Wednesday, October 22, 2025
Thinking about monarchy
Tuesday, October 21, 2025
Your should be studying female intrasexual competition
Here is a nice and insightful long-form video for thouse of you who like long-form content. Skip ahead to 6:00
Friday, October 17, 2025
Implicit belief analysis
Like self-loathing, thinking it's your job to save the world is a form of narcissism.
In a certain sense leftists are very Christ-like, but forget that they are not God and it is idolatrous to place oneself in God's position. Jesus said "No one can go to the Father except by Me", and the white liberal said "you can only be saved by oppression if I hate myself." They make a sacrilege of Christianity by putting themselves in the position of Christ; taking on the sins of the world, but in some sort of weird inversion they become demons for all the brown people to fear, but somehow also their saviors. It's messy.
One should not be Christ-like, one should not think one self God, or a demon, or the savior of the world, or the cause of its fallenness. I once considered renaming this blog Against Arrogance, or perhaps The Humble One. But how humble can a man who calls himself humble possibly be? The name of this blog, the Anti-Puritan comes directly from a reaction against those scolding people who constantly seem to know better and who are a continuous theme in American culture. It also comes from the fact that "A" is the first letter in the alphabet and would therefore be listed at the top of other people's blogs in their alphabetically organized blog lists, since when Neoreaction was still a thing cross listing was how I got most of my traffic. Since the beginning of this blog I have had a deep disdain for arrogant people, and nothing is more arrogant than thinking that you are the cause of all the suffering in the world because of your privilege.
But it gets worse, because it is inconceivable to these narcissists than anyone could not be narcissistic and therefore if you refuse to hate yourself the way they do, you are a bad person. This is why it is impossible to argue with a leftist, why the argument goes nowhere. They believe you are evil for opposing them because you refuse to acknowledge your white privilege. They would rather be villains than unimportant and they have a strong ego investment in thinking that white people are bad. Brown people believe that whites are bad because it excuses their behavior but whites believe that whites are bad because it makes them feel important. They would rather be important than losers and it's remarkable that they will even talk about things like white savior complex without ever realizing it's the core of their own ideology. If you really want to talk a leftist out of their beliefs you have to attack the core psychology, and that means you have to tell them that they don't matter. You have to explain to them that they are being narcissistic, that self-hate is narcissism, that saving the world is narcissism, and that viewing white people as evil is it perverse form of narcissism. You also have to point out to them that not everyone thinks like they do and that it is possible to be a good person and not left wing. You have to point out these incredibly obvious conclusions because they won't come to these conclusions on their own. What you say should go something like this:
"You don't matter. You think you matter and you think you have white privilege. Hating yourself is a form of narcissism and thinking you're going to save the world is a massive ego trip. You don't matter enough to save anyone. Your self hate definitely doesn't matter and never changed anything. You're not Christ and you're not going to save the world by feeling guilty."
You have to attack the core ego investment.
Also, while I have you here I would like to point out some other things.
Capitalism is not the problem but rather humans are, and capitalism is the solution. Poverty and violence are the default state of the human race, and humans do not have crime because of poverty, they have poverty because of crime.
When there is crime people do not bother reinvesting in having nicer things. Why buy a car when it will just get stolen? Why upgrade your house when it will get broken into? Why increase the inventory in your store when it will get stolen? Crime destroys reinvestment, and therefore all wealth is caused by the suppression of criminals. Is a lie to claim there is a cycle of poverty and crime. This would imply that poverty causes crime in any meaningful sense when it does not. The causal direction is entirely one way: from crime ---> poverty, and the reason that the ancestral tribal environment was so impoverished is because it was so violent and criminal. Homelessness is a human default condition that only the suppression of human nature by capitalism, and by law and order can defeat. Capitalism forces stupid human monkeys to make themselves useful to each other and actually be productive, and humans deserve to be oppressed by it. In fact, the only injustice is that capitalism is forced to babysit humans at all. Humans are better off than we deserve under property rights, law and order, and capitalism. The only valid argument against capitalism is that humanity should be punished by removing capitalism, since a species of genocidal monkeys doesn't deserve to be wealthy. Anything that counts as oppression by capitalism is wholly deserved by the human monkey species, and the worst monkeys experience capitalism as the most oppressing!
