ways-of-darkness

[ways-of-darkness]

Should I come back to Tumblr? Lemme double-check when did I make my last post.

[ways-of-darkness]

I last posted on Tumblr 3 years ago

Lots of things happened since that.

Now I’m wageslave, and I’d literally give an arm and a leg for it to be 2018 or 2016 again.

[ways-of-darkness]

Dual Kingship - a Turanian concept

People skeptical about Turanism often bring up how “little in common” do the supposed Turanian peoples have, or bring up “the biology”. So, in an effort to counter them, I bring an example of a Turanian concept that was at one time very widespread amongst the Turanian nations: Dual Kingship.

The concept of dual kingship is a simple one - you have two kings at one time, one who handles religious affairs, the other who handles military affairs. I will bring three examples of such a concept being used amongst Turanian nations: amongst the Hungarians, the (((Khazars))) and other Turkic nations, and amongst the Japanese.

  Hungarians

Before 904, the Hungarians, like their former (((Khazar))) overlords, whose vassals they were at one point, had a system of dual kingship. In this system, we had a kende or kündü, who handled religious affairs and communed with God or the gods (Tengriism has monotheistic variants too), and a gyula who handled military affairs. Basically, the kende/kündü was the Great Shaman or God Emperor (God Khan?) who in reality had little temporal power, while the gyula was the military guy with the real political powers.

The kende/kündü only shows himself four times a month, and if he ever gos out, his whole army goes with him, lest he be seen by unworthy mortals. In the unlikely case that that happens, the mortal is supposed to keep their head down until the kende/kündü rides away.

In 904, the last independent Kende, Kurszán was killed during a raid, and the gyula at the time, Álmos simply took both ttitles to himself, merging the two titles and creating the Hungarian single-ruler monarchy as we know it.

  (((Khazars))) and other Turkic nations

The (((Khazar))) equivalent of kende/kündü was the kündür or khagan, and the equivalent of the gyula was the khagan-beg. Wikipedia writes:

According to Arabic sources, the lesser king was called îšâ or khagan-beg and the greater king Khazar khâqân; the former managed and commanded the military, while the greater king's role was primarily sacral, less concerned with daily affairs. The greater king was recruited from the Khazar house of notables (ahl bait ma'rûfīn) and, in an initiation ritual, was nearly strangled until he declared the number of years he wished to reign, on the expiration of which he would be killed by the nobles. The deputy ruler would enter the presence of the reclusive greater king only with great ceremony, approaching him barefoot to prostrate himself in the dust and then light a piece of wood as a purifying fire, while waiting humbly and calmly to be summoned

One might thing that this kind of ruling system was synonymous with Tengriism and would go away once the (((Khazars))) converted to (((Judaism))), but no - their conversion to (((Judaism))) in fact helped to consolidate this system and it became even more deeply entrenched in (((Khazar))) life.

  Japanese

I’m not revealing any secrets when I say that I consider the Japanese to be a Turanian people, distantly related to my Hungarians. Even more interestingly, the Japanese too had a variant of the Turanian sacral diarchy, or dual kingship.

During the Yayoi period in Japanese history, Queen Himiko (卑弥呼) was the ruler of the Yamatai Kingdom. It is said that her powers were mostly religious, and that she was considered sacred, so she would use an intermediary to foster communications between her and the people - said intermediary also handled the military and pesky government affairs, while she was busy communing with the kami (神), or spirits/gods. I also read that it was actually her brother who handled the military and government affairs - conflicting sources. TL;DR: she was more like the Shinto equivalent of the Pope than a true secular monarch.

I also read that during the Yayoi period, this was the standard: the leaders of the various Yamato clans wouldn’t contact leaders of other clans - or even foreigners, like the Chinese - directly, but only via intermediares. This strengthens my theory that the Japanese too had a system of dual kingship similar to that of the Hungarians and (((Khazars))).

And off course, let’s not forget about the elephant in the room: the Shogunate. Before the Meiji Restoration during the mid-19th century, Japan had system of dual kingship, with religious power resting in the hands of the Emperor or Tennō (天皇), and actual secular power in the hands of the Sei-i Taishōgun (征夷大将軍), or just Shogun. This is evident from the actual etymology of the words, with the earlier literally meaning “heavenly king”, the latter roughly translating to “(great) general”.

Just like with the Hungarians and (((Khazars))), the actual greater religious ruler was considered sacred and wasn’t supposed to show his/her face to the common people, with the real political and military power lying in the hands of the lesser military king. Even after the Meiji Restoration gave the Emperor of Japan real political power by removing the Shogun (and promptly reduced it by creating a constitutional monarchy with liberal tappings), the Emperor would be continued to be revered as a divine God-Emperor until 1945, when the Allies forced the Emperor of Japan to admit being a mortal.

[ways-of-darkness]

[ways-of-darkness]

Modern-day English speakers constantly misuse the words "warrior" and "soldier". The two are NOT synonyms.

A warrior is literally anyone who fights in a war: a conscript, partisan, soldier or mercenary.

A soldier is a professional warrior who gets paid for fighting (not necessarily a mercenary) - if you get drafted, you are a conscript, not a soldier.

Some might say "you just described a mercenary" - but not really.

A mercenary can fight for any country, while a soldier only fights for a country he has citizenship of + a soldier serves indefinitely (until he retires, gets fired or decides to get a different job), while mercenaries serve under temporary, time-limited contracts.

[ways-of-darkness]

On today's episode of Cooking With Zsolt.... Earlier this day, I convinced my mother not to throw out the leftover spaghetti pasta, as I decided to have it for dinner. However, there was no sauce for it, so.... I had to improvise. Probably very Hungarian-style: - I took some ketchup, or tomato sauce first - I added some paprika paste, or red pepper paste - I added some salt and black pepper powder - I added some garlic and onions, both sliced up into tiny pieces - Since I'm a carnivore and can't have a non-sweet meal without meet, I decided to add some meat to it: I took some salami, kolbász (Hungarian dry-fried, smoked sausages) and parízer (Chicken sausage), sliced them all up, and put them into a frying pan, so that they may get fried in their own fat. - After all that meat fried up nicely, I poured them all into the same container that contained the sauce so far - I mixed them all together, and my sauce was ready. Now all I had to do was to pour it onto the spaghetti pasta, and into the microwave oven it went. In hindsight, adding the meat was unnecessary, since it didn't influence the taste at all. Just the mixture of tomato sauce, pepper and onions would have been sufficent.

[ways-of-darkness]

Modern-day English speakers constantly misuse the words "warrior" and "soldier". The two are NOT synonyms.

A warrior is literally anyone who fights in a war: a conscript, partisan, soldier or mercenary.

A soldier is a professional warrior who gets paid for fighting (not necessarily a mercenary) - if you get drafted, you are a conscript, not a soldier.

Some might say "you just described a mercenary" - but not really.

A mercenary can fight for any country, while a soldier only fights for a country he has citizenship of + a soldier serves indefinitely (until he retires, gets fired or decides to get a different job), while mercenaries serve under temporary, time-limited contracts.

[ways-of-darkness]

[ways-of-darkness]

[ways-of-darkness]

Bad: "People with vaginas must not vote!" Good: "Plebs must not vote. Only the KING gets to vote!" (On a sidenote. I'm not specifically fixated on a monarchy. A Dictatorship - or better yet, Dictablanda - is fine too.)

[ways-of-darkness]

We're back in business!

[ways-of-darkness]

I'm totally not an alcoholic. I only drink in college.

[ways-of-darkness]

I am going to start posting about how I should go to Tumblr more and post more

[ways-of-darkness]

Long time no see, Tumblr.

@tomasnau

[ways-of-darkness]

Dear (self-proclaimed) alpha and beta males alike,

There has been a lot of misunderstanding regarding the “correct” way to get the girl. As a 24-year old man who has been with girls before, but is too lazy to start a relationship at the moment, I tell you this - there is no one correct way to “get the girl”, there is no one true strategy guide on how to get laid (no matter what anyone tells you). I know, “well said, Captain Obvious”.

The truth is: everyone is lying to you. Feminists are lying to you, by giving you advice that will get you friendzoned instantly by most girls (unless they are really lonely and desperate). Pick-up artists and MGTOW idiots are also lying to you, trying to force you to be an “alpha male”, even if it is incompatible with your personality. Besides, the whole alpha-beta dichotomy is an extremely flawed notion to begin with.

There are introverts and extroverts, there are sports-loving community-minded men and women, and then there are the more sensitive and quiet, geeky men and women.

And this is where fedora-wearing beta males get things wrong. It’s not that being a kind nice guy is guaranteed to get you friendzoned. No. Being a genuinely kind and polite nice guy CAN get you laid - if you target the right kind of girl. You see, you fedora-wearing beta males have been targeting the wrong girl the whole time. You have been targeting the socialite, the normie, the one who is self-aware about her feminine charms, the one who aims high, and the one who wants and needs an alpha-male, not you.

If you are a lonely geeky guy, you need to target girls who are equally lonely and geeky. You need to aim for people with either a similar type of personality as yours, or a type of people who complement you. While a lot of relationships fail over time because of lack of commitment, it is possible that an even larger number of relationships fail even before they begin due to conflicting personalities.

Unlike what pick-up artists or MGTOW would tell you, picking up people doesn’t come down to being imposing or assertive. After all, relationships should be built upon honesty not lies, and if a lonely geeky guy (who also happens to be a good actor) pretends to be alpha to get a girl... that relationship is basically built upon lies. Likewise, a shy “beta-female” shouldn’t be forced to pretend to be a socialite just to impress a sporty would-be-boyfriend.

I’m not saying that people shouldn’t reflect on themselves, reflect on their faults and improve themselves. I’m just saying that very often, the problem is not with the people themselves, but with their vision, with their aims and ambitions. A pistol is a very useful weapon, so long as you shoot at an unarmoured human being instead of a tank. While unlike real-life guns, you may be able to upgrade yourself from a 9mm Beretta to a Magnum or Desert Eagle, at the end of the day, you still remain a pistol, not a rocket launcher: your personality is given, and if you try to bend yourself too much, you end up hurting yourself.

Bottom line: know your own type, aim for your own league. There is nothing wrong with being ambitious, but there is a fine line between being ambitious and being completely out of touch with reality. Being ambitious means that you are perfectly aware that the odds are stacked against you, and you have a minuscule chance of winning, but you are still willing to bet against those overwhelming odds. Being out of touch with reality means you throw a temper tantrum when you find out you are not alpha.

Really bottom line: There is nothing wrong with being alpha or beta or anything... so long as you know your league, and know what to aim for.

Be yourself, but don’t be out of touch with reality. Know your own limitations.

[ways-of-darkness]

Job well done, job well done, sir... "All warfare is based on deception." — Sun Tzu