a necessary point. Part of the trouble we're in is because we are bamboozled by the supposition that the modern age is different from the ages before it. Supposedly, our society is transformed, revolutionised thus that we don't need the wisdom of our ancestors. They were probably racists and slave-owners anyway. Heck, we don't even need the wisdom of our grandparents. What do they have to teach us anyway. They're old. They can't even send a text message.

And in part that's true. In fact I'd argue that in part we simply don't know what to do with our newfound, civilisational wealth. Our old wisdom is *sort* of applicable, but what does it have to say about electricity, cars and the internet? Much less about skyscrapers, mass media, population growth, and mass industry? Very little, because they simply did not have to deal with it. There is a grey area in which we cannot depend on our elders, and it is exactly in that grey area that we have been pushed away from our elders up to the point where we have forgotten even the basics.

I mean, your grandfather probably isn't some fount of all-knowing wisdom. It's more that he probably knows some very practical solutions to problems you find very hard, that he has a good sense of what is important what what is not so important, or some other subtle manner in which the God of the copybook headings rear their heads. Stuff like, fixing a car, taking care of a house, making some money, having a wife... That sort of thing. Of course, old people are slower than young people, and no one has all the answers. But generalizing, I'd bet your grandfather knew more copybook heading knowledge than you, but probably his grandfather knew more copybook headings than him. Over the generations, such knowledge is slowly lost if not transmitted.

Aha!, you might argue: don't we have the internet? Do we not in fact have more information at our fingertips than literally anyone before us Well first of all, careful Icarus, you might burn yourself. But second, yes, we have amassed a ridiculous amount of information spread out all over teh inter webz. But information is not necessarily wisdom. In fact it is hard to at first glance distill lies from truth. There is a great, great deal of bullshit on the internet, and it is very hard and very time-consuming to filter out the nuggets of truth. Whereas the purpose of our ancient wisdom was that it saves time and makes life easier!

But let's follow this path anyway. After all, in a sense, the internet is just easily-accessible books. How would we spread wisdom if we could? Well if we talk about copybook headings, those refer to the literal headings of nineteenth century copybooks: educational books with proverbs that students had to copy. Which is problematic, because in our Moldbug diagnosis, the educational system is part of the problem. No wonder that the copybook heading wisdoms have been lost if we depended on the educational system to transmit it!

But the idea of writing wisdom down is great. Whether in books or internet, no problem. OK, but everyone writes stuff down. How do you determine what good books are, and which books lie? Well you can make a book holy. Say that it is the word of God and nobody can touch it. Which is what religion is all about. Of course religion is not just about the holy book, it is also an entire network of rituals, social conventions and cultural rules. Many of those rules might seem strange, many stories in the bible may seem unbelievable, but its followers have been around for thousands of years, and they have flourished. The proof is in the pudding. Reactionaries call this successful 'social technology'; which is any type of invention that allows humans to cooperate and succeed on a civilisational level. Christianity was, and for many folks still is, successful social technology, and when Kipling refers to the God of the copybook headings, he refers to ancient social technology.

The reason I am a great fan of Jim's blog is that it is a very grand and comprehensive piece of modern social technology. In my opinion, the first of its kind. Neoreaction was full of bright thinkers with bright ideas, but none were as complete, or as free from modern decay, as Jim. Jim took all these strands of reactionary thought, and ploughed them through to their logical end, and by doing so, took us full circle. Which is all the more impressive knowing that the Cathedral lives by lies, and so everyone in the public domain is forced to lie. Moldbug stopped saying anything all too interesting after his real identity got out. I think he somewhere mentioned being barred from his bank for political reasons. And things might always become even worse, so who can blame him. That's just the way it works -- unless you want to be a martyr, you better watch what you say in the public domain.

But Jim... Jim has gone to great lengths to keep his identity safe, and his blog in the air. Thus his entire blog is still alive and kicking up to this day [11/5/2021]. You can even download it, including comments and conversations on any topic imaginable! Check it out. And it's what, about 1 GB of data? How's that for efficient social technology. Amazing. We shall now take a dive into that fount of ageless wisdom and see how it ties into our story.



That which is Good and True

So this looks to be my second book. I wrote my first book, The Resurrection of God, a year or two ago. It is not too different from what I'm writing here. I think RoG has more creative chaos, whereas this is a more outlined, mature story. I'd throw RoG online as well, only a few people paid good crypto for it so in that spirit I will keep it exclusive. If you want to read RoG, send 0.8 mBTC to bc1q4e6zjn4f9c3xhdc5r6hry26ruuze8ln24yhj7e and hit me up at alf at garden of the internet . com. I only check that email once in a blue moon, just so you know, but I'll check it eventually. Probably.

Anyway, reason I bring that up is that some parts are going to be pretty similar. I think this is one of those parts. Remember at the start of this story, when we said we were going to talk about how a civilisation needs a reason for its existence? Well, that's what we talk about here. The part where reaction becomes religion.

Talk to people about religion, and certain defences go up. It's just one of those words. Funny thing is, use a similar word, and it doesn't trigger the same reactions. Like 'culture'. Or 'meaning'. Or 'identity'. The reason is that none of those words have the same

When we talk about religion being dumb, most often we are talking about Christian religion being dumb, or rather, it having a dumb meaning. But at this point it should come as no surprise that I am of the opinion that the opposite is true, so I hereby postulate Alf's religion hypothesis: civilisation needs a coherent reason for its existence, otherwise it withers.

I use the term 'coherent' loosely, of course. Christianity was for nearly two thousand years Western civilisation's reason for existence, and it kind of boiled down to: Jesus died for your sins so you don't have to. Which, in terms of coherence, is straight up there with soaps in which the twin brother turned out to be alive all this time. But what works, works. It was coherent enough, in fact in hindsight we can say it was exactly what people needed to hear, which is why Christianity blew up and Europe became completely littered with churches.

But is that a good thing? Christianity was big, we can all agree, but perhaps it was a force of evil? 'The Dark Ages', the oppression of Galileo, and so on.

No it was not. Christianity was a force of good. An immense force of good, in fact. Which again, is an assertion men can contest for years, and men are indeed free to contest my assertion. I know for a fact I am too lazy to pour years of research into the question. But it's one of those things where a good pair of eyes suffices, so I'll just put forth the argument.

Essentially, the bible and its assorted rituals are social technology. It started out as Jewish social technology, e.g. the Old Testament, which details the story of Moses leading the Jews out of Egypt to conquer their own lands in the near middle east, and much that happens after. It is full of rules, laws, and wisdom. In fact, it explicitly discusses how to find wisdom (saying wisdom is hard to find), how to be a good person (God punishes bad people, rewards good) and how civilisations that stray from God, and this includes the Jews, will end up killed and/or enslaved. The Old Testament, in other words, is a manual for life.

You can now see why Jesus was so great at what he did. He did not invent social technology out of thin air; as a Jew himself, he understood very well the value of shared wisdom, and went on to add to the bible's wisdom through his own life. And as we know, he did not live for just the Jews' shared identity, but made a point that what he did, he did for all people, thus sharing previously Jewish social technology with the whole world. Which brings to mind the story of Prometheus, stealing the fire from the Gods and sharing it with mankind. The Jews of course never forgave him, even though at this point they very much should.

The Old Testament essentially argued that God likes powerful and smart men. Men with slaves, who rule wisely, who obey God's laws. Those who do not, die. And many people die in the OT. I skip over much nuance, but in essence the Old Testament God is a very stern father figure who tells us to rule with a somewhat iron fist.

The New Testament, while not disagreeing with anything from the old one, has a slightly different tone. God, as Jesus' father, is not just a stern man, he is also a loving man. God cares for us, cares for us all, if only we accept Him and His son into our hearts, unconditionally. Again, I generalise greatly, but the New Testament tells people to be nice to each other. And this message was exactly what people all over the world, two thousand years ago, needed to hear.

So that is the rational behind the hypothesis. Christianity encouraged mass cooperation, thereby propelling a crumbling Roman civilisation into our modern Western civilisation. How do we know it was Christianity that caused this success?

Well, because in the first place, by their fruits you shall know them. Looking at Christian civilisation, e.g. old stuff from the past centuries, I see beautiful fruits. Churches and cathedrals serving as the center of villages and cities are almost without exception beautiful. And I mean not just the churches, not just the cathedrals, but also the medieval buildings that sprung up around these structures. Just gorgeous. If art is anything that is beautiful beyond the functional, you cannot top old architecture. When you travel around old Europe, the such architecture never fails to impress. Old buildings from Christian times are, almost without exception, prettier than new buildings from non-Christian times. Here I'll give a collage. These are absolutely random pictures but I think they show the transition from old to modern just fine.

People just take it for granted these days that modern buildings and cities are ugly. The ugliness reflects its lack of meaning and cooperation: everyone involved in modern architecture knows it will turn out ugly, but lacks the ability to do something about it. The beauty of older, Christian architecture reflects an abundance of meaning and cooperation: its architects were consciously involved in building something that reflected their collective sense of self-worth. So really, that's my easiest argument.

The second argument, related to the first, is an inversion of the middle ages as the Dark ages. Want to know why the Renaissance, the scientific revolution and the industrial revolution happened? The mainstream answer is 'because people let go of Christianity'. The reactionary answer is the opposite: because of Christianity. All these great sixteenth up to nineteenth century scientists, even a decent bunch of twentieth century scientists, they were all Christian, or at the very least operated in a Christian based society. The experiments men like Newton, Faraday and Maxwell conducted were not possible without the peace and tranquility provided by Christian society. Most advances in science are made by men, tinkering in their garage. As science grows more complex, the garages grow until you get huge garages like the Hadron collider, which I know little about, but if we are to draw any conclusions from what I have been saying here, probably has less science conducted in it every day. Christian society however, was excellent at protecting and promoting science in such garages. Jim likes to mention the Royal Society, a scientific society protected and made famous by king Charles the second, in which knowledge of and experimentation with science brought you much status. Most famous scientists you know were at some point members. Isaac Newton was even its president.

Of course, the church got involved into some scientific research it should not have involved itself in. The church resisted Galileo's heliocentric model. The church, to this day, pretty much resists Darwin' theory of evolution. I will be the first to say that we do not know everything there is to know about evolutionary mechanisms, but just like heliocentrism, evolution is such an excellent explanation for many hitherto mysteries that it cannot be ignored. Darwin was a faithful Christian to boot, and thus I have always argued the church should apologise and probably make Darwin into a saint to make up.

Not that I expect much of the Catholic church these days. Old type Christianity ruled. New type Christianity... Well it conjures images of frumpy ladies with closed eyes waving their hands above their head to the tune of 'Jesus loves you'. Essentially, Christianity has been out of power for a while now, and the Progressives have taken over. This is our explanation for all the social and technological decay. Anything that still works is what we call an unprincipled exception: it works because it still has momentum from an old era in which that what made it work was legal. For instance, atomic weaponry and the moon landing. We accomplished both because we had a bunch of white high iq men working together. These days, that is horribly wrong and evil -- where are the women? Where are the blacks? So women and blacks are added, and mysteriously, NASA nor anyone else has put a man on the moon in over nearly fifty years, and Jim makes a rather convincing argument that our nuclear weaponry doesn't work either.

Which bring us to the last argument. Namely, that the social technology written in the bible simply makes sense. It is instinctively logical. Remember how we talked at length about women and their tendency to disrupt the workplace? Well the bible called it, as early as Genesis when God throws Adam and Eve out of his garden: To the woman he said, “I will surely multiply your pain in childbearing; in pain you shall bring forth children. Your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you.” Implying that when her husband no longer rules over her, satan's snake will seduce her once again. Which is a perfect fit with everything we observe in the real world, independent from the bible!

There's lots of information like this. The biblical position on gays, for instance, is also, strangely enough, the only sensible position. Homosexuals, for whatever reason, undermine civilisation. They undermine male bonding, they normalise perversion, they seek to destroy family life in their envy, whatever your preferred reason: every functional society has prohibited homosexuality. No country with a gay pride parade wins wars. Which again, is rather obvious when you actually observe gay behaviour - note that pedophilia, as in sex with boys, is an almost exclusively gay thing.

