Jobs alter personality, make you obedient and mindless


The American Psychological Association recently issued a bulletin in which it summarizes research which states that unemployed people over time lose the traits that jobs inculcate into them:

Unemployment can change peoples’ core personalities, making some less conscientious, agreeable and open, which may make it difficult for them to find new jobs, according to research published by the American Psychological Association.

What they do not mention is the converse: if people can lose these traits from not having a job, then jobs instilled them into people in the first place. Let’s look at those traits:

  • Conscientious: detail-oriented/big-picture oblivious.
  • Agreeable: prone to compromise.
  • Open: easily guided.

In essence, the APA is complaining that indoctrination fails when people are taken out of the workforce. I suggest we take every white male out of the workforce immediately.

No solutions


“There is no solution!” This answer pleases everyone. That is because what we call “modern” is just one of many. Every civilization goes through a life cycle where suddenly, at the peak of its technological and social power, it collapses as if everyone just up and left. What remains are shattered third-world mixed-race shells like Brazil, Mexico, or what remains of Angkor Wat. That is collapse: a long slow process of apathy grinding against material self-interest, leaving only mud huts and a bazaar patrolled by local warlords.

People wish there to be no solution because it enables them to keep on living as “normal,” by which they mean the new normal of every generation being worse off than the last. The reason is not a discrete “issue,” like whether we legalize abortion or weed, but the issue of whether our civilization has a healthy design or not. A healthy design promotes constant renewal not through novelty and irony, as our current society does, but through constant improvement in all areas. If you have a bad king, you need a better king, not democracy.

Their instinct to live normally comes from our oldest biological urge, which is to fight and predominate. For them, the question becomes how they can beat out everyone else and smash them down, because peak empires tend to be packed with people most of whom are utterly useless. This enrages people but they cannot articulate it, both because their brains are not disciplined enough to notice, and because they are in denial. Denial allows them to continue thinking they are successes, winners, exceptional people with fascinating lives, even though they are simply more profiteers on the carcass of greatness invented long ago.

Bravely they recite what they were told at schools: that all other methods of government have failed, that anything but our mixture of commerce and subsidies is tyranny, and that the best future for us is to keep repeating the same acts that have gotten us into this position, just take them to new extremes. This dovetails with the ultimate self-interest in a place where society is overgrown, which is the need to get noticed. If they can capture attention for a few moments by being radical, that makes them stand out above the crowd.

No one wants a solution. A solution would require we discipline our own behavior, change our ways, and apply social standards to everyone including ourselves. Anarchy with grocery stores provides what each undisciplined heart wants, which is the ability to act as selfishly as possible without consequences. It is no wonder we talk of dying societies imploding; they collapse into the dark void of individual human need.

You will meet two types of people in a collapsing society. Both of these are compensating, or justifying failure with the thought that they get a reward in some other area, by insisting that we ignore the problem — that our civilization is a long, slow collapse to nothing but a polluted third-world wasteland — and wanting us to agree with them that there are no solutions but to keep doing things as we are, but with a few details changed, like illegal abortion or higher minimum wage. Then we’ll be in paradise, finally. Misery loves company.

These types are:

  1. The Republican

    Comfortable with the idea of social Darwinism, the Republican believes that you should work hard and get ahead, and by that he means get wealthier. He is basically correct, since that is how in a biological sense you beat out other animals and rise to a position of power. He forgets two things: (1) working like a dog will make you act like a bear, and your family will suffer, thus your line ends soon after you and (2) as society decays around you, it has a nasty habit of taking you down with it.
  2. The Democrat

    The Democrat deals with decay by outright ignoring it and rationalizing it. In his view, society has always been bad and there has never been any hope, so all we can do is make ourselves comfortable and wait for the end. Comfortable means no rules and hopefully a state subsidy, so no one has to do anything but sit around and be social, which is where the Democrat excels over his Republican counterparts: they are good at business, he is good at socializing. As a result, he wants to make a civilization of socializing only.

