Monthly Archives: September 2017

Burn the Bureaucracy

Let us take a look at the latest controversy in Dutchlandia: underpaid elementary school teachers. It is a repeat of the age-old story of democracy:
1. [insert government workers] are underpaid and overworked
2. politicians promise mountains of gold
3. politicians are elected
4. mountains are watered down to mole hills
5. [insert government workers] strike for a couple of days
6. little changes.

So are elementary school teachers underpaid? Yes, I believe they are, that they are treated like crap compared to the amount of work that is required of them. Yet I am reminded of the Moldbug quote: seems to me patient has died a while ago, yet here we are trying to arrange a liver transplant.

Elementary school, in its most basic essence, is a glorified day care center taking care for children aged 4 – 12. The education-part is vastly overrated. As if most kids learn anything from books. As if teachers are inspirational role models. Lol. “take care of my kid, deliver him back happy and don’t get caught up in any holiness spiral”, asks every father. Yeah so much for that. In our modern wave of holiness spiralling, education has become an uncontrollable monstrosity.

We need only to look at the festering bureaucracy. Most of the teachers’ time goes into administration. Every urinal visit, fart and burp of every child in the classroom has to be recorded. Today little Timmy pulled Jessica’s hair. Clearly this has to be reported to the teacher’s committee, Timmy’s parents, the school counselor and perhaps it is prudent to alert a psychologist? Bureaucracy is the time-killer.

Bureaucracy is also a fuck you to its employees. To elementary school teachers it basically says this: we do not trust you. We do not trust your ability to do your job. We want you to be self-conscious all the time, we want you to justify and doubt your decisions every single day, we want you to live in the ever present fear of social stigmatisation. We do not trust you.

The reason for this is that the purpose of bureaucracy is not efficiency (it is in fact exceedingly inefficient), it is compensating a lack of trust. Evolutionistx wrote a nice post related to this. She compares the American constitution (8000 words) with the Affordable Care Act (360.000 words) and attributes the explosion of words to the collapse of small, organic communities. I agree with this. Lifelong friends need only a few words to understand one another. Lifelong strangers demand a multi-thousand word contract be set-up so they can’t be screwed over. This exact same problem is what defines modern bureaucracy. Because there is no trust we demand excessive accountability.

But without trust there can be no flow, no amused mastery. Those who are best at their work are those who are shortest in their administration, exactly because they understand the superfluousness of said administration.

I mean, is 30.000 words of teacher reports on little Timmy’s restless behaviour in class actually helping Timmy? Yes, the teacher says, for the psychiatrist can use it to diagnose ADD and prescribe medicine. But in actuality it did not help, because the psychiatrist has no time to read 30.000 word reports and besides, he has his own 50.000 word report on little Timmy to write! And neither is the psychiatrist’s report helping Timmy in any way, for the document is merely a 50.000-word rationalisation on why the psychiatrist is correct in prescribing medication (spoiler: it is because Timmy can not sit still for 8 hours a day). We are not using the administration to help kids, we are using it to cover our ass, are forced to cover our ass.

Truth is, the best things we do often go untold. Implicit code generally works better than explicit code. Language is an imitation of reality, not the other way around. Once reports take precedence over reality it is a sure sign of decay, for people are no longer incentivised to do what is right, instead they are incentivised to make sure the report makes them look right.

Advertisements

Permanent shit-test face

I want to shortly revisit Judith Sargentini because I feel it cuts to the essence of leftist psychology.

Take a look at this clip. It’s in Dutch but here that is actually a bonus because her words are a distraction. Focus on her body language.

Her expression is what I’d call a Permanent Shit-Test Face. It is a returning feature in leftist women. As a man you instinctively want to slap her in the face. And subconsciously she knows it, she actually asks for it. She is actively challenging the men in her direct environment, knowing she is protected, that men are not allowed to put her in her place. ‘Challenge me, I dare you’, she says, ‘C’mon, I know you want to. See what happens. You racist sexist pig.’

She sub-communicates disloyalty towards the men in her tribe. She is allying with far to destroy near. It’s Dunbar feminism.

Thus, when as a Dutch male you so much as look at her wrongly, she will accuse you of raping her. Similarly, when a Syrian refugee actually rapes her, she will applaud his will to stand up for himself. Those in her genetic tribe are not allowed to pass her shit-tests. Those outside her genetic tribe are allowed, are even encouraged to pass her shit-tests.

 

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.

Breaking away from demons

The problem with blogging is that you start with 10 subjects in your head and end up writing none of them. But let us try anyway.

Jim is always right, even when he is wrong. This is because truth is only necessary up to a certain point; it merely has to be good enough. Good enough for what? Good enough to achieve its function. Which in this case is to live a pleasant and fulfilling life.

The main enemy preventing us from living like this is leftism. Leftism is as old as humanity itself and used to be referred to as evil. Of course nowadays it is illegal to refer to leftism as evil, which goes to show the success of said evil. The best trick the devil pulled was to convince humanity he didn’t exist. Well, technically not his best trick, just his most important one, for without the first feat of deceit none of the others may follow.

Because leftism is legitimised in our society, evil is legitimised in society. Say you want to drive a car. But you have to share the car with a demon. You start bargaining: ‘demon, I want this car to bring us both to our destination.’ ‘Yes of course’, replies the demon, ‘you can even drive if you want to. I just don’t want the car to have any brakes.’
‘Say what?’
-‘No brakes.’
‘No brakes?’
– ‘No. Brakes are bad for one’s Sense of Traffic. Scientists have done research and found that driving with brakes disrupts flow and increases accidents.’
‘You’re kidding.’
– ‘I am not, I am dead serious.’
‘I’m not going to drive a car without brakes!’
– ‘Well, then you better find another car. Asshole.’

Of course he and you both know all official cars have a mandatory demon, and every demon cares greatly about Sense of Traffic. In effect: no cars for you! Not that you’re allowed to say that out loud. If you say out loud that demons are sabotaging you, they will respond that this is your own fault for being so uncooperative, or what they dismissively call an ‘Unsense of Traffic’.

The challenge of free men in the 21st century is to realign modern technology with ancient knowledge. We are screwed over by demons because we have no sense of comparison, no way of knowing what is good car-usage. What is good regarding mass immigration? Regarding man-made climate change? Regarding emancipation?

Jim provides us with the clearest answers. Emancipation is evil, like unleashing Chucky is evil. Mass immigration is evil, like opening the gates for your enemies is evil. Warmism is evil, like a demon insisting on Sense of Traffic is evil.

Turn around emancipation; women yearn to be coveted property, men yearn to own women (raise testosteron!). Father owns daughter until she is married, then her husband owns her. A woman is free to do what she wants if it pleases her husband. Whenever a woman cries out for anything, the first response is that she is shit-testing.

Turn around mass immigration; a stranger from a faraway land is not a friend waiting to happen, he is an invader waiting to rape your women and pillage your land. When we watch nature documentaries we are not surprised when nature’s recurring motto is EAT OR BE EATEN. We should not be surprised that we turn out to be part of nature.

Turn around warmism; when a city is so filled up with smog that its inhabitants wear masks, the ruling class has good reason to address that issue. However, when temperature supposedly has risen, then has dropped, then has merely changed, then has not changed at all, there is no reason whatsoever to address that issue, for you can be sure that the only issue is demons insisting you take the brakes out of the car.

All of this, quite depressingly, will not change in the foreseeable future. Leftism is too legitimised. Too many demons, too many cucks. As the Dutch say: the well is only filled after the calve drowned. This calve will drown.

So, we build our own institutions, our own religions, our own sense of aesthetics and culture. We enjoy building because we know that it is pleasant and fulfilling and it is our own.

Horseshoe theory is bunkum

It has become popular among centrists to discredit the Alt-Right, saying that while alt-rightists ostensibly are the inverse of SJW’s and Antifa, Alt-Rightists are in fact the exactly the same as their leftist counterpart. I notice Sargon of Akkad and others pushing this point. I observe it is an instinctive response by normies against the political upheaval of our times. Let us take a closer look.

First, a representative illustration of Horseshoe theory:

Screen Shot 2017-09-06 at 11.55.53

The top reveals how the advocate of horseshoe theory sees himself: as a person led by classical liberalism, science and reason.

The left and right sides are fairly accurate in the eyes of today’s normie: the left is into environmentalism, feminism and socialism while the right is into Catholicism, chauvinism and nationalism. At the ends both sides grow toward each other, symbolising the idea that the extreme left and extreme right are in fact the same.

Which is bunkum. It is intellectual laziness at best, purposeful obscuration on average.

It is like saying virgins and players are the same because they are both extremes ends on the spectrum of the sexual market. It is like saying good and bad are the same because they are both extreme ends on the spectrum of morality. It is bunkum.

The only thing that can be said in favour of horseshoe theory is that people with strong political convictions occasionally switch sides to the other political extreme; e.g. young leftists turning rightist when they grow older. This is because politically minded people by nature understand the game of power and sometimes find it in their benefit to play the game differently. It is not because they have not changed.

The left is defection, the right is cooperation. The left is chaos, the right is order. A leftist lies, a rightist talks truth. It is as simple as this. Stretch out the horsehoe, make it into a ruler, and already you have a much better illustration of reality.

What is actually going on is that the centrist wants to avoid the responsibility that comes with choosing one side, fearing repercussions from the other. This is fair game. But it has nothing to do with truth, for sitting between truth and lies makes you a soft liar.

A much more accurate representation of the political spectrum is the following illustration provided by Radish:

Screen Shot 2017-09-06 at 11.45.19

As you can see, fascists are in fact quite similar to communists, just not for the reason horseshoe theory tells us. Fascists are leftists. It was in fact literally in the name of Hitler’s party: the national socialists. Hitler used leftist government to supply his army, hence the failure to supply his army.

Furthermore Radish tells us that mainstream 2013 has moved frightfully far to the left, far away from it’s purported liberalism of, say, Tabula-Rasa-Locke, who was in retrospect also an obvious leftist.

We see now the silliness of centrists imagining themselves above political extremes: centrists are shaped by the political extremes. 200 years ago centrists thought the emperor of Habsburg was the best thing since sliced bread and women belonged in the kitchen, today centrists think emperors are evil dictators and women belong in the office. The Overton window is the delicate balance between extremes and its make-up is decided by its extremes, not its middle. The middle follows the history’s current, has always followed history’s current, and is therefore neutral, neither good nor bad, though passively good in that they hope to have a good life which is best accomplished when civilisation flourishes.

All of which is as friendly a manner in which I can say: Sargon of Akkad, know your place.