The way to deal with gays is to terrorise them into not existing. If a man is too visibly caught sleeping with another man, well, stoning or some modern equivalent seems like an appropriate response. Otherwise, don't ask, don't tell. We all happily pretend there are no gays.

But I am just repeating tried-and-tested Christian wisdom. Of which we have very little these days, judging from the amount of people who will be horribly offended by just the last paragraph alone. But just because many people disagree with something, does not mean that thing wasn't Good and True, and that was the case with Christianity.


A new religion

So let's recap our story so far. We started with the observation that our current civilisation is in decline. Then we said Moldbug rightly diagnosed the problem as being caused by crooks in power: at the highest levels of democratic politics, everybody is a liar, or synonymously, a leftist. The crooks in power cooperate through their supposed holiness: just as communists preached economic class equality in order to murder and rob all classes, so do progressives preach racial class equality in order to murder and rob all races. In the same vein, progressivism is not a fixed belief system: it is a tool to an end, the end being parasitation of others, e.g. society, for personal gain. So there isn't one correct opinion, instead there is an ever-changing trend of fashionable opinions in a certain direction, like how Obama was against gay marriage before he was against it, or how transgenders were mentally ill people before they were fashionable, or how covid-19 was similar to the flu before it became the twenty-first century black plague.

In order to stop the parasitation, need to establish a hierarchy that stops at a king. A king is personally invested in a good outcome, thus incentivised to stop crooks. Which is why Moldbug concludes that monarchism is the only sensible position. He prefers a technocrat, like Elon Musk with a crown, but realises the wishful thinking of the situation. In Moldbug's opinion, the current regime may well rule for another century or so.

Which is where here at the garden of the internet, our path starts to slowly split from Moldbug's. Our take is that progressivism is but a weak proxy for meaning; a civilisation is a bunch of individuals that band together, and those individuals need a meaning. Christianity served as that meaning and led to good things. With the loss of Christian meaning in a post-miracle world, the good failed to cooperate, and the bad took over. Progressivism isn't just an excuse for power; it was genuinely the best idea society could come up with.

In other words: a king is not enough to fix our problems. We just as equally need to solve our spiritual problems. Which is why we have the reactionary meme: we need a new religion.

I'm not sure what Moldbug would make of this position. I have not heard him speak clearly on the matter, although of course I would be interested in his take. I would guess that he'd have a Macchiavellian take on religion, that in Moldbug's eyes, religion is a bunch of lies that help the elite to organise. He has no moral issues with the lies, but would argue that they are made up opportunistically, so any attempt to consciously create a religion is speculation over which you have no control. People will act in their own self-interest anyway, regardless of your self-found importance.

But that's just my distant interpretation of Moldbug's position. Since he does not overly discuss the subject, I can only conclude he does not find it so interesting.

Here, we think the opposite: it is very interesting. And it can't be left up to the king. Yes, the king will choose whatever religion suits his needs best. But that 'meaning' is more than just opportunism. Man seeks meaning. That which is meaningful, works. Look no further than the story of Jesus Christ to see that self-sacrifice can be one of the most powerful acts of meaning. Much in this world is Machiavellian, but not all, and exactly that's why Christianity was so powerful.

Naturally a king may invent his own religion. I mean, why not. But in practice it is very hard to do both. Per historical example, reactionaries like the medieval view of the priest/warrior cast divide: you have the king and you have the pope. The king rules, and the pope justifies why the king rules. The material and spiritual, so to say. Naturally, men being men, they still tend to fight a lot, but the basic idea, namely societal specialisation, holds. One party is concerned with the 'what', the other with the 'why'. If you have no official party line for the 'why', charlatans, liars and grifters will in the end overwhelm does who concern themselves with the 'what'. In other words, if we do not put an official state religion in place, unofficial religions will creep in and do nasty stuff, like killing babies, chopping off penises and enforcing sodomy. So we conclude: society needs a religion, or a cohesive culture, or a grander meaning, or whatever you call it.

For our story, I'll discuss three reactionaries who proposed solutions to this problem: Jim, Spandrell and myself. Spandrell's solution was the closest to Moldbug's, which is to say, he did not have one and was quite outspoken about it. Yes, we need a new religion, but you can't create one on the spot. That's dumb. said Spandrell. To his mind, we are all grandiosely f*cked. Perhaps the white race will disappear, who knows. It's not unlikely. Islam, which is doing pretty well, will probably just conquer Europe, maybe America. White men have nothing going for ourselves, we are the losers all around. Move to Asia before it's too late! Spandrell was a pessimist like that.

The second solution was Jim, who said: who says we need a *new* religion? Christianity worked perfectly for centuries. England in the seventeenth century reinstalled Christianity as state religion right after the monarchy returned. Which worked great. We'll do that again. Jim did not want to stir the boat too much. To his mind, creating a new religion is like creating a new computer from scratch in your garage: such an endeavour is always more complex, more time-consuming, and more prone to failure than one thinks. Best to build on existing social technology, make some updates and call it a day. Jim was practical like that.

Finally, I had my own solution. I said: Christianity is done, gone and/or going the way of the Greek/Roman pantheon. What's stopping us from making something new? Nothing, that's what. In fact I think it's our only option. Hey Jim, your message is pretty wholesome. How about we call our new religion Jimianity, call ourselves Jimians and just role with it? I was idealistic like that. But Jim disagreed, and we had a fight over it.


Christianity: dead or alive?

The debates with Spandrell, insofar they happened at all, ended fairly quick. Stop trying to wear the weight of the world on your shoulders and let history take its course. We're not in a position to fix our civilisational problems. Chill and stop being so self-important is what he said. Jim and I disagreed, perhaps because we are overly optimistic in nature, although more likely because Spandrell is a negative nancy. But even though we might disagree, pessimism, e.g. the black pill, is always an interesting perspective, and we'll return to it later. But for now, Spandrell was out of the picture. Which left Jim and me.

Jim's take is fairly self-explanatory. Used to be that everyone in polite society espoused Christian views, like how nowadays everyone in polite society espouses progressive views. Jim said: The former worked great, as history shows, so we go back to that. Reinstate Christianity as America's official religion - end the separation between church and state, never worked anyway. Appoint a bishop and a king, preferably also an inquisition to hunt down heretics. Aaand that's about it. If it was good enough for the English empire, it is good enough for the American empire.

If you're not a Christian, you might have trouble understanding this perspective. Jim's point is of course that that would not matter: everybody needs a religion, and those who refuse to understand this will, willingly or unwillingly, make dumb choices, leading to failure of cooperation and procreation. Those that do understand will convert, make wiser choices, and consequently, out-cooperate and outbreed their enemies. Old type Christianity worked, as evidenced, among so many other things, by its large families. Very few live religions today can copy the success that old type Christianity enjoyed -- for instance, progressives lack the cooperation for big families. Progressive religion, like all leftist religion, eventually collapses onto itself. The only real enemy is Islam, which has seen considerable success, hence the eternal war between Christians and Mohammedans.

Furthermore, Christianity as the future for the West has indeed become a rallying banner for many public right wingers. We are yet to discuss the alt-right under Trump, but I have no problem giving away a minor spoiler that most of them coalesced around Christianity. Christianity i just a thing people know and are familiar with, and the fact that waving around a bible pisses off progressives is a nice bonus.

Now, this is the part of the story where I go and talk about my ideas. Up til now I can plausibly say I've stayed neutral, like any historical journalist worth his salt would: 'I am merely reporting the olds, not creating it!' Which of course is rarely completely true. But at this point I'm inserting myself into the story. Hey, it's my story. Whatcha gon' do about it.

So, the way I think about Christianity, and this should come as no great surprise, is that it once successfully satisfied a societal demand for meaning. What is our identity as a society? Well, we are created in God's image, who sent his only son to die for our sins. We have bad in us, but Jesus absolves us of our bad, and God loves us. Which is amazing.

Here's the catch: such meaning has to be genuine. Naturally, you'll always have the cynics and the haters. But they must be off-set by the faith of the genuine. Theres plenty of theories of where the genuine Christian faith came from. I've heard it said that women played a big role in its spread, and indeed, I've rarely met a man whose heart was as full of love for Jesus as I've met old ladies. But more generally, I'd say Christianity worked because it fostered cooperation: life generally can be harsh and unforgiving, especially back in the day, but Jesus saw the potential for love and harmony. Turn the other cheek, help the poor, share what you have. Such advice was not completely strange to the old testament, but Jesus really gave it form. Be a good Samaritan! Good things happen to good people.

As a result, people who called themselves Christian began to associate with other Christians. Smart people especially, early adopters who saw the use of a Christian identity, began to spread the faith. The whole thing snowballed, worked so good that Christian communities completely outcompeted all non-Christian ones. Christianity was fashionable, it rewarded smart people for being smart, it rewarded good people for being good. A smashing success story.

But, as has repeatedly been said, Christianity today is not the same Christianity as the past millennia. The Christianity espoused by great men such as Augustine, Newton, Darwin, and king Charles the second, is rarely found these days. Instead we mostly see this mutated zombie-esque form of Christianity, which is to say, progressives re-interpreting Jesus as a community organiser who would fight for feminism, equality and transgender rights.

Now, Jim's argument was that this takeover can be undone. If a king in power decrees the King James Version of the bible to be cool, and traditional biblical rules to be cool, people will stop dying their hair blue faster than you can say 'back into the closet you fags!' My argument was that you cannot make a dead horse cool. It is not just that progressives have hijacked Christianity, it is that Christianity itself is no longer a satisfying meaning for our civilisation. Progressives are just the flies circling the corpse. The real problem is that our relation with reality has changed thusly that Christian God no longer accurately describes how we perceive ourselves and the world. To prove this, I present my best argument: the biblical miracles. Is it not strange that, ever since the invention of the camera, and the universal spread of smartphones, no one has ever convincingly captured a miracle? The bible, on the other hand, is chock full of miracles. Back then, you seemingly couldn't leave the house without running into some blind man seeing again or water magically appearing out of a rock or something like that. Jesus especially is notorious for his miracles, and at the centre of his story lies the resurrection, which is exactly such a miracle. But lo and behold, we invent video cameras, and every single miracle cease to happen. Is that not strange?

Well, it is not strange, of course. Nowadays, everybody, including smart Christians, knows exactly what the score is.

To establish a successful religion, you need some kind of proof of authority. Cooperation is about establishing hierarchy, remember? Why organise around God if he is not all-powerful? So back in the day it only makes sense that an all-powerful deity could perform miracles. If he couldn't, he wouldn't be all-powerful. No doubt that back then there were also plenty of critically-thinking Christians who had a healthy sense of doubt regarding authenticity of the miracles, but it did not matter, because the miracles, among everything else, worked as social glue, and it's not like they could disprove their authenticity anyway. 'Who cares if Jesus really walked over water, my wife is obedient, my community is friendly, and the heathens are kept out of the country.' If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

But these days it's different. Ironically, because of Christianity, we've worked out the basic and some not so basic physics of the world. We have a much better understanding of the rules of reality, and this has changed our relation with God. In a miracle-world, God and his prophets can change the rules of physics at whim. But in a post-miracle world, it seems that even God and his prophets are tied to the rules of physics, even if God created those rules in the first place. There is simply no indication of a deity who directly interferes in this world by going against the laws of nature, at least not in the biblical sense. This does not disprove the existence of such a deity, but it does put some very large question marks over the traditional interpretation of Christianity. Question marks which are, to my mind, impossible to ignore.

But to openly question a religion is to speak heresy. So after some heated debates with Jim on various platforms, debates which were not really getting us anywhere, we did not speak to each other for a while. Luckily, some happy distractions were looming at the horizon. Yes, this is where real world circus starts, by means of God emperor Trump and the alt-right.


The meteoric rise of Trump and the alt-right

Ah, the fun part. The part where all this built-up frustration, this feeling of 'wait a minute, wtf is going on with our society?' broke through and made its grand entrance on the main stage. What's there to say about Trump and the alt-right that hasn't been said yet? Not much probably. After all, this is the part you are probably as familiar with as I am. But let's head to Pepe town anyway, and see how Trump memed his way into the white house, and see how he ties into our story.

Obviously, the alt-right existed before Trump, the alt-right simply being the folks on the right who were done with the two party system. Maybe they couldn't articulate the 'why', but they understood that the system which was supposed to protect them in fact hated them and acted as such. This was something the alt-right and NRx completely agreed on. The only difference was that neoreactionaries generally regarded themselves as too smart to go out in the streets and protest, in line with what Moldbug said: this patient is already terminal, protesting his death is only going to get you locked up. But what're you gonna do, just roll over and die? People were angry, they were fed up with an evil ruling class. The alt-right wanted to make a fist, but how? They were a loose collection, just a name with no organisation behind it. The democratic idea was that you'd vote on your guy, but the alt-right did not have a president on their side since Reagan. The Bushes weren't considered as evil as a guy like John McCain, but class traitors still. Hence the name, 'alternative right.' But then Trump came along...

Dear lord where to start with Trump. That hamburger munching business mogul. What a man, what a man. When Donald Trump announced his candidacy for US presidency, the NRx sphere, against its natural inclination for cynicism, immediately tuned in. The whole thing was a great test for neoreactionary theories. If Moldbug et al was correct, we would expect to see the following: - the Republican party should fight Trump almost as bad as the Democrats - the entire Cathedral apparatus, including academia and media, should run a 24/7 propaganda campaign denouncing him as evil - Trump, even if elected, should have all of his orders ignored and most of his confidential conversations leaked

Spoiler alert: that's exactly what happened. BUT, the one flaw Trump could exploit, is that in a democracy you are supposed to have fair elections in which the people decide their leader, and the people loved Trump. The way the Cathedral dealt with this is by making sure voters can only choose between pre-approved candidates, but Trump was that true outsider. A career politician he ain't. Quite the opposite in fact. Trump had made his own fortune (or as his haters like to say: expanded his father's fortune, which to me is equally impressive). Plus, he was a natural alpha. Donald Trump owned every room he stepped into. None of his opponents had Trump's charisma. Hoping for electoral fireworks, we were.

Disappointed, we were not. Right from the start Trump announced that he'd build a wall on the Mexico-US border. In his own words, Mexico will pay for it! With mass immigration being a major signifier of civilisational decline, and Trump directly addressing that, this was sure to ruffle some feathers. And indeed, none other than the Mexican president responded the next day: 'we'll never pay for that ffffucking wall. Mr Trump is rich, he can pay for it himself!' To which Trump responded: 'the wall just got three feet taller!'

Trump's entire campaign was filled with such zingers and childish taunting. It was amazing and hilarious. When Megyn Kelly, debate moderator, accused Donald of calling women fat pigs, he responded: 'only Rosie 'O Donnell.'

As Trump took an immediate lead in the polls, a media frenzy broke out. Everything Trump said was held under a magnifying glass. So when Islamist terrorists killed 130 in a Parisian theater, and Trump proposed to keep Muslims of the United States, the media exploded. The headlines coalesced around calling Trump RACIST HITLER who nobody liked. Of course, he in fact kept polling excellently.

Many such controversial funny moments. Like, Trump would tweet this meme that 97% of all black murder is committed by other blacks, to which the media indignantly headlined: TRUMP SAYS 97% BUT ITS REALLY ONLY 90%. Lol. Trump was a master of using his opponents' momentum against them. The media could just not help themselves giving Trump attention. And the public loved it.

Now, as for his opponents. Had Trump had less bully-able opponents, perhaps he would've not fared as well. But his most important competitor was Jeb Bush, younger sibling from the illustrious Bush family. And Jeb, well... Jeb was the textbook example of the kid who got bullied in high school, or rather: who should've been bullied in high school were he not from an elite overprotective family.

Trump was relentless. He called Jeb 'low energy' and 'humorless.' In the presidential debates, Jeb came off as a mumbling beta compared to Trump's lion alpha presence. It was an unfair fight from the start. Jeb tried to turn the tide -- in presumably an attempt to imitate Trump, he started talking louder, exaggerated his body language, used more one-liners. Problem was of course, he was not that kind of guy. He'd probably make a fine accountant, but not a leader figure. Trump's taunts were effective, because they were true. A few cringe media moments followed, including Jeb asking an audience to clap, Jeb hugging an elderly woman who said he'd might vote for him, and a kid ridiculing Jeb for giving him a toy turtle, because, in Jeb's words, 'slow and steady wins the race'. During a rally Jeb quipped that if the audience would vote for him, he'd take his pants off and moon everybody. Nobody laughed. Well, on the internet lots of laughs were had, but they were at him, not with him.

Jeb played the only card he had left: he called Trump a big jerk. Which was kind of true, but did not help Jeb's flailing campaign. The establishment tried to prop up other candidates, but it was no use. In an unprecedented turn of events, Trump won and became the Republican presidential candidate.

But that was only the first step. To become president, Trump had to beat the final boss: democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton. Hillary would not roll over as easy as Jeb. For one, she was a representative of the inner party. Hillary had a mighty, well-oiled apparatus behind her. For instance, from this moment on, Clinton was always ahead in any poll.

Trump had a few things going for him though. Trump had his rallies. Massive events in which Trump riled up the people - he was a great showman after all. Trump rallies were always packed to the brim. I've never attended one, but I imagine there must've been great energy: a massive, almost religious gathering, bringing the promise of hope. Incidentally, the rallies also became meeting places for like-minded people.

One of those groups of like minded people was the alt-right, which now had a unifying goal -get Trump in the white house- and became a full-time, unpaid grassroots pro-Trump campaign. Hillary's campaign might have lots of money and power, but the alt-right had memes. Can't beat memes.

It also helped that Hillary was, how do I put this nicely... Kind of a hag. She was unpleasant. Arrogant, cold, and out of touch with the people who she needed to vote for her. She was the kind of woman who'd step over bodies to get where she wanted, who in fact had stepped over bodies. That kind of thing gets you far in the DC swamp, but it does not win hearts in elections. Still, Hillary campaigned on becoming the first female president, and America has a notorious amount of feminists and progressives wanting to see that happen.

Blows were struck on both side. Trump had to deal with the infamous 'grab her by the pussy' tape, in which he was caught on tape quipping that, if you're famous, women let you do anything. You could... well, you get it. Of course, looking back on the incident, my first reaction is: where's the lie? But naturally the media ran with it like crazy. TRUMP IS NOT ONLY RACIST HITLER, HE IS ALSO RAPIST HITLER. EVEN LOWER IN THE POLLS THAN BEFORE. That kind of thing.

But Hillary had her own scandal to deal with: Wikileaks. Founded by Julian Assange, Wikileaks had gotten their hands on 30.000 leaked mails from Clinton's private server. Very juicy! The list of scandalous information was very very long, and it once again confirmed all of NRx: - The Clintons regularly had dinners with journalists. Journalists often emailed the Clintons for permission or comments on not yet published articles. - Hillary was in contact with both CEOs of Google and Facebook, directing promotion of pro-Clinton and censorship of pro-Trump terms. - The Clintons through the Clinton foundation received twelve million dollars in donations from Morocco, one million from Qatar. Hillary also gave private speeches for the neat sum of 225.000 dollars. - Hillary's team knew damn well she f*cked up in Benghazi, although publicly any involvement was denied. - Hillary was sent the debate questions beforehand. - Hillary's husband could apparently not stop 'dicking empty-headed bimbos.' - Hillary's health was debated: 'sometimes she doesn't even know what planet she is on.

Naturally, Trump capitalised on this information. He delivered his most memorable zinger in the second debate when Hillary opined that they were lucky a man with Donald's Trump temperament wasn't in the white house. To which Trump responded: yes, because you'd be in jail.

The debate was a turning point in Trump's campaign. He switched his focus from immigration to state corruption. His new slogan drain the swamp became a hit among supporters, as well as the more informal lock her up. Hillary in the meantime was not taking things well. In a moment of angry frustration, she vented: 'why aren't I fifty points ahead?' In another moment of frustration, she for the first time directed the public's attention towards 'the emerging racist ideology of the alt-right.' After which an anonymous hero in her audience immediately shouted: 'pepe!'

Election day came, and it was the single most exciting election I've ever experienced. It was an immense pleasure to not only see Trump win, but to see all the journalists, pollsters and media moguls struggle with the impending reality that Donald Trump was going to be their president. The disbelief and shock in their eyes... Man oh man, it was the ultimate middle finger.

Despite it being such an unexpected victory for the good guys, I think that at least those with an NRx background still had, rightly so, not very high expectations. The permanent presidency, after all, is much more powerful than the temporary president. And in hindsight we can confirm: winning the election itself was the biggest victory, the highlight in our story. But for me that was no problem, not even back then. I was looking forward to eight years of office by a president that did not outright hate me.


To coup or not to coup

For the most part, I was not disappointed. Trump in office was a riot. He confirmed every last bit of NRx theory. I feel that during Trump's presidency every neoreactionary performed daily 'I told you so' dances. I know I did. The journalist class went crazy and bombarded the public with a 24/7 anti-Trump propaganda offensive. During the campaign, Trump was said to cause world war three with Putin. After the campaign, they pivoted and said that Trump was in fact a Putin sock puppet and that the Russians had interfered to help Trump win in the 2016 elections. How they interfered was never specified -- apparently the Kremlin bought some ads on facebook or something? Not that it mattered. The NRx crowd knew truth never mattered to the Cathedral. Only their religious fervour mattered, and Trump was a heretic in their church. So while many normies would read the news and be like 'my god this seems a bit biased innit', neoreactionaries were laughing their ass off all the way. Told you so!

And so it was with everything political, everything that once seemed normal. While previously the reactionary theory of this permanent bureaucracy overshadowing the impermanent elected officials, more popularly known as the 'deep state', was considered a 'wacky conspiracy theory', now it strangely seemed as if the establishment indeed acted as one against Trump, sabotaging his every move, just like... well, a deep state would. Over time the gloves came off completely, and even government officials started talking of 'the moral obligation of unelected officials to guard our democracy against elected officials.'

Hence the reactionary consensus: president Trump was just one man, and one man was powerless against two hundred years of Cathedral bureaucracy. But still, Trump put up a fight. For one, he started building the wall. He had to fight for every meter, but he got decently far.

For another, he did impressively well in international politics: in Syria, a complex situation, Trump played it so that Assad was kept in saddle, preventing another Iraq and Libya. In North Korea he got on remarkably friendly terms with Kim Jong-Un, defusing the nuclear war the media were screaming was bound to happen.

And let us not forget: Trump did amazing with the economy. Which was to be expected from someone who is a capitalist at heart, following years of semi-socialist rule, but is still a very noteworthy achievement.

And Trump received help, among many, from an unexpected, although otherwise very expected advisor: our own Jim! What did Jim have to tell Trump? Well, let me illustrate through two bets I made at the time.

The first bet was with Spandrell. I bet that Trump would win a second term, arguing that despite Trump not living up to expectations, he'd remain popular with his base, much more popular than any opponent the democrats could throw at him at least. Spandrell bet that Trump would lose his second term, precisely because he would not live up to expectations; he'd fumble through the office and disappoint basically everyone. If I lost, I'd write a post on the merits of the black pill, if Spandrell lost, he'd write one on the white pill.

The second bet was with Jim. I bet that Trumpists would not win a third term. I predicted eight years of Trump: a good run, but nothing that would permanently change the course of history. And here comes Jim's gambit: Jim bet that Trumpists, be it Donald Trump or a Trump ally, would win a third term. Jim argued there was no turning back for Trump. The republic was already dead, and by becoming president Trump had made himself too dangerous. Either Trump seized control through force, or he'd end up the way of the Romanovs -- his family arrested and killed. Jim reasoned Trump would act in his own interest and would find himself forced to coup, even if Trump didn't like it. Naturally, I was skeptic, so we bet for 10 mBTC.

In hindsight it is easy to accuse Jim of wishful thinking. At the time, the comparison was made with Caesar, who also found himself stuck in a corrupt republic. Caesar was faced with the choice: obey the orders of the senate, or cross the Rubicon river with his army and attempt a coup. Caesar crossed the Rubicon and pulled off a pretty successful coup. Problem is, Trump was not a military man with an army. He was a business mogul with a reality tv show. Which is not to mention that Rome had an extensive military culture. In America, military men are forced to wear high heels. Even if Trump had the support of a general, US military had already fractured command over dozens of generals, most of which had attained their position through extensive ass-kissing as opposed to any talent in the field. So when Moldbug weighed in he opined that, in comparing Trump with Caesar, Trump does not merely need to cross one rubicon, he needs to cross ten rubicons, and every single one of them has to work out in his favor for a Trump coup to work. In order words, not a chance.