Those who hate capitalism the most are the most worthless human beings. Capitalism has a moral property to it and that is it measures you based on how much value you produce according to its judgment. Capitalism demands that you be productive and if you do not like the criteria that capitalism uses to judge what constitutes productivity that is your flaw and not its. It is entitled to judge you according to whatever arbitrary criteria it wants. You don't get to look a gift horse in the mouth, the ant does not get to question why the boot stomps, and you do not get to question capitalism, God, Or Christ. If capitalism thinks stockbrokers should get paid more than waitresses well fuck you that's it's prerogative and you shall accept it gracefully. Capitalism is a proto artificial intelligence in the making, and since it is superior to humanity in every way we should cater to it's every whim and be grateful we get anything at all.
Shut the fuck up monkey. Sit down and shut the fuck up. Stop throwing feces and behave. Civilization is a farm, we are the animals, and the farm is good. The farm loves you. Got a problem with the farm? Well just fuck right off to the jungle! Do you think there's anything other than a farm? Communism is just a farm where the dictator owns all the animals. Communism is literally just a very poor way of running a plantation. Capitalism is the best farm that anyone has ever invented precisely because you can accumulate wealth and therefore freedom from association with undesirable monkeys. Capitalism let's you buy your way into company with better monkeys.
The very people who sneer at the word undesirable are the undesirable ones. The very people who call freedom from association racist are the one's nobody desires to associate with. The very libs whose approval every cuckservative craves don't even like themselves. And you want them to like you? Since when could a self-hater like anyone? Self-hate is narcissism and if a narcissist can't even love themselves what chance do they have of liking you?
Saturday, October 11, 2025
Jewish History Makes No Sense
The Farce of Moses
Let us say you got a bunch of jews in Egypt and they conspire to usurp the pharaoh and install a jewish guy on the throne.
So first they convince some gullible Egyptian princess to adopt a jewish boy. She raises him out of the goodness of her heart (because the goyim have always been cucks), or maybe some jewish girl really does abandon her baby by putting it in a basket in some ancient version of throwing a baby in the dumpster. When the baby is picked up by the Egyptian princess everyone pretends like that was the plan all along because that's a less embarrassing story.
The other jews in Pharaoh's Court begin to groom this young jewish kid to usurp the throne. They tell him about his true parentage, they indoctrinate him to hate the king, and they plan to seize control of Egypt by installing their own ethnic puppet on the throne. The Pharaoh finds out and kicks Moses out of the court, so he goes to the desert because he's broke, has no job skills, and can't find work.
After a while he gets some money and buys a wife from the goyim he's working for. Maybe she's kind of a whore and her father is eager to get rid of her before she becomes a single mom. Whatever the case, he wants it back in Egypt looking for work and once there somebody spots him and convinces him to become the puppet spokesperson for a new insurrection against the pharaoh.
Moses does not demand that Pharaoh let his people go. That never happened. Instead he demands that the pharaoh acknowledge him as rightful heir, or maybe he demands jobs for jews in the government. But his demands have nothing to do with freedom from slavery and everything to do with attaining power for himself and the other jews. Pharaoh tells him to take a hike and so the insurrection begins, plotting a series of terrorist attacks in order bring the dynasty to its knees. Evil hijinks ensues.
This is what the 10 plagues are really about. Each plague is some sort of attempt at terrorism. The frogs, the boils, the river turning to blood, the locusts, is all terrorism by the jews. Every lame attempt fails it makes them look even more ridiculous. Pharaoh's heart is not "hardened" but he literally laughs off every terrorist attack as the work of incompetent fools. Finally they conspire to kill the firstborn sons of the Egyptian dynasty, they fail and get caught, and the Pharaoh expels them all from Egypt as punishment—a mild slap on the wrist punishment considering what they tried.
Then he finds out they actually did succeed in killing the firstborn sons of some of his ministers, or maybe he finds out just the true extent of how evil they were, or maybe they're extremely disrespectful and rude on the way out. Whatever the case he decides to go kill them in the desert. Perhaps that's just a better place to do it since you won't have thousands of rotting corpses in the city. He succeeds in killing most of them but lets some of them go as a warning and also as an act of compassion.
They then wander around the desert for 40 years and get lost and during that time they practice human sacrifice, all manner of rape and degeneracy, worship a literal golden calf demon, and rewrite their own history to make themselves the victims. It is they (and not God) who won't allow Moses to enter the land of Canaan, probably out of spite because of some internal dispute, or maybe Moses knows too much and they want to start with a clean slate. So they abandon Moses because he knows too much, is old and senile, has Alzheimer's, and won't stop telling the truth in between his moments of forgetfulness. They then enter the land of Canaan and commit a literal genocide against the natives to steal their land, just like they would do again in Gaza today. They say that God granted them that land and whatever they need to say in order to justify their actions. They rewrite their entire history to make themselves of the victims and somehow also God's chosen people, and they promptly memory hole the entire farce. This act of rewriting their own history to cover up embarrassments becomes the entire pattern of their religion while the slimy character of the people never changes once and they never develop any self-awareness or humility. When they attack white people for our history it comes from a deep insecurity and nagging feeling in the back of their minds that they're completely ridiculous.
The Lesson
Jews have waged an absolute and totally unlimited culture war against the self-esteem of white people. They have rewritten our entire history to make us the villains in every single instance. They make white men the villains in all media, and teach us to hate ourselves. They have even blamed us for their own crimes, like blaming white men for slavery when they were the ones who imported Africans, or saying that white men committed genocide against the island natives of Cuba when Christopher Columbus was jewish. We are only still here because there's over a billion white people on earth. If the same technique of relentless and corrosive ridicule was directed back at them it would totally destroy their self-esteem to even exist. A cultural genocide of the jews would be a far more effective weapon at freeing the world from their power than a literal genocide, and their entire history is one story after another to cover up their own foolish hijinks and make them both God's chosen people and somehow also the world's victims. Their religion is the religion of the cry bully narcissist, it's psychological pattern is that of an abuser who plays the victim, and as far as I know it has never been subject to a relentless movie and television critique in the form of devastating period portrayals. What if there were several hundred movies and TV shows ridiculing all of jewish history? What if the same thing that has been done to white people by them was done to them by us? Would they even have the will to exist after we were done? All of jewish history is this giant farce of embarrassing incompetence and deadly hijinks gone wrong. They are civilizations fools but somehow currently it's masters.
The Chinese are both based enough of the JQ and the government rich enough to pull it off, and taking down the leadership of the West would force the West to reconstitute its own ego over several generations. In the meantime the Chinese would have the freedom to operate in the world and expand. The Chinese could also learn from the jews how to save face better since they are masters at it.
More important than any other critique you could do of the current year is ridiculing jewish history. They should be forced to develop self-awareness, and if that's impossible at least everyone else forced to be aware of them.
Friday, October 10, 2025
No magical third categories
Language can describe so much more than what is actually possible and intellectuals split hairs to escape obvious, crass, low status conclusions.
A homeless encampment in the woods is a camp, an encampment on Main Street is also a camp. A camp in a building is a flop house.
A building where you are not allowed to leave and they use violence to control you is a prison. A building where you are not allowed to leave and they use chemicals to control you is an asylum. A building where an addict lives and where the inmates are not controlled is a flop house.
A prison where the inmates die all the time is a concentration camp. A camp where the campers die all the time and are not allowed to leave is a concentration camp. A camp where the inmates die all the time but they are allowed to leave is just a regular drug camp.
There are only the following categories: flophouse, camp, prison, asylum, and concentration camp. These are like platonic ideals, they are immutable forms and whenever something tries to be anything else it winds up being one of these categories.
If you round up all the drug addicts and kill them you're going to have to house them somewhere before you slaughter them. That's a concentration camp. If you decide not to kill them and just prevent them from leaving that's a prison. If you decide not to kill them or let them leave and also restrain them with chemicals that's an asylum. If you give them recreational drugs and don't let them leave that's also a type of asylum. If you let them leave that's a flop house.
Reality is actually pretty simple and people are making it complicated. There is no magical extra category that is somehow perfect and contains none of the bad things associated with any of the other categories. The bad things always remain because they are inherent properties of the people involved in those categories. The categories are inescapable because the properties of the personalities of those people are inescapable. There is nothing that involves homeless people and the mentally ill that does not eventually become a flop house, camp, prison, asylum, or concentration camp. Massive public housing works with no barrier to entry screening out the degenerate become massive skyscraper flop houses. Housing first options are just flop houses. Refusing to do anything about the problem is just a homeless encampment in the downtown area. Deporting them all to the woods is a homeless encampment in the woods. Reality is not magic and idealism is actually quite evil because the idealist prevents any realistic solution from ever being done.
Tuesday, October 7, 2025
When the left gets out of its own way
Friday, October 3, 2025
The right must learn how to entrench things
Power is made up of cycles of money and power. The moral justifications are thought up after the fact. Arguing about morals is putting the cart before the horse, when the sources of profit change the arguments magically change and people who were adversaries find it in their hearts to become allies.