These caricatures are cut of whole cloth and almost as transparent as Ayn Rand or Barbara Kingsolver characters, but they exemplify the two basic responses to civilization decay, which are biological and social respectively. They are created this way because they by definition refuse to see the problem and its solutions, so are left with compensatory behaviors that enhance their own powers at the expense of others.

No one wants a solution. Solutions mean changing ourselves and limiting our freedom, 99% of which we do not need, but which gratifies our narcissistic egos. Nature gives us such egos because in the wilds, failure is frequent and the healthiest creatures shrug it off with an innate sense of self-worth. When channeled into a social sense however this confidence becomes a sociopathic greed and tendency toward manipulation. Including, of course, insisting that there are no solutions.

What is the Zombie Ritual?


Out of the gathering fog, they assemble without knowing why. Brainless, they move impulsively like insects, repeating actions autonomically. They consume the living and replace them with the living dead. The few survivors resist but are hopelessly outnumbered and are excluded to the point of living in constant fear, hiding in remote areas and maintaining a constant paranoia, because at any moment the attack can come.

This is the Zombie Ritual. It describes how every society on earth has destroyed itself: by replacing the logic of consequences with a social code that enforces illusion. In a dying society, the only way to advance is to repeat the zombie ideology. This causes other people to approve of you, hire you and befriend you. Once you have joined the group of socially acceptable people, you can then make a life for yourself. It is thus logical to repeat lies and eventually, it becomes logical to believe them, because otherwise you must face the truth that your society is dying and you and your descendants will be destroyed by its collapse.

If you obey the dominant power, all will be OK, at least for now; almost everyone does, because the alternative is to be excluded. The dominant power maintains control by forcing people to accept an idea which is also a goal. This idea “represents” reality but does so like a symbol, inaccurately and favoring certain ideas over others. If everyone else agrees that the Emperor’s new clothes are beautiful, when in fact he is naked and revealed thus as foolish, those who speak up against the new clothes will be pariahs. At the same time, an Emperor that foolish will lead the civilization into decline if not outright dystopia. The official narrative states that the new clothes are beautiful, and anyone who wants to succeed must repeat this dogma.

When contradictions to the official narrative or doubt of its validity emerge, the people become terrified. They take the path of least resistance: instead of opening up critique of the narrative, they gather together with others to reinforce the narrative. First they filter out disturbing thoughts and facts, and then they go on a witch-hunt for any who disagree with this new interpretation of what is real. Individuals can advance themselves by currying favor from this lynch mob by smashing down others who do not embrace the narrative enough, claiming them as deniers. In the grips of such a passion, the society quickly removes all but those who champion the official narrative.

Drink from the goblet, the goblet of gore
Taste the zombie’s drug, now you want more
Drifting from the living, joining with the dead
Zombie dwelling maggots, now infest your head

Zombie ritual
Zombie ritual

For the everyday person, it becomes important to avoid noticing glitches in the narrative. When reality contradicts dogma, the correct response is more dogma. It can be made more extreme and must be, because the farther it drifts from reality the more its errors show, and so these societies inevitable tend toward stronger lynch mobs and/or official voices who will censure or outright imprison those who disagree. It may even, like the first democracy in Athens, execute people for asking questions about the official narrative, as it did to Socrates. The defeat of those who disagree will be viewed as victory for the narrative and thus affirmation that it is correct, good, true and “the right side of history.”

Among the people neurosis and near-schizophrenic conditions will become the norm as they force themselves to believe what is patently untrue. Like the loyalty test question in 1984, where 2+2=5 to those who love Big Brother, the test of dogma exists everywhere, especially in everyday conversation. Those who enforce the narrative are safe. Those who do not must be shunned lest those who associate with them be thought to be critical of the narrative. All must obey not just in their actions, but in their words, which then program their minds. The result is that the average person lives in a world of political assumptions, programmed to see issues within only those narrow filtered questions and cherry-picked data sets.

