Cooperation is hard.

There is lots of fighting on the right. Generally, this is because rightists are more successful individuals than their leftist counterpart. Rightists get laid, leftist do not, and being successful means you can be more of an asshole. So rightists tend to hole up in their forts and be assholes.

Of course this is exactly what the left has taken advantage of: the left knows very well how to cooperate. You, a leftist, think you’re better than other leftists? Tough luck dipshit, suck it up. Leftists are good at sucking it up.

But not us on the right. On the right, everyone is a fucking smart ass. Everyone knows better. So you have these thousands of little islands of rightist sitting in their fort, pretending that their fort is the coolest.

We, however, plan to build a huge fort. One that puts the leftist coalition in its place. For this, we need to build a coalition between rightists.

Now, the main strategy so far has been the big tent strategy: don’t criticize those to your right. Which isn’t bad at all. It is related to that other good strategy: criticize privately, never publicly.

But currently we find ourselves to the right of pretty much everyone. We have outholied everyone on the right. Incidentally, this gives us memetic sovereignty, which gives us a pretty decent mechanism to say who does or does not belong to our team. So seems like the perfect time to start criticizing people from the left.

No room for blue pilled men, which is to say, they are free to join in on other topics, but if they start spouting off bs about women, they are put in place. See Neurotoxin.

No room for covert gay propaganda such as Bronze Age Pervert. I don’t think BAP’s content is bad, but in his own words, dude needs to SUBMIT to heterosexual propaganda. Where are BAP’s comments over at Jim’s blog? Dude needs to know his place.

No room for angry bachelors as Heartiste. Which is to say, Heartiste is great on many things, but we are in the business of building families, not digital rolodexes with sluts’ phone numbers.

And finally, no room for rightists who ostensibly agree with us, but never make referrals. Stefan Molyneux is firing off red pill truths on women — has he yet said where all this information is handily summarized? Until he does, no friend of ours.

In other news, I’ve finished the second draft. I am going over it a third time, just for some polishes here and there, but should not be too long until ready for proofreading.


  1. Sure, cooperation is hard. But there are very few fields in which men can be successful without successful cooperation. Precisely because rightists are successful, they usually know how to cooperate.

    I’d rather say cooperating is sometimes unpleasant. The successful can sometimes afford to not cooperate.

    1. It depends, it really depends. Mostly, the problem we face now is that everyone wants to be the new priesthood. Since WE want to be the new priesthood, since we are by far the best at being the new priesthood, need to assert dominance. These other guys are selfish and stupid.

      Now, once we get things rolling in the way we like, then it gets interesting. Much of cooperation is getting guys in the position where they are at their best. If we get to do what we do best, easier to get other guys to do what they do best. So cooperation will be fun for all involved.

      But, to get this across anonymously on the internet, it takes a while.

      1. Frankly, we are running out of time. We need one religion to oppose the cathedral and thus only one priesthood.

        Sure Jimianity would be the best, but I’d settle for anything non-crazy that might work. Problem is, compromises in religious matters rarely work. So, even though I’m willing to accept some workable alternative to Jimianity, I have not yet seen one. Hence, I agree we have to exert dominance.

        I think you both over- and underestimate the problem. On the one hand, only very few on the right want to be priests. Most are perfectly happy being faithful followers. It is just that the followers are less visible. Go to a meeting of Baudet’s or Wilder’s party or to a meeting of
        the Identiterian Movement or anything similar. You’ll see mostly followers-they’ll gladly follow different priests. The followers go to such meetings because they see the harmful effects of the cathedral and are actively looking for a new religion and thus a priesthood to follow.

        On the other hand, those who want to be priests are by and large not stupid. Most are pretty smart. It is difficult to get rid of the dominant religion they were raised with and to come up with an alternative. It takes smarts to start even beginn that process.

  2. Stephan Molyneux isn’t exactly red pilled – more like purple pilled. He’ll make correct statements about female fertility and age but he’ll also talk about how women’s value to men is their beauty and men’s value to women is their wealth to argue that men’s relative value increases over time. The idea that women are interested in men for wealth primarily is fully blue pilled and is obviously going to be ineffective if he’s addressing women because they know they’re not aroused by men’s wealth. The red pill version is “women are always interested in sexy men and only do what they have to for money as they get older when money becomes important to their survival”.

    I’d link the specific tweet but it seems like he’s purged all of his tweets older than August (I failed to dig them up, anyway).

  3. The informal coalition we call the right has long had a problem with too many chiefs and too few indians.

    Part of it, I believe, is that lacking a formal power structure, many of us buy into the “personal sovereignty” meme and refuse to take direction; part of it is that many people who find themselves “on the right” are really just slow to adapt and were left behind by progressives, but that means they are also slow to adapt to the reactionary program and remain stuck in the squishy middle; and part of it is that it is both easy and advantageous for enemies to whisper sweet nothings in our ears: “you don’t need those losers, build your own platform!”

