Category Archives: Psychology

The terrible truth

A recurring theme on this blog is acceptance of the world around us. See the world as it is, not as other people tell you it is, or as you’d like the world to be. Big difference. Truth tellers need metaphors to explain the difference. Hence the allegory of the Cave, The Matrix and They Live.

Personally my favorite image for ‘waking up’ comes from an Asian horror movie I saw so long ago I forgot its name.

[EDIT: thanks to a very helpful comment I now know the movie is called Nang Nak. Trailer. Movie. Spoilers below so stop reading if you want to watch it.]

In the movie, the protagonist, a jungleman, returns to his wife and newborn child after a long absence (I believe he fought in a war). He is overjoyed to see his wife’s pregnancy went well, to see he now has a family and that they love one another. They live happily together in their bamboo house on the jungle riverbank.

However, other villagers act differently. Since his return they avoid him as if he were cursed. The man does not understand but does not mind so much. He is happy after all.

Then an older man comes to him and says: ‘my friend, something is terribly wrong. I have to tell you: your wife died in childbirth and so did your child.’ Our protagonist gets angry. His wife is at home, in good health! How dare this grey goon say something so horrible! But the old man insists. ‘Your loved ones have passed. Evil spirits have taken their place. If you want the truth, bend over and look through the opening between your legs. Then you will see.’

Our protagonist shakes his head in disbelief. ‘Crazy old man, who does he think he is.’ He goes home, finds his wife and child smiling and laughing. He kisses them on the forehead. All is well.

But something feels wrong. He never sees his wife eating, for instance. His wife never goes out into the village, for another. Other strange things keep happening. And the villagers still retreat in fear whenever they see him.

Eventually it is too much for the man, and one day he stands in his bamboo living room, bends over and looks through the hole between his legs. The first thing he sees is cobwebs and dust everywhere. The second thing he sees is the rotting carcass of his wife, lying on a chair, cradling the remains of a dead baby. Naturally, he freaks the fuck out.

I don’t remember how the movie ended and I’m sure I’ve misremembered some parts, but that scene of the rotting wife carcass always stuck with me. That is the red pill at its worst. Not some ‘I know Kung Fu’ bullshit, just some plain old ‘nothing is what you thought it was, the people you thought loved you actually hate your guts’. Truth can be horrible like that.

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.

The Theatre of the Mind

Back in the Manosphere days there was an interesting transition in internet consciousness from Game to the Dark Enlightenment. Men were knocking heads together trying to figure out reality, predictably propelled forward by the urge to stick their dicks in women. As it turned out there was a good answer: be an asshole, or even better, be a serial killer. Thus man invented game and thus the puzzle of how to get laid was solved.

The problem was that game lead to dark implications, e.g. why are women naturally attracted to serial killers? Offline consciousness simply refuses to acknowledge such dark truths for offline consciousness strives to smile and nod, but truth once seen cannot be unseen. So men set out to reconcile online consciousness with offline consciousness.

Ricky Raw was such a blogger. One of his psychological insights was that humans project their identity as they see it. People do not want you to like them for who you are, people want you to like them for who they think they are. If who you are reflects who you think you are there is little problem, but if your projected self image is different from who you really are you are bound to get in trouble. No one likes a poser. This is the difference between the true self and the false self.

No where is this so obvious as in a narcisstic/co-dependent relationship dynamic. In such a relationship the narcissist lives as if he (or she) is the main character in his own movie and the co-dependent lives as if her (or his) only purpose is to serve in said narcissist’s movie. One wants to be admired, the other wants to be needed. Both pretend to love the other but both merely use each other to fulfil their own identity fantasy. Very emotionally draining.

Now Ricky had an extensive solution to resolve the problems created by the false self. Although he had lots of good advice, the fact that he had an extensive solution revealed his inability to completely come to terms with the darkness of reality. ‘There is a problem but no worry, we can fix it!’ Nope, some things you just can’t fix. The serial killer will remain a sexy narcissist and his fangirls will remain co-dependently in love with him, no matter how much psychoanalysis you throw at them. That is the dark part about the dark enlightenment.

Let me elaborate. I talked about prophets selling enlightenment. Why do they do it and why is it so successful? Because we crave optimism. We want a happy and meaningful narrative. When Ricky digs up this dark stuff about the many ways in which human nature is fucked up, his natural instinct is to spin it in such a way that gives hope. So like the famous psychologists he quotes he tells us we have a the false self and a the true self, which we might reconstruct as our unenlightened self and our enlightened self. Do you see where I’m going with this?

Ricky said that you may unlearn the behaviours of your false self and discover your true self. Shakespeare however said that all the worlds a stage and all the men and women merely players acting their part. I’m with Shakespeare: there is no false or true self; just the self. Sometimes the self is dysfunctional, sometimes it is functional, but the self always merely is.

The Last Psychiatrist was a blogger from the same era who really understood this point. He covered the same subject, narcissism in the modern era, but in contrast to Ricky he offered no solution, just a never-ending mindfuck. This is the world, this is our narcissism, you had better accept it. We all are main characters in our movie, we care only about ourselves. This is why TLP’s pseudonym was Alone and perhaps why despite his amazing penmanship he always read like he was on the brink of a cynical breakdown.

The problem with truth is that it is cold. You might respond: ‘Alf, truth is not cold! It is devoid of emotion!’ I disagree. Truth outside human experience is neutral, but truth from within human experience is cold as ice. We are sacks of meat waiting to die and we don’t like it. This is why we constantly lie lie lie, to ourselves and to others. We dislike coldness, we crave warmth. Christian God provided some warmth, but Christian God is dead.

I recently had some conversations with a friend on serious topics. He said he feels disturbances in the world and this moves him to search for truth. So I gave him truth, for instance on the ongoing Islamic invasion. To this he responded ad verbatim: ‘you are probably right but I just don’t want to think that way about Islam.’ The cold truth did not serve him, so he discarded it. His honest dishonesty made me laugh.

The truth is that life has an inherent friction which begets the daily need for balance and moderation. The lie is that we can solve this friction by melting into something greater than ourselves. Christianity was an functional lie, progressivism is a dysfunctional lie. We are but actors on a stage wanting to act out our part, but our parts are progressively (heh) falling apart. Dysfunctionality is easy, functionality is hard, so perhaps we ought not to be surprised by this turn of events.

A serial killer gets women wetter than you do. Such it is and such it will always be.

Dunbar Philantropy

Apparently there is a drought in East Africa. I know this because the media dedicates a big chunk of time showing images of hungry African kids with sad expressions on their hollow-eyed little faces, followed by a plea to donate money to Giro 555, a Dutch joint venture of NGO’s.

Now I am mildly surprised, because as far as I knew we had already donated billions and billions of dollars to African countries. For instance, Ethiopia, a country afflicted by the current drought, has according to that source received 3.5 billion dollars of developmental aid in 2013 alone, of which 147 million dollars was allocated for water supply. In 1 year! With napkin math I reason that Ethiopians have in 10 years time received 1 billion dollars specifically to prepare for droughts. But fast-forward and today there is a massive drought which Ethiopia apparently stands helpless against. Send more money! You’da thunk development aid would have helped the Africans prepare for exactly the kind of drought they are experiencing right now, but apparently it has not.

This pattern of charity money not doing what it is supposed to is nothing new: even in progressive circles it is accepted as fact that African aid money might as well have been thrown into a black hole. On the surface it seems simple: something bad happens and good white people want to help. But our help does not work. We have an altruism industry working around the clock, but it is completely defective. What is up?

The problem is you can’t go around Dunbar’s number. People are evolutionary wired to care first and foremost about their tribe. This goes for the givers and the receivers of aid. I recall a story of a Doctor Without Borders who trained Africans in Western medicine for a year. When he returned some time later he discovered to his shock no one was using the Western medicine and his trainees were in fact referring the sick to the local Voodoo man. ‘This is how we do’ was the explanation offered, which is of course the same explanation offered shoulder-shruggingly by corrupt warlords who buy cocaine and golden AK47’s with money donated by UNICEF. This is how we do in our tribe.

On the aid giver’s end, our end, dead children on tv are sad because we imagine it happening to us and our tribe. But we lack the wiring to give anything but a superfluous shit about other people’s tribe. While the ad runs we are all sympathy but once the ad is over we simply forget because we have enough worries in our own life.

The reason people care about [insert hip charity] is because people care about status signalling towards other people in their tribe. I am a good person, I care. Do you care as much as I care? This is not to say virtue signalling is by definition bad (for my part Bill Gates really does want to rid the world of malaria), but it is to say that the actual outcome of the aid is secondary to the feelz! invoked by charity status signalling. Essentially charity is people roleplaying that more people belong to their tribe than actually do.

This is why so many Dutch youngsters flock to Africa for a 3-month internship digging waterholes and teaching English to dem keedz, of which the long-term effect is comparable to getting a pig to fly. But that’s ok because the point was never to actually help Africans, the point was to make Dutch youngsters feel good about themselves so they can post pictures with blacks on Facebook and tell people how much they’ve learned being around less privileged people. The East African Drought Drive is simply the watered down version of this.

So you could make the case that charity is inherently stupid: the idea of charity is to do something good for people outside your tribe, but Dunbar philantrophy tells us you are wired to care only if it benefits your standing within your tribe.