This creates a fetishism of denial among the people. They compete to see who is most in denial, and by being more rabid and strident than the rest individuals can rise to prominence. They are cheerleaders for the narrative and make everyone else feel good because instead of pointing to doubts and fears, they issue a calming statement that all is well and nothing must change. Just keep on keeping on. And thus people can turn back to their jobs, their personal lives and their fortunes and avoid any thoughts that they are complicit in the creation of a tragedy. They are given the freedom to be oblivious, which is what they wanted in the first place: permission to stop concerning themselves with anything but themselves.

As denial intensifies, the recriminations accelerate and the opposition becomes weaker. It also finds it harder to defend any point of view but the prevailing dogma since all of the language that it uses is already framed in terms that are convenient to the narrative. Any thought except the narrative gets squeezed to the periphery and then excluded. The narrative becomes the new starting point for all thought and the assumption behind every statement. Conflicts with reality become explained as enemies, not errors in the narrative. For this reason, the society goes off on a path of its own chasing chimerae of political illusions and, when it finally collides with reality again, it is in a fatal and permanent correction.

On the importance of doing nothing


Among the vast tomes of hidden agenda behind this blog lurks a simple commandment: thou shalt spend more time doing nothing.

Much of my conversion to conservatism came through the realization that conservatives eliminate unnecessary labor and activity while liberalism increases it.

People in our society have forgotten the importance of doing nothing. While we often forge our souls through adversity, we also do so in the quiet moments of relaxation or futzing around where we learn to know ourselves and through that, how to value what is important in life.

For many of us, the quiet times spent gardening or fiddling some recalcitrant bit of gear into action represent the greatest realizations we have had about ourselves. Know thyself, know the difference between world and self, and thus escape the prison of self that our solipsistic society and its liberal masters see as ideal.

Conservatism advocates a minimal approach to life. Focus on family, on contributing something productive to society and life, and on self-refinement through quiet moments, whether prayer or fixing a 1950s coffee maker in the garage. Loafing, goofing off, fooling around, dozing, daydreaming, launching ridiculous projects and play represent the best of human experience.

Liberalism on the other hand bases itself on the principle of “robbing Peter to pay Paul” with a justification of need on Paul’s part. It extends this to time as well: we work extra hours to subsidize the welfare, social justice and environmental initiatives that liberalism demands. This doubly makes zero sense when we consider that these “problems” arise mostly through liberal attempts to fix them.

The suicidal West requires a root-level fix. A huge part of this entails giving people more time to know themselves and discover their values. This is done by cutting time at jobs and sending them home to spend more time with their families and friends, but also more time with themselves, even if spent in the basement or lawn area doing nothing in particular.

People are happiest when most of their time is their own. Even if they have no idea of some grand purpose for this time, those quiet moments help them grow within. This growth is not in terms of quantity, but quality. They become clearer about self and reality. As this time has decreased, the West has become a bitter self-hating place, full of suspicion and paranoia.

If we were to drop the exaggerated and unnecessary “purpose” that liberalism imposes, we would return to our primary purpose in life: knowing ourselves through doing not much of anything. When we muck around the house, we become bored with the unnecessary and replace it with the sustaining. We learn who we are. And from that, we learn what to preserve and nurture because it has a connection from our innermost soul to the essence of the cosmos.

Binary decisions


Our minds rebel against the idea, but some decisions are binary: choosing one excludes the other forevermore. For example, you cannot be both tattooed and non-tattooed; you cannot both be a veteran and know the world of not having faced combat. Experience changes us.

The same is true of innocence. You cannot both be innocent and have experience, although you can try to fake innocence with the usual shallow ploys. For this reason, most intelligent people limit their experience (omigod, so closed-minded) in order to avoid the damage to their psyche done by experience that numbs them to the beauty in life.


Has anyone else noticed the fall of eccentricity in the West? We used to have more eccentrics: people who were harmlessly, idiosyncratically but purposefully out of step with whatever everyone else seemed to be doing.

In fact, in many ways we cherished this tradition of eccentricity because from it many of our greatest innovations were birthed. It also lessened the struggle for social acceptance that defines the lives of most modern people.

Even in the 1970s, this tradition was healthier. There were people who were just “odd,” which is a separate word from “weird.” An eccentric is odd but there is purpose and logic to it, just slightly shifted from what others accept as the norm. It is not perverse or broken, but it strikes most people as strange until the motivation behind it can be understood.

One of our last eccentrics might be Steve Jobs, who managed to partially ruin his health with his bizarre and dogmatic eating habits. But even in Silicon Valley these days the “eccentricity” is conformist: in order to be taken seriously, entrepreneurs must wear black sweaters and a weeks’ beard and do cool youthy stuff like pull all-nighters on Tuesdays.

The more the power of social control rises above us, the more we conform, but now we can conform to niche forms of “non-conformity.” All geeks must act a certain way, all athletes another, to preserve their unique brand identity. But honest eccentrics? They have dropped off the radar.

Book fetishism


Among the denizens of this wild planet, minds seize on the popular notion of the importance of books. People who read are good people, we are told, and people who do not are ignorant, bad, stupid and wrong.

The common refrain of “read a book” or “educate yourself” rings out across the land, from internet debates to nasty exchanges in political debates. But someone should ask the unpopular question: what, exactly, is so important about reading?

What is excluded by the formula “reading=good” is the question of what is being read. This is deliberate: the book fetishists want you to think it is the trivial act of reading, and not the harder acts of reading important or truthful material, and understanding it, that matter.

In the simplistic logic of prole drift, you get smart by reading. It does not matter what. You read, and since all books are equal, you get smart, because all people are equal. Anyone who believes this simplistic formula obviously lacks the ability to understand anything in the difficult books.

And yet they advance it, for a simple reason: they want to make us all equal. By obliterating the question of content, they are able to enforce “universal” opinions about what is right and claim that all books and facts reinforce these. They are also able to claim that the act of reading alone raises them above others, which has always been their covert (reading between the lines) goal.

Thus book fetishism is a “safe” philosophy in a liberal era and insisting that some books are better than others, or that ideas must be understood more than merely read, are dangerous philosophies. To hide the intolerance of this proposition, the book fetishists hide it behind the rather consumeristic idea that buying and reading lots of random books increases intelligence.

As a cultural meme and convention, book fetishism thus shows where we are as a culture. We have eliminated the question of content and learning and replaced it with conformity to a behavior that can be recognized by others. Appearance matters more than context or goal, and that enables the illusion of equality to continue.

Interview with an internet troll


Every society possesses taboos. Healthy societies ban destructive things; dying societies ban dissent. In the distributed totalitarian system of modernity, citizens enforce rules on one another through ostracism and name-calling. In response to this, a community of “trolls” sprung up to bait people with forbidden knowledge and draw them into contradiction when they cannot confront the implications of this knowledge.

To explore this fascinating phenomenon which uses un-popular right wing and realist thought to torment the oblivious among other methods, we interview an internet troll. Identified only as “Iconoclast,” he has trolled the internet for over a decade with a palette of provocations including rightist views of race, sex and society. The language might be a bit rough but you can see why trolls attack — and the reason to their madness — with this interview with an internet troll:

What is the purpose of trolling?

Trolling doesn’t have a singular purpose; rather, it is a set of methods to create spectacle. Take in point the various types of trolling: concern trolling, fake personas, bullshit press releases, devil’s advocacy, social engineering, and etc. Not all of these will be done for the same purposes.

As for spectacle, a (good) troll finds a target to attack, absorbs its mentality, and determines the best way to undermine the opposition’s position. One of my former trolls — and one of my more entertaining ones — was pretending to be the culmination of stereotypes that white supremacists hold for Jews. With that one I was able to troll the entire planet, having both neo-nazis and far-left commies enraged. The goal, of course, was to provide humor while making both those groups look like the asses they are.

Another set of trolls I did was to create fake press releases under the guise of a conservative christian group exposing pedophilia on wikipedia. This troll was pretty interesting because a lot of the content in it was excellent investigative journalism, combined with some smear attempts against ideologically driven abusive wikipedia admins. The motive for this one was to attack wikipedia for its anti-elitist stances, bureaucratic bullshit, and autistic, ideology-driven editing.

I suppose, to summarize, trolling is basically cloak-and-dagger black propaganda in a world where people are incapable of intellectual argument, and if they are, they’re too ideologically stubborn to even accept any arguments whatsoever, blindly attacking thru nitpicking and bullshit. Intelligence is low: we live in a world where the formerly named “The Learning Channel” now broadcasts the Kardashians and Hoarders. I think that concept says something profound, in a very ‘tarded way. This world is not reason-driven, I am not going to reason with the average idiot.

What sort of topics do you introduce with trolls?

Race, sexual perversions, and leftism are my favorite targets. Everybody is so absolutely sensitive about race — I’d say many people are actually self-hating nowadays, regardless of race — it’s a pleasant topic to shove in peoples’ faces like a dog that pissed on the carpet. We live in a world where kids are introduced to pictures of people from, say, India, and are asked if he is black or white while not given the actual, real choice, and when kids of course get it wrong they use it as a “gotcha, race doesn’t exist!!” plate of bullshit. That said, I find the whole race topic to be overblown by both sides… it’s important, but it’s not worthy of being the zenith of political discussion. No, racial-separatist nationalism is not the answer, nor is cultural marxism. If you took the top 10% of people (nebulous defintion of what is “top,” but let’s just keep it that way) and put them on another planet, I really doubt racial issues would arise much if people were sufficiently intelligent and moral.

Sexual perversions are quite funny, and if you look closely a lot of leftists are very big into it as well. Of course, this stuff all ties together in a Gordian knot. Leftists like to use people’s sexual problems as some sort of political statement, of course to excuse weird, deviant behavior as some weird way of attacking majoritarian people, and for having their own failings be swept under the rug. A bit rany, I know, I once had a hilarious troll on where I pretended to be a neo-nazi chick who wanted to enslave blacks and Jews. Oh man, the messages I got on that were beyond wild; I had one Rastafari guy google-stalk me a year later, paranoid as fuck, even though I had no interest in revealing personal info because I’m not a loser like failed troll Jason Fortuny.

That ties into another point: the troll also learns more about the bizarre side of human nature. When you can stretch absurdity as far as possible, and be able to intereact with others in that mode, you learn a lot about what people really are like. It’s quite disturbing and takes away one’s hope in humanity or belief in the viability of human dignity.

When did you become a troll, and why?

Hm. This reaches waaaaaay back to the limits of my memory. I think it involved getting falsely blamed for someone else crapflooding or trolling a “Find Luigi in Mario 64″ forum when I wasn’t even yet a teenager. I think that let to jihad on my part against them, and me and my brother were just better than them at it. Really hard to remember details. Not terribly important, training wheels for a troll, though.

More than that, though, was posting on and finding out I just didn’t really respect the average poster there (I’ve come around to not really respecting the average person in general. I’ve matured quite a bit since then). I became a somewhat legendary troll, social engineer, and pest on that site to the point where the site admin, CJayC, called up my ISP once and I was briefly taken offline.

I’ve always found the witty trolls of forums to be more interesting people, being less involved in social posturing and more on merit. When people “win” internet arguments by using big words and trying to seem intelligent, you realize that debating is pointless and verbal insurgency is far more effective. The trolls, I’ve noticed, never needed that posturing.

Who are the most famous trolls and what is their claim to fame?

Good question. Does this mean internet trolling, or in more general, a gadfly of sorts? I’ll take the latter as it’s a better question to answer.

Diogenes of Sinope was quite a good one. Telling Alexander the Great he couldn’t distuinguish the bones of his ancestors with those of slaves was extremely ballsy, if the story was true, though I really doubt it is.

Marquis de Sade I’ve always felt was more of a troll than a pervert (though he was still that).

Of course, Jonathan Swift’s “A Modest Proposal” is probably one of the more brilliant pre-internet trolls, as well. All the marks of good trolling: false persona, absurdity, horrific satirizing of society’s attitudes.

As for internet trolls:

Sigvatr is one of the best trolls I’ve seen. Totally wild, great sense of humor, pissed enough people where he can’t legally enter Germany. Apparently he spawned a child and left the internet, but was great as was the competitive spree shooter site. His dedication to trolling was so intense he took pictures of him eating his own cum to shock the boards. That’s only a summary off the top of my head. A+ troll.

During the republican primaries of ’08, a bunch of Ron Paul people made fake forums purporting to be the grassroots supporters of rival republican candidates, and the stuff they did was some of the best political trolling I’ve ever seen.

The GNAA did some good stuff, I’d say the best was the JewsDidWTC website that got featured on CNN. GNAA was always a little bit of an underperformer though due to a chaotic IRC channel.

Most recently, I’d say anons from /pol/ have done a lot of good work attacking social justice warriors, a group that I feel doesn’t get enough trollage. SJWs and feminists are dangerous neo-Marxists absorbing weirdos from the internet with a lot of support from academia, and I think they’re going to get more influential in the next decade or so as more broken people band together to angrily attack normal “majoritarian” people.

What led you to become discontented with this society?

The disparity in my intelligence and other people’s. Catholic school was especially harsh because you have a mentally broken baby boomer adult base coupled with kids in an environment that is hostile to childrens’ nature. Not to mention most of the other children were leagues below me morally and intellectually, I even had one teacher bribe other students with candy to hate me.

I remember once in elementary school I managed to get one of those red rubber balls before anyone else did because I never got a chance to play with one. All the “popular” kids began whining like babies and the teacher forced me to give them the ball, because –get this — “that’s democracy.” I shit you not, that’s exactly how it went.

As a child, it always was strange how other children had less of a moral base. So impulsive, willing to lie to adults to get what they want.

As I got older, I realized what mattered was not truth, but perception. The masses of worthless people only really care about social status, novelty, and maybe a little bit of cognitive dissonance here and there so in brief moments of lucidity they can make a half-assed attempt to atone without really putting in much effort.

Saying so, to me, is a bit amusing, because my morals have become less prominent in day-to-day life, nowadays. They’re still there, but I’m much more scummy now than I used to be. I don’t mind it, it is simply an adaption.

What are your aims in life?

Really? Drinking alcohol and passing the time. Hoping for an anarchic peroid of reboot for civilization. Too much noise, not enough signal, few things mainstream really ever catch my eye. There’s not much here, I think it’s way too degenerative and decayed for revitalization. We just have to wait for disaster to occur so things can be corrected. This is outside of our control. We hit the point of no return on leftism and idiocy.

We bred a mass of domesticated, selfish, boring people and gave them the ability to make their own bread and circuses. We just have to wait out for their self-imposed downfall.

As for my personal life:

I could get a career, but I don’t ass-kiss very well, I’m quite abrasive and don’t want to work for a higher-paying job while worrying what my mouth says to get me in trouble in an environment of beta-males and people more deserving of becoming the plaything of a coprophiliac serial killer with a love of the Human Centipede films.

Most immediate aim is getting swole. Would be fascinating to understand the underlying animalistic power differential to other people when one is swole.

If you could create your ideal society, what would it be like?

I don’t know how to answer this. I’m not a fan of top-down solutions when it comes to society and economics. I think we need less people, better people, better art, and whatever else. The fundamental problem of our day and age really is just human nature. I don’t think any design in particular really matters, you just need people who are morally better, intellectually superior, and more focused-yet-relaxed than what we have now.

I’m always entertained by idiots who complain about capitalism. Capitalism, at heart, is the ultimate bottom-up economic model (when corporations aren’t given handouts or favoritism by government). Any flaw with it really, in all actuality, is a flaw in mass-human nature. When your entire population is composed of bitches, don’t be suprised at the stupid shit they elect with their dollar. No controlled economy is going to do any better when the average person is only one standard deviation of being entertained by separating the corn and peanuts within their excrement.

Somewhat disconnected, but I’ll cut the details obtained by experience, and to any younger readers planning on assembling a group to head out onto the wilderness and leave modern society: not gonna happen. Focus elsewhere.

What do you think will happen in the future to the USA?

Not entirely sure. An eventual collapse of some sort, there is no real plan or focus going on and it seems to just be special interests fighting for their own little ego puppet show all nilly-willy, without any real concern for the future. For the immediate, I see the left continuing to score “victories” in both government and culture, resulting in an alienation of the majority (by that I mean, those who generally are conservative and middle class, mostly white but I don’t think race matters much on this), but they’re definitely going to have much more control over academia, politics, and culture. The modern american right isn’t effective nor brave enough to do anything but smile and nod and bargain.

I don’t think it is important to focus too much on how things will unfold in 20-50 years. Maybe something will happen with technology that is a complete game-changer.

What is your outlook on dating, marriage and sex?

For the most part, modern women are only good for sex. Most are attention vampires, completely ego-driven with impulses of sadomasochism, concerned only with men in matters of novelty or social status. It is completely impossible to have adult conversations with the majority of them, they have no knowledge of history, no street smarts, hell, no book smarts even, either. They offer nothing other than their worn-out vaginas, mouths, and buttholes. I’d rather hang out with men, though sadly most men are complete weenies who take shit too personally.

Marriage is a godawful institution for modern men. I’d advise men to avoid it because the left-wing government is hostile to men and it gives men almost no legal advantages, instead it gives women the world to screw a man over. That said, I think good men should find some way of passing their genes on without becoming indentured servants to the government. I’ve not yet figured that one out, so I’m not the one to ask on that.

I think men need sex, and sex doesn’t seem damage a man’s ability to form attachments, so I think it’s fine for a man to have one night stands, and pump and dump. Whores have existed since the dawn of time, let us on the right stop pretending to be “volkisch pure-hearted chaste mega-mormons” because men who don’t get their wick dipped tend to go crazy. As for attachments, I think men have a built-in capacity of brotherhood (that can translate to loyalty in general) that women don’t have, thus, even a manwhore can settle down.

As for women, I don’t even know. Having a lot of sex partners as a woman definitely does seem to make her incapable of being loyal. I don’t know if women are even capable of loving men — they love what a man can do to and for them, but not the man itself. It’s transactional. I’d say that women are only capable of loving their parents, their children, and the small yappy dogs or cats they buy after they’ve hit the wall or the children left the nest.

Feminism is basically built up by failed, ugly, fat women, who have successfully poisoned the well, but not entirely have been able to turn sexuality into a witchhunt against men. If they get political power, that will change, but for the forseeable future women will continue to blow bad boys while taking nice guy’s money.

I think, in the future, as ridiculous as it sounds, once the articial womb is available, and sentient AI alongside realistic robotics, men will opt for their gynoid Stepford wives rather than deal with real women, who provide no intellectual stimulation and come with too much baggage. It does sound ridiculous, but thinking of me settling down with a subpar woman until I get divorced in 5-10 years and lose half my wealth alongside all of my kids sounds even more absurd.

I think the disparity in sexual values between men and women is among the more important problems in our little “equal” society, but men will win in the end, I think, insofar the leftist brainwashing reaches its limits. It’s hard to tell. I’ve known men better looking and in more shape than I who, despite my warnings, ignored my advice on women and yet had not the balls to even tell me what happened when their ignoring me fucked them over, so I cannot say where things are going to lead.

Is there any hope for humanity?

Very little as of now. This place is wacky. So much posturing. Such fake. So wow.

There is some cultural revitalization. Craft beer is booming, so good beer isn’t hard to find. Dubstep is the popular thing right now, and though I don’t listen to it, from what little I have, seems to be leagues better than what kids were listening to in high school when I was that age. Not ideal, but I would’ve expected kids nowadays to listen to Justin Bieber clones singing about how it’s okay to get fucked in the ass by a woman with a strapon.

I know both are unimpressive, but, could be far worse with the way things have headed.

At any rate, the increasing proliferation of the absurd can be a bit amusing at times. I think a human zoo full of autistics on display would be neato. Wait…. I think there is one…. think it’s called “tumblr.”

As bad as things are, the future is opaque. I’d advise people to do constructive things instead of bicker on the ‘net about the what or the why for now. Focusing on the specifics of politics and theorizing about “traditional societies” and all that jazz isn’t going to do much to make you a better man. Ethno-nationalism isn’t gonna fucking save you. Leftism sure as hell won’t, LOL. Collective humanity is far too degraded. Let it collapse.

Where do people read more of your writings?

I don’t write much. So much noise on the internet, I’d just be one man in a room with a megaphone next to a very long human centipede, and if someone had dysentery in that ‘pede, the sounds of bowel movements would drown me out. Something like that. If people have interests in me writing more, I might give actual articles and such a chance,

Change – No change


A single word sums up the leftist stance. That word is ‘ego’.
All for change, the leftist will stop at nothing to have things change.
Change, that is, from the way things are, into what they hope – and demand – things should be.
They want change, because they do not like the way things are. This is what leftists have in common with each other. A dislike of a life that does not cater solely to themselves as the center of that life.

But if they happen to like some particular thing that is, they will stop at nothing to have that thing stay the same. Suddenly change becomes a hateful thing. Only haters would change this thing that they are so attached to.

Ego demands everything be arranged to suit itself. Change, if it suits. No change, if it suits.
The leftist has a mantra that takes precedence over everything else:
“What I want”.

But in order to give this transparently selfish demand credibility, it gets morphed into:
“What we want”.

Unfortunately, the ‘we’ doesn’t include all those who don’t want it. They don’t count.

Change is a fact of life. Everything changes. This is good. As long as it happens by itself, in its own time. Start forcing change, however, and things start mysteriously going wrong, suggesting the need for more change, and then more, until nothing at all is remotely familiar, dependable, or serviceable, any more.

Change: leave it alone as much as possible, and adapt to it as it happens.
No change: be thankful for having the time to get used to the way things are, while knowing, with certainty, that it won’t last forever.

Hate hateful hater haters hating hatred


A leftist hates haters.
Haters, in the opinion of the leftist, are those who disagree with the leftist’s opinion.
Therefore, in the opinion of the leftist, it is indisputably justifiable to hate those whom he has subjectively identified as being haters.

A leftist hates a differing opinion. The leftist also hates the lack of an opinion.
To a leftist, a differing opinion is the worst possible crime, while the lack of an opinion is assumed to be a passive-aggressive attack against what the leftist sees as the obviously right opinion.

The correct opinion is, of course, the leftist’s opinion. All other opinions are wrong, and since they are wrong, they are also hateful. Thus the leftist feels fully justified in hating people who hold such differing opinions. Even if those people hold no opinion at all.

An opinion has no substance, and indeed, no existence. An opinion is merely a figment of the imagination. Yet based upon these wholly fictitious things, a leftist may justifiably hate without limit, because it is, in the opinion of the leftist, a good hate, and if sufficiently indulged-in, will surely bring about world peace.

Beware opinion. It can render once-sane people insane.
Beware hatred. There is no good hatred, ever, under any circumstances.