So it seems even Jim is throwing in the towel with regards to Trump. Dark times are ahead of us.
My wordpress blog crashed after an update, and even though I seemed to have fixed it, it crashed again. Well I was done with wordpress anyway. Timing seemed kind of right. I'll be starting from scratch, bare bones and work up from there.
So this blog will be staying up. Won't be a real blog of course, since no way for you to comment until I somehow code that. Which I am in no rush to do. Comments were nice, but have to be pragmatic. I have no problem writing in the wind for a bit.
So I'll be writing again. Dunno how much, dunno what, but I have sort of a vague plan. It'll be fun, as much as fun can be had during these pressing times. The Netherlands has for instance gone into a second lockdown, even if total mortality rates are 0,95% of total pop in 2020 compared to 0,88% in 2019. There is no sensible institution left. The West is falling apart. And hell, I am even relatively safe in the periphery of the empire. Can't imagine what it's going to be like under president Biden.
Am I in danger for what I've written, for what I'll be writing? No where near as much danger as Jim - I don't have enough clout, and even if I had enough clout, I am not directly challenging the Progressive hegemony. I have supported Jim as long as I could, because hell, the guy is pretty much a modern day Leonardo Da Vinci. But it's time to move on. So I do not expect to be in that much danger. Of course, the mere act of speaking truth in these times is dangerous, so naturally there is some danger, but that I accept. Got to be willing to die on some hills.
Anyway that's enough with me being dramatic. For now: welcome to a new Garden of the Internet, hope you occasionally return, and sorry for the lack of interaction.
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, as everyone around you tells you from young age, that your civilisation stands atop all animals, even atop all mankind.
Or so you're told. For a few decades later, the Hittite empire fell apart, plundered and destroyed by its enemies. Its men killed, its women taken, something like that. Now you are either dead or fleeing. A stark contrast. Why didn't your civilisational self-image with who you were match up with what was actually happening?
Well, the obvious reason is that judging a civilisational cycle is outside the scope of your daily life. Making accurate assessments is hard. 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?
And of course there is 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 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.
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. Yet finding a succinct and truthful analysis is hard, for 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 I do not for a second buy that that is the whole story. One can easily draw a parallel with our society: why is the West falling? Well because 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 resource availability and climate, there is no reason why our societies should fall apart. Yet in practice, they do. Why? On this site I will explain my answer to that question, which in short is: because societies must have a reason for their existence.
Liars, Grifters and Charlatans
Talking about the right diagnosis regarding our society's ailment means talking about Moldbug. I have summarised and re-summarised Moldbug many times, so forgive me for not churning out another thousand word essay on the man. The basic takeaway is this: supposedly, following the enlightenment, the West shrugged off its superstitious religiousness, and instead became a society grounded in Progress and Science. Yet, Moldbug remarked, for some strange reason, when you look closely at the institutions that represent this Progress and Science, you find... Well... Liars. Grifters. Bad people. People who loudly say A, yet go on to do B. Moldbug gave many examples. Let's talk about one: global warming. Did you know that the relation between carbon dioxide and temperature is logarithmic, not linear? You didn't? You forgot what logarithmic even meant? Well allow me to explain.
Here's what we know about carbon dioxide and temperature. Greenhouse gases increase earth's temperature by thirty degrees, from -15 degrees Celsius to +15. Carbon dioxide makes up ten percent of that effect, or 3 degrees. Pre-industrial carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere was 280 parts per million, we are now at about 410 ppm. So that's a 46% percent rise since industralisation. Which then should correlate with a 1.4 degree rise in temperature, if the relationship were linear. But it isn't. Never was. The relation is logarithmic, the log base being two, the multiplier being approximately zero point four.
What does that mean? It means that for every doubling in carbon dioxide concentration, temperature increases with about 0.4 degrees. And as said, CO2 concentration has not even doubled over the past two hundred years. It has increased, but not even close to doubling. And if it doubled to 560 ppm, it would have to double another time to 1120 ppm for a 'mere' 0.4 increase. And then another time to 2240 ppm for a total increase of 1.2 degrees. All in all, what the data actually seems to tell us, is that carbon dioxide concentration beyond the first 100 ppm seems to play a very little, essentially harmless role in earth temperature. Below graphs, cheerfully lifted from wattsupwiththat, illustrate the same 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 is pretty standard stuff for global warmists: supposedly we've already experienced a three degree rise in temperature, supposedly we will see a total of six degree rise in temperature, and supposedly this is all because of the linear relation between carbon dioxide and temperature. Do you remember Al Gore standing on a chair because he couldn't reach the top of a giant-sized graph's incredible rise in temperature? I sure do remember. The linear, if not exponential rise in temperature is taught in schools, taken for granted in newspapers. It is the foundation for political policy, and our lives are increasingly affected by the notion that we must stop CO2 emissions if we are to save the planet. But none of this is true! In fact, it is insultingly false, in direct contradiction with empirical experiments. Experiments which at this point go back decades. Yet no one who drives these policies seems to care, no global warming expert will even mention something like logarithmic relation. How incredibly strange.
Well, Moldbug said it wasn't so strange. He said, basically, that this is the natural outcome in a democracy: since no one has secure power, a multitude of conspiracies sprout vying for pieces of insecure power. Conspiracies lie: that's why they're conspiracies. A conspiracy covers up an ugly truth in a pretty lie. So anything that becomes important in a democracy is almost by necessity based on lies. Hence, global warming: the pretty lie is that we're saving the planet. The ugly truth is that it's a bunch of liars, grifters and charlatans robbing and destroying civilisation.
Of course, we're not just dealing with global warming conspiracy. A democracy encourages many conspiracies: conspiracies to drive out people of their houses, to take their land, to increase taxes, to set up one people against another. You end up with a never-ending stream of corrupt bureaucrats; a thousand small kings who require you to bribe them for a million permits. The scary thing: all these conspiracies tend to find situational allies in one another. In other words, they team up in order to rob you more effectively. Moldbug called this amalgam of conspiracies: the Cathedral, alluding to the scammers' tendency to dress up their lies in religious clothes. Religious fervour, as exemplified with global warming, turns out to be a very effective scamming tool.
Moldbug's writing became the catalyst for the intellectual movement known as Neoreaction, or the Dark Enlightenment. Reaction because it 'reacted' against democracy, 'neo' because this isn't the first time democracy has haters. Neoreactionary consensus settled around calling the scammers 'Progressives', an ironic allusion to their scamming practices being dressed up as both religion and science, depending on the occasion.
A Story About Stories
Good news everyone! I have patched things up with Jim. The reasons for our fight and the manner in which we patched things up shall be explained later. Rest assured that my girl was angry when she finally understood the fight ("you broke up over THAT?"), but also rest assured that this shall make our story slightly happier in the long run. Here's a celebratory meme.
Anyway, before we continue with the history of Neoreaction and my humble partake in it, perhaps it is good to tell you what this website is about. I have, after all, a fairly clear vision: this website will be a story about stories. I guess the usual idea of a story is that you should tell the story and not wallow in what it means. And I will do that. But getting as meta as possible is kind of my thing, so it's part of the story whether you like it or not.
What this website is intended to be, is to summarise the story of where we currently are, as a species. Which is to say, the forefront of where we are, where we were, where the vanguard of mankind pierced the silver-lined clouds of the heavens, before we tumbled down like Icarus. This story is, by today's standards, immensely racist, sexist and whatever bad words they've come up with these days. The vanguard of mankind, after all, has been white men, and even though you'll notice I have no particular fixation on white men like Hitler or the Progressives, my enemies will surely portray me as if. Luckily, my enemies are not so smart and will mostly lack the attention span to read a text like this. Nonetheless, will this site be thrown of the internet, like so many other truth-speaking sites? Probably not. I think it likelier that this site will stop working because the internet will stop working. But I don't know.
What I do know is that Western civilisation was built by smart men and women, who tend to be disproportionately white, and is currently being broken down by evil men and women, who come in all colors, including white. The smart men, finding themselves hated by their state, have been forced to hide their intelligence. Some of them, through their own search for truth, searched the internet anonymously, and debated matters with other anonymous men. Heated debate followed, and in the end, a conclusion was reached.
This is the story of that search for truth, and of that conclusion. The conclusion itself is an answer to the most pressing questions our children and grandchildren shall face: How do we survive the fall of a civilisation? Where do we go from here?
With Moldbug came the neoreactionary big bang: where there used to be nothing, now there was fierce debate. Neoreaction was hot and happening. Everyone had a blog, everyone discussed neoreactionary affairs at neoreactionary blogs. Many interesting concepts were developed, concepts which I can hardly all do justice. The best summary I can think of 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. There was no way they'd survive, and indeed they were eventually forced to close down because 'evil alt-right propaganda'. So I don't think you can order the book anywhere. Which means you'll have to settle for my fragmented version of Neoreactionary history.
Back to the Nrx Wild West. People perhaps knew this was dangerous knowledge, but many were just too enthusiastic not to discuss it. Besides, the internet granted anonymity. Such anonymity had its limits, as for instance Mencius Moldbug was doxxed as Curtin Yarvin, partly his own fault, partly because we were only just coming to terms with the gravity of the situation. How grave was the situation?
Well, pretty grave. As Moldbug would say: the cancer is terminal, there is no transplant that will save this patient. 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 standing can vote. And we had full-blown democracy where women, criminals and foreigners can vote. But it wasn't just the political system. It was an entire belief system. Religious, cultural, everything. Every intellectual trend since the French revolution and the Harvard conquest of America turned out to be nonsense disguised as progress. So we really had quite a few things to discuss. Hence Moldbug's metaphor of the red pill: 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.'
Over time, a loose consensus was developed as to what Neoreaction, or NRx as the cool kids called it, meant. See below picture.
As you can see, there were three NRx 'factions', so to say. Let's start with the techno-commercialists. Moldbug, after all, was a techie. Or, a nerd, if you will. The nerds imagined what would happen if Steve Jobs or Elon Musk ran the country. They wanted countries to be run like CEOs run their companies. Monarchy, but with stockholders and double-entry accounting. Smart people doing smart things.
But then you had this other group, the theonomists. The religious folk. Guys like Nick B Steves and Jim were here. 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 philosophy, this was the point where all the atheists would go 'shut up you religious freaks you don't even believe in evolution'. But in NRx, the theonomists' point could not be denied. Progressivism really was this evil religion in which, for instance, children are sacrificed to demons. You don't believe me, take your kid to drag queen reading hour. Let your kid sit on their lap. I dare you. If you still don't believe me, what can I say. I've seen with my own eyes how parents make their children have sleep-overs with gay men to show their tolerance. Kid gets abused, everybody shocked. Except Christians and neoreactionaires.
Course if you're a real progressive you likely won't have any kids. Maybe a few cats. After all, you must do penance for destroying this world through global warming. Which, reactionaries realized, closely resembles some twisted version of Gaia worship.
So all in all, suddenly, the bible made a lot of sense. But since many neoreactionaries were not practicing Christians, a compromise had to be made. It was probably techno-commercialist Nick Land who came with the solution: he proposed Gnon, Nature or Nature's God, as a deity that presented both God and natural law, natural law meaning mostly Darwin and the insights that follow from evolutionary psychology.
Finally you had the ethnicists-nationalists. The guys who were into Human Bio Diversity (HBD), physiognomy and eugenics. The guys who were most at risk of being called Hitler, basically. But again, their arguments made too much sense to be ignored. Moldbug himself said that while Hitler was dumb and mad, the obsessive demonisation of the nazis is just as dumb and mad. The nazis were a product of their time, a strand of national socialism in a world where everyone was a nationalist socialist to some degree or other. Nazis were twentieth century leftists. But that's not what the reactionary ethicists were saying. What they were saying was: '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.
All of this is horribly politically incorrect to say, but also horribly true. Here's another proverb I always remembered: whites invented and maintain the electrical grid, browns can barely maintain it, blacks can not maintain it. Horribly horribly racist, but for anyone who has been around the world: true.
These discussions were ahead of their time. HBD and 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 to be a lone reactionary before that period was to accept lunacy. You'd say things were going downhill, but people, especially in the Netherlands, would say that we are living in the wealthiest, happies, 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. When the immigration crisis hit, I was almost happy: 'you see, I told you sh*t is f*cked up!'
So that's kind of where we were. On the one hand you had these riveting discussions of truths long-lost, on the other hand they were reaching a depressing conclusion. As Spandrell, ethnicist-nationalist, would say: we were all drowning, and help was not on the way.
At this point I must be fair and admit I was barely involved in the early discussion of NRx. As in, not at all. I was reading different blogs. You see, I had other, more important matters on my mind. I was in my early twenties at the time, an ex-social outcast fresh out of high school, studying and living on my own in the big city... And God-damn was I determined to swim in a sea of pussy.
It's fairly typical of our time that no one has a good plan of their life, whereas everyone has a bad fantasy of their life. And so did I: I'd been raised to trust the system, so I figured that if I went to college 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, for the most part, a complete scam.
But while I was coming to terms with the state employee life 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 early in college (she 'needed space'). It frustrated me because I was doing everything the way I was supposed to. And then I learned about game.
The history of game is as typical as it is funny. 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 methods it to men. A journalist, Neil Strauss, wrote an entertaining book on the subject, and boom, the 'gaming community' blew up. Turned out there were misfit men everywhere trying to get laid, and plenty of gurus online willing to share their secrets. There was 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 consciously repressed. The way I was taught, you were supposed to be a gentle nice man to girls and in turn they'd reward you with sex. Which experience had already told me was a big fat lie. It turned out, and it took me years to really learn this lesson, that girls love an asshole with options.
So I became determined to be that asshole with options. I wanted a harem. Now, your average male is not really into that kind of stuff. Maybe because he is too mentally healthy, maybe he is too boring. But for whatever reason, I was determined to f*ck a bunch of pretty girls. Call it revenge for being rejected. Though I'd probably call it too much testosterone, too much engaging in the sin of lust. At any rate, much preferable to jerking off to porn and being forever alone.
Since game was hot and happening, there were websites where you could find wingmen and even entire communities. I had to slug through the mud a bit at first. I distinctly remember a meet-up where we'd do '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 would visualise 'a cube' some story designed to create rapport. It was terribly cringe, and at the time I felt bad for everyone involved. In retrospect, really funny.
In time I found a group of like-minded men who were actually pretty cool and we went clubbing together. Some of these guys were natural players; one of them, call him 'Tinder Tim', pioneered the art of sex on first Tinder dates, which back then was mind-blowing. He casually explained: 'yeah you just meet with them on a square, take them to your place, have some wine and then boom sex.' Others were having threesomes, regularly pulling pretty girls from the club and even having success with day gaming. And I wasn't doing so bad myself either; I'd pretty much always have one main girl I was seeing, with perhaps one or two girls on the side.
That members of our group were successful was inspiring, but it was also a hint towards the 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. 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. For all the lies society pulls over your eyes about women, one thing seemed to be true after all: having sex with a rotating harem doesn't make you happy. For instance, I noticed the girls I was dating were always causing drama. They wanted relationships. It took me a while to realise that this was probably because I gave off signals that Iwanted a relationship, as much as I consciously denied it. So in the end, I found one girl I particularly liked, we had some drama because she wanted a relationship, and I went: well why the hell not and we became exclusive. I think that was seven years ago. We now have one kid and one more on the way. So game worked out pretty well for me.
The difference between men and women
Before we return to neoreaction, let's talk about men and women a bit more. We should not gloss over the differences between men and women too quick. It's important stuff for anyone who truly wants to understand. The differences are hard to put into words accurately, yet we've been at it for over a decade now, so it's about time we definitively do so. So, where do we start.
Let's start with the fundamental difference: eggs are expensive, sperm is cheap. If the biological goal of life is to survive and procreate, women have a slight edge. Why? Because a woman's womb is where procreation happens. A woman has but to offer her fertile womb and she shall conceive. Of course, she knows conception comes at a prize - eggs, gestation, the whole process of motherhood, they are expensive. Which is why there are not so many differences in the amount of children between women.
For men, it is more a hit-or-miss affair. Some men will not find women to bare their children. 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. Sperm is produced in tonnes a day. Thus, a man's ability to procreate lies in what he has to offer outside his sperm, and how he distinguishes himself from his competition. Which makes men as risk-taking as women are risk-averse.
Now, the Christian equilibrium of monogamy goes a long way in stabilising the differences among men. The closest thing to a modern day Salomo is a Bob Marley with eleven kids by eight different women, or serial sperm cell donators, but really it's nowhere close. But a healthy family has none of that - a healthy family has one husband, one wife, and together they raise the children. And indeed, if Christian civilisation is any indication, this is the most stable arrangement.
But of course, monogamy does not take away the different outlook of men and women. Men still act as if their sperm is cheap, women still act as if their eggs are precious. As they should, because they are. Yet at the same time, they should not be lost in their respective role.
I'll explain what I mean. Take courtship. I've had plenty experience with courtship. As a man, I know pretty well what I want: a young, hot, feminine woman. I like my women witty and intelligent too, but really, beauty is my number one demand. Men are simple like that. And women know it, hence their obsession with being beautiful.
For women, on the other hand, the list of demands is slightly different. In fact, ask a woman here demands and you'll find her list goes on and on forever. However, observe her behaviour and you'll notice something funny: she'll sleep with the good-for-nothing drug dealer much quicker than she'll sleep with the ideal son-in-law. Her long list turns out to be a rather short list: the drug dealer is an asshole with options, the ideal son-in-law is a not. Or, summarised differently: a woman's number one demand in men is the ability to do violence. Women are simple like that. A drug dealer is the type of guy who might kill a man, the ideal son-in-law is not. Always wondered why serial killers receive so many love letters? Wonder no more.
Now this also explains the male propensity for acting tough during courtship: we portray ourselves as being violent and rough because we know women love it, and we want to impress women. But of course women ain't dumb, and they are very adept at testing men for bluffs. Now if a woman tests you for your toughness, this is a great improvement over being ignored. The problem of course, is that in the end, if you really want to impress women, you'll have to be prepared to kill a man.
This was what made me understand that being a player isn't what it was cracked up to be. A player, like a pimp, is constantly managing women's impressions: he is acting as if he is capable of much violence, because that is what women want. Which is why all pimps pimp-slap their women: their women want to be pimp-slapped. But it's dumb, because a 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.
This dynamic is the inverse of males wanting beauty in females: just as a woman can never be pretty enough, so can a man never be violent enough. And if neither party realises this, you get all the stupid shit we see in today's dating market: women being endlessly insecure about their looks, mangling their bodies in a never-ending effort to be pretty, and the men pretending to be over-the-top violent assholes or, since being a violent asshole is risky, dropping out of the market all-together and settling for a life of porn and video games. In terms of the prisoner's dilemma it is a defect/defect equilibrium and no one ends up happy.
The good news is that this problem can be solved, as it has been solved for centuries. Just like an unhealthy culture forces defect/defect equilibrium, a healthy culture forces cooperate/cooperate equilibrium. What does that look like? Simple: you give both parties what they want as well as making sure they know there is a limit to what they can have. Men want pretty, young women. So you give it to them. It is well-known that universities for women are really whoreschools where they, excuse my visual writing, party away their prettiest years with a buffet of cock only to settle for a nice guy in their thirties. Stop encouraging that behaviour in your daughters. Don't send them to whoreschool. Tell them beauty fades, and if they want to secure the love of a man, they should give that man their most beautiful years. That way, when her beauty fades, her man will still love her for the rest of her life, for he knows he and no other man has had her best. This in turn assuages her fear of losing her beauty, and allows her to age with grace.
As for men: women want a man capable of violence. So give it to them. Make sure your sons know how to be violent, how to lift, how to punch a man (closed fist), and how to slap a woman (open hand). Reward them for outbursts of anger which women love so much. If a man is comfortable with his agression, his woman will love him for life. She will after years of love still test him of course, as all women do, but in time she learns that there are limits to her man's ability to do violence. The serial killer might be flooded with love letters, but he is still in prison, or, in a juster society, dead by execution. This assuages our man's fear that he is not man enough, and allows him to age with grace.
From PUA to the manosphere to NRx
These insights, as simple as they are in hindsight, were really difficult to find ten years ago, in fact almost impossible. Why? Mostly, I think, because they were repressed and forgotten. To accept as morally good that man is a violent creature, a risen killer ape if you will, is to accept that violence is a useful ultimate arbiter of conflicts such as the war of the sexes. Since men are built for violence and women are not, men are the ultimate arbiters of conflict. In other words: patriarchy is good.
Which goes against everything you've been taught in the twenty-first century. Haven't you been paying attention in school?! Patriarchy bad! Feminism, emancipation, and suffrage good! You want to throw us back to the stone age? You goddamn racist piece of shit.
Early Pick-Up Artists struggled with this problem almost immediately. Mostly they stuck their fingers in their ears and pretended not to see the problem. I don't care about the politics, I just want to get laid! was the attitude. But this approach came with problems. Infamously, early PUAs imitated alpha male behavior without really understanding why it worked. Mystery, for example, was big into routines, which were memorized conversations. Of course, if you act out an entire memorised conversation with women you are pretty much a loser pretending to be a cool guy. But hey, if you can put up the act until sex: at least you had sex.
But obviously you can't put up the act forever. Women keep testing for weakness, and eventually things will fall through. Mystery was infamously depressed, and really, nobody was surprised.
Nonetheless, the promise of sex attracted many men, and in time they started figuring out that everything that worked with women went against social norms, and that that was OK. The problem with going against the prevailing social norms is of course that it one, it requires courage, and two, it can not be monetized. So the PUA community split: one part remained PUAs, who were still allowed to peddle their products, even if they had to grovel in front of the media, as RSD Julien so infamously did. Essentially, they became the snake-oil salesmen. I once wrote a takedown on Owen Cook, head of RSD, in which I wondered aloud how it was that a divorced father of two demanded thousands of dollars in payment to give his opinion on relationships. Well, because he's a scammer, that's why. I was very happy to see my post rank as the number two search result in the search engines, right below his instagram.
The other part of the community grew into the manosphere: a collection of anonymous and semi-anonymous men who started asking the tougher questions: what does it mean that women like badboys? What does it mean that we as men are taught to be goodboys? What does it mean to be a man?
There were many interesting manosphere blogs. You had the three R's: Roissy (or Heartiste), Roosh V, and Rollo Tomassi. Heartiste was your man for distilled asshole game. Roosh was relatable as an ex-laboratory guy who learned game from scratch. And Rollo was the theory man, who methodically mapped out the sexual market. There were more of course. I read Nick Krauser, Vox Day's game plan, Laid in NYC, just to name a few. It was vibrant.
The manosphere was excellent in that it accepted that it was good for man to be manly. The manosphere decisively rejected feminism. For which it paid the prize PUAs did not: Heartiste's blog was permabanned, Rollo was blacklisted from speaking at events, and Roosh was permabanned from pretty much everywhere, including entire countries like England.
Internally, the manosphere struggled too. They recognised the central problem: women were rejecting the majority of nice men, having sex with the minority of violent men. The violent men dumped them when bored, from which women did not learn until they started losing their beauty and wanted to settle with a nice guy. Of course, the women, having given away their beauty to bad men, would never be as pretty in the nice guy's eyes as they once were. And the nice men, having to compete with their women's former thug lovers, will always seem weak. All in all, it's a bad arrangement.
And making the best of such a bad arrangement by f*cking disrespectful blue-haired sluts does not a happy man make. This was the problem the manosphere faced, and it was unable to solve it. "Get a girlfriend and get out of the dating market" seemed to be the message I read in-between the lines. So I did. Got a young and pretty and smart one, if you don't mind me flexing.
It was around this time that I got into Moldbug, who did not spoke much about women, but had a lot of interesting stuff to say about everything else.
The return of the scientific method: economics
What was it that attracted so many people to Moldbug? Different people different strokes, surely, but there's one particular aspect of Moldbug that I think resonated with many people. Namely he sought and spoke the truth. That seems arbitrary and even silly, but it was crucial. The truth is not often spoken, especially publicly. Tends to be dangerous to those speak it. Yet here Moldbug was, accurately telling his dear readers they'd keep coming back, because to some people the truth is as alluring as light to a moth. And indeed it was. I for one, was starving for the truth. Could not find it anywhere. Academia? Rotten to its core with sycophants, liars and suck-ups. Newspapers were no better. Books? Which books, those promoted by journalists and professors? It was damn near impossible to find the truth. Like many, something felt up, something big was wrong, but we could not express it in words. Moldbug's Rule of the Progressives really was the first explanation.
The way Moldbug accomplished that was by returning to the scientific method. What I mean by that is that Moldbug observed, tested and adjusted his worldview accordingly. Again, seems silly, but I could not find anyone else using the same method. For instance, every scientific institution claims to follow this method, but it was painfully obvious, through that same the scientific method, that they did not. NASA for instance has done nothing since 1972 but increasingly demand money from the public in order to put the first transgender black on the moon in order to escape the impending end of the world through climate change. A mission they are disastrously failing at because they have to many female scientists taking selfies near malfunctioning space shuttles.
Thing is, on a long enough timescale, lies are boring and repetitive. The truth is juicy. So I stopped reading newspapers, started reading Moldbug, and started understanding 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, that made sense, but not the larger picture. Later I understood that wasn't my fault: 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, insurance has been forcibly bloated into an open group of strangers. Insurance companies do not know their customers, their customers do not know their insurance companies, so what happens is no one trusts anyone and you get a proliferation of bad risks. Said differently, it is a prisoner's dilemma in which the dominant strategy is defection, so insurance companies try to screw over their customers and the customers try to screw over the companies. The correct conclusion according to the scientific method is: do not get involved in insurance. But high school economics says: see that is why we need to make insurance mandatory for everyone! Make it state regulated! That way we can force the good risks to pay for the bad risks! Biologically, that is called parasitism.
The other thing I never understood was debt. How can a state be billions of dollars in debt? Do they not have sound fiscal policy? Why are these debtors not sending bailiffs to seize the state's property? That was until Moldbug explained that those borrowing the money and those lending the money are really on the same team, scratching each other's back.
See, what happens is that euros and dollars are fiat currencies. All that means is that there is no fixed commodity backing it. Instead, the currency is fuelled by trust, or more specifically: in trust of the organisations that oversee the printing of said currency. In the case of the dollar, the American central bank, the Federal Reserve, and in the case of the euro, the European central bank, the ECB. So when the state borrows large sums of money, it almost always borrows it from this central bank. And who is the head of the central bank? Well, in America that currently is Jerome Powell, who previously worked for the US state department of treasury. In Europe that is Christine Lagarde, who previously worked as the French minister of finance. You see my point? The left arm lends money to the right arm, and the right arm tells the left arm he is incredibly sincere about paying it back as soon as possible, wink wink.
But wait, it gets worse! For where do the central banks get their money from? Tellingly, not a single mainstream outlet will give you a straight answer. Instead they will talk vaguely about 'quantitative easing' or a 'relief bill'. These are all euphemisms for printing money. Literally. Or nowadays even easier: digitally. "Let me just enter an extra zero in your bank account sir. There, all done." It's really that simple. What, how else did you expect it to work?
Anyone who has paid attention to history class knows where excessive printing money leads: hyperinflation and economic crisis. Zimbabwe's Mugabe tried it, Weimar Germany tried it, always the same predictable results. As Moldbug explained: when you print money, you're not adding any value to the economy. You're stealing from others. 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 rob people by printing money, then you give a bit of it back and everyone is happy, then the economy flatlines because hyperinflation and you either affirm your control over the military or flee in the night. Maduro's Venezuela is a textbook example. And as Moldbug would say, Western countries have an equally long and proud tradition of socialism.
Makes a lot of sense no? Suddenly that 1.9 trillion covid relief bill doesn't sound so appealing anymore. As it shouldn't: you are being robbed in the name of *shuffles deck, picks card*: caring for the elderly. And that's all that state debt is. Depressing, but very sensible. Much of NRx fit into that category.
The return of the scientific method: politics
Luckily, not all in NRx was depressing. A favoured pastime was figuring out how to solve this mess. All agreed: it had be fixed from the top. If you want to achieve anything, you have to address the centre of power, which means fixing politics.
The thing about 'fixing politics' is that it is absolutely impossible within the current system. In fact it is even near impossible to have a normal conversation about what it would take to fix the current system. People lack the imagination and the anguage. It took reactionaries a few years to even reconstruct the language. Almost every mainstream idea popular these days is corrupted to some extent, untangling where and how far that corruption goes is a messy business. Most people don't concern themselves with it. Which is why neoreaction, and per extension this story, has always been underground. Personally I like it that way. If you have found your way here, congratulations: you are part of the underground Garden of the Internet club. First rule of Garden of the Internet: you don't talk about Garden of the Internet.
Western democracy is rotten to its core, built as a scam, will die like a scam. Nothing works the way it ostensibly should. Take the trias politica: supposedly, there is a division of power between the judiciary, the ministry and parliament. It is however widely known that there is no division whatsoever between the judiciary, the ministry and parliament. Politicians move to jobs in all three divisions like revolving doors. There was recently an illustrative case in the Netherlands where the ministry-imposed corona curfew was lifted by a lower judge, and in a matter of hours the higher judges intervened and reversed the lift on behalf of the executive branch. The trias politica is a fail.
So reactionaries ask: Why is it a fail? Well it ties in to the way power works. Reactionaries would sometimes refer to this as 'natural law'. See, in many ways, reactionaries are much like hippies, wishing to return to a lifestyle much more harmonious with nature. Of course reactionaries and hippies differ in that hippies tend to be deluded about how nature works, and reactionaries are not. Which is why hippies are malnourished, and reactionaries eat steak.
So how does nature, and by extension, power work? It's a bit hard to put in words. But let's try. Say we took a look at your life. Who is responsible for it? Answer: you are. You are, in effect, CEO of your life. You are your own king, your own dictator. You might not like it, but you decide over your own life and death.
Now let us take this logic one step further. Who is responsible for the life of your family? Perhaps you do not have your own wife and children so this question is not relevant for you, but allow me to answer on behalf of those who do: the answer is you, as well. You are the mini-patriarch of your family, you make the final decisions, much in debate with your wife of course, but always with your blessing.
Progressives dislike such a generalisation. 'A family is not a mini-dictatorship, just like any relation, it is communication!' Well, yes and no. Communication is important. But successful relationship communication much resembles a king communicating with his queen. He takes what she says serious, but in the end, he is the king. Progressives may balk and protest all they want, but that is why their families tend to either suck or be hypocritical. The scientific method tells: functional families are patriarchal, meaning the man is a king under his roof. Any other arrangement is predictably dysfunctional, and a prime reason why we there is so much goddamn divorce and broken families and inability to even form families.
Let us now take the next step. From the family we go to the community. Who is responsible for the community? Once again, the answer is: the leader. Well, the leader in cooperation with his trusted people, but nonetheless, the leader. In other words, reactionaries take it for granted that any functioning part of society has a hierarchical structure which can be traced all the way up to the leader. Take away that leader, and you take away the function. This is why democracy is so dysfunctional: who are leaders in a democracy? Well, they are temporary, ephemeral, based on names people check on a piece of paper. This makes them insecure and fake. If you are to take such a system seriously, what you end up with is smiling figureheads that get to pretend to be leader for a few years, and then disappear into the revolving door system. Which is exactly what we have.
Again, the predictable counter: 'ohmygod you are advocating dictatorship have you learned nothing of history look at Hitler.' Progressives tend to be as bad at the scientific method as they are at history. For one, Hitler was chosen democratically, so you are actually enforcing my point. For another, perhaps the other more than thousand years of state history could be just as informative as this arbitrary ten year period? For the majority of Western history, we actually had dictators ruling over our nations, only they were called kings (or queens!). They fared pretty well. It is in fact reactionary canon that feudalistic middle ages formed the cornerstone for the Renaissance and by extension was the cause of the industrial revolution. For example, king Charles the Second set up the Royal Society which was a meeting hub for all sorts of scientists, including Isaac Newton as its president. Turns out kings make excellent patrons of the sciences. Yes, it was dictators who caused all this wealth we have around us, wealth we in our democracies are grossly misusing and flushing down the toilet.
In conclusion. Just like you are in control of your own well-being, just like a patriarch is in control of his family's well-being, so can only a king be in control of a society's well-being. Is this system perfect? Not by a long shot. You can ensure maybe one or two good kings, but somewhere down the line you are going to get bad kings. But history shows that while plenty of nations survived a bad king, none survived a good democracy. And that is why all reactionaries are monarchists.