Category Archives: People

Jordan Peterson, YouTube prophet

Props to Spandrell for noticing Jordan Peterson well before he was fashionable. RT on an interview between Moldbug and Peterson.

I found this interview with Russell Brand quite enjoyable.

First things first: Russell Brand is communist. Not saying that in a hateful way, just a statement of facts. Observe his creative nonsense ramblings, his dirty looks (skinny, pale, tattoos), his Rasputin-like gaze. He’s not hiding it at all. Personally I like an honest charismatic commie. They lie so brazenly obviously in the face of so many people that the fact that people believe them at all is a testament to the evolutionary effectiveness of leftism.

So how will Jordan Peterson fair against a commie? As it turns out, pretty good.

First half an hour is them warming up to each other. Peterson obviously has the frame, likely because he has all the momentum while I’m guessing Brand has lost a lot of his. As Brand later on says: Peterson has loyal fanbase, Brand does not.

30:00 ‘That’s what artists do.’ I tip my hat to your flattery skills, mr Peterson.

41:30 ‘It seems you care about truth, that you search for truth.’

42:00 Great little bit on how Brand confesses many people for whatever strange reason don’t like his commie interference and Peterson pats him on the back.

52:00 Jordan says what I said 2 posts ago.

1:01:00 ‘the right doesn’t care, the left fails to do what it tries to do.’ Yeah, no. Peterson is a centrist. Peterson later describes himself as high on openness to new experience which helps explain his centrism. But, similar to how agreeableness is cooked in favor of pretending agreeable people go along with good behavior while they in fact go along with bad behavior just as easy, openness to new experience is cooked in favor of pretending open people going along with good exotic behavior, while open people go along with bad exotic behavior just as easy. Which Peterson demonstrates by repeatedly flattering Brand.

1:10:30 Brand vocalizing both his hatred and admiration of the right in typical leftist fashion.

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: while Jordan Peterson is an exceedingly intelligent man, his primary interest is not truth. Truth is sort of high on his list, yes, but spreading the gospel of Peterson is higher on his list. Quite understandably so, I might add. Truth is shouting against a storm, effectively spreading your gospel is like riding a storm.

Peterson’s story is quite good, quite solid. But he has quite some flaws in thinking, e.g. on Islam (on which he, like Pilate, washes his hands), on women (needs more Jim) and on individualism (indiloldualism). If I had more motivation I’d take more time explaining why Peterson has these flaws and why it is unlikely he will correct them, but whatevs. Moldbug has Peterson’s number.

OK I’ll leave you with one more observation. If I were to talk with Russell Brand, I’d tell him with a grin: ‘Russell, I rarely come across men who speak complete nonsense as eloquently as you.’ Naturally, he’d be irritated. But it would be completely true. If Peterson always speaks the truth, if Peterson always strives to find the truth, how come he has not said anything of the sort in the entire 90 minutes of conversation?


Lol Scott Alexander

Can not promise this is the last time I write about Scott Alexander, because:

a) his audience is large enough that making fun of him is worth it
b) he is a juicy target

It is not hard to see why Scott is a successful blogger. He writes a lot, he writes well, and his sentences seem intelligent. So what’s the deal with Scott Alexander?

The deal with Scott Alexander is that he is the kind of man who makes signals you’d normally associate with intelligence, much like smoke gives off the signals of fire. Yet when you take a closer look, there is no fire, just a bunch of nerdy men in the comment section who all really really do their best to pretend there is a fire.

Scott has a pretty straightforward business model.

On day 1 he paints a blue pill purple. He will say something along the lines of ‘I am not saying we live in an age of repressive censorship, but if we were living in an age of repressive censorship it would not be wise of me to say we live in an age of repressive censorship. Wink wink, nudge nudge.’ This makes all the non-leftists go: ‘woooo this guy is so edgy!’

Then, on day 2, he paints a red pill purple. He will say something along the lines of ‘although it seems like official truth is just a bunch of lies, it seems that in this instance official truth is in fact the truth.’ This makes all the leftists go: ‘wooo one of us, one of us.’

Rinse and repeat and you have his business model. Basically Scott Alexander’s entire blog is a never-ending exercise of playing good cop bad cop with himself and his commenters.

Scott Alexander constantly holds up 2 pills, like Morpheus, and whenever you go for one he will close that hand and offer you the other. It is a shtick and it will eventually get old. Unfortunately for Scott, I am sure that leftists dislike his shtick as much as I dislike his shtick, hence the not insignificant risk of Scott eventually getting himself killed, much like that other smart guy.

The Rise and Fall of Owen Cook

For judging any man, I hold two principles:

  1. Does he practice what he preaches?
  2. Is he content with what he practices?


I recently watched an Owen Cook video with some friends. It’s been a year since I last discussed RSD. My opinion has not changed.

Gurus like Owen Cook are fascinating figures. Men seek avatars to learn from and Owen is such an avatar, especially since he actually talks in front of crowds, as opposed to anonymous writers on the internet who might as well be keyboard-hitting monkeys.

But no one is perfect and sometimes the most ostensibly successful persons are the most fucked up. The greater the rise, the harder the fall. Such it was with Ken Wilber, as documented by Mark Manson (who himself completely sold-out since the days he garnered praise from Nick Krauser. My local bookshop sells Manson’s book ‘the subtle art of not giving a fuck’, yours probably does too).

Anyway. As with Ken Wilber, so it is with Owen. Below his most recent video.

We watched Owen talk for about 20 minutes, when my friend, who used to be pretty big on RSD, paused the video and exclaimed: ‘this is nonsense. He is just bragging and talking nonsense!’ My friend was right. Owen has no coherent message here. What Owen says here is a random collection of stuff he knows his audience expects him to say, and his audience plays along because Owen says the sort of stuff they expect him to say, but there is no sense of meaning. It is noise, with little to no information.

It wasn’t always like this. Old Owen was better. For instance take the clip below.

Beardless Owen talked sense, had some good concepts. ‘Pinging’ always stuck with me, which refers to how people look at other people as anchors for reality. Women ping all the time. Arrogant men ping little and if they are forced to ping they often do so irritatingly slowly. The person who pings less has most power.

But despite some quality content, the first signs of Owen’s failure were already visible early on. Lemme explain.

Tyler’s big thing has always been deconditioning your social conditioning. What is social conditioning? Everything you’ve been taught by society, your parents, your teachers, also known as the false life script. You are taught to feel depressed, confined and self-hating. You are taught to shut up and keep your head low. As a man, you are taught to be ashamed of your masculinity, your aggression, your sexual impulse.

So Owen wanting to end this makes perfect sense. So far, so good.

The problem arises with his proposed replacement. What is his proposed replacement? Well, in a nutshell: not giving a fuck, being your best self. Do what you like, when you like. Be who you like to be.

Which is great advice. For a fortune cookie. See, men need freedom, sure. But men also need direction, purpose. The reason traditions are important is that they provide a place of belonging for men. Just because our current societal rituals are rotten does not mean we can do away with rituals all-together. Need rituals.

What are such rituals? Rituals derived from the acceptance that we are imbued with genetic programming. As a white male this means you want territory, you want power, you want your own female, you want your female to give birth to your children, you want to protect and care for your family and be loved in return. More or less.

Deviation from this path is possible, but you do so at your own risk. The life-long bachelor does not age too well I think. Paraphrasing Spandrell, life-long bachelors have too much idle time on their hands, do silly things. Jim puts it stronger: if a man does not own a woman he becomes horribly broken. I for one think you end up feeling lonely.

How does this relate to Owen Cook? Well, his wife divorced him and took his 2 kids.

This piece of personal information is crucial. It is sad. But it is also strange. Here’s a guy travelling the world telling men how to achieve success with women, yet he could not convince the mother of his children to stay with him.

Owen Cook’s best teachings are as deeply purple-pill you can describe life without going red. He made all the right observations about women. He described social dynamics accurately. He went into the evolutionary background of it all. But he failed to draw the obvious conclusions that everyone who has taken the red pill has. Owen Cook’s genes want him to own a woman, want him to be patriarch of his family, and if the opposite happens, if his woman leaves him and takes away his children, he becomes horribly broken. Which is exactly what happened.

Men need freedom, but men also need chains of family. But men like hearing about freedom more so Owen did exactly that.

It is ironic that the same thing that brought Owen success, namely telling men what they wanted to hear without setting off too many CRIMETHINK alarms, led to his own downfall.

Not that he has literally hit rock bottom, of course. Dude is still richer than I’ll ever be. But a guru always cares more about his reputation than his bank account, and the end of Owen’s reputation has arrived.


Sick of purple-pill liars selling you useless advice on getting laid? Buy my book if you want real success.

Heartiste’s 1 pretty lie













Jim gives you tools to end of the age of thots.




Screen Shot 2017-12-20 at 13.05.19


Screen Shot 2017-12-20 at 13.05.07
Is Alan Friedman Weinstein’s twin brother?










The 2 charges made against Berlusconi are corruption and hedonism.



Screen Shot 2017-12-20 at 12.42.44




Poor Eminem

I recently caught Eminem’s freestyle rap against Trump. I felt bad for Eminem.

I listened to his old albums quite a few times (from Slim Shady LP up to Encore). I liked them. Too be honest he never had the best beats. In fact there’s this signature Eminem-beat, it’s a sort of staccato rhythm that vaguely reminds me of hardcore music, which is surprisingly popular in the right Dutch subcultures but revealing of lack of taste in music. Too aggressive, too unimaginative. For me at least.

But as a rapper Eminem was one of the greatest, even if rap is the most overrated genre in the modern music game. He had good flow, was good with words, didn’t shy away from rapping about fucked-up shit that just made you laugh. And at his peak he was Big. Eminem got as close to being a rap god as you can imagine.

But of course, in the end, he is still a white boy in a black neighborhood. Prior to being famous he had a shitty life. Then Dre came along and Eminem blew up. Saved by the black man. What an interesting fate. Leftists may say this, rightists may say that, but Eminem thanks his entire fortune to an industry dominated by blacks embracing him into their midst. So it is no wonder he now stands with them. He simply feels more loyalty towards the music business’ diverse ethnicity than to the ‘plight of the white man’ (a problem shared by Dutch white hip-hop artists whose Dunbar make-up makes it impossible for them to think Diversity+Proximity=War thoughts).

Yes, Eminem is vapidly virtue signaling, but really, who cares? The failed campaigning by Beyonce, Jay-Z and Katy Perry for Hillary Clinton taught us that artists’ impact on politics is quite small. Fans don’t change political opinions for stars.

I suspect that most of Eminem’s original fans, angry young white males, dislike this freestyle anyway. I know I do. He looks like an old man with a midlife crisis. Listening to a creative rapper with something interesting to tell was fun, listening to this self-righteous useful idiot, not so much.

At any rate, when J.K. Rowling came out as a frothing-at-the-mouth Social Justice Warrior, I felt scammed for ever having read Harry Potter. I don’t have so much hate towards Eminem. He had a good run while it lasted. R.I.P.

Arjen Lubach, or: how to kiss the ass of Power

Arjen Lubach is a non-Jewish leftist entertainer who dreams of being the Dutch Jon Stewart. In fact, he already pretty much is the Dutch Jon Stewart. Congratulations Arjen!

The above video is a very recent hit. Which is to say, a huge viral hit according to the media, but with less than 2 million views it is barely half the views of a daily Jake Paul video. To be fair though, Lubach’s first viral video on Trump got 25 million views, but that was a funnier video.

The authorities tell us a story about poor li’l Lubach, just tinkering in his garage with his under-appreciated content, who through sheer talent and perseverance is slowly recognised as the beacon of funny truth that he is. “America Hates His Rifle-Skeptical Guts But Damnit If He Doesn’t Speak Truth!”


If you hadn’t heard yet: countryside Americans have lost on all major issues: they’ve lost marriage, healthcare, abortion and even the right to assemble. And let us not forget the statue storm destroying conservative statues as we speak. Guns are pretty much the last thing they have left.

City Americans love Lubach, which is to say: those in power in America love Lubach. Why? Because Lubach perfectly parrots the party line, just as Jon Stewart, John Oliver and Stephen Colbert perfectly parrot the party line. They are messenger boys. It is only as long as Lubach’s message is in line with the powers that be that Lubach is lauded as great content creator.

This is why I didn’t even have to watch the video to know what Lubach was going to say. It’s about Trump? It will be hating on Trump. It’s about guns? Yeah it’ll be about restricting gun control.

And I hear you asking: ‘isn’t Lubach making good points?’ No, he isn’t. Controlled for race, Americans murder at about the same rate as people in countries with strict gun control. Gun control seems to play a negligible role in homicide rates. See the 2015 Paris massacre. See Jim. It is the opinion of this blog that every Dutch male with a house and a wife be given a government-issued Desert Eagle with 10 clips magazines and a laser pointer.

So why are leftists so adamant about gun control if it isn’t about saving lives? Because leftists are the priests, and the priests hate it when warriors have power in the form of guns. What is really at stake is just another struggle for power.

So no, Lubach is not speaking truth to power. He is kissing the ass of power. Which is probably the smart thing to do. Just, not so interesting.

Leftist pathology: a case study

The point of a cellular make-up is to optimise evolutionary advantage. A strong man uses strength to deter his enemies from attacking, an emotional man uses theatrics to seduce women and an intelligent man uses his IQ to outsmart others.

No personality is designed to fall within a certain bound, though most personalities naturally fall within a certain bound because average is what tends to work best. But extremes always exist, for if 1 ‘strong’ gene makes you strong, 2 ‘strong’ genes make you superstrong, but 3 ‘strong’ genes give you muscular dystrophy.

Extremes are dangerous, evolutionary speaking. They might be dead-ends. Take homosexuality. A few homosexual genes make you bi-curious. Being bi-curious gets you laid more often. Boom, evolutionary advantage! But too many homosexual genes and you lose interest in girls, preferring instead to spend your time catching and spreading AIDS in dark basements of bars called The Golden Fist and The Happy Sausage. Boom, evolutionary dead-end!

A leftist personality is also optimised for evolutionary advantage: it is optimised to lie and to cheat. Yet too many leftist genes and the product becomes obviously defective. Take for instance Judith Sargentini, a Dutch GreenLeft politician who has recently been promoted to the EU anti-terrorism committee.

Screen Shot 2017-09-11 at 22.37.52.png

Heartiste is absolutely correct: physiognomy is real. And if you think she looks unreliable in this picture, observe her when she talks.

Sargentini’s opinion on terrorism? it has nothing to do with religion! Her opinion on the idea that some immigrants might harbour terroristic ideas? Ludicrous hysteria!

The central realisation about leftists is that they do not give a flying shit about others. They care about themselves, they lie to promote themselves. Observe the passive-agressive way in which Sargentini supposedly stands up for refugees. Funny thing; she does not actually see refugees as real people. She sees them as status objects whose sole purpose is to be used as value-signals for her personal superiority. Similarly, the environment: Sargentini does not give a flying shit about it. She has no interest in how ecologies work, how farmers work, how animals work. She just cares about about herself while posing, quite aggressively, as someone who cares about others.

And it’s not just immigration, not just the environment. Literally think of ANY topic in which you can value-brag to others and you can be sure that ms Sargentini has tweeted on it, made commissions for it, or written on it in order to further her own interests : child labor, developmental aid, amnesty international, islamophobia, transgender rights, gay marriage, African democracy, diversity on tech etcetera etcetera.

As always, the leftist’s personal life speaks volumes: at age 43 ms Sargentini has neither husband nor kids. What she no doubt does have is a long list of pump and dumps, likely including several Syrian refugees.

In the past such a woman was politely shunned from serious conversations and people would shake their heads whenever they’d encounter the bitter vitriol of a spinster like her. But alas, we live in a progressive dystopia where diversity=equality and terrorism=good, hence ms Sargentini’s position on the EU anti-terrorism committee.

Remember Jiang Qing, who wanted her doctor killed because he was a doctor. Sargentini is much like Jiang Qing, in that she wants white men to be killed because they are white men.

Goodbye to the place I was always able to go to






On the Death of Pim Fortuyn

I remember where I was when the murder of Pim Fortuyn happened (at a friend’s place).

Fortuyn’s killer was Volkert van der Graaf, a white leftist, whose motivation for the murder was that he ‘wanted to protect the weak in the Netherlands’. Back then this was a surprise — not a brown but a white killer? In retrospect it all makes perfect sense of course.

Hardcore leftists are psychopathic status maximisers. By killing Fortuyn Volkert traded 12 years in Dutch prison for Godlike status among his leftist peers (he has been out of prison since 2014). Sure, there’s people who hate his guts, but no doubt he enjoys great prestige in his preferred social circles. Plus chicks dig a killer. Volkert pulled off a great trade.

Now the question remains: were higher powers aware of Volkert’s plan to kill Fortuyn? Theo van Gogh seemed to think so. In his movie 06/05 he suggests that the AIVD, the Dutch secret service, had infiltrated Volkert’s activist group the Environment Offence. In the movie a journalist uncovers that powerful people plotted to get rid of Pim Fortuyn and secretly assisted Volkert by keeping the police away on the day of the murder. Their motivation? According to van Gogh, approval of the Lockheed Martin Joint Strike Fighter program for which the Netherlands was set to invest 1 billion euros. Fortuyn opposed the program, and for this the deep state allowed or perhaps even instigated Volkert to off Fortuyn.

So what’s my take on this? I think it is mainly a question of competency. It is clear Fortuyn was a splinter in the foot of the American/European deep state and not just because of the JSF program. That the deep state wanted to get rid of Fortuyn seems obvious. But how involved were they in his actual murder? It is impossible to say exactly, but my assessment is that Theo van Gogh was onto something. The Dutch are generally competent and the AIVD is more than equally competent. Consider: the AIVD has so far managed to prevent all terrorist attacks in the Netherlands from happening, except for the public murder of Pim Fortuyn in 2002 and Theo van Gogh in 2004. So yes, I judge it more likely than not that the deep state was at some level aware of the danger Pim Fortuyn was in and chose not to interfere while the public media continued to promote his assassination.

In the aftermath of Fortuyn’s death the LPF received a whopping 17% of the vote, an unsurpassed record for a new party. But it did not matter – the party crumbled. To replace Fortuyn the formerly unknown Matt Herben was pushed forward as leader, who completely crashed the party into the ground, although not before voting in favour of the JSF program. And, get this, Herben became a lobbyist for the JSF program after his LPF career ended.

LPF’s last shred of dignity was destroyed when prominent LPF member Hilbrand Nawijn recorded a hilariously crappy music video starring himself:

Thus ended the legacy of Pim Fortuyn: with a fat guy using him and a Dutch dance hype for attention. Sad.