    So we end up with a thousand little fiefdoms, all constantly at war with one another, many of which have respectable followings but none of which individually can really oppose the Cathedral.

    It’s tempting to say “okay, let’s all agree on some ground rules”, but that is basically liberalism, basically republicanism, a thousand aristocrats publicly pledging to cooperate but privately scheming for more influence.

    For Reaction to be Reactionary, all of the squabbling Lords must acknowledge a King; or, if the feudalist nomenclature rubs you the wrong way, then the squabbling priests must acknowledge an Archbishop. There must exist the legal fine print that says, “in case of dispute between this document and that one, _that_ one shall be taken as correct”.

    I know you understand this, because you’ve written about it in oblique terms. But I think that most of our platformed peers become apoplectic when they even try to imagine the possibility of subordinating themselves to anyone else. Well, guess what, we can’t all be alpha under the same roof. All men want to be the alpha, but all socially-adaptable men are aware of their place in the pecking order.

    And some on the “right” won’t even agree with this. They’ll say “no leaders”, because that makes us harder to attack, which it does. It also makes it impossible for us to cohere and self-regulate. So maybe what we need is a leader who denies being a leader. Instead of a Richard Spencer whom nobody actually listens to but who leaps out in front of every camera and claims to speak for all of us, instead of that, a figure whom everybody listens to but who never talks to the media and who denies being the leader or having ambitions to be the leader. At least until he no longer has any opposition.

  4. Cooperation is a coup-complete problem. Because the Cathedral is crumbling, every faction can smell blood in the water and is jockeying to seize power.
    Only after order has been imposed, the Cathedral ground into dust and an official priesthood has been chosen by a king can rival priesthoods be given the chance of cooperating or getting charged with heresy.
    Also, outgrouping Heartiste, Molyneux, BAP and others means they’ll probably dig in and fight you directly, possibly even feeding you to the dying Cathedral. The logic being, the Cathedral is dying anyway, but right-wing rivals could win, therefore, it’s prudent to destroy them, even if it means making a deal with the Cathedral.

    1. Yes, but act the part now, easier to play the part later.

      And let em fight me. Better to pique their attention than to be ignored. Also, there’s several ways to Rome. Jim can be the gracious diplomat, I’m more comfortable with a bit of bite.

      1. Nicety was not what I was getting at, though. Dunno if you saw my pissing match about the Jewish question with Not Tom and Jim over at Jim’s blog. It’d appear that my way of thinking severely contradicts a core tenet of Jimianity.
        Jim also frequently talks about how Jimianity has to have a grand inquisitor who’ll purge heretics.
        Therefore, it appears that if Jimianity wins, I find myself a heretic to Jimian thought and get purged.

        At what point do I conclude that Jim is a bigger threat to me than the dying Cathedral and act accordingly.

        That’s a problem that won’t go away until after the coup.

        1. Jim has picked lots of fights with lots of people. I suspect that, in the magic scenario where things go exactly the way we want, you will find he has forgotten the majority of those fights.

          1. It’s not a question of Jim bearing a personal grudge against me. It’s a question of Jimianity purging heretics. Not just me, but BAP, Heartiste and possibly Molyneux will in all likelihood not change their minds after the coup and will have to be purged.
            If I understand this, you can bet your ass they understand this. And they’ll start working to undermine Jimianity the second they perceive it as a bigger threat than the Cathedral (which, considering the imminent death of the Cathedral could well be right now).

          2. Lol dude. What.

            That is not at all how an inquisition works. Not at all.

            Why would we purge any of those people just for disagreeing with us on minor points. That makes no sense at all.

            You don’t murder a bazillion people. That’s how a revolution works, but not a restoration.

            How an inquisition works is, you find the most egregious example of evil behavior, and you make an example of that person. You only do it when you have no choice. Basically, you stay on the look-out for monsters under the bed. You don’t accuse everyone of being a monster — that is the difference between us and leftists.

  5. Heresy works by pulling on minor threads until it unravels a major tenet of the faith. If left unchecked, it will unravel the whole faith, even though the individual heretic might agree with 95% or more of the faith.

    If BAP is left unchecked, he will keep on inserting homo memes until he erodes male group cohesion. If Molyneux is left unchecked, his natural tendency to respeck whamen and countersignal warrior rule will unravel a core tenet of Jimianity (warriors should rule). If Heartiste is left unchecked, he will countersignal monogamy until young men start wondering if they’re getting a raw deal (some of them are). If I’m left unchecked, I’ll keep pulling on the group selection aspect of HBD until some ugly conclusions about Jews are drawn.

    Wat do?

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *