Memetic sovereignty

OK have some content.

We boast that we have memetic sovereignty. What does that mean?

At its core, I think memetic sovereignty refers to the power of your memes. How strong are they? Do they have weaknesses? Every meme has weaknesses. But just like in nature, what matters not is if it is perfect, what matters is if it is fitter than all its competitors. And that is what we claim our memeplex to be.

For example, a traditional rightist says: ‘look at all the quotum for female participation. It is reverse discrimination!’ But his meme is not sovereign, for it already accepts the leftist framework that discrimination is the biggest problem of our time, and tackling it our top priority. Use the shibboleths of your enemy, get trapped in Newspeak.

We claim sovereignty because we, in fact, do counter leftists. We claim that we can explain what is going on better than anyone else. That is a flex, but watch us back it up.

Take the recent Epstein arrest. Why is Epstein arrested? Why are the papers full with it? Why are they linking Epstein to Trump?

It is, exactly as Jim says, because leftists are frothing at the mouth desperate for dirt on Trump. They thought Flynn had the dirt and now that it turns out Flynn had no dirt whatsoever, they try with Epstein. Of course the Epstein-arrest is even more laughable, as any rightist knows Epstein was connected to Bill Clinton, not Trump. One can even imagine they bought into the rightist meme that Epstein had dirt on the Democrat elite, thus desperately imagining he will also have dirt on Trump. But we’ve seen how the Russia-collusion went, how the Mueller investigation went, how Flynn went… Well, we shall see how Epstein goes.

So, memetic sovereignty. Good stuff. Not only does it flex our muscle, it supports Trump and his gang of warriors. That is good priesting.

Stuff

I have good news and bad news.

The good news is that the book is coming along swimmingly:

The yellow is where I was proofreading, a few days ago. It goes up to page one hundred.

The bad news is it will take more time than anticipated. Apologies to proofreaders, I should have waited with my announcement, got carried away by enthusiasm. I underestimated how shitty the book’s first draft was. Need to rewrite a lot. Luckily, the picture of the final product is getting clearer and clearer in my mind. I am really liking the second draft so far. But I do not want to rush things.

Currently I have about 12,000 more words to work through, and at my current pace that will take about two more weeks. But no promises. No lets not repeat the same mistake. Let’s say it will take another month. This is silly. I will not name a date. It is done when it is one.

I had some ideas for blog posts, but honestly, this project is sapping all my creative energy. I just don’t have more content to give.

But yeah, a tinkle of content… I’m enjoying summer. Baby’s doing fine. Weather’s good. Spending most of my time doing work around the house. Painting, maintenance, sorting out tools, that sort of thing. Also trying to grow my own weed plant. So far she’s up to fifty centimeters. All good and fun. The tinkle of content ends now. Cheers.

Can’t do science without religion

Rollo Tomassi complains: ‘People, I am just doing science! I don’t want to get political about it.’

Yes, well, Moldbug something something. You may not be interested in politics but politics is interested in you. Same for religion.

We are always ruled by warriors or priests. Currently we are ruled by priests. And they are armed with a religion. Truth, especially if that truth is red-pilled, flies in the face of that religion. And so even though Rollo does his utmost best to distance himself from any religious or political debate, the debate encroaches upon him, as observed in his exclusion from the 21 Convention.

We, in our cultish corner of the internet, also like science, and we want men to do science. Science is awesome. But in order for men to perform science, they need a religion backing their scientific activities. So, either Rollo has to become a cult leader, or, if I may humbly suggest, he kindly takes a look at our cult, which would fully support him doing his thing without interference.

Proofreaders wanted

I have been a busy beaver and finished my next book. It is a hundred percent original content. It is titled: The Resurrection of God. Subtitle: A Reactionary Manifesto.

It is one part Moldbug, two parts me, one part Jim. Well probably more Jim.

It is basically a formalization of philosophy, an answer to Nietzsche, and a summary of reactionary thought. All of course in my own style, with lots of stuff lifted from other people, most notably Jim’s blog. It’s about the length of the Communist Manifesto, 21,000 words, although infinitely more readable. I am going to proofread it myself, but after that has been done, I am looking for others who would like to proofread. Also I want to up my marketing game a little bit, so I am looking for juicy quotes from people.