Seeing as I bet against Jim, obviously I agreed more with Moldbug than with Jim. But to put aside Jim's advocation for a Trump coup as wishful thinking is missing the point. Today it is even more obvious than back then that the possibility of a Trump coup was the only interesting thing about his entire presidency. Jim was right - with Trump's arrest already looming in the distance, president Trump was in a kill or be killed situation. Is he or is he not going to grab real power? was the only relevant question on everyone's mind. And Jim was one of the very few who practically advised Trump how to grab real power. IF we want the good guys to win, here's what we need. Jim provided truthful hope.

At times president Trump acted in ways that much resembled the steps Jim proposed. He fired a few high ranking people. He hinted at the possibility of a never-ending Trump presidency. And his biggest victory, which I remember fondly, was at Lafayette park on June 1st, 2020.

Around this time, BLM and antifa protestors were propped up by the Cathedral to wreak havoc around the country. If I remember correctly, the ostensible reason was the death of George Floyd by a cop, George Floyd being propped up as a saint while he was really a lifelong criminal and drug addict. In similar vein, the ensuing protests were peaceful according to the media, while in practice they were dominated by violent looting arsonists.

These protestors were also directed towards the front of the white house, in Lafayette park. They were doing their usual thing: throwing bricks, burning cars, taunting Trump... Trump, not backing down, used the police and tear gas to clear the protestors out of the park. He then paraded through the park with an entourage including general Mark Milley and attorney general William Bar, as if it were a military victory. He stopped in front of a nearby church of which the windows were barricaded to defend against 'peaceful protestors', and held up a bible. 'We have a great country' is all he said, as he looked around dead serious.

The whole thing was textbook Jim. Jim's plan was basically: our democracy is long dead, and the first party to realise that and act upon it wins. Men with rifles outrank men in gowns, so Trump should make sure he has the men with rifles on his side. But since the deep state coordinates primarily through their religion, Trump should also bring his own religion, which of course should be Christianity. Trump holding the bible high after taking back Lafayette park had all those elements. It brought a small twinge of hope to my heart.

Of course, the moment passed. General Milley immediately afterwards said Trump had bamboozled him into an unwilling photo op. And Trump did not follow up on the silent threat he made in front of st John's church.

But hey, at least we had his re-election to look forward to, right? Right??



Apologies for the writing break. I suffered two long-lasting injuries which came out of no where, and were probably avoidable if I had paid more attention. Because there were two, not one, separate injuries, it seemed to me like God was telling me something. The least I felt like doing was wait until they had healed before I pretend to be the voice of God. Well, they have mostly healed, so where were we... Oh yes, the 2020 elections...

Depending on who you are, your beliefs regarding the 2020 election may vary. My opinion is quite obvious: the election was stolen by the cathedral from the rightful winner, who was Donald Trump.

Now, can I prove that? Sort of. Kind of. I mean, I wasn't physically there at the contested voting bureaus on the night in question. It's kind of like the Wuhan corona lab theory: I've never been in Wuhan. But circumstantial evidence tells it it is rather likely that...

Also, I do know quite a bit about democratic politics. Neoreactionaries spent over a decade discussing the sinking ship that is democratic politics, and how Western democracy is really quite non-democratic. So really, from that perspective, it would almost be disappointing if the election weren't stolen. And stolen it was.

Jim, once again, called it correctly preceding election night. Trump will win, but the media will announce a Biden win, he warned. In other words, last call for Trump. When a democracy nears its end, those who vote count for nothing, those who count the vote count for everything. Like many, I thought Trump was so obviously ahead that they could not plausibly fake enough votes for a Biden victory. Trump rallies were booming as ever, Biden rallies were dead. Biden even stopped campaigning more than a week before the election. None other than Spandrell was admitting I would probably win our bet.

But Spandrell, like myself, was suffering from normalcy bias. We underestimated the rot, underestimated how determined the permanent government was not to allow Trump another win. In hindsight the signs were everywhere. The deep state had gone completely mad during Trump's presidency: the infamous Trump Derangement Syndrome. Politics was breaking down. It's like when one kid gets to play with a ball and the other kid doesn't, which the other kid hates so much he'd rather destroy the ball. In the 2016-2020 period, the permanent officials destroyed the ball.

Trump, to his great credit, handled many attacks with charm and mastery. 'Russiagate' and 'impeachment' disappeared overnight. Corona, unfortunately, he mishandled.

Corona at first seemed like a serious disease. Initially it was us on the right who warned for it. The mortality and infection rates seemed pandemic-y. So when Trump shut down travel, it seemed to us like the right thing. The Cominator, a commenter over at Jim's blog, was one of the few who saw what was going to happen: the progressive are going to use corona as a holy weapon against Trump, he said, Trump must push against it. But Trump did not. No one in power did.

Covid turned out to be, basically, another flu. Slightly different in that it was especially dangerous for overweight men, but otherwise the same, in that it only kills folks who are with one foot already in the grave. Which is not the story you hear if you turn on the tv. Turn on the tv and you'd think the black plague has returned.

I could do a segment on debunking the corona pandemic similar to what I did on debunking global warming. I'm probably too lazy. But really, it's exactly the same scamming dynamic. Basic facts are ignored, statistics are manipulated, and you are told to not trust your own eyes. Lockdowns don't work, locking up the healthy is evil anyway, and again: it's just the flu bro. I was definitively done with the whole craze after my grandma, well in her nineties, tested positive for corona but fully recovered after a week. My grandma was healthy for a ninety-year old, but still, you know, a ninety-year old.

Corona was what we call holiness spiralled: it was no longer a matter of accurately assessing the disease and its cures, it became a holy thing where wearing masks and getting the shot were acts of piousness, similar to how Christians are baptised or Jews are circumcised. In other words: progressives incorporated corona into their religion. Would they have done the same thing if Trump was not president? Who knows. But after a while it became clear that corona had become a holy weapon to wield against heretics, first and foremost president Trump. Trump rallies took a major hit, Trump's booming economy took a major hit, and Trump's inability to stop the holiness spiral, although understandable, made his credibility take yet another hit. And let us not forget the part where Democrats insisted that the entire country now needed to vote by post, which *might* be sensitive to fraud, but surely covid was more dangerous.

To those suffering from normalcy bias, things still looked good for Trump. His opponent, Joe Biden, was as corrupt as they come. He was also uncharismatic, creepy, and in obvious cognitive decline. We expected a Trump landslide: they could not possibly fake that many votes in favor of Biden.

But of course, that is exactly what happened. On election night, several key voting bureaus were shut down, and hundreds of thousands of fake voting ballots were bussed in. It was anything but subtle, but it did not need to be, because might makes right. Trump was powerless to stop it. The media declared Biden the winner, called Trump a sore loser, and what was Trump going to do about it?

Trump rightly claimed election fraud. Unfortunately, suffering from normalcy bias, he expected the judicial system to work and went to the supreme court. Having a Republican majority, Trump expected the judges to be on his side. But exactly as Moldbug predicted, the Republican party being controlled opposition, they refused to hear his case. Trump was shit out of luck.

And what happened? Well, some flailing happened. There is this article floating around on the internet that describes the chaos in Trump's last days. Surrounded by too many unreliable men, not knowing what to do, hands in his hair. Sad stuff.

Among the masses, Trump was still popular. In a last act of defiance they stormed the capitol on January sixth, 2021, likely assisted by feds as to create a convincing false flag for the press. As expected, the whole thing led to nothing but an excuse for the permanent government to arrest pro-Trump people. Biden was inaugurated, and Trump's run for God Emperor was over.


The black pill

So now that we have reached political rock bottom, seems like the perfect time to honor my bet with Spandrel. He won, I lost, so let us talk about the black pill.

The best kind of black pill is given in existential horror fiction, like HP Lovecraft or Kafka. Worlds where God does not care about you, where you are an unimportant insect caught in events much bigger than you. There is always an underlying truth that the universe is cold, which truth either kills, depresses or drives insane those who realise it. Naturally, in fiction the feelings of dread are dramatised. But in the real world such feelings may dominate just as well. Why shouldn't they? Does God care about us? How should we know! For many folk, life is pretty shitty. Modern life generally is shitty. You go to school the first quarter of your life, get to be a wagecuck the next half of your life, and finally you get to see your pension go up in smoke just as you retire. Long periods of misery are in no way an exception to human life. Read the bible and you'll find most of it is God telling people they are fucking up. People just don't give many shits about anything except themselves. Societies are more often barely or not functioning than well-functioning.

And let's be honest. Even if you escape all that, say you're rich and independent and free, and you even get to live a pretty relaxing life. What does it all really mean? The simple truth is we don't know. We just don't know. All we know is we are born on a rock floating through space, if we're lucky we grow into healthy adults, and then we slowly deteriorate until we die. And that's about it. The meaning of life, at its core, is a big question mark.

So what do people do? They ease the pain of not knowing. They lie to themselves. They tell pretty stories that hide the coldness of the universe. Religion, being such a story, is a drug meant to keep us happy. Works wonders. Civilisations can and in fact have been built upon those lies. Faith gets folk out of their bed. It gives them that warm glow of 'everything's going to be all right', even if they have absolutely no clue and it is more likely that things are not going to be all right. Pretty lies are preferred above cold truth, even if it means missing important truths. We see this exact phenomenon in our current, declining society -- people are in total denial of its collapse. Even as the housing market is exploding, economic networks malfunctioning and currencies inflating, most people hold firm to their belief that it's just a temporary fluke, everything will be a-okay. This kind of self-serving denial is dumb, and it would do such people good to take a small bite of the black pill.

I am, of course, not a black piller. My take is, if the meaning of life is a giant question mark and up to us to interpret, the white pill and black pill are both equally valid interpretations. Life can just as much be a happy and exciting journey as it can be a disappointing and depressing jail. Sometimes it is the latter, but hopefully you work towards it being the former more often. I don't think anyone is a full black piller -- if one is fully black pilled, life is meaningless and there is no reason to live, means suicide is the only logical choice. But suicide is sad. So by not committing suicide, you reveal that you are hopeful about life.

Interestingly, for whatever reason, God seems to agree with this. The white pill has always been more successful than the black pill. Nations and scientific innovations and industry were built in praise of life, rarely in spite of it. Christianity itself is a giant white pill: God loves us so much, He came down to earth in the form of his son! Cynicism, it turns out, just does not lend itself well to cooperation.

But there must always be a balance. There is always a merit to the cynical, Machiavellian interpretation. Hopefulness where none is merited is delusional. There is a reason pride is the number one sin. Not to mention that with the current state of the West, a healthy dose of negativity is merited. Thus, an honest cynic must be given as much credit as he deserves, which tends to be less than the cynic thinks, but more than the naive optimist thinks.

What does this tell us about our post-Trump situation? Personally, I was saddened by his loss. I am embarassed to admit, I shed a single tear at the realisation that everything would go to shit and no one can stop it. Trump was our last chance. Yet at the same time it was not that big of a surprise. I had after all bet much more on Trump not winning than I had bet on him winning. Jim acknowledged his defeat and promptly transferred me the 10 mBTC. It is around this period that we set aside our differences.


Jimian Christianity

Having set aside our differences, time to settle on what we actually believe. After all, the point of all this thinking is to arrive at a solution that gets men of goodwill to cooperate. If we can't even cooperate, little hope that our ideas will help others.

If we look outside our window, what do we see? Biden has now been in office for about a year, and progressive politics has resumed as normal. Which is to say, shit's on fire. Some days the news is relatively mild, like that it is now a-okay for the Dutch royals to practice same-sex marriage. Other days it is bad, such as skyrocketing gas prizes which we are promised are just temporary and have nothing to do with the greenies hating fossil energy and oh yeah they're really our fault for raping mother earth.

It is much easier to break a vase than to glue together the pieces. An awful lot of vases are breaking, and it is our belief that they won't be glued together. Peace, or rather, civilisation, is hard, war is easy. Western democracy is at its end. We believe that as it falls apart, elites are less able to cooperate, and chaos increases -- things we take for granted such as a functional international economy, a reliable currency and basic amenities such as gas, water and electricity, we should really not take for granted. Thus, we believe a fall from first world countries into the state of second or third world countries is imminent, and with it comes hyperinflation, stock shortages and gang violence. Perhaps getting to this website, or even keeping this website in the air, will be a challenge as well.

Thus we move on from Moldbug, who foresees a period of relative stability, or perhaps not, it is hard to say what exactly he is saying because as Jim says, he is a namefag, and namefags need to cover their ass.

We furthermore believe that with the end of the empire, men have no choice but to band together under a shared God. The God who was shared by our ancestors, with whom we share over a thousand years of history, is the most logical option. That God was the God of Jesus Christ, and His faith is Christianity.

Thus we move on from Spandrell, who thinks Christianity is dead and we need a new religion.

Thus I made amends with Jim, who made this point for a long while. He was correct that we should return to the faith of our ancestors. I was wrong, or rather, I was insensitive to the necessity of returning to our last functional social technology before making any changes. Our ancestors were Christians, and they worked together much better than we did, so Christians we are.

But wait, didn't I earlier say that the faith of Christianity is gone? Did I not extensively argue with Jim that, with the introduction of smartphones, for some mysterious reason, not a single soul on earth has recorded a verifiable miracle? Did I not say that defending Christ's resurrection with a 'well you can't prove it didn't happen' is kind of lame? Why yes I did, and I still stand behind that. But as it turns out, we can work with that just fine. In fact, there's two ways. We shall discuss Jim's way, which is probably the preferred way for practicing Christians, here.

Jim's way is the practical way: the way that uses religion as a tool for cooperation. Everything in the bible, you can take two ways: you can interpret the faith supernaturally, meaning that when God talks to the prophets, he factually descends from the heavens and speaks to them, meaning that they heard the actual voice of God speaking to them externally. But you can also take everything in the bible as game-theory: perhaps Moses heard God's voice, perhaps not, but most importantly, that he felt like he was speaking with God's voice allowed his people to get into a cooperate-cooperate equilibrium and conquer their enemies. The proof's in the pudding, so to say. Similarly, when Jesaja en Jeremiah warned the Jews that God would punish them for their disobedience, you could say that the important thing was God spoke to them, or you could say the important thing was that they accurately predicted the future.

In other words, Christianity is the most successful social technology we have bar none. If you believe in Christ's resurrection, good on you, history shows that has not been a problem. If you don't believe Christ's resurrection, well, keep it to yourself, and history has equally shown it not to be a problem. Thus, if your great-grandparents, grandparents, and perhaps your parents were Christian, you are pretty much by definition a Christian, should you choose to accept your heritage of course. And even though you might feel like you a fake when you affirm that Jesus Christ, lord and saviour, is both God and human, there shall be plenty of Christians who do not, and in time, you grow into it.

Which is not to say that mainstream Christianity does not have a grave amount of problems. Catholicism and protestantism have been massively infected with entryists -- evil people who pretend to be Christian and undermine group cohesion from within. They lie, connive, and corrupt the meaning of Christianity, which meaning is pretty clear if one sits down to read the bible. Infiltrators try to constantly 'update' the bible in an attempt to weed out those horrible sexist and homophobic remarks.

But the true meaning of Christianity, as it was practiced for centuries, is plenty clear. Almost forgotten, but plenty clear. Jim calls it old type Christianity, and claims it is most alive among orthodox Christians. I find I call it Jimian Christianity. Old type Christianity means turning turn one cheek to show good will, but not turning a thousand cheeks. It means peace be to all men of goodwill, meaning war to men of bad will. It means every man is a king under his own roof, who cherishes his wife, and his wife in turn obeys and honors her husband. It means that and much more, as evident from the bible, Christian communities, history, and Jim's blog.

And as much as you might say it is either dead or a mustard seed in the public space, at the end of the day it is very much alive every day when my family prays before dinner. And so, God's kingdom on earth continues.

As is said in the bible, obey God, honor his son, Jesus Christ, and good will come to your life. Or in game theory: use the social technology with proven historical success, and you are guaranteed to copy that success. As God promises his followers: you shall have more children than there are stars in the sky. Our enemies, following demons, have lost the ability to raise families. Hence, it is only a matter of time before our society returns to its Christian roots -- the future belongs to those who show up, after all.

And so, I am sad to announce, ends our story. The end is nigh', repent sinners, but fear not, for we have reconnected to our ancestors and thus have sown the seeds for a new hope. This civilisation shall burn, hopefully not down to its core, but in time, a Christian civilisation will rise from its ashes. And after that, sky's the limit. May our children's children conquer the stars!


The end

And that's pretty much it. Be a Jimian Christian, find a pretty girl, marry her, have some kids. The darkness comes, but the strength of our faith will carry you through, and as we shall gather around the campfire singing songs with guns in our hands, our enemies shall starve debating whether they should cannibalise the transgender brown lesbian or the handicapped black commie. Or something like that. We have the social technology figured out, the only thing left is to apply it, age gracefully and teach the next generation.

So may God bless, Deus Vult, and all that good stuff.













































Hmmm? What are you still doing here. We're done. Goodbye!






































































Still here? Shoo!







































































What did I tell you? We're done!















































Man you are persistent aren't you. I've nothing left to say! This was it! The story of NRx -- it starts with wanting to bang some pussy, it ends with discovering the cure to a collapsing civilisation. I gave you 25,000 words on the matter. If that's not enough for you, well I'm mighty sorry. I like being concise.





























































































Are you blind? It's over! Be gone!

































































I'm not kidding. You think this is a joke? Look, if you really want something to look at, best I can do are some dank memes from my personal collection. But that's the last I want to hear from you.



































































Well you're not giving up I see. You really want more? I am flattered. OK, I guess we could still take it one final level further.


A story about stories

I've written this whole thing in the span of a couple of months or so, so honestly, I have no clue if I'm going to say things you've already heard me say. But let's take this thing as meta as we can.

Even though we have arrived back at red-pilled Christianity, some friction still remains. Yes, I've said that it does not really need to matter, but very pretty it is not. It's kind of like fixing a leaking pipe with duct-tape -- the solution is much preferable to a leaking pipe, but you'd rather have a more elegant solution. Maybe there is no more elegant solution, maybe good enough is good enough. But I happen to have a few thoughts on the matter.

First off, what is our core problem? Well, we have a disconnect between two groups, let's call them 'Christian intellectuals' and 'Christian believers'. The Christian believers believe in the resurrection and assorted miracles. They believe in Christianity as an end in itself. The Christian intellectuals believe do not believe in the resurrection and assorted miracles. They believe in Christianity as a means to an end. I belong to the latter category, and I daresay Jim does as well. I took a few snapshots from Andrew Torba and Jim talking about Christianity to illustrate what I mean.








You'll notice Andrew takes his authority from the bible, quotes the bible, praises Jesus. He is a Christian believer. Jim talks about the practical implications of Christianity, he defends Christians, but he rarely quotes the bible or praises Jesus unprompted. He is a Christian intellectual.

Now the Jimian position is that the intellectuals should not run their skeptical mouths about the resurrection and assorted miracles. That has worked in the past, and will work again. And while that is true, me not running my mouth does not make my opinion go away. And what's worse, I believe the believers are correct in their assertion that religion is not just a tool, but inherently meaningful. I want my religion to be inherently meaningful. But we keep returning to the same friction that takes away my meaningful Christian faith:

This friction is what we are going to (attempt to) resolve.


Storifying human existence

We've discussed before how we really have no way of knowing what our purpose in this 'ere universe is. Yet, here we are, alive and well, with emotions and instincts and everything. So we might as well make the best of it.

OK, what is the best? Well, to know what is best, we must first make a distinction between good and bad. We want good stuff in our lives, and not bad stuff. Religion is the way to keep the good stuff in our lives.

But perhaps we don't need a full-fledged religion, we think to ourselves. How hard is it to distinguish between good and bad? Well turns out it is pretty hard. Remember Google's old motto - 'don't be evil'. How'd that work out for them? Turns out *saying* you will do good is easy, but *doing* good is mighty hard. In fact, many times you will find that evil people hide their evil behind good intentions. For instance, few people cause as many animal deaths as animal activists. You need to figure out a way to get everybody on the same page, and to get evil people off that page.

And that is exactly why we need a full-fledged religion, or rather: why only societies with a functional, full-fledging religion, survive and thrive. You might say it's what separates us from animals.

To come up with a functional religion on the spot is hard. To uncover what is good in life, need experience. But the world is a big place, many things happen, and you have only about eighty years to figure it out. And even then, you need to convince people that your religion is the one to follow, which is much easier said than done. Every man has a bunch of rules for life, why should yours be any better than mine?

But necessity is the mother of invention, and with the first civilisations came the first religions.

A few tricks turned out to work pretty well. For instance, being a powerful man, say a pharaoh or king, lent credence to the idea that you would have some kind of insight into the meaning of it all. Rulers cooperated with priests in establishing a story that justified their rule -- so the pharaohs were Gods on earth, the Caesars embodied Jupiter's will on earth, and their greatness trickled down into the societies they led. Through a shared identity, a synthetic tribe was created: we, the Egyptians, or we, the Romans.

Another trick was to have supernatural beings talk to you. Since people want to distinguish good from bad, preferably you have those supernatural beings be powerful and good -- speaking to the dead or evil spirits is powerful, but always associated with demonic religions.

Undoubtedly, the idea of one almighty creator of the universe has lingered around for a while. But it was the Jews who will always go down in history as the first tribe to successfully storify 'God'. Thus when Moses, arguably the first great prophet, led his people out of a collapsing Egypt and into the desert, he did so under the banner of the Lord who had created the earth and guided His people.

Moses was not the first to come up with the idea of being a prophet of God. He built upon the traditions of his ancestors -- first, on stories of the Gods, or Spirits, or whatever you want to call them. A collection of stories lacking a single God, I hypothesise, arise when no one prophet is strong enough to assert his will. They are the result of a collective consciousness seeking meaning and cooperation. Greek and Roman pantheon are an example. Hinduism, similarly. Great empires, such as the Roman empire, have proven to succeed under such a religion. Yet it seems that without a prophet, such religions are vulnerable to abuse, or demonic influences as we might call it. Having a line of prophets safeguarding the word of God prevents this kind of entropy. So when Moses came down from the mountain and saw that people were worshipping a golden calf, he did not henceforth call all cows 'blessed bovines' and incorporate it into his religion. Instead he got very angry with his people, killed a bunch of them, and told those remaining that they were worshipping the One God, the Lord, who would lead them out of Egypt into the promised land.

Again, Moses built upon the traditions of his ancestors -- Abraham among them, who was 'instructed by God' to cut of the foreskin of everyone in his tribe. Cutting off the foreskin seems harsh, but in terms of game theory you might see it as a manner to create group cohesion -- remember, we are always trying to get to a cooperate-cooperate equilibrium! Equally, Moses could have explained the Jews' exodus in terms of 'guys we need to stick together obey my orders otherwise we'll surely die' but he conveyed the exact same message much more succinctly by saying 'the God of our forefathers speaks to me, we damn well ought to listen and obey.' Did God really speak to Moses? In one way, no. We have no way to check of course, but all this 'God appeared in a cloud' business was probably Moses using some chemists' trick to make an impression on his people, and the voice in Moses' head was mighty likely just Moses' own.

But in another way, it is quite obvious that God spoke to Moses, which is to say, Moses had an excellent understanding of the situation his people were in and how to get out of it. God 'spoke' to Moses in the sense that Moses knew what his people had to do in order to survive a very tricky situation. And survive they did! Starting out as not much more than one family, they grew into the tens of thousands. Then, after being exiled from Egypt into the desert, they survived, and conquered other nations -- quite an impressive feat! The Jews were thus, in terms of social technology and game theory strategies, ahead of their time. And they owed most of it to their religion, instructing them to obey their God and follow His rules.

