Category Archives: Culture

Warrior, Priest, Merchant, Lover

Archetypes are different parts of your personality, although some archetypes will be more dominant than others. Archetypes are nice, because they are easy on the mind. They are stories, and stories stick well.

Of course there is always the problem of separating useful archetypes from silly archetypes. For instance, every horoscope follows only 1 archetype: ‘woman’.

Here at AlfaNL we accept only the best archetypes. A long time ago I read the book King, Warrior, Magician, Lover by Robert Moore. It’s a book on four male archetypes, per the title. The King is the part of you that rules, the Warrior the part that fights, the Magician the part that uses forbidden knowledge and the Lover is the part your lady likes to see.

Inspired by Jim I have made some improvements, per this blog title.

First, there is, in my experience, not so much difference between kings and warriors. Both fight, both rule, both use force or the threat of force to get their way. King is boss warrior, that’s all. Throw it together under one archetype.

Warriors band together in armies and can wield great power; the power of kings and emperors.

Priest is exactly like the magician, just that the word is less magical. To call people magicians is to flatter them, which I, as one with a prominent magician/priest archetype, should know. Priest covers the load better — a priest does everything a magician does, but weaponized morality is a big part of his repertoire, hence the name priest.

Priests band together in congregations and can also wield great power; the power of memes and religion, which, while not as directly effective as the gun barrel of the warrior, does have the advantage of sticking around long after the warrior has died.

The merchant (or capitalist) is an archetype I missed in the book. Merchants are just out to make a buck. Their dark side is greed, their good side is adding nice things to this world. Contrary to priests and warriors, merchants can not cooperate so well, because every merchant is in competition with every other merchant.

The lover is pretty much the same as in the book; it is the side reserved for the women in your life, the side that lusts and cares and loves. It is much like the warrior in that the lover conquers pussy like the warrior conquers territory, but the lover has a soft inner core that women adore and warriors despise.

Advertisements

Rectifying names in psychiatry

I know Scott Alexander is the psychiatrist with the diploma, but really, who takes diplomas seriously these days.

Psychiatry is not as bad as L. Ron Hubbard would lead you to believe, although it is pretty bad. The study of human behavior at its fringes is interesting and much of psychiatric findings makes sense. But of course, psychiatry is downwards from power, and thus pozzed and blinded in many very obvious and very stupid ways.

Psychiatry deals with the intersection between biology and religion at the fringes. This means it is downwards from the state religion; it follows instructions from the state religion in its dealings with the poor, the lost, the loons. In the absence of an official state religion, psychiatry has become a tool of the unofficial state religion to give meaning to it’s patients, with predictable consequences.

The most important consequence being that psychiatry takes itself too serious, that it imagines it should find a panacea for the bane of human existence, much like how the majority of healthcare imagines it should find a panacea for human sickness, while the truth is that both doctors and psychiatrists are, in the overwhelming majority of cases, pretty limited in their options. We see over and over again that psychiatrists invent disorders and theories that are too clever by half, which in the end turn out to be convoluted reinventions of wheels that have been known long ago.

The majority of psychiatry violates Hippocrates’ rule: it does more harm than good.

What should good psychiatry look like?

The overwhelming majority of psychiatric patients are not responding abnormally to a normal system. They are responding normally to an abnormal system. The cases where a disorder is caused by abnormal brain structure, such as fetal alcoholic syndrome, or, later in life, a very hard hit to the head, are outshone 95 to 100 cases where the disorder is caused by normal brain structure responding to abnormal stimuli.

In these 95 cases, psychiatry has little reason to meddle and stick their fingers in open wounds. Thus the role of a good psychiatrist is much much smaller than it is at present.

As for the remaining 5 cases; used to be so that the village idiot was taken care of by the family and community. Lunatic asylums are a byproduct of delegation (or confiscation) of this responsibility by the state. Much like I’d rather see prisons closed and criminals given public whippings or sentenced to death, I’d also like to see lunatic asylums closed. But since we have big cities, not just small villages, I feel that a compromise need be reached. I support Jim’s proposal of 2 healthcare systems: one private, which law-abiding citizens pay for and receive good healthcare in. The other is state-owned and free, reserved for the poor, the outcasts, the loons. To be patient in the latter system is low-status, works on a revolving door basis. Closed psychiatric institutions should be part of the latter system.

Anyway, let’s get down to brass tax and rectify some names.

I’ll show and tell. My show and tell will be crude, which is not to make things simpler than they are. Sometimes they are simple, sometimes they are complex, but in either case a crude answer suffices. I will not engage in the typical modernist approach of disclaiming lack of expertise beforehand; I find this weak and demonstrating lack of confidence. As far as you may be concerned, I am an ultimate expert on all these matters.

Borderline personality disorder
Is pretty much exclusively a female thing, and if not just normal female behavior, a consequence of bad ownership by the father. A borderline women has never felt securely owned, but feeling the instinctive need to be owned, seeks out abusive relationships that mirror the abusive relationship she had with her father. She sabotages all relations she has, in part because that’s what women do, in part because her father did so to her. The cure for this is good ownership — a man who does not take her shit, who teaches her that being well behaved will give her fulfillment and love. Shakespeare’s ‘the taming of the shrew’, so to say. Which is the opposite of what psychiatry does, namely to teach the woman that she is strong and independent, which she knows in her bones she is not.

Self-mutilation falls into the same category. The cuts are a cry for help: ‘stop me from hurting myself, take proper ownership!’ Self-mutilation is a sign that she is not being owned properly.

Anorexia, bulimia; the same.

Sociopaths and psychopaths
Are among the most mythified creatures of psychiatry. ‘Is YOUR neighbor a sociopath?’ Who knows!

Supposedly there is some academic difference between a sociopath and psychopath, but they are pretty much the same. I’ll stick to the word sociopath.

Sociopath is really just a new word for liar. That’s all there is to it. A sociopath is someone who lies, often and without remorse. An entire mythology is built around sociopaths; it is nonsense. Supposedly, sociopaths lack empathy, but most people lack empathy. Supposedly, sociopaths treat other people like pawns, but most people treat other people like pawns. Supposedly, sociopaths do not care about anything, but I know for a fact sociopaths care about things, just like anyone else. No one does not care about anything, it goes against our survival instinct.

In my personal life I have been friends with several men who’d been stamped obvious sociopaths by psychiatrists, and it was always obvious to me that they’re really just like anyone else, the only difference being that they lie with remarkable ease and conviction.

The mythology around sociopaths is mostly build up by females who fantasize about not-giving-a-fuck badboys, and males who pretend to be not-giving-a-fuck-badboys.

Sociopathy is solved in exactly the way the problem with liars is solved: out-group them as liars.

Depression
Is a logical response towards a dysfunctional role within a dysfunctional system. Most of the people who pretend to care about you don’t care about you, the people in power don’t care about you. To be depressed about this is not a disorder, it is entirely logical. Depression is your body telling you that something about the way you are living is not right.

Depression is solved by treating it as a functional response towards a dysfunctional system, as opposed to treating it as a dysfunctional response towards a functional system as psychiatry does. The solution for the depressed person is to find a more natural role in society, which of course is easier said than done, although not impossibly so. For men, owning territory, having a nice job, owning a nice woman, being the patriarch of a family, are the easiest fixes psychiatrists will not tell you about. For women, being owned by a man, having children, not working a job you hate, are the easiest fixes psychiatrists will not tell you about.

Anxiety
In the same vein of depression: a functional response to a dysfunctional situation. Women are more prone to anxiety disorders, because women are more dependent upon their surroundings. Since modern surroundings, especially big cities, are hostile, anxiety is a normal, not an abnormal response. When my girl lived by herself in the big city, studying at a university that hated her, she become socially anxious, developed obsessive compulsive ticks and had to force herself to leave the house. Pretty sure that if left to her own devices, a psychiatrist would’ve wrote long reports about her anxieties, prescribed her medicine and endless therapy, and after a few years she’d have internalized that she was an abnormal person.

Luckily she was not left to her own devices — She met me, quit her studies, moved in with me. All her anxieties disappeared. No more social anxiety, no more ticks, no more trouble leaving the house. Like snow before the sun.

Attention-Deficit (Compulsive) Disorder
A particularly nasty one. ADHD, or ADD, is defined as the inability to sit still for 8 hours and listen to boring men talking, or the inability to, for hours on end, read books that are not interesting. To in response become restless and agitated is normal, not abnormal.

ADD medication is the frontline of subduing men, of telling them something is wrong with them as opposed to something being wrong with the education system. Simple truth is not everyone is cut out for sitting still for 8 hours on end, or for reading for hours on end. Different people, different talents.

ADD is like forcing a fish to climb a tree for years on end, and when it inexplicably fails to do so, diagnose it with Tree Climbing Disorder and force-feed it tree climbing pills.

Anti-Social Personality Disorder, Narcissistic personality disorder
Is merely the reinventing the existence of assholes. Assholes have been in this world for a long time, the name asshole has been perfectly adequate. Like with sociopaths, a lot of nonsensical mythology has been built around these disorders. Supposedly, narcissists view themselves as the main protagonist in their own movie. Spoiler: everyone views themselves as the main protagonist in their own movie.

The only distinctive feature of ASPD and NPD is being an asshole. There are many assholes in this world, and the solution for assholes is the same it has always been: let them be, and if they violate law, a few public whippings. That is all.

Post Traumatic Stress Disorder
PTSD is a funny one, because it is mostly fiction. Men don’t mind killing; we are descended from killer apes, it is in our DNA to kill. In the minor sense that PTSD is real, it is a response not to actual war, but the feeling that it was futile for you to participate in the frontline of said war, that you were being used as a useful idiot by others, and were not allowed by your superiors to win said war. Once again, an entirely logical response.

Of course, most PTSD cases are merely attention seeking cases. Observe studies in the Washington Post suggesting that 25% of college students could develop PTSD because of Trump, as compared to the 2-3% of WWI veterans suffering from shell shock or combat fatigue. Nothing better illustrates the fact that the common conception of PTSD is a convenient fiction.

Schizophrenia
Schizophrenia is one of the few ‘honest’ disorders. Schizophrenia is, for whatever reason, the inability to cope with reality and a cognitive breakdown in response to it. Since reality can be pretty daunting, often an entirely logical response. In its prolonged state, schizophrenia is what we used to call crazies and loons, and rightly so. The homeless person garbling nonsense is what we label the schizophrenic. Used to be the village idiot, who was taken care of by family and community, now we delegate the responsibility to the state, with all predictable consequences.

Paul de Leeuw *really* likes boys

As a rule of thumb, I stay clear of Dutch TV celebrity world. It is, after all, as unimportant yet as self-important as you’d expect.

But there’s one call I’ll make. For a long time, I have been saying that there’s one Dutch celebrity in particular I do not trust: Paul de Leeuw.

iu

Call it physiognomy, but something about him, maybe his beady eyes, screams ‘keep your children away from this man.’

This is, of course, an entirely unsubstantiated accusation.

Yet suspicion only increases when you learn that, yes, Paul is a gay man. Gays are much more often into nasty sexual stuff, notably pedophilia, than are heterosexuals. But still, that is no ground for an accusation. Another Dutch celebrity, Gordon, is also gay, and I find him a funny man whom I would not keep my children away from. So, no reason to post my suspicions on this blog.

That is, until a friend sent me this.

It’s an old video of Paul de Leeuw’s early days on TV. Watch it. Or, if you don’t have the stomach, look at this still and imagine 4 minutes of that, on stage, in front of an audience, on national television. Paul is slobbering all over this kid, same way a drunken hollywood celebrity sometimes slobbers all over an attractive female interviewer.

It’s as much a smoking gun as you can expect. No wonder the clip was deleted from Youtube. Watching it, there is no doubt in my mind that Paul de Leeuw is attracted to young boys, this one in particular.

The brazenness of it all is amazing yet typical. It’s a classic example of a pedophile hiding in plain sight.

Now, please note that I have no idea whether de Leeuw has acted on his impulse, whether he has actually molested children. I do not know if he is the Dutch Jimmy Saville, I really hope he is not. All I can say is that his sexual attraction to boys is observably there.

One might argue that, well, what can Paul de Leeuw help it if he is genetically wired to be attracted to young boys? To which I say: perhaps a lion can’t help wanting to kill children when he is hungry. Does not mean I am not going to keep my children as far away from the lion as possible.

At any rate, an entertainment industry that keeps giving a platform to such a man has lost its credibility. Also, I will keep my children as far away from Paul de Leeuw as possible.

Age of Stupidity

So Mac Miller died at age 26. Drug OD. I used to listen to some of his music. Wasn’t half bad.

Course dying at age 26 because of an OD is stupid. Yeah yeah, troubled mind shouldn’t judge don’t know the guy at all, I get it. Still really fucking stupid.

The grand illusion surrounding famous people is of course that they supposedly know what they’re doing. They don’t.

Jim exclaimed: ‘where are the smart people? Show yourself!’ The insinuation being that there are no smart people left among the elite, that they are flailing and clueless. When I look at Mac Miller I see evidence for that assertion.

Alf this is entirely different, this is just some guy who became famous and couldn’t handle it.

Sure. But still really fucking stupid.

When I think of a celebrity mindset, I’d like to think Kanye West, but I mostly think Justin Bieber. There’s this interview between Post Malone and Ethan Klein (both Jews in case you were wondering) in which Post gets an impromptu call by Justin Bieber. Their conversation goes something like this:

JB: You’re amazing. You make people happy. You have the best smile in the game. 
PM: I think YOU have the best smile in the game. I think you are the best singer in the world. I think you have beautiful abs. I think you make the world a more beautiful place.

JB: I love you.
PM: I love you more baby.

Men, friends, just don’t talk like this, and if they do, they do so sarcastically, or genuinely perhaps on rare occasions. So if this is your standard conversational tone with another man, you are not friends. What you are doing instead is… How do I say this…? You are acting out how you think it should be with close friends. From this blurb it seems like Bieber is more into it than Malone, but the premise is the same for both: if you are complimenting another man this excessively, you are not actually close friends, you are merely excessively kissing each other’s ass, and chances are you will soon be saying the opposite from what you were saying previously.

Funny thing is, they both won’t see it this way, and neither will their fans. But being pretend-friends is the underlying dynamic, and their unawareness to it makes the whole thing seem… Rather silly. The conversation makes it obvious these guys are just riding the wave of fame while not really having a clue of what wave it exactly is they’re riding.

Alf, why should I care how two celebrities treat each other?

Because these men have the hearts of your women, and part of the restoration program is restoring proper ownership of women.

Art is downstream from power, so looking at the big picture it is obvious that artists like Miller, Bieber and Malone enjoy their fame only at the graces of those in power.

(Apologies for stressing the disproportionate Jewish influence, but it is hard not to notice here: Miller is half-Jewish, Bieber’s manager is Jewish, and Ariane Grande after leaving Mac Miller got engaged with another half-Jew. Did I mention Post Malone is Jewish?)

Take for instance Ariane Grande’s new fiancee, who, apparently no fake, though probably fake, has a Hillary Clinton tattoo on his leg. Can’t kiss power’s ass more obvious than that.

When power blesses artists, artists have their power magnified. I imagine this is a surreal experience — suddenly the whole world is involved in your personal life. So many prying eyes raises the inevitable question for every artist: what does it all mean? And you might be as stone-cold sober a warrior as can be, at some point you have to answer that question.

So for celebrities, who do you think they turn to when they ask themselves that question? Obviously, to those in power, those that gifted them with their position. Bieber goes to celebrity church. But we know the answers power gives:

Artist: what does it all mean?
Power: it means love, unity, equality. It means we bring the next world into this one.

Really bad answer. But art is downstream from power, so the artist works with it, at his own detriment.

(Luckily there’s a few exceptions, not in that art is not downstream from power, but in that some artists don’t seek answers from the wrong kinds of power. Kanye West is pro-Trump, and Kanye West seems to be doing pretty good with a thicc wife and 3 kids.)

So I guess my overarching point is: these people really have no clue what they’re doing. They’re as oblivious of what they’re doing as a tree is oblivious of the fact that the sun’s heat will in 1 x 10^9 years have increased such that all the water on earth will have evaporated, if I am to believe what scientists tell me.

Similarly, this business with the anonymous NY Times op-ed describing a conspiracy against Trump, supposedly written by a high ranking official in the White House. Is it a rare piece of genuine brilliance by the left? Of, have they simply been looking at QAnon, and thinking to themselves; ‘damn, rumors of a pro-Trump coupe really hit our morale. Maybe we should spread rumors of an anti-Trump coupe?’ Seems to me the answer is obvious.

They have no clue what they’re doing.

For the past 2 years, all the left has been doing is digging its heels in and slowly, ineffectively responding to the shadowy force they only know as the alt-right. Putin’s Puppet was a slow response to Trump. Killing Pepe a slow, ineffective response to Pepe. Lodestar is a slow response to QAnon. #metoo is a slow response to the manosphere. The FAGS banning Alex Jones is a slow, ineffective response to Alex Jones. And Occasio-Cortez is a slow response to the alt-right pointing out that, according to the left’s own logic, all white men are evil.

This fits with the idea of leftism as a shit-test: when the right was unaware that leftism was a shit-test, we invariably failed it. But now we are realizing it is a shit-test, and suddenly the left finds it has lost its most powerful weapon: the moral high ground.

Of course the question remains whether we can build a better empire. Luckily, we seem to have history on our side: the Republic of the Seven United Netherlands seems to be pretty cool, so did the Roman empire, so did a bunch of other empires of which I really do not know so much about. Jim points to the British empire under the Charles the Second as proof that we are capable of pulling it off, and I am very much inclined to say: sounds good to me.

Youtube

C’mon man, write something…

I like to watch Youtube. I wished I still liked reading books as much as I used to, but I find I rarely have the patience. Books have too much ego; why read 80.000 words on a subject if I can find the same information online, condensed in a 10 minute clip, or a 500 word blog post.

The internet has saved me, in that without the internet I would never be the man I was today, in the situation I was today. Without the internet, chances are I would have ended a bitter man. Instead I feel blessed for where I am today.

The trick about the internet is to integrate it with your life. Being an anonymous blogger makes this harder, because you are always filtering what to say and what not to say, although it is not an insurmountable obstacle. I was watching a video on Casey Neistat in which he said that the purpose of his vlogs was never to give people full insight into his life, merely to provide good content. I get that.

It’s funny how the internet allowed abstract thinkers to piece together the forgotten laws of the natural world. Once you have pieced something together, those pieces cannot be broken again without you knowing they are being broken. For me, those pieces are abstract, like fractals. But different people work in different ways, so the function of the internet differs accordingly. Yet the principle of that which has been seen, cannot be unseen, remains.

Hence the reason Youtube content leans right even if Youtube organization is left; what you see happening in front of your own eyes is much harder to deny than what you never see. For instance, in the offline world, I might say that Sub-Saharan Africans are primitive, feral. Which would freak out a random leftist. An argument would ensue, including statistics, counter-statistics, arguments, counter-arguments, and without audience little possibility of mutual understanding. Lots of energy involved for minor gain.

For instance, I might say: ‘have you seen the Ugandan parliament brawls?’, implying that its participants act like monkeys. Yes, says the equalist, but the exact same thing happens in Ukraine, implying whites do the same.

But if I then link the video of an Ugandan brawl and link the video to the Ukrainian brawl, it is obvious that they are nothing alike. In the former, members of parliament shout on tables, throw chairs across the room and hit other members with a microphone stand. In the latter I count 6, maybe 10 guys actively participating in the brawl, with the remainder of members calming them down, breaking up the fight. It is an entirely different matter of conduct, and it is obvious to any viewer. It makes the point damn effectively.

So I guess the next big breakthrough for leftism will be technology to create fake videos.

It is infinitely true that the right generally just wants to be left alone. Personally I would like to be left alone and do my own thing. But retreat is unwise, weak. Need to be strong, build strong borders.

The fighting itself often gives no direct positive feedback, which can weigh on one, but sometimes you suddenly find yourself in a very favorable position, without notice, without anyone telling you so, but like it was always so. Funny how that works.

Pewdiepie also fights in his Pewnews videos, videos which are better than any official news channel, since in every video he stresses that ‘he is not supposed to give his opinion’ but continues to do so anyway.

I wish I had more to say, but this is all I have.

“The Intellectual Dark Web”

A minor rectification of names. The Intellectual Dark Web (IDW) is supposedly intellectual, dark and on the web, but it is in fact just the newest generation of cuckservatives, of controlled opposition. Guys like Sam Harris or Ben Shapiro are the exact opposite of what the propaganda machine leads you to believe: they are the Boring Offline Tours (BOT). Only Jordan Peterson has some semblance of intellect, but unfortunately this interview is the final nail in his coffin as controlled opposition.

The thing about the IDW is that the name just does not apply. ‘Dark web’ implies anonymity, implies speaking truth to power, implies that if you took the dark web into the light of day, you’d be in jail. That members of the supposed IDW enjoy prominent media positions, big posters with their faces plastered on them and sold-out venues tells us they are the opposite of the dark web and that we are once again being conned by the media.

As for the intellectual part; it is absent, or at its very best it is packaging red pill truths in a sugary purple pill coating. Observe the ‘Intellectual Dark Web’ bending like leaves in the wind to justify journalists preaching white genocide, to justify rampant misbehavior by females, to change the conversation from what everyone is thinking into the conversation that those in power want you to think about.

Jordan Peterson stood out as a man of some eloquence and intellect, lending most credence to the IDW, therefore it is the saddest to see him fall so fast.

The earlier linked interview, titled ‘an Invitation to the Intellectual Dark Web’, is a 90 minute interview between JBP and an incredibly stereotypical virtue-signaling leftist, whose main point seems to be that he is incredibly empathic for the disaffected. In fact he is so incredibly empathic that he can’t help but hate happy people and wants them to suffer as much as he himself suffers for the poor.

Naturally his conduct and name, Hurwitz, made my spider senses tingle, and surprise surprise: Hurwitz is Jewish. Every. Single. Time.

When honest, investigative people watch this interview, they thus think: ‘a Jewish journalist writing for the NY Times who is highly involved in the democratic party? Isn’t that an extremely typical description of the radical left Peterson rails against?’

But instead of saying what is on everyone’s mind, Peterson redirects the conversation and introduces his leftist friend as an intellectual beacon of integrity and honesty to all his viewers. Peterson fails the shit-test.

To all of Hurwitz’ aggressive moral posturing, the appropriate response by Jordan Peterson is to call him out on that. That would be to do what is Right. Leftism is after all a giant shit-test: the leftist will agitate wherever he can and take advantage of the disaffected, but if you recognize the shit-test for what it is and call him out on it, you will have passed the shit-test and not be taken advantage of. Leftists are much like women in this sense.

JPB fails the shit-test, and he does this in exactly the same way, when you rub up against your woman and she says ‘not tonight honey I have a headache for the 50th time’ you say ‘oh huh that’s so sad I hope you feel better soon.’ Wrong answer: you were supposed to get the underlying hint and realize the conversation was not about the headache. In interviewing Hurwitz’ as if he were serious about cooperating with the right instead of what he is actually saying, namely wanting to kill the right, Peterson fails the shit-test, fails to speak for the disaffected white men he is said to represent.

Peterson rose to fame because he fought: first against radical left legislation, then against feminists. But it seems he is done fighting and is now breaking bread with our enemies while telling us these enemies are our friends.

The conclusion of the real IDW is that fighting is inevitable and good, and if a man after 2 fights is only seen breaking bread with our enemies, never with our friends, the only conclusion is that he too has become controlled opposition, has joined the BOTs.

To be entirely fair to Peterson, I don’t think it was his intention to be controlled opposition. It just sort of happened that way. We all have to come to terms with the demise of the West, and we all do it in our own way. In mourning, a person goes through different emotions before coming to terms with reality – denial, anger, depression, bargaining, acceptance, in no particular order, although denial is usually first and acceptance last. Peterson has gone through depression, has expressed anger, and is now obviously bargaining with his enemies, hoping for a peaceful resolution. Clearly his enemies are flattering him enough to make him believe a peaceful resolution is possible.

There is no peaceful resolution, at least not one that does not first include war, does not include the dismantling of the Cathedral. If you want peace, prepare for war.

While it is understandable that Peterson does not want to see it, it makes him a pawn to does who do see it, or those who do not see it and do not care about it. Peterson thinks we can talk ourselves out of this mess if we just listen to one another. Mr Peterson, some people just want to see the world burn, and unfortunately these people are running the show and the way things are going, they will have their way before you can say ‘clean your room bucko.’

Byzantine privacy laws 3

Final thoughts on the subject.

It probably will not get so bad that you can’t access your own medical file…

… Says the fool. It will very likely get so bad that you can’t access your own medical file, in that it will be such a bureaucratic hassle that you’d rather pull out all your hair than keep trying.

A friend commented that the whole EU privacy law is similar to the cookie laws adapted a few years ago. No one cared, no one still cares, yet everyone in the West loses approximately a day of their life spent clicking the ‘yes I accept cookies’ buttons.

Women tend to take these things very seriously. Very seriously. I suspect part of it is natural female risk aversion, but larger part is shit-testing, by which I mean that women think they find it very important, but in fact they do not, in actuality they care about using societal norms to shit-test every male, which you can only retroactively discover by passing the shit-test and find out that women totally not care about that thing they just said they care so much about. P.J., it is just like women’s supposed hate of rape, which is revealed to be false by women not giving a flying fig about rapeugees. The privacy law version would be something like an alpha male shouting privacy data from rooftops and women giggling about it. Who is man enough?

Byzantine privacy laws 2

This comment by Karl was so good it deserves its own post:

Well, you can’t see your medical file because it contains data of other persons too. There is the name, usally in abbreviated form, of the physician’s assistent who entered data into your file – the physician is not allowed to give away data of his employees. Then there is the name of the physician who made whatever diagnosis that is in your file – he’s probably an employee himself so you can’t have that name. Moreover, the file contains time and place of meetings between you and other persons, namely the physician and his assistants – no business, at least in the EU, is allowed to give you such personal data.

Usually your file contains data of test results which were provided by a third party, say a lab that analysed a sample of your blood. So there is name and adress of that third party, name of a contact person at that third party, and an invoice for the tests they made with your sample. Let’s ignore that the pricing, business address of the lab and the listing of whatever tests they made might be protected know-how and focus simply on the penal low regarding data protection, these additional names are also privacy protected data which the recipient (i.e. your physician) must not disclose.

There is still a legal way for you to get your medical file. You have to need it in a professional capacity, i.e you are a physician yourself, and are willing to sign a non-disclosure agreement. Of course, then you are handling other people’s data in a professional capacity. So that means you have to have a data protection commissioner (no, for legal reasons, that person can’t be yourself). You have to document how you store such data, for how long, and until when, how you ensure that the data is deleted when it is no longer needed, etc…

You didn’t request to see your medical file recently, didn’t you?

No, I did not…

Byzantine privacy laws

Schermafbeelding 2018-05-31 om 19.32.00

Schermafbeelding 2018-05-31 om 19.32.14

Schermafbeelding 2018-05-31 om 19.32.27

Updated privacy policies are all the hype. Makes sense, since Cambridge Analytics used Facebook data to help Trump get elected. The horror!

As societal trust crumbles it becomes difficult to trust strangers. Unfortunate fact about internet life is that it comes with a truckload of mingling strangers. These strangers of course have vested interest in earning your trust, but the nature of anarcho-tyrannical modernity is such that they can’t help but betray your trust.

The coup-complete solution to this problem is to acknowledge that, the moment you hand over your data to a company, your data is in the hands of that company and they may use that data for evil intentions. If you party in someone else’s garden, you play by the rules of that garden’s owner. Don’t trust the company, don’t share your data. As simple as that.

The coup-incomplete solution is to give the impression you’re solving the problem without solving the problem. Say you’re really sorry and it will never happen again.

How to assure people it will never happen again?

By publishing monstrous documents detailing every possible situation with every possible piece of data. No one reads them, no one fully understands them, but you show everyone you’re taking this very seriously!

Paraphrasing burn the bureaucracy:

The purpose of bureaucracy is not efficiency, it is compensating a lack of trust. Compare the 1787 American constitution (8000 words) with the 2010 Affordable Care Act (360.000 words). 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.

The irony is of course that people will be screwed over despite multi-thousand word contracts. It is a Jimian truth that if a company very loudly shouts that your data is safe with them, it is obvious that your data is totally not safe with them. Considering that all companies are shouting very loudly that your data is safe with them, this does not bode well for the future.

In practice, whatever problems the byzantine policies and laws solve in terms of public anxiety, they create in terms of shifting the focus from Getting Things Done to Please Don’t Sue Me. I’ll wait for the moment where I request to see my medical file but the doctor refuses because doing so would be against privacy laws.

A dying society

Ours is a dying culture.

This seems to be the most important insight.

We thought we rid ourselves of ‘religion’ (said with contempt, like how Marx would say ‘bourgeoisie’) but instead we’ve replaced a functional religion with a dysfunctional religion.

Society is made up of warriors and priests, because men need to specialize. The warriors provide the what, the priests provide the why. If the why is blind hatred of white males, both the why and the what become festering swamps of hypocrisy.

The Western modern empire has peaked. Our values are now covetousness, self-pity and hedonism. Our women are leaving us while downing anti-depressants and birth control pills like chocolates. Our men are escaping into video games, porn and drugs. This democracy and its culture will collapse.

Democracy is an irreversible failure, exactly the kind of disaster you’d expect if you’d force 200 people to live together and make all decisions by vote.

Culture is horrific. Architecture, books, movies, tv… Everything good is old, everything new is… tainted. It is not just that it is pretentious and vapid. It is the sound of a dying animal. Even YouTube, I have concluded, can not help sounding like a dying animal, despite some of its content creator’s best intentions.

Culture from the elite is pretending collective suicide is high status, culture from the fringes is escapism or silent protest, although mostly escapism — sells better.

Economic feedback loops are breaking down. I no longer expect companies to deliver me good products and service, I just hope they don’t screw me over too hard.

Technological advances can not mask currency abuses much longer. Inflation is creeping up like The Nothing in the Neverending Story. When I told my grandma what I paid for rent, she did not believe me at first.

Who will save our dying society?

Christianity in its current form can not be revived. Christians are too cucked. Christ does not offer them enough tools to uncuck.

Trump (praise be upon him) can not save us, because even if Trump understands and prepares for war, he is only one man, and I do not believe he prepares for war.

Alt-rightists dream of avoiding the collapse, but their frustration with the flaying brandname Alt-Right betrays their inability to stop the collapse. + alt-right thots lol.

Rational, normal men will not save us, because their testosterone is too low and their thirst for entertainment is too high.

Jordan Peterson will not save us, because he tells men to grow up without telling men society is rigged to stop you from growing up.

Scott Alexander will not save us, even if he is a luminous beacon of intellectual honesty and curiosity and clear thought and OK lmao couldn’t get through that with a straight face.

Pewdiepie will not save us, because Pewdiepie won’t say it is OK to hit your women, only sarcastically insinuate that you must Respect Wahmen.

Roosh will not save us, because need fathers.

Nope, it is neoreactionaries, in the broadest sense of the word, with all Spandrellian linguistic notes attached, who are on the money. Neoreactionaries head for the exit, rightly so.

We are at the forefront because we have the right diagnosis. Other doctors are quacks, not us. So, we morally elevate ourselves as the priests of the New Religion. It is not a matter of arrogance, it is a matter of necessity.