Also I am looking for a snazzy cover, but so far I have no idea. Suggestions welcome.

To be clear, I have finished the first draft, am currently re-reading and editing it for the second draft. So for public proofreading, probably another two to three weeks.

EDIT: thank you for the response, no more proofreaders needed, we have enough!

To Boromir

I have someone whom I care about, someone who claims to read this blog. I have minor doubts about this claim, since last time we talked I trolled this person: when he said that Disney was heavily SJW’ing, I responded with a sincere ‘oh really?’ after which he gave me an entire expose on why Disney was SJW’ing. Of course, I for the longest time have known Disney is SJW’ing and anyone reading my blog will know that I know Disney is SJW’ing.

But people have the peculiar ability to read stuff and filter out everything that does not fit their worldview, even if that means filtering out 99% of said stuff. So, perhaps this person does read this blog, but just does not process 99% of what I say. In which case, I will use this platform to address this person directly and attempt to get through the filter.

Dearest person, the world is going to shit. Turn on the tv, walk around, observe the economy… The world is going to shit. It is being devoured by parasites, among those parasites the very same progressives you count as friends, against whom I have nothing individually, but whom as a group want to see me humiliated, preferably dead, and who also want to see you humiliated, preferably dead. You think I exaggerate, I do not.

You are being Boromir, who was so taken in with the Ring’s power that he thought he could not do without it. Boromir rationalized his love for the Ring’s power by telling himself that he would be different, that he would not be influenced by the Ring’s madness. Now, to every reader it was obvious that Boromir was blinded, that he was not judging the situation well, but Boromir himself could not see what the fuzz was about until it was too late. You are being Boromir.

People have much less persuasive power than they think. I have spent ample time with people who boasted that they were great persuaders, but they were always better at boasting their persuasion than they were at actual persuasion. People tend to do whatever they wanted to do, irrelevant of the influences of a persuader. Thus, a good persuader gives people permission to do what they wanted to do, as opposed to imagining he can change minds. A good persuader does not change the mind of a woman to have sex with him, but rather affirms her instinct to have sex with him.

Likewise, words tend not to change the mind of men, at best only temporarily, which is why people who talk and talk tend to be characterized not as persuaders, but as bamboozlers. A bamboozler is never as persuasive as he thinks, for if he was, the name ‘bamboozler’ would be associated with high status, not low status.

I am too polite to hammer home these points outside of this place, nor am I sure whether they will pass your filter, but hey, worth a try.

Return to the Jim

So there has been some debate on catechism, e.g., if we had to give an elevator pitch of what we stand for, what would that pitch be. We need some kind of slogan, some kind of summary, some sort of modern day version of the ten commandments.

I contributed my part, in which I suggested that taking pride in ourselves might be a good summary, but reception was lukewarm. And honestly, I kind of agree. It is both too vague and too specific, and there is no mission involved, no purpose. But, what then?

Perhaps something women related? Seems to me that would cure most of the problems. But what specifically about women? Karl suggested simply that man and woman are different, that embracing that difference is necessary for a good and fulfilling live. OK but that’s kind of vague as well.

Here’s the thing. Any phrase, combination of words or catechism, when repeated often enough, loses its significance. People just don’t live their lives according to specific phrases; they forget the old phrases, create new ones. To spend one’s life looking for the right catechism, I do not think it will work. We’ve had several attempts at catechisms, and even though some were really good, none were so good that I can reproduce them here.

Christianity, for instance, had no catechism either. It is entirely possible to succinctly summarize Christianity, but no where in the New Testament does a disciple say: this is the catechism. Apparently, a catechism is not required.

So, what is required? Well, funny story, I find myself circling back to what I said before: people rally around a person, not a catchphrase. People rallied around Christ, not any specific phrase in the bible, as people rallied around Luther, not his ninety-five theses. The person becomes indistinguishable from the catechism, because a catechism’s meaning can be twisted easily, but a person’s life can not be twisted so easily as all. Rallying around a catechism is too vulnerable to entryists, therefore does not work, while rallying around a person (even when that person is dead) is much less vulnerable to entryism, therefore does work.

