Tag Archives: Vox Day

a late note on Jordan Peterson

Posted on by
Reply

It is often asserted that Jordan Peterson is a Cabal creation and targets young, messed-up white men who might end up Sieg Heiling were it not for Professor Peterson; in this reading, a young white man, let’s call him Dave, is assaulted by BLM for the third time this week, and turns angrily to the internet, but instead of finding The Daily Stormer he finds Jordan Peterson, the grey-haired, sombre, squeaky-voiced Canadian professor, earnestly telling him to clean his room and forget about his group (his nation, his race, his culture, his family) and focus only on himself and his own personal well-being. Dave is thus saved from the terrible Far Right, that is, he is saved from caring about the destruction of his own civilisation and race. Dave now smiles blandly as his local community burns to the ground, as mosques replace churches and libraries, and Sharia patrols take over the neighbourhood, stuffing Dave’s sisters into black sacks to be gangraped by Mohammed and Jamal; Dave is sanguine & unaffected, for his room is clean and he has his life in order as per Jordan Peterson’s prescription.

That’s the idea, anyway. However, while Peterson was clearly intended to serve as a gatekeeper I find his biggest fanbase isn’t confused white males but rather white females. I only know one male who is a Peterson fan, and even he commenced his recommendation by saying that his wife was amazed & gushing over Peterson’s Cathy Newman interview. I had by that point concluded that the whole thing was theatre, that this ghastly journalist creature agreed to make herself look retarded in order to make Peterson look reasonable and moderate. 

It worked well; I suspect it isn’t a wholly fraudulent interview, and that Newman was merely tutored to sound a bit more retarded & harpylike than usual. But as with Peterson’s initial public appearance:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1OsWXBjY9W4

it all seems a little too perfect. Even before Vox Day got onto the Peterson Question, I’d concluded the professor was a Cabal creature; albeit not a wholly noxious or destructive one, for unlike Vox I think some of Peterson’s work is good (his pre-fame videos), but then the best weapons are an alloy of sorts.  

I lost interest after Peterson’s rise to fame and expensive tailoring. Partly, his sudden eminence just seemed too evidently manufactured; partly, I realised he doesn’t know much outside of Piaget, Jung, Dostoevsky, and Disney films: he mentioned Dante’s Divine Comedy but couldn’t remember the name of the protagonist (it’s Dante); he hadn’t read the Bible but nonetheless made a lecture series called “the Psychological Significance of the Biblical Stories”, and so on. Once he started opining on everything under the sun his ignorance came to the fore; while the 1-book-a-year midwits might find him impressive I felt he was glib and uninteresting. So I was surprised to find so many women have fallen under his squeaky spell.

I would be curious to know if Cabal intended Peterson to attract women, or if it is an unintended side effect. In Germany I had a middle-aged (white) female colleague who even wore a Peterson t-shirt at work and gushed over how handsome and amazing he was. I was a little surprised, as while I enjoyed his pre-2016 lectures, he doesn’t strike me as remarkably attractive, and his squeaky Kermit the Frog voice gets on my nerves. I think the combination of evident intelligence (even while he’s surprisingly ignorant, and seems to have read virtually nothing), high verbal fluency, and physical frailty attracts a certain type of woman. That in itself says a lot about female nature today – a revulsion from normal masculinity, an attraction to the verbally adroit and frankly mendacious & superficial. After all, it was Eve who Satan seduced to sin; then she, Adam.

anti-virtue signalling

Posted on by
Reply

A phenomenon I’ve only recently noticed on the Right, a kind of anti-virtue signalling where the individual (usually a commenter on blogs or Youtube videos) aggressively signals an utter lack of compassion, fairness, etc., on the grounds that such moral sentiments are Leftist tools, and that in any case for all their blather the Left don’t actually have any compassion or fairness, so why should the Right?

It’s a prevailing note struck in Vox Day’s comment section, e.g. regarding the death of George Floyd. As far as I can tell, Floyd may have tried to forge a check, the police were called, and one of them for some reason subdued him by kneeling on his neck until he died. Floyd was a huge man and looks drunk or high from the available footage, so I can understand the police using a higher degree of force, but it’s difficult to justify kneeling on an inert man’s neck for several minutes.