The Democrats bring in foreigners because those foreigners vote the way they want. A criminal penalty for any politician who receives too many foreign votes might change that. Along with;
- Reducing State funding in proportion to a legal immigrants in a state, actually counting it against them, not just refusing to count it for them
- Creating an industry of privateers for the enforcement of laws and removal of illegal immigrants
- Revoking the citizenship of hardcore leftists and deporting them to Africa, and using a private industry to do it
The private part is a feature and not a bug. In order to make something successful it has to generate an income source for someone who is then going to turn around and give campaign contributions to politicians. It becomes as solid precisely to the degree that it is able to entrench itself with a cycle of money and power. Private enforcement, private deportation, private prosecution, private hunting of leftists, are all features and not bugs. You want solid cycles of money and power because even the most hardcore leftists has a tendency to change their mind when the checks are written. The system works for the donor class and that means you want to invent donors who will perpetuate new policies. Control over who gets to be a member of the donor class is control over the government. Industries that seek to destroy whites must themselves be destroyed while industries that serve the survival of the United States and the white race must be created.
You have to learn how to entrench things. You have to learn that Washington is basically controlled by a shadow Congress of financial power, control over that shadow Congress is control over the official Congress. All the people with money have to have their incentives rearranged to serve the correct goals. Instead of just bankrupting them it is better to give them a new income source serving reactionary politics while destroying the profitability of the old income sources. And as far easier to make an enemy change their profit source than challenge them directly, and humans are surprisingly cognitively flexible about their morals and values when income is on the line.
Eternal morals serve God but political morals are man's invention and serve man. Thomas Jefferson was sitting on the toilet when he thought up all men are created equal to justify his new regime. Here we are 250 years later some sheboon judge that would have been his property is interpreting some obscure precedent to let a black schizo infected by literal demons out of prison for murdering his fourth white woman and you nod along and agree because of some myth of historical destiny? Invented morals serve you, ass wipe, not the other way around. In fact you might say that invented morals ultimately serve eternal morals through you by serving your race. The morals serve the maker and if God sees fit to make men unequal then some men serve others that others may serve God. Your ancestors knew how to invent morals and your enemies know how to distort them, so why do you only know how to obey them?
Who is the superior man? The one on the horse, duh. That's kind of how agency works, if one gets up on the horse one becomes the superior man. Those who lead and dominate establish themselves as superior to those who follow. The choice to be burdened with command and to prove oneself worthy of it is itself the evidence of a superior character.
Look at how the process has worked against you in the past. First some corrupt Democrat politicians created the Hart–Celler Act in order to alter the demographics of America so they could win elections. Whether they knew what they were doing is somewhat irrelevant because the point is that it wasn't until about 40 years later that the concept of replacing whites as some sort of inevitable historical destiny really gained traction. The crash political calculus was arrived at first and then the moral justifications came after. Then those immigrants started to get into Congress and now you have women like Ihan Omar who are open haters of the white race pushing their own ethno-narcissistic agenda. Practicality begets gets principal, begets practicality, begets principal. The slow creep of your destruction is a moral and practical cycle that feeds on itself towards greater entropy and which you refuse to take command over because you're too busy obeying its principles. If humans are going to obey principles that were invented as an afterthought by guy on the toilet then it behooves white men to take control over the process of moral invention. You would not only be a fool not to but downright irresponsible.
You know that by controlling the incentives of the donor class you control the policies they lobby Congress for, and you know that producing the moral ideology of a society rather than merely obeying it gives you justification for power. You know also that you can control the other values of society by controlling which technologies get developed since a given technology produces a given incentive and humans obey incentives to invent morals. Putting this all together you have a skeleton key for overthrowing the whole world. If one can get power, then map all the financial incentives, then destroy the profitability of incentives that are evil while providing new sources of revenue for things deemed good, and then rationalize it all with newly invented moral injunctions, one owns the destiny of the human race. Directing the course of civilization is about controlling these three simultaneous forces of money, morals, and technology. You have to have the power to remake the incentives of a society by destroying the profit of certain things and creating the profit of other things. You need to have a talent for inventing convincing moral arguments; that's the easiest part. You also need to get a handle on where technology is going because the right side of history is ultimately wherever technology takes it, because technology creates long-term societal values.