So, which person says all the things we want to say the clearest? Welp, seems we’ve returned to the Jim.

Now, Jim does not like me calling him a prophet. Too heavy-sounding. OK, let us adapt. Instead of Jimianity, which cladistically is meant to reverberate with Christianity, we tone down the meme a bit and make it, shall we say, more twenty-first century friendly. So, I propose: Jimism. You got your Marxism, which was perfectly acceptable in the twentieth century, and now we got Jimism. It can still be a religious thing, just as Marxism turned out to be pretty religious, but it is also down-to-earth, just as Karl Marx was pretty down to earth.

Also some thoughts on how this works. I notice that men from devout Christian families tend to be a bit alike. They tend to be friendly, pious, peaceful betas. Of course I am generalizing, but it makes complete sense to me that Christianity would select for exactly that type of man. Think Homer Simpson’s neighbor, the hi-diddly-doo guy. When King Charles the Second made science high status, it is no wonder at all that this kind of guy happily performs science and throws us into the industrial revolution.

So, religion is a long-term genetic reproduction game: its success is measured by its ability to promote gene pools that promote the religion.

(This has nothing to do with the original intent of this post, namely the whole ‘Jimianity is dead, long live Jimism’ thing, but I thought it was interesting anyway.)

Death of the mainstream celebrity and the Theory of Cool

There’s this alt-right meme, I can’t find it, in which guys with MAGA hats huddle in a circle. Some blue-haired feminist in the distance shouts: ‘racists!’ A MAGA guy raises his thumb to her, then continues to hang with the circle. The feminist feels left out.

This is pretty much the feeling I had skimming through Taylor Swift’s latest clip, in which she directly addresses the alt-right. You can tell these people are out of ideas. The video is the same regurgitated pop culture nonsense progressives have been recycling for years.

(Film crew: how many colors do you want?

Director: yes.)

Funny thing is, in her attempt to show how we are all nasty racist hicks, she instead completely proves our point: the progressives in the video, who are supposedly the good guys, don’t look like good guys at all. They look like back-stabbing low-status gossipers. Your typical attention whore, who is your best friend today, has forgotten about you tomorrow. They’re not cool. Taylor sings: ‘you [the alt-right] need to calm down’ but really, she’s really singing: ‘please don’t ignore me.’

But she is being ignored, as well as the celebrity community she stands for, as I will show with my research. I’ve taken random samples from YouTube and calculated the comments to views ratio. Check it out:

Roosh V – 1,5%
Milo – 1,3%
Pewdiepie – 1%
PayMoneyWubby – 0,7%
Logan Paul – 0,5%
Taylor Swift – 0,3%
Internet Historian – 0,3%
Stephen Colbert – 0,2%
Conan O Brian – 0,09%
Jimmy Fallon – 0,07%
Maroon 5 – 0,02%

Roosh actually has the highest comment/viewer ratio! Now to be fair, my sample is not so big, and results may vary. Some Pewdiepie videos climb as high as 2,7%. And quality of content matters also, e.g. Yang visiting Colbert has a 1.7% ratio.

But the trend seems clear: as much as progressives are pushing their own into the spotlight, the audience is not interested. They can’t build a community. They’re just not cool.

This got me thinking. Jim says ideas are more powerful than guns, and related to that, I hereby introduce the Theory of Cool. Theory of Cool states that, inasmuch as culture is downstream from power, power does not determine what is cool. Cool determines what is cool. So, when Jordan Peterson stood up against totalitarian transgender laws, that was cool. But when Jordan Peterson kissed ass with every mainstream progressive, that was no longer cool, despite Jordan Peterson reaching a much bigger audience from a much loftier stage. Theory of Cool dictates that power leaks from those who are not cool, to people who are cool.

The left is not cool, as witnessed by the hardships of prog-pushed celebrities. The right is cool, as witnessed by the far reach of Pepe.

So, as I am fond of saying: we have meme initiative. Not sure what we’ll do with it, but we have it. It’s a bit like the progressives are the Romanov family; they flail and desperately cling to relevancy. We, on the other hand, are Rasputin — we ain’t got no power, but we sure have an interesting aura. Now, Rasputin was good with women but got himself killed by men. We certainly are good with women, but we are also working on a plan to get along with men.

Anyway, some final thoughts on theory of Cool… I don’t want to oversell the death of mainstream celebrity. It is dying. This for instance is so horribly cringe… These people have lost all sense of cool. I especially love the part where the Jewish rapper unironically calls Leonardo DiCaprio the best person on earth.

But there’s also stuff like Disney’s Avengers series, or Keanu Reeves, newfound internet darling. Keanu doesn’t do cringe stuff, he does cool masculine action hero stuff. Which immediately raises the question: why is Keanu not yet purged for his toxic masculinity?

Ooh.

Oooooh.

Pretty sure Heartiste would have a thing or two to say about Keanu’s hover-hands. Then again, Heartiste is banned, Keanu isn’t. I think Keanu’s position is pretty relatable: ‘I just wanna make cool movies, please leave me out of politics.’ Much less cool than a devil-may-cry womanizer, but still, pretty cool.

Buying power drops

In economics, buying power is calculated with the following equation:

Buying power equals nominal income divided by inflation times a hundred

If your salary increases two percent, inflation increases three percent, your buying power changes from 100 to 102 / 103 x 100 = 99, e.g. it drops one percent.

Dutch state officials from the CBS tells us: ‘buying power is raising slower than expected. Initial expectations of +1,5% increase in buying power for 2019 have now been lowered to +1,2%.

Smells like baloney.

When I was a kid, it was not uncommon among my friends to be part of a three-children family, whose father worked full-time and mother part-time. Every year they would go on a skiing holiday for a week. Now that my friends and I start families of our own, according to the CBS, we should be able to afford even more annual skiing holidays, as they claim that buying power has increased every year for the past forty years, with the exception of a small period during the minority mortgage meltdown.

If one crunches the numbers, and I have done so, the Dutch government makes the outrageous claim that buying power has increased 56 percent since 1985. So families with three children should nowadays be able to afford 10 days of skiing holiday!

Nonsense.

The truth is the exact opposite: among millennials, only couples without kids can afford luxury holidays, and even they can only afford a couple of days of annual skiing. Stuff has gotten expensive.

How expensive? Well, these same state officials also tell us that inflation has been around two percent each year, specifically +1,7% last year. If you crunch their numbers, prizes have officially increased 89 percent since 1985. Only doubled in thirtyfive years? Not too bad, no? Unfortunately, also utter nonsense. For instance, back in 2000 when the Euro replaced the Dutch Guilder, the exchange rate for the Euro was set at 220% the value of a Guilder. This means that, according to official statistics, a euro should be worth 160% of a guilder these days, but it is blatantly obvious that these days a euro gets you less than a guilder got you twenty years ago.

The nail in the coffin for the 89% percent statistic is the real estate market: estimates vary, but it is not uncommon to find housing prices which have increased more than a thousand percent since 1985, e.g. a house that used to sell for 90.000 guilders now sells for 400.000 euros. Considering houses are pretty much the biggest purchase you make, to claim that inflation flatlines at two percent is a bald-faced lie.

Now, perhaps the real estate market is not representative of the entire market. I’ll grant that in between immigration and the government stopping people from building new houses, it is no wonder that real estate prizes have skyrocketed.

Jim tells me the Big Mac index is, relatively speaking, the best inflation index we have. The Big Mac index tells us prizes have inflated an average of +3% a year, or +170% since 1985. Ah, now that seems more believable.

But let us first take a look at where the government’s numbers lead us: what nominal income do we supposedly enjoy? Well, with a buying power increase of 56%, an inflation of 89%, that can only happen if millennials have experienced a nominal income increase of +195%. Hooly batman lies. Please point me to the millennial who makes three times as much as his parent. Anyone? Bueller?

Here’s what I think is a more realistic take: Big Mac inflation numbers seem about right. Three percent a year. Now, how much have incomes increased? I’d say… Two percent a year. Generously. Then, calculating buying power since 1985 gives us 192 / 270 x 100 = 65%. So I’d estimate buying power has dropped 35% since 1985.

That sounds about right. Perhaps a bit conservative, but about right. Five days of skiing with two kids. People can pull that off.

Of course the scary thing is that the decrease in buying power grows exponentially, not linear, which is to say that if prices increase with the same percentage each year, they are actually increasing more every year. Inflation stacks. See graph below, which shows linear increase (which we do not have) versus exponential increase (which we do have).

So, to make a long story short: on the current trajectory, our economic future looks bleak.

All this is of course completely in line with the reactionary analysis of the West, but this does not make it any less depressing.

Getting into Gnon’s favor

We are building a new religion.

I previously said I’d give the religion building a rest. But I realize I’m mostly giving the Jimianity meme a rest. The religion building is still strong. I mean, everything I said about the difficulties of meme’ing a religion into existence still holds, it’s just that I’d be lying if I’d say I was not building some sort of religion, for a religion ain’t nothing but a bunch of verbal memes for mass cooperation. I oversimplify, but you get the point – all intellectuals create mini-religions, and I’d rather be honest about it. All intellectuals are prophets, philosophy is a subset of theology. But more of that in my upcoming book, which I am currently writing, and which will be a hundred percent original content.

Anyway, what is our religion problem?

Let’s keep it really simple. What was Christianity about? About trust and cooperation leading to being favored by evolution, or as neoreactionaries like to say, by Gnon, nature’s God.

On the one hand, you can make Jesus as grandiose as you like. On the other hand, he was just a dude who got himself killed early in his thirties. No kids, no nice things… He sacrificed himself for an idea. A good idea, as it turned out, but honestly, there is a terrible survivor bias involved. It was not Jesus or his Father who decided Christianity would be a smash hit, it was evolutionary pressures. Which is not to take away from Jesus’ very impressive feat but that’s just my thoughts on the subject.

So again, what is our problem?

Christ’s memes for cooperation are old. They are dated security measures: everyone knows how to hack them. Being ‘loving’ has been agreed-and-amplified into a weapon by our enemies: first it was love of your neighbor, then love of very far away people, then love of people who want to murder you and your family.

So, we need a correction. What exactly that correction entails is hard to say. Probably simpler than we think. Recall that the New Testament is 180 552 words. Which is a fat book, I’ll be the first to say, but just one book after all. But again, reverse engineering the amount of words a religion needs is a bit icky.

I think the new religion should be summarized the same way I can summarize the old religion. I also think the new religion should update the security measures of the old.

OK, how about this.

What is our new religion about? It is about the glory of being a white straight man on top of the food chain.

I am still thinking whether ‘whiteness’ should be explicitly emphasized, but I think it should. I mean, that’s what we are right? Sure, there’s many non-white men who agree with what we say, but in the end it has always been the white man who conquered the world.

Basically, all it is is saying out loud what we knew for hundreds of years, but which was so ubiquitous that, like the water fish swim in, we saw no reason to say it out loud. We talked about it, we took it for granted, as Aristotle did when he casually remarked that women are rightfully subjects to men.

It is a reaction against progressivism, which has morphed into a religion that says all white straight males are evil. We counter that calmly by saying: nope, we’re pretty cool. We understand your hatred, but we’re still pretty cool, and we’re proud of the fact that we’re cool. This pulls the stinger out of the Cathedral, which operates on shame: ‘shame on you for acting like you are an alpha male!’ Yeah no, I like acting like an alpha male. Long live emperor Trump. Long live the patriarchy. May our descendants conquer the stars.

It is not a foolproof summary of the religion. It says nothing about capitalism, for instance. Capitalism is good. People hating on capitalism are always jealous or commies, or both. But, I think our biggest problem is progressivism, not marxism, hence the emphasis on the glory of being a straight white male, less on the glory of being a capitalist, although it is undoubtedly true that it is glorious to be a capitalist.

It is not just ‘okay’ to be white, it is pretty awesome to be white.

Not your typical intellectual

People say the Alt-Right is dead. They say NRx is dead. I dunno, seems pretty alive over here. But, people always say all kinds of nonsense.

Over my blogging years, I just sort of naturally ended up in neoreactionary circles. They were, after all, the only ones talking about that juicy stuff, the stuff that actually interested me. It took me while to consciosly realize, but I’ve always been a great fan of Moldbug’s ‘formalization’, the idea that you explicitly state what is going on. This seems obvious, but really isn’t. Very, very few sites on the internet explicitly state what they are doing. Youtube isn’t about what You want to Tube, it’s about censorship. Facebook isn’t about being connected, it’s about censorship. Twitter isn’t about politics — it’s about censorship.

I like truth. I like saying things like they are. Moldbug, who was the first neoreactionary, said that we should say things as they are, therefore he had my attention.

This does not mean I am bound to other reactionaries. I tend to clash with your typical intellectual, usually because I get the urge to push their face in the toilet, which is funny because I used to get bullied when I was a kid, but mostly just logical because there was a sound reason I was bullied when I was a kid, just as there is a sound reason most intellectuals deserve to get bullied.

(Bullying is code for: ‘you are weak, you do not protect your borders.’ Bullying is nature’s way of telling you to man the fuck up. I am grateful for my bullies, who were a lot more honest with me than any adult telling me there it was unfair that I was being bullied, while truthfully it was completely fair that I was being bullied.)

Intellectuals are word warriors, and the one problem with word battles is that they come with lots of cowardice dressed as ratio. Often, I’ll find myself having a thousand-word discussion with an intellectual on some abstract topic, until I realize: this guy is just masking his insecurity. We’re not talking about political history, we’re talking about his fear of being socially rejected. He’s just pretending to be tough, using a bunch of ten-dollar words to mask how he fears having a two-cent tiny penis. He’s not looking for truth, he’s looking to intellectually intimidate, intellectual intimidation being a step below verbal intimidation, two steps below physical intimidation. The intellectual very often is a paper tiger.

Naturally, neoreaction is full of this type. It’s similar to the manosphere effect, where every man would tell you how he was banging five hot chicks on the side, only in neoreaction they’d tell you how their theories had solved all the world’s problems five times over. Same fronting, different name.

Now, while the intellectual blogosphere has died a little bit, the intellectual twittersphere is alive and well, and has exactly the same tendency. Guys blowing smoke up their own asses. I don’t like it.

But, that is the nature of intellectuals: I am smart, watch me be smart! This is natural: if you communicate solely through words, be prepared for people to hide behind their words.

The way to blow through word-fronting is to pick a fight. If someone hides behinds words, you tell them they hide behind words. Someone acts like an entryist, tell them they act like an entryist. The reason I instinctively want to push some heads into toilets is because that is the way to deal with an overcompensating intellectual. To establish peace, must establish dominance. Can’t compliment an intellectual on what he is doing right before you’ve made him accept what he does wrong.

Of course, that kind of stuff is not allowed on twitter. Formalization is hatespeech. So, I’ll stick to where I am allowed to do my thing. Here at the Garden, we like to grow stuff, see what happens.

Take the Alt Right. According to some intellectuals, it is dead. ‘Bad optics’, ‘Charlottesvillesgate’, blah blah. Entryist nonsense. The alt-right, as its name tells us, is the alternative right, meaning it is rightists who refuse to be cucked, unlike the mainstream right. The left vehemently opposes an uncucked right, and since the left is still in power, of course it comes down like a ton of bricks on anyone publicly defending the alt-right.

Even if Charlottesville never happened, even if every closeted alt-right rang every doorbell in America handing out cookies and dollars and saying how much they love America, we’d be in the exact same position. The alt right is public enemy number one.

The alt right is faceless – that is the brand. This is what scares the bejesus out of leftists like Hillary Clinton: millions of hardcore Trumpists who are all alt-rightists. Thus, while I do not go out of my way to call myself alt-right, I really don’t mind being associated with the label, for it gives us power. Similarly, people giving a different account of the alt right are entryists, for they try to take away our power.