Now the local black communities are rioting and looting to express their displeasure; and of course because destroying & stealing stuff is fun.

The comments on Vox Day’s post are instructive. A small number say the police basically murdered Floyd and people are right to be pissed off. These commenters are then attacked by Vox Day and other regulars, accused of being race traitors, “virtue signallers”, and so on. I found it baffling and wondered if I’d missed something, since as far as I could tell the first lot were simply saying that the police shouldn’t kneel on a non-violent suspect’s neck until he dies, which seems fairly reasonable. Then I realised, Oh! They mean that because Floyd was black, no one should criticise the police. Oh. 

I’m regularly accused of being a Nazi, a racist etc., but I guess I’m not racist enough for this ride.

I wasn’t disturbed so much by the racist sentiment (that only a virtue-signalling race traitor would object to police more or less randomly murdering blacks) as by the triumphal, snarling tone of the anti-virtue-signallers; it reminded me of the irritating peacockery of the Leftist virtue-signallers; both operate within a clearly-defined arena, within which they are sure their opinions will be not merely accepted but respected, and for which they will be accorded honour and acclaim. For all their venom and bravado, the anti-virtue-signallers are servile dogs snarling for their master’s approval.

Jordan Peterson and propaganda

Posted on by
Reply

I had forgotten about good old Jordan Peterson until I read this. I was one of the deluded who thought Peterson was legitimate back in 2016, though I never thought him more than a gifted synthesizer of Jung and Piaget (among others), with an especially good take on classic Disney films. I didn’t understand the adoration he aroused, especially among women and cucks.

I watched his lectures and enjoyed them a great deal. They contained many insights and brilliant asides, and he seemed to be a decent enough chap.

I still think Vox Day’s attack on Peterson was to some degree overly polemical and rhetorical, with accusations of occultism, but then VD is a Christian who has either said or strongly implied that meditation is a Satanic practice so there you go, he has higher standards than most. However, I think VD is broadly correct, and there is something rotten in Peterson.

The way I now see it, Peterson was approached by Cabal and offered wealth and fame; and he accepted. He was “created” as opposition to Cabal’s SJW toys, to give normal men a harmless outlet for their natural aversion to the screaming blue-haired landwhales. I think his purpose was to stop young men drawing correct (racial) conclusions, and to create a kind of watered-down, harmless Christianity.

I don’t think he was always an evil, Satanic occultist or whatever VD claims; I think Peterson was merely a fragile, unstable individual with some dark tendencies (the occult aspect would not surprise me, and it is imprudent for the ungrounded & neurotic to “dabble”; however, it is precisely the ungrounded & neurotic who are most drawn to the occult).

The “early” Peterson (2014/5) was an interesting professor in comfy academic woollens and ghastly suits, speaking to perhaps 30 students about Disney films: I liked this Peterson; but when I watched his post-fame stuff it seemed very thin; I felt increasingly ill at ease, as he himself looked uncomfortable and evasive and frankly bizarre at times. As he settled into 10,000 dollar suits and a semi-prophetic beard I found him less & less interesting and just stopped paying any attention to his particular word salad and endlessly recycled concepts and tropes. I wasn’t too surprised to find him speaking at a Trilateral Commission event, looking deeply uncomfortable.

My feeling is that he knew, on some level, that he was selling his soul to the worst people in the world and tried to grit his teeth & get on with it in return for wealth & fame; but being an inherently unstable individual the guilt and shame got to him – nor would I be surprised if Vox’s book was the final nail. There is also the possibility that he was offered the usual trappings & entrapments of the elites – underage sex – and having a strong interest in suffering and horror he suddenly & unsettlingly became aware of the wickedness of his new masters.

Unlike Vox and seemingly most of his readers, who all sensed the Satanic as soon as Peterson opened his mouth, I was taken in and thought, oh good an academic who’s willing to take a stand. I obviously lack the discernment of VD and his readers but I see now a red flag that should have given me pause, back in 2016; it is this video, my first encounter with Peterson on Computing Forever’s channel:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1OsWXBjY9W4

Looking back, I notice how evidently staged Peterson’s speech was; whoever was filming him was using good quality equipment, the speech was either well-practised or well-edited, the audio is oddly perfect; and it was immediately afterwards that he exploded into the edgy but not too edgy Youtube scene, appearing on Stefan Molyneux and then on Joe Rogan; but refusing to talk to Millennial Woes.

I recall Peter Hitchens once remarking of photos of a riot in (I think) Lahore, where protestors were burning Union Jack flags; Hitchens asked, “is there a shop where you can buy two hundred identical, pristine Union Jack flags in Lahore?” As a journalist, Hitchens had noticed the implausibility of the scene; the careful artifice of the photographs. I should have paid more attention to Peterson’s speech, and wondered, “is this organic? is this real? or is this managed?”

Another note: I don’t think Peterson is evil, merely weak. And I believe that when such a man “takes the ticket” and sells his soul, he will be destroyed in this life and in this world. The utterly evil (e.g. the Bushes and Clintons) will typically enjoy good health & wealth until death, being undivided and whole in their devotion to evil; but those who are not thoroughly evil will be ruined: they are akin to the Kid in Blood Meridian, who is slain by the Judge because he was not wholly committed to evil:

There’s a flawed place in the fabric of your heart. Do you think I could not know? You alone were mutinous. You alone reserved in your soul some corner of clemency for the heathen.

In spiritual matters – which includes the selling of one’s own soul – it is all or nothing. Some think they are merely selling a part of their soul, but that is an error: for the soul is fractal. Perhaps one could as it were cut off a little finger and live thereafter maimed, just about; but with Peterson it was as if he began with a finger, then a hand, then an arm, then they wanted his torso. In such a business, either be as the Bushes and Clintons, or do not partake.

film report: The Gentlemen

Posted on by
Reply

Extremely enjoyable. A quite basic plot but of course convoluted in presentation, with Ritchiean bravura; the joy of it is very catching – one feels that Ritchie was probably chuckling as he wrote the script, and there’s a similar sense of ebullience from the entire cast. The characters and casting elevate this otherwise standard film: Matthew McConaughey is a perfectly-cast crime boss (ruthless and human), Charlie Hunnam is a likeable lieutenant, and there are two excellent surprises with Hugh Grant as a sleazy blackmailer (by turns terrified and gloating) and Colin Farrell as a mythic Irish Londoner – down-to-earth bad boy turned into a local boxing gym mentor.

It has a pleasing sense of structural elaboration and fractal harmony. So for all the Ritchiean chaos, I note that one can apply Vox Day’s Social-Sexual Hierarchy quite well:

Matthew McConaughey’s boss Michael Pearson – Alpha

Charlie Hunnam’s Raymond – Bravo

Hugh Grant’s Fletcher – Gamma

Colin Farrell’s Coach – Sigma

with various stolid Delta henchmen

I see it as a film about male dynamics and loyalty, and a man’s own standards of masculinity and virtue – their own sense of what it is to be a “gentleman”. The etymology of gentle:

early 13c., gentile, gentle “well-born, of noble rank or family,” from Old French gentil/jentil “high-born, worthy, noble, of good family; courageous, valiant; fine, good, fair” (11c., in Modern French “nice, graceful, pleasing; fine, pretty”) and directly from Latin gentilis “of the same family or clan,” in Medieval Latin “of noble or good birth,” from gens (genitive gentis) “race, clan,” from root of gignere “beget,” from PIE root *gene- “to give birth, beget,” from PIE root *gene- “give birth, beget,” with derivatives referring to procreation and familial and tribal groups.

There is a sense here, both in the social climber Michael Pearson, and in Colin Farrell’s Coach, that through loyalty and consistent deeds of power a man can create his own tribe, his own belonging – it is this which Raymond instinctively senses and acts within, and Fletcher or the upstart Asian gangster Dry Eye would regard as foolish outdated nonsense. The film is, in this sense, a very old-fashioned and even honourable work – even as it is chaotically modern and degenerate.

gnostic horrors

Posted on by
Reply

Apologies for scant blogging, I’m overwhelmed with work & humanity, barely able to function with people demanding my emotions at every turn. However, one anecdote from work last week: I was talking to an Italian architect woman with an austistic son, she herself strikes me as “on the spectrum” and is an unpleasant, shrewish creature; I mentioned the great Hundertwasser and she scoffed that he isn’t a good architect; she told me that, among modern architects, Le Corbusier is a great architect, and she would love to live in one of his buildings. “Really?” I said, alarmed, since not even Le Corbusier wanted to live in one of his buildings; indeed, as far as I’m aware none of these hideous modern architects chose to live in modern housing, preferring for some inexplicable reason classical houses of a modest, human scale.

She sneered at me, “You must understand what Le Corbusier is doing with space. When you know what he is doing, it is very interesting.”

I nodded politely, thinking “fuck off”.

Later, I thought this is a kind of modern gnosticism; the idea is, once you have the correct, left-wing gnosis (knowledge), you see things as they truly are. And as with some gnostic sects, this enables a total inversion of morality and aesthetics. Fair is foul and foul is fair, to quote Macbeth. In Shakespeare’s play, the witches act as an irruption into the natural order, and tempt Macbeth to kill his king; from then on, the natural order is disrupted, there is no central axis of instinctive morality and valuation. In the play, it is not so much that evil is seen as good, as that the two are confused:

This supernatural soliciting

 Cannot be ill, cannot be good.

Throughout the play, there are references to nature, principally of this sort “A great perturbation in nature”, and “unnatural deeds/Do breed unnatural troubles” with the gruesome image of Duncan’s horses:

ROSS

And Duncan’s horses–a thing most strange and certain–
Beauteous and swift, the minions of their race,
Turn’d wild in nature, broke their stalls, flung out,
Contending ‘gainst obedience, as they would make
War with mankind.

OLD MAN

‘Tis said they eat each other.

ROSS

They did so, to the amazement of mine eyes
That look’d upon’t.

It is not so much a play about evil as madness – Macbeth and his wife don’t believe they are right, or morally justified in some demonic scale; they merely eschew all sense of right and wrong and are left with chaos.

The madness to which they succumb has, in a sense, fallen over a substantial minority of the West – principally, those deemed “intellectual”. Lady Macbeth appeals to Macbeth’s manliness, to overcome his natural reluctance to murder his king; those like this architect appeal to “knowledge”, as if knowing some piece of technical data will turn this:

into a pleasing public monument. Ah but if only you understood what he’s doing with space, then you would like it, and want to live there, the architect would say. If only you had the secret knowledge, the correct gnosis, the Masonic password, you too would worship the dark ones and spread ugliness, lies, and evil with a pleasing glow of your own superiority and election.

This modern gnositicism appeals by saying, You can ignore your god-given instincts, your nature, you can despise those who still perceive beauty and virtue; you can call them “ignorant”. We will give you knowledge, carefully artificed knowledge, and then you will see that the ugly is in fact “interesting”, and the beautiful must be exterminated and erased. 

They seek to overwrite the natural instincts, to contain the human soul in a demonic cage. Thus, their buildings resemble their own minds: mechanistic, rigid, nasty, oppressive. Those like the architect may not be themselves evil, in the Sorosian sense; but they are “on the spectrum”: they do the dark one’s work, joyfully.

It is wrong to say that all modern productions are bad; it is rather that those which serve “the good, the beautiful, and the true” (Vox Day’s words) are actively suppressed, denigrated, condemned; so we should be grateful for anything post-WW2 which doesn’t make one feel small and weak and helpless. I don’t know anything about Hundertwasser’s life or character, but a building like this – in the middle of dismal Magdeburg – gives me pleasure:

– no gnosis required.

wisdom and intelligence, Dungeons & Dragons

Posted on by
Reply

I’ve been re-reading the Tracy Hickman & Margaret Weiss’ Dragonlance books; meanwhile Varg Vikernes was discussing Dungeons & Dragons on Twitter, bringing back many memories to this old dog. D & D character generation was my favourite, as it didn’t involve other people (I usually couldn’t find people to play with, so had to be both game master & player, which isn’t much fun and probably drove me insane). Each character had six attributes; for each, you had to roll a 6-sided die three times and total the scores – so, somewhere between 3 and 18.

The 6 character attributes were:

Constitution (health, toughness)

Strength

Dexterity

Intelligence

Wisdom

Charisma

As with Vox Day’s sociosexual hierarchy, categories can be useful, as long as one bears their limitations in mind. As a child/teenager I wasn’t sure how to distinguish intelligence, wisdom, and charisma, since some people are charismatic precisely because of their intelligence or wisdom. I also wondered where intelligence becomes wisdom – is it possible to be wise but stupid, or intelligent and foolish/unwise? As a teenager, I didn’t get it.

I would now say wisdom and intelligence are two quite distinct categories. Indeed, since the intelligent (let’s say, in D & D terms, those with an Intelligence score of 13+) are more likely to attend Marxoid higher “education” and be pumped full of anti-white, anti-Western lies, you could argue that the less intelligent may well have a higher Wisdom score. It would be interesting to, D & D-style, quantify “Marxist Idiocy” from 3 to 18 and see how it correlates with Intelligence; my guess is, there would be some at the 16-18 Intelligence level who would exhibit little or no Marxist Idiocy, being intelligent enough to see through it; however, they would also require a higher Wisdom score, since wisdom guides the intellect: in a sense, wisdom is the pilot and navigator of intellect.

I was puzzling over a definition of Wisdom, and decided for myself: Wisdom is the realisation of intelligence in a man’s daily acts & decision. Thus, the highly intelligent people who make routinely disastrous decisions and end up ruining themselves & others lack wisdom; and the less-intelligent or dim who apply what intelligence they have can be wise. For the latter, one does not require a high IQ to know that a woman who has a different boyfriend every week, and has no friends for longer than 6 months, is trouble. The highly intelligent are more likely to fail to apply their intellect to the most important matters. For example, Saul Bellow and his gorillion fucked-up marriages. Or perhaps they abuse intellect, to explain away the conclusions of Wisdom and pursue their own folly.

The highly intelligent often seem to limit their actual intellectual activity to highly abstract affairs – mathematics, logic, chess, philosophy, science. In the Dragonlance system, Raistlin’s Intelligence is 17, his Wisdom 14: I find this quite plausible, as he is wise enough to know what will make him happy (power, especially magical) and to largely eschew all else.

There seems no easy schooling for wisdom. It’s mostly instinct honed by painful experience.

Thorina and other financial disasters

Posted on by
Reply

No one should be surprised that Marvel are planning to cast a diminutive, dark-haired, dark-eyed, Jewish, Israeli citizen as the new Thor. Oh, and she’s a she.

I’ve been increasingly puzzled by Styxhexenhammer’s assertion that the only reason companies do such stupid things is for money; in his view, everything comes down to money, not ideology. He, for example, asserts that the mainstream media attack Youtubers because they see them as competition.

There probably is a financial component, but in that case the predominantly left-wing media would also, presumably, attack left-wing Youtubers – after all, how many people would go from watching CNN and reading the New York Times to watching an ancap like Stefan Molyneux or an ethnotribalist like Varg Vikernes? Is No White Guilt really competition for the Huffington Post? And why would Disney poz their heroes when it’s clear no one (except SJWs) likes it? Where is the financial sense in casting a small 38-year-old Jewish woman as Thor?

Vox Day is, I think, correct that all of this is part of a concerted, (at least) decades-long attack on Western values of Christianity and masculinity. The enemy wish to humiliate the occupied peoples, much as the Russians forced e.g. the Poles and Hungarians to learn Russian. Every conquering power denigrates the heroes and mythologies of the conquered; the goal is to break the will of the slave class through constant humiliation, through constantly attacking their cultural identity and capacity for resistance. That is part of the Left’s terror & hatred of Trump – he is a partial avatar of everything they’ve been trying to destroy: an unabashed white, straight alpha male.

But regardless of the ideological intent, companies have to make some money; I was thus puzzled at the sheer awfulness of The Last Jedi. You can’t even call it subversive, it’s just badly made, so crassly progressive it wouldn’t subvert but rather repel; it most likely served to Red Pill a few cinema-goers. Did Disney really think there is a market for this? Putting aside that if you work at Disney & Hollywood you probably never meet any normal people, one would think a budget of 200-317 million dollars would have included a bit of initial market research, to determine how many people will pay to have progressive values rammed down their throats. It made money but there seems a delayed effect with such franchises: people go to see it, in spite of a few bad reviews, but then they decide to skip the next one.

When I consider the confidence with which Hollywood executives announce their plans to have e.g. 007 now be a black woman, I wonder if the world works very differently to how I imagined it. It has, at least, prompted some good memes:

I wonder if, in the past, a film could make money regardless of audience, regardless of how few tickets it sold. Anonymous Conservative has speculated, based on some mysterious tweets of James Comey’s (standing in a forest with a text “so many questions”) if Cabal usually communicated indirectly with its puppets; so instead of a centralized hierarchy with clear lines of communication & command, higher puppets like Comey would be told “here’s the deal, do what we want and you will prosper” and then his “instructions” would come in a very indirect, oblique form, not vulnerable to codebreaking but rather, e.g. the New York Times and Washington Post both run articles about how wonderful some new perversity is, and the puppet realises “Cabal want me to push this perversity”; the puppet does accordingly, and is rewarded.

If so, it would explain the school of fish nature of Cabal puppets; there is often some slight variance, swiftly corrected, e.g.  David Lynch said something half-nice about Trump and was immediately rebuked and bowed his head to the progressive agenda. The Cabal puppets don’t get information meetings and performance evaluations: they are mostly left to their own devices but with many information streams by which to judge the will of their masters, and if they deviate they end up on one of those “Why Hollywood won’t cast____again” lists.

When I consider the utter confidence with which the studios announce Thor will now be a small Jewish woman, 007 a negress, I wonder if they feel sure they will be rewarded, whether or not people buy any tickets. As with certain worthless books which become bestsellers, the authors millionaires, but you never meet anyone who’s actually read it, never read a normal, grassroots review on the internet, the reason some businesses thrive and others fail may have little to do with profit & loss. It will be interesting, as Q et al. seem to be systematically cutting the strings of Cabal finance, to see how black Bond and Jewish lady Thor fare in the box office; if the executives will be shocked to find that, for once, they followed their (apparent) instructions but did not prosper.

“powerful agents to the uninitiated”

Posted on by
Reply

As I wrote earlier, one of the very few useful lessons from my expensive school – when I was about 12 the teacher brought in Left & Right-wing newspaper clippings covering the same event, and helped us analyse the bias, the lie-by-language. Two decades later I remember Peter Hitchens somewhere covering a riot in Pakistan, the adherents of the Religion of Peace rising up and attacking British embassies with identical, brand-new hammers and burning hundreds of identical, brand-new Union Jacks. He asked, from where exactly did they procure the flags? Is there a British shop selling literally hundreds of Union Jacks in Lahore or Karachi?

Most of the news is, to some degree, Fake News. After a while you start to notice, and then you ask, what is happening behind the scenes here? It can ruin simple pleasures, for example I was watching the video for Sharon Van Etten’s ‘Seventeen’ and, as she is standing on a stepladder in a lake

screaming at the camera,

I immediately thought of her likely response when the director told her “okay, next scene you’re on a ladder, in a lake, screaming”, the first few dozen takes as she shivered, looked pissed off, started laughing, stumbled and nearly fell into the water, everything behind the few seconds of her at 2:55 standing on a stepladder and rather declaiming:

I know what you’re going to be

I know that you’re going to be

You’re crumbling up just to see

Afraid that you’ll be just like me.

The Red Pill can become something of a meta-red-pill. I first heard it in relation to MGTOW, with men like Sandman having realised the nature of female behaviour, or at least the kind of women he meets & is drawn to & draws; then in about 2015 it came to describe the dissident Right, who are often strongly opposed to MGTOW.

At its essence, the Red Pill is the peeling-off of illusions, usually through painful disenchantment & betrayal (there would be no dissident Right if mainstream Conservatism actually conserved anything). A side effect is the habit of scrutinising all that glitters; so I was unsurprised by Milo’s accusations regarding Lauren Southern’s thottery (ably covered by Morgoth).

Glitter is the danger sign. Glitter and the implausible, e.g. an obscure Canadian Psychology professor suddenly giving speeches to the Trilateral Commission, a Rothschild banker appearing out of nowhere as an independent candidate for the French presidency, hundreds of Pakistan rioters with identical, brand-new Union Jack flags. It is all theatricality & deception. The meta-Red Pill is a sidelong wary glance towards such things, a distrust of anything that looks too good.

The deception works on many, but then initiation is always highly restricted.