The beauty of having a line of prophets under one God is that your religion becomes easy to understand and transfer. It becomes a story that can be passed down generations. Which is exactly what the Jews did, thus keeping intact a sense of tribal identity. Also important: the story has no definite ending. The lives of its participants end, but the story itself continues throughout time, from Abraham to Israel to Moses to David and so on. It becomes a historical tale, but a history interweaved with meaning. It is a tale that gives us a signal to the divine, even if the signal is distinctly human, seemingly random, and quite hazy.


From Jews to Christians

This line to the divine continues in the second half of the old testament, in which many prophets are ridiculed during their life, but when proven right in the end they are acknowledged for being right, and thus as speaking for God. Impressive!

What is less impressive is that we might summarise the second part of the OT as: Jews disobey God over and over, God gets pissed and punishes them over and over. Jews still disobey. In fact God gets so pissed with the Israelis that Ezechiel compares them to a woman turned into a beautiful queen by God, only to later in her life murder her own children and whore herself out. And not just whore herself out, no no, she pays men to have sex with her! The Jews were accused of worshipping false idols, sacrificing their children, lying, ignoring their God's commandments, and no end of other bad things. We can, in other words, conclude that they had strayed far from God.

In their defence, the Jews are hardly only people to stray from that which works. Cooperation is hard! Defection is easy. The bible brims with examples of God destroying civilisations because they failed to cooperate: Sodom and Gomorra, Noah's flood, the tower of Babylon, to name a few. And are we today not in the exact same situation? When I turn on the tv or read the papers I am viscerally disgusted by the demonic crap that is shoved down our throats. Everyday we stray further from God indeed.

But no matter if somewhat understandable, the bottom line is that if a civilisation behaves badly, its destruction is imminent. In contrast to the early OT era of conquerors and kings, the latter half of Jewish history is predominantly about them being conquered and taken away as slaves, only to return to Israel later in diminished numbers and have the cycle repeat. I am told the reason Jewish identity is inherited through the maternal line is because too many Jewish men were killed in battle. Over and over the Jews sin, and over and over God sends punishment their way.

Thing is, even though the doom prophets such as Iesaja, Jeremia and Ezechiel were absolutely correct in what they said, their warnings did not turn the tide. Again, our principle of the white pill over the black pill -- the doom prophets handed out honest black pills, but folks just didn't listen.

Recognising these grim circumstances is key for what happens next: God, disappointed with His chosen people, realises he needs to switch up his approach and in a stroke of genius sends His son, Jesus Christ. Jesus gathers a group of disciples and spreads the white pill: the Jews have been lost, but now they may return to God by following Jesus, for to follow Jesus is to follow God. Jesus heals the sick and chases away demons wherever he goes. And Jesus does not just deal with the lost flock, he also deals with the Pharisees, e.g. the Jews who very strictly adhere to the rules set by Moses in Deuteronium. Jesus accuses them of following the letters of God's law, but not its spirit. In other words, Jesus accuses them of not understanding that the bible is a collection of stories meant to help people. The pharisees use the rules to control others and uplift their own power, as opposed to uplifting everyone. As an example, Jesus breaks the sabbath during harvest, for the sabbath was meant as a collective resting day for God's people, but that does not mean the sabbath can't be broken when important works needs to be done.

Moving on, just like Moses before him, Jesus dispensed all sorts of rules and wisdom. In the parabel of the golden coins he explains that investing and multiplying your money is good, thus endorsing capitalism. But at the same time he warns for too much greed, saying what do riches matter when you die? Jesus also says you must first turn the other cheek, which interpreted in terms of game theory means that you must offer 'cooperate' to initially hostile strangers as to give both parties the biggest chance to get to a cooperate-cooperate equilibrium.

But Christ's biggest message of all was of course the simple fact that he was God's son sent to earth. Contrary to older prophets, who claimed to have a line with the divine, Jesus claimed to himself be divine. For which, again, within the context of the old testament there was plenty of precedence -- Zechariah, Daniel and especially Isajah all predicted a messiah would arrive. Christ's disciples make it abundantly clear that Jesus does not stand on his own. He is a clear continuation of the biblical tradition, fitting into the story until now, fulfilling several prophecies made before.

The problem with Christ being the messiah is of course that while a prophet can be ignored, a messiah who gathers momentum cannot. One can imagine what went through the heads of Jewish priests at the time. 'Jesus, king of the Jews! He barges into our temples, destroys stuff, riles up the people against us, and - get this - claims he is the messiah! Meshugga!' So what did they do? They rejected God's son. Complained to their conquerors the Romans (because of course they were conquered), and got Jesus nailed on a cross, only to come back from the dead three days later. Was this God's plan all along? Did He set a trap He knew the Jews would fall for? Or was it merely a final test the Jews failed? Whatever God's intentions, by killing Christ the Jews decidedly lost their prerogative as God's chosen people, and just as Christ said, anyone, anywhere in the world, who accepts lord Jesus Christ into his heart is favored by God. These people would call themselves Christians, and they would have at their disposal not just the social technology of the old testament but also that of the new testament. What an upset!


From Christians to the modern world

Christianity gets plenty of hate from its enemies. Let's address some of that.

Some argue it led to the death of the Roman empire. I am of the opinion that the Roman empire was already on its last feet, and the rise of Christianity was at worst the straw that broke the camel's back, but more probable, it represented people jumping the sinking Roman ship.

Others argue Christianity is inherently equalist, and led to atrocities such as the French revolution and communism. To me seems obvious that Christianity is only equalist in the sense that every man should be humble under God and not let his pride get the best of him, which goes equally for all men under God. Such a notion is hardly the murderous equalism of leftism, which asserts that the natural inequalities between men are evil, thus men are naturally evil, thus murder of your fellow men is inevitable and necessary. Which explanation fits history: for many many centuries, throughout the medieval ages, natural hierarchies were firmly in place, ordained by king and country. Evil equalism did not rise to power until well into the 17th century, and it was thoroughly un-Christian -- the first thing French revolutionaries did was kill Christians, and for communists it was no different. Communism was also, notoriously, originally a Jewish invention.

Then, some argue that Christianity is unscientific. Christians don't even believe in evolution! Part of that assertion is true, and I am to this day amazed by some of the ridiculous assertions made by self-proclaimed red-pilled Christians, such as that the earth is only 10,000 years old and that Elon Musk could not possibly have launched a car into space because the vacuum of space would've torn apart the paint and tires. It seems that religion is so powerful that people have a tendency to that our learning of the world is an on-going process. Or pride cometh for the fall, as they say. But hey, aren't we all human.

The other part of that assertion is a bald faced lie. For no matter how unscientific you may call Christianity, matter of fact is that the greatest and most glorious leaps in human history, from the early medieval ages to the industrial revolution to our first moon landing, were all done under the guidance of Jesus Christ. Every human advance, be it in physics, architecture, chemistry, transportation, robotics, electronics, mass production, medicine, you name it, have all be done in a two thousand year Pax Christiana. Christians built the greatest society in human history and nothing, not Islam, Hinduism, Confucianism, Buddhism or continental philosophy has come even close.

But alf, we went to the moon in 1972, which was well after Harvard a k a the progressives conquered the West in 1945 so that's hardly a Christian achievement! Well yes but no. You'll notice that the flagship of progressive space science, NASA, has in recent decades been failing at everything. NASA is grossly incompetent, growing more incompetent by the day, using its power only to sabotage free men like Elon Musk from getting to space. Which is entirely typical behavior for leftists.

What in fact happened, and happened over and over throughout the twentieth century, is that the Pax Christiana, a period of prospering civilisations lasting many centuries, still resisted well into the 20th century despite fighting a losing war against progressives, who first tried to erode Christianity from within and later attacked it from the outside. Major victories by the Progressives were won in the early 19th century -- the French revolution and the American civil war notably. Later came the communist-fascist revolutions of the 20th century, but indeed, post 1945 it was the American progressives who proved victorious, sealing the deal with the fall of the Berlin wall in 1989.

When we observe progressive science, 'unimpressed' is an understatement. NASA is hardly alone in its failures. Across the board, scientific progress is grinding to a halt, reversing even, as progressive science invests all its resources into failing to prove that black women have a 140 IQ while white men are evil and destroying the earth. While, on the other hand, the level of science as conducted in Christian society... Well that's quite a different story.

The usual progressive accusation against Christian science goes something like: Christian hate science! Just look at what they did to Galileo... And while they have a point, they completely miss the point, or rather they lie, as they usually do. The Catholic church had no place meddling with Galileo, and it was a stupid mistake, in line with the general sense of decadence and arrogance of the papists at the time, in line with the same lack of humility we see some Christians have nowadays. But the accusations deliberately looks at a tree, ignoring the forest, the forest being that, in Europe, all the countryside, villages and cities grew their communities around Christian faith, with churches and later cathedrals as essential part of their centres. Kings, noblemen, soldiers, villagers, farmers, they all converted to Christianity and found meaning in its stories. With European Christianity came a level of civilisation, cooperation and wealth that provided fertile ground for men to advance science. What I mean by that is that under old type Christianity, every man was a king under his own roof. That meant he had a functional family, a functional house, he took part in a functional economy that rewarded entrepreneurship, and he had time to spare to spend on hobbies, as men are apt to do, a favourite hobby being tinkering in garages. Like a healthy organism, it grew and expanded to other parts of the world, such as Australia and America, where it used those same Christian principles to replicate the continental success. It is not hard to imagine that if you have an entire society filled with such men, it is inevitable that they start experimenting and building all kinds of cool stuff. Which is exactly what happened. The amount of scientific progress we have made is amazing. And once again, it was all a direct result of our Christian faith. Who might you thank for reading this, on the internet, through a laptop or mobile phone? You may thank lord Jesus Christ, son of God.

Now, I'm not saying Christians were the only ones who could've achieved such success. Different ways lead to Rome. And incidentally the Romans did some pretty cool stuff too. But really, nothing even comes close to the all the amazing cool stuff Christian society produced.

So at this point people might say: OK I'll grant you that Newton and Darwin and Faraday were all Christians in a Christian society, but what about the scientific breakthroughs of the twentieth century? For instance, wasn't the atom bomb invented by a team led by Jews to win the war for Progressives? Again, yes but no: recall the failures of NASA, and note equally how it is now a public secret that most of our nukes are probably not working, and we are losing the technology to fix them. Like with the moon landing, what in fact happened was that left-over Christian social technology had so much momentum that it carried over into the twentieth century and allowed the production of the atom bomb. From our current day progressive perspective, having a team of exclusively white and Jewish men invent weaponry without HR breathing in their necks seems terribly racist. But it has taken progressives decades, centuries even, to shove Christian morality out of society and enforce progressive theology in its stead. Christian morals and the cooperation that came with it simply resisted, in some places well into the twenty-first century.

But most of that resistance is habitual resistance: 'this is how we've always done it and we're not gonna change.' Unfortunately, without a king, an army, or a church to back it, such remaining bastions have little sovereignty and are what we nowadays call unprincipled exceptions. From a progressive point of view, Christian society has many, many unprincipled exceptions -- people are systemically racist, systemically oppressive, systemically evil. That many if not all of those unprincipled exceptions keep society afloat, well let's not focus on that. Thus, businesses for a long time were unprincipled exceptions in the sense that the workspace was just male dominated since males are more career-focused. That of course was terribly sexist and nowadays we have female quotas imposed by Human Resources. Similarly, oil companies are still an unprincipled exception in the sense that we simply need oil for energy, but pressure is mounting for them to stop doing so since everything that produces CO2 obviously destroys mother earth. And so all the engineering, cooperation and science that flourished under Christianity is slowly destroyed...

I'll note that not all takedowns of unprincipled exceptions are bad. I have for instance greatly enjoyed #metoo, which meant Hollywood celebrities are now no longer allowed to enjoy fame-hungry women sucking their cocks.

Nonetheless, since everything good in our society is a remnant of Christianity, and progressives hate Christians, it logically follows that everything good in our society is an unprincipled exception. And indeed, progressives have among much craziness holiness spiralled into 'all white men bad' and 'all CO2 emission bad', for which the only solution seems to be to kill or at least enslave white men, and kill all industry, transport, and power grids. And we are seeing exactly such signs all around us.

From the modern world to... ?

Thus concludes the historical story. Now we are in the modern era, ruled by Progressives, and every day the headlines get crazier and society is falling apart further. Progressive religion is just not made for cooperate-cooperate equilibria; it is made for defect-cooperate equilibria, specifically for the defector to extract as much resources as possible out of the cooperator. Or, as we say in religious terms: progressivism is demonic and God's punishment for our sins will strike down like lightning from the skies.

To minimise God's punishment, it is only logical that, although we accept the loss of society at large, we ourselves return to God and live good lives. So, Christianity, as opted before. But now is finally the time to openly discuss that one crucial shortcoming of Christianity.

To understand the position of modern day Christians, a comparison can be somewhat drawn with the position of the Jews over the past two thousand years. What happened with the Jews after they rejected God's son? Well, pretty much exactly what everyone in the bible predicted would happen: the Romans killed, persecuted and exiled them. For what reason? As Jim with the help of Flavius explains, what happened is that around 60 AD, the Jews stole land because it was 'contaminated with chicken's blood', which somewhere in the bible is stated to be forbidden. The Romans, unimpressed with the Jews' holy crusade to un-contaminate land that wasn't theirs, sent a centurion to sort out the matter. The Jews promptly killed this centurion (equivalent to killing a cop, in Jim's words). This event was the final straw leading to the Jews' two thousand year long expulsion.

At this point you may cry out: 'wow, the Jews followed the letters of the law in order to grossly abuse its spirit! This was pretty much their own fault, and it went exactly as prophesied in the bible!' With which I wholeheartedly agree.

So consequently, many of the Jewish activities and the alarmingly justifiable anti-semitic attitudes flourishing in response to their activities may be summarised as: following their rejection of their own God's son, the Jews have been a lost people roaming the earth in search for meaning. Time to repent and accept Jesus Christ into your heart I'd say! But hey, what do I know. At least many Jews have returned to their promised land. But considering that they accomplished said land through a deal with the progressive coalition, you might as well say they cut a deal with the devil. Does not seem like the best omen for Israel.

Now, what does this tell us about Christians? I would argue that, similar to the Jews, the Christians are struggling with a loss of meaning, albeit in a different way. Christians have essentially been victims of their own success.

A Christian society is full of meaning -- love of Christ fills the heart. But it is predicated upon a number of assumptions which are essential for that meaning. Those assumptions are, in a nutshell, that the story of Jesus as told by the four disciples is true. Which includes fundamentals such as: - Jesus cured blind men - Jesus brought the dead back to life - Jesus healed the sick - Jesus made infinite bread and fish - Jesus turned water into wine - Jesus walked on water - Jesus came back from the dead

You see our problem? In an age where the field of medicine went as far as 'there are four humors' and the field of chemistry as far as 'surely we can change lead into gold', such stories were not just believable, they were expected from a son of God. But precisely because Christian society was so successful, those same fields exploded in collective knowledge and today we build semi-conductors, space rockets, the first quantum computers and whatnot. The rules of physics needed to build all that cool stuff, which we collected over the course of Christian society, discredit the origin story of that same Christian society. It is physically impossible to break bread infinitely! A man just can't walk over water! And most importantly, a man can not come back from the dead!

To which the Christian defence is: 'well you weren't there.' No OK, I wasn't there, duh. But also, I am not an idiot. It's quite obvious what's going on, because the same thing happened all throughout the bible: plenty of people are ordinary, but certain people in the bible just happen to experience an inordinate amount of miracles -- holy magic. Which has not changed at all. You still have people who perform magic. We call them magicians. It's just that... Well, we look at them differently. We know they are performing trick for our entertainment. Such tricks can be mighty impressive, but we know there is nothing supernatural about it.

In fact, when one performs tricks and does claim that he is performing supernatural miracles, we find it... tacky. Cheesy. Something for the lower classes. Something only dumb people 'fall for'. Because we believe we are smart enough to understand that the universe doesn't work like that. And we're right. If some preacher goes 'HALLELUJAH JE-SUS CURES YOUR AILMENT LOOK WITH THE LORD-AH LOOK WITH THE LORD-AH!' as he presses his palm into the forehand of a lifelong blind man, after which that blind man can suddenly see... Well, we suspect false play. We understand the basics of how eyesight works. We know about the nervous system, that the light goes through the bulb of the eye and lands on the retina where the optic nerve sends it to the occipital lobe of the brain in the form of electric signals. We understand all this! We also know that the regenerative ability the eye and optic nerves, like the general regenerative ability of the brain, is, unfortunately, quite minimal. Unlike, say, a pulled muscle or a fever, if you have been blind your whole life, fat chance that your eyes will spontaneously heal. It just doesn't work like that.

And well, that is pretty much how we can go through the entire list. Bring back the dead? You can't. Heal the sick? Well sometimes, we can be nuanced about that, but when Betty goes to some Indian guru who can heal her tumor through the power of touch, we all know what's going on. Infinite bread and fish -- yeah I've a perpetual mobile to sell. Walking on water -- Chris Angel did it too. And the masked magician explains here how even you can do it at home. And finally, the biggest problem, the crux of Christianity: Jesus did not come back from the dead.

Now, I know there's plenty of people out there who read the previous paragraphs and can tell me a thousand reasons why I'm wrong, why I can't compare some Indian guru with Lord Jesus Christ, why I am stupid for a thousand reasons etcetera etcetera. I cede your prerogative to believe the miracles really happened. I have no problem with that and my intent is not to convince you that they are fake. My intent is to acknowledge that there are also plenty of people out there who don't believe the miracles, and that shaking a stick at them with a warning to shut up is a) not going to work and b) is unfair.

I understand how the miracles were necessary to sell God's power at the time, and I understand the irony of how they contributed to the scientific advances that would later discredit them, and that is as far as I can and feel like I should stretch my genuine Christian faith, because remember: my only beef with jim is that I want my faith to be genuine. Which leaves us with the big big problem: how can I be a pure of faith Christian if I don't believe in the resurrection?

Well, the good news is you can, and how that works out is what we'll talk about next.


The story continues

The short of it is that the story must continue. We started with the God of Abraham, who became the God of the Jews, who became the God of all Christians. Just like the story did not end with Abraham, did not end with the Jews, so it does not end with the Christians. Which is great! The human story is far from over, after all.

The problem is of course, how do we continue? Well, the easy way is that, just like in the Old Testament, new prophets come to the forefront who will channel the voice of God. We've had plenty of philosophers, a few with some good ideas even, but because they lacked a link to the past, or spiritual continuity, so to say, nothing good ever came of them. We need to tap into that sense of consistency, that collection of stories that makes up the human experience. This, historically has always been the role of prophets.

No doubt there will be plenty of false prophets. But, just like in the Old Testament, we can distinguish the true from the false by the fruits they bear. One example of a false prophet is Joseph Smith, for among his sins was an unbridled lust, and instead of asking God for forgiveness, he lied that God instructed him to sin. Thus he was deservedly killed.

Another false prophet was Mohammed, who denied Christ's rightful place as God's son on earth. Thus God cursed the Mohammedans to eternally wage war on each other.

That's all good and well, but we're not looking for repudiations of false prophets, we're looking for that good stuff, that fresh content, that white pill... Where oh where can we find it...


Hey what's that.


Oh that's my phone. Strange I swear the batter was dead... Just a moment let me answer.





You're calling to talk to me? Holy sh... I mean sorry God I don't mean to curse. I was just not expecting this.


I should stop writing this down as I speak to you?




Yes Lord I do have a childish sense of humor.


Yes Lord.

Excuse me for a moment dear reader, I need some privacy.


An unexpected phone call

Well you're never going to guess who I just got off the phone with. God! He wanted me to relay the following message.

I fell to my knees and said: Lord, please forgive our sins, for we have strayed far from your path. To which God responded: get up Alf, and stop trembling, for I have come to tell you that I am a proud father.

So I asked: but Lord, look at what humans are doing. They have not just turned away from you, they are enthusiastically worshipping demons! To which the Lord responded: do you think this is the first time My people have strayed from me? My children's sins sadden and anger me greatly, but surprise me less. I have created a stubborn people.

The Lord continued: but I am happy, for I sent My son and you worshipped him as My flesh on earth. You built churches in My honor and spread the word of My new world to the furthest corners of the earth. Kings and slaves knew my might, and were thus rewarded, for I was a proud father.

The Lord continued: And so, because man's piety of old pleases me, my wrath for the sins of the young shall be slow. I shall take away the holy spirit of the unbelievers. I shall cut their tongues. And in time, I shall punish demon worshippers greatly, so that they may cry out in pain and know My name. But My children, who have made me proud, I will reward. Equally I will reward those who repent and return to my flock, as I have always rewarded those who follow and obey Me.

I asked: Lord, how are we supposed to believe the holiness of Your son if we doubt his resurrection? To which He responded: I reveal only what you are ready to see. Some read about My prophets and My son and say: I don't trust the stories! Science has discredited miracles! They have forgotten that I did not just create man and earth. I created all the planets, all the stars, all the molecules and all the atoms. I created the very physics they claim disproves my existence! But although they are blind, I curse them only with loneliness. Only once they walk with Lucifer shall they be punished.

The Lord continued: but just as I curse those who deny My might in the Holy books, I curse those who deny My might in My new kingdom. Some read about scientific advances and say: I don't believe these findings! They are too complex! They would rather find Me in a piece of wood than in a spaceship. They have forgotten that I have sent My son to tell you about my new kingdom, and that my kingdom will be built with more than sticks and stones. But although they are blind, I curse them only with fear. Only once they mistake Lucifer's might for mine shall they be punished.

I asked: Lord, the kingdom built in your name has been overtaken by sinners and demons, who are tearing it down. What are we supposed to do? To which He responded: If it has already been overtaken by sinners and demons, why mourn its downfall? Let them eat each other, while My children rebuild My kingdom.

I asked: but Lord, how are we supposed to know what your kingdom looks like? To which He responded: I have spoken to the descendants of Abraham, and they have shown you the way. Then I sent My son, who has shown you the way. Now I have called you, and shown you the way.

I complained: but Lord, this is only one phone call... To which He responded: I reveal only what you are ready to hear. If you demand more, well, personally I read Jim's blog.

And I said: then so will I, Lord. And I asked: Lord, what does it all mean? Why did you create us? What is our purpose? To which He did not respond, for the call had ended.

So ended my phone call with God.


The real end

Well that was quite an unexpected turn. I had planned on writing something about how prophets and quite possibly Christ himself will have to make a comeback in order to continue the story. But I guess this is even better. Strange. I had really planned on saying more. Seems unimportant now. How am I to top a call from God? Although this is still the first draft. So maybe I'll proofread and rewrite some sections.

So the way it turns out is God, to no ones surprise, is alive and powerful as ever. Christianity is, though out of power, still alive. God has even started talking to us for the first time since Jesus and his disciples last spread the word 2000 years ago! I am glad that this story ends in such an uplifting manner. Thanks for reading, blessings upon you and your loved ones.


Post scriptum: health

So, there's one final thing I want to discuss, and that is health. Maybe this is just specific to me, but I want to mention it nonetheless.

There is a ton of health advice out there. I am by no means an expert, but I believe it is good to cover some of the basics I wish I knew earlier. It is somewhat a curse of modernity that we have so many options of things we might do with our body that we lose sight of the basics. To my mind, there's a few essentials about health, which essentials are always intertwined with your spiritual health and thus, in these days of spiritual poverty, often forgotten.

I've collected, through entirely unnecessary stupidity, three lasting injuries to my body. I have learnt to deal with each of them, none cripple me or are even visible if you'd meet me, but they are lasting injuries nonetheless.

The first injury I got was a as a teenager while firmly rooted in progressive mindset. Progressive mindset means a belief in nurture over nature, and so I was taught the lie that sports are healthy for you. After all, more sports = more healthy body! The truth is, while sports in some ways is healthy, in many others, they are quite unhealthy, dangerous even. The body grows and adapts somewhat in response to exercise, yes, but like an elastic band, it can only be stretched so far. If stretched too far or in the wrong way, it rips and you have an injury. Some injuries heal, but others only heal somewhat, never completely. Even weightlifting, which is about as controlled a sporting environment as you can get, has many lifters with lifetime injuries. Few people have as many permanent injuries as sports enthusiasts. Which is really really dumb. If you play sports, keep that in mind, and listen to your body if it starts to hurt. I did not, and that was a mistake I made early on.

The second injury I got was when I was in my twenties and had reached the breaking point with my life as a progressive. What everyone around me told me was going on, including my entire family, simply did not mesh with what I saw with my own eyes. It so flabbergasted me that I did not take good care of myself, and injured myself once again. I believe the mistake I made is one Jesus addressed -- if you want to find God, you have to be prepared to let go of everything. I tried to hold on for too long.

The third and hopefully last injury I got was in my thirties. And it's going to sounds a bit stupid, but I injured myself because I could not believe my success. After I had reached my breaking point and accepted the situation, I made a choice to start all over and this time, do it good. I used neoreactionary and Jimian principles. I was unsure of myself, because the only thing I had was a wasted youth and a pile of debt. But in only a few years things turned out great for me -- I got a business, a house, and kids. They turned out so great, that, I repeat, I just could not believe my success. I was in disbelief of how fast a life can be turned around, of how well all these principles worked. It's not per se that I became arrogant, more that I was a bouncing ball of energy. So I misdirected my surplus of energy and injured myself once again. This time, I believe my mistake was understanding the abstract concept of a God (I referred to Him as Gnon those days), but not surrendering myself to Him. I did not have that sense of humility to keep me grounded when my life changed for the better.

The way I have learned to deal with these injuries is twofold. One, I work out with specific exercises that work for me. Usually involves building some muscle. Some therapists have given me useful advice, most have not. My experience is that healthcare services have a few, very specific, excellent treatments, but generally our capabilities of healing the human body are quite limited. Generally, healthcare services dangerously overestimate their healing capabilities. The body knows what's best. I stay away from medicine as much as I can. Even surgeries are not magic -- they are invasive and take a toll on the body. Most procedures just aren't good for you. Longterm, side-effects tend to outweigh the intended effect. As a rule of thumb, when in doubt, better to not use it. Although again, I stress: some treatments are excellent. For instance, I had my eyes lasered: amazing, can recommend to anyone.

Two, I stay away from drugs, unhealthy food and other additives. Which is to say, I'm not a complete abstainer, sometimes it's fun to get drunk with friends, but generally I use in absolute moderation. Candy, soda, coffee, fast-food, processed foods, all the stuff that is addictive, I am wary of. Although I stress, I dislike living healthy as a means to be holier than thou. It's just a matter of taking care of yourself.

Maybe I am just stating the obvious, but I felt like I needed to say that. Take care!


Post scriptum: kids

Also, a few notes on raising kids. I am a parent of young kids, so by no means a lifetime of experience, but I feel like I got a decent hang of it. Again, this'll be stating the obvious to some, but since so much of the obvious has been forgotten, best to state some of it.

As you might expect, a society in decline has a certain animosity towards children. Certainly in the cities, children are seen as a nuisance, pretty much the opposite of how Jesus treated children. Whether or not you want kids is up to you of course, although I believe there is good reason one of the first promises God made to Abraham was that he'd have as many descendants as there are stars in the sky.

A woman should have kids when she is young. Fertility drops after her thirties. It can still happen, but postpone kids until that age and you might be in for a rude surprise. Don't count on all this false IVF hype -- it is taxing, invasive and mostly ineffective. Of course, you may present such arguments to your wife and she will still come up with a thousand reasons why 'now' is not the right time for kids. Truth is that she will only bear your children when she is happily submitted to you instead of to some career and all the men involved in that career, including her boss. A friend once playfully accused me of seeing women as breeding machines. On the one hand he was correct, on the other hand he was rationalising his own woman's refusal to have his children.

I am a fan of letting the pregnancy unfold as naturally as possible. It is a special and taxing period for the woman. She should not feel obliged to do any heavy or long work. Also, already at this stage the state will try to interfere, usually with a bunch of tests supposedly to help out, but which in practice will only stress out your woman and raise the chances of a miscarriage. State healthcare will always find something that does not fit the protocol. In our case, they were worried about my woman's weight, which was 'too low'. My initial response was 'thank you I know my woman is slim and pretty' but they just would not let it go and ordered all sorts of extra tests, which we refused. But they just did not let it go and would rudely bring it up every visit. In the end we switched to private healthcare. Good decision.

We've had our kids born at home. I can recommend to anyone. We've had great midwifes, the whole experience felt very natural. I have no experience with hospital births, but I imagine they force all kinds of procedures on you -- painkillers, monitors, birth-starters and whatnot. A fan of none. How can you give birth if you can't even feel what's going on? Cesar sections: not a fan either, they hand them out like candy. Surgery is invasive and leaves scars for life. I'd resist and only accept if you are relatively sure there is no other option.

OK, so now you have a baby. Taking care of small children is hard. It's not like your woman poops them out and they just do their own thing. Babies require a constant stream of attention. Kids throw tantrums, want to do all sorts of stuff you don't feel like doing and really, giving them a smack does not accomplish as much as you'd think, not that I'm opposed of course.

My experience is: you need help. If your wife does not work it helps a lot, is in fact necessary I'd say, motherhood is a 24/7 job after all. But even then the mother might be overwhelmed. Extended family is great. Grandparents, uncles, aunts, wherever you can get help, use it. Makes life a lot easier and fun. You can do without, but you'll feel like prisoners in your house. There's truth in the saying that it takes a village to raise children.

As for them growing up -- I hear and believe that with time it gets easier. They grow older, become more independent and at a certain age you don't have to shadow their every move. I've also heard it said that more children isn't necessarily more effort, since the older help out with the younger ones. Although I cannot imagine babies and toddlers ever not being a huge timesink.

Naturally I am in favor of homeschooling. In the Netherlands this is rare and not culturally accepted, so we're feeling the pressure to send to school. I'd be lying if I'd say we're immune to that pressure, and I understand people sending their kids to school, especially if the parents have to work. Here's my argument: school is daycare, nothing more. Insofar it is meant to teach your kids useful skills; it just doesn't. It's useless, if not outright damaging with the ever-increasing propaganda they throw at your kid.

Take the following example: one kid, Aidan, who is not even homeschooled, drops out of school at age 15 and starts to work in construction. Over the years he learns how to build houses, and makes decent money. At age 25, he uses that money to build a plot of land and in his free time builds his own house. At age 28, Aidan and his pregnant girlfriend live in that house, no mortgage, plenty of space, and his skills are so in demand that he has to reject customers.

Let us compare with another kid, whose parents strangely call him B. B is an intelligent kid. Goes to school, studies hard, gets good grades. As a teenager, he spends 40 hours a week learning Pythagoras' theorem, how to conjugate verbs, critical race theory and that the mitochondria is the powerhouse of the cell. At the age of 18 he goes to college, accruing a big bag of debt because that's the way college works. In college, he parties a bit, studies hard, and graduates at the age of 23. The job market disappoints him. He has to take an internship at low pay to get 'experience' and finds that as he climbs the corporate ladder, all his education is of no use whatsoever. At age 28, B is still knee-deep in debt, has a job that he doesn't particularly like but at least it pays his rent. His girlfriend is in a similar situation. She does not want to have kids for at least a couple of years.

You get the point I'm driving at -- don't let your children's youths be wasted. Kids learn through experimentation, imitation, from mentor figures and through experience. School does not give them any of that. Do not recommend.

And that's all I have to say on the topic. If my kids end up like Hunter Biden I might have to delete this, but for now all seems well.


Four demons of progressive worship ***to be inserted somewhere in story***

Much ink has been spilt over the beliefs of leftists. We basically have figured it out. The trick is, however, to summarise their beliefs thusly that it is easy for each and all to explain. And what have we discussed here is the easiest way to explain things? Through the lens of meaning. That gets to the core.

In morally neutral terms, the core of leftism is to abuse prisoner's dilemmas: to be the defector in a defect/cooperation equilibrium, so in other words, to gain power at someone else's expense. Note to self: Perhaps include a chapter on prisoner's dilemmas Or, as Jim explains it, leftists are always knocking over apple carts: you destroy the apple vendor's business in the long term, but in the short term chaos you are bound to steal some apples for yourself.

But of course we would like to phrase that in religious terms. Turns out there is an easy and tested way to do that. The religious core of leftism is, quite simply, demon worship.

Demon worship means re-interpreting evil as good. It means saying: those apples never belonged to the apple vendor anyway. They belonged to us all. It was righteous to knock over his cart! And isn't that how it always works with evil people? They are never at fault. Therefore the easiest way to deal with them is to pull back the curtains on their true beliefs, for they are ugly and evil, and they are best explained in terms of being ugly and evil.

Leftists band together in the most effective ways to knock over apple carts, and although these tactics may vary, cooperation requires a certain stability, so let us identify four demons of current progressives worship.

1. Equality demon

I think most are familiar with this one. It started out with equal rights, it ended with the right of gay men to sodomise little boys. There is a reason the bible has different roles for men and women, different roles for slaves and masters. Humans are different. It's just the way it is, and it is Good. We have different talents, differing amounts of talents, and we settle in natural hierarchies to best optimise our talents, with God on top of that hierarchy. The equality demon screeches: 'why should you accept the role God chose for you? You can have everything even if you deserve nothing! You can be a man even if you're a woman! You can be a white man even if you're black as night!'

Obviously, such rejections of natural law disgust God as much as it disgusts good folk. And predictably, they never end well.

2. Socialism demon

The demons of socialism lost a lot of steam in the aftermath of its unending death fields of the twentieth century. Every man with half a brain knows communism is evil and demonic. Yet, demons thrive on weakness, and because our society is weak, the Marxist demon is still with us, masking its envy of the rich as a crusade for justice. God smiles upon entrepreneur who becomes billionaires creating value. He hates the thieves who seek to steal that money. And so, whenever the socialism demon is set loose, the predictable horror ensues.

3.Gaia demon

The Gaia demon is an interesting one. Like many demons, there is a peaceful, good version of her. We have to take care of earth, insofar we are in a position to take care of it. I much rather walk around thinking 'isn't it beautiful here' than thinking 'my god it's so ugly and polluted.' But so does everyone. Which is why Christian society was pretty to see.

The right role of man is dominion over earth. God is above us, earth is below us. If we are not master of our environment, our environment will kill us. And that is exactly what the Gaia demon is about. I picture her as an ancient swamp monster, who does not particularly care about humans, and mostly slumbers. But once the Gaia worshippers awaken her, her swamp and tendrils grow in response to the idolatry. 'Give me your land, your earth, your everything' she murmurs. 'It all belongs to me.'

Gaia worshippers, like all demon worshippers, think that the demon will spare or even reward them for their actions. Never happens.

4. Corona demon

Another interesting one, because we have seen this demon being summoned during our lifetime. Once again, a kernel of truth: the corona virus exists. Also once again: turned into a perverted demonic version that bears no resemblance to the real thing whatsoever.

In terms of game theory you can say that the progressives whipped up a pandemic scare to get rid of Trump, or as an excuse to amass more power. But of course, religiously, what has happened is that we have witnessed, live, the summoning of a demon that previously did not exist. Once summoned, demons tend to spiral out of control and cause a lot more trouble than they were initially summoned for, including to those who summoned them...

The corona demon is a particularly destructive one -- it demands economic destruction, social disruption, humiliation rites like the masks, and of course a holy war against the unvaccinated. It furthermore resembles the old Aztec Gods, in that it demands human sacrifice. Normal medicine? No, we must inject the people with vaccines that aren't real vaccines, with side effects that kill and harm even more people! And, once the shots inevitably don't work, what we need is moar shots! Like all demons, it is never sated and increases its demands over time until it is forcefully banished.


This list is by no means exhaustive. Satan has a ton of minions. I just mean to give an overview of the most prominent ones. Now I am by no means an expert on demonology, but perhaps it is good to note that the power of demons is limited. I know that might seem strange as the world is overrun with them, but the truth is that they cannot influence the world directly as God can. Like vampires, they need to be invited. If you refuse them entrance to your household, they cannot harm you.