Sinterklaas and Black Pete

Every year, Sinterklaas visits the Netherlands for his birthday on December fifth, bearing gifts for well-behaved children. Because Sinterklaas is an old man, he is helped by his servant army of black Petes, who are happy, acrobatic, and friendly.

Sinterklaas is a wise and old tradition, rightly copied by Americans who turned him into Santa Clause, although comparing Santa to Sinterklