Category Archives: Psychology

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

Paranoia

 

iu-2

Paranoia is an interesting emotion. If paranoia is music, is high-pitched violins, although paranoia does not have to be feverish. Can be on-the-low, like an subtle itch you just can’t  scratch.

Paranoia is regarded as a ‘wrong’ emotion. If someone is being paranoid, someone is being needlessly fearful, or schizophrenic, or silly in some other sense. Nonsense.

Mao Zedong and Stalin were both paranoid men, grew increasingly paranoid throughout their life. And with reason; at certain point in his life, chairman Mao was wiretapped by members of his own staff. Both men reacted to their feelings of paranoia by moving against allies they distrusted, allies who might have been plotting against them, and consequently both kept their enemies at bay until their death.

With paranoia the point is not to be exactly right, for Mao and Stalin both acted against quite a number of allies they distrusted but who were not actually plotting against them. It is better to act against a few false positives than to miss any true positives.

Paranoia is an entirely logical emotion, a safeguard mechanism against betrayal. Fact of life is that you can trust few people. People you grew up with, perhaps, but how many people did you grow up with versus the amount of people you interact with on day-to-day-basis, and how many of the people you grew up with do you fully trust? You can trust people to look out for themselves, you can not trust them to look out for your best interest. If deemed useful to betray you, solid chance they betray you.

Which is not to say loyalty is fake, or love isn’t real. Just that betrayal is also real. Out-grouping comes as natural to us as in-grouping and is by nature not announced — as the wisdom concerning women goes, when communication between you and a women breaks down she will not tell you, because that’s what broken down communication means. So it is between men; people will not inform you of their betrayal. Paranoia is our way to cover the breach.

People might call someone overly paranoid as a slur, but you might as well say someone is overly angry, overly depressed, overly fearful, even overly joyful. Paranoia is an emotion like any other, has an important role to fulfill.

So, paranoia is healthy. Keeps us alive and kicking. Should be cherished and respected.

It is a lonely emotion. With whom will you share your paranoia? Surely not your enemies. Probably also not your in-group, for paranoia concerns your safety in relation to your in-group, so if they assure you nothing is wrong, you are stupid to take it at face value. It is all the more dangerous because professing paranoia to your in-group professes doubt, insecurity, weakness, which heightens the possibility of betrayal.

Paranoia deals with the unknown. You don’t know everything that’s going on, you can’t know everything that’s going on. Your enemies will often feed your paranoia as to make you fear them more than you should, but other enemies might downplay your paranoia as to make you fear them less than you should.

Thus, paranoia is something you deal with privately, although it is great to consult others in your in-group who are not involved in the matter to which your paranoia pertains. I find my girl often gives me good perspective. But, in the end, the decision to act upon paranoia is yours alone.

Jordan Peterson, YouTube prophet

Props to Spandrell for noticing Jordan Peterson well before he was fashionable. RT on an interview between Moldbug and Peterson.

I found this interview with Russell Brand quite enjoyable.

First things first: Russell Brand is communist. Not saying that in a hateful way, just a statement of facts. Observe his creative nonsense ramblings, his dirty looks (skinny, pale, tattoos), his Rasputin-like gaze. He’s not hiding it at all. Personally I like an honest charismatic commie. They lie so brazenly obviously in the face of so many people that the fact that people believe them at all is a testament to the evolutionary effectiveness of leftism.

So how will Jordan Peterson fair against a commie? As it turns out, pretty good.

First half an hour is them warming up to each other. Peterson obviously has the frame, likely because he has all the momentum while I’m guessing Brand has lost a lot of his. As Brand later on says: Peterson has loyal fanbase, Brand does not.

30:00 ‘That’s what artists do.’ I tip my hat to your flattery skills, mr Peterson.

41:30 ‘It seems you care about truth, that you search for truth.’

42:00 Great little bit on how Brand confesses many people for whatever strange reason don’t like his commie interference and Peterson pats him on the back.

52:00 Jordan says what I said 2 posts ago.

1:01:00 ‘the right doesn’t care, the left fails to do what it tries to do.’ Yeah, no. Peterson is a centrist. Peterson later describes himself as high on openness to new experience which helps explain his centrism. But, similar to how agreeableness is cooked in favor of pretending agreeable people go along with good behavior while they in fact go along with bad behavior just as easy, openness to new experience is cooked in favor of pretending open people going along with good exotic behavior, while open people go along with bad exotic behavior just as easy. Which Peterson demonstrates by repeatedly flattering Brand.

1:10:30 Brand vocalizing both his hatred and admiration of the right in typical leftist fashion.

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: while Jordan Peterson is an exceedingly intelligent man, his primary interest is not truth. Truth is sort of high on his list, yes, but spreading the gospel of Peterson is higher on his list. Quite understandably so, I might add. Truth is shouting against a storm, effectively spreading your gospel is like riding a storm.

Peterson’s story is quite good, quite solid. But he has quite some flaws in thinking, e.g. on Islam (on which he, like Pilate, washes his hands), on women (needs more Jim) and on individualism (indiloldualism). If I had more motivation I’d take more time explaining why Peterson has these flaws and why it is unlikely he will correct them, but whatevs. Moldbug has Peterson’s number.

OK I’ll leave you with one more observation. If I were to talk with Russell Brand, I’d tell him with a grin: ‘Russell, I rarely come across men who speak complete nonsense as eloquently as you.’ Naturally, he’d be irritated. But it would be completely true. If Peterson always speaks the truth, if Peterson always strives to find the truth, how come he has not said anything of the sort in the entire 90 minutes of conversation?

The terrible truth

Screen Shot 2018-01-12 at 21.57.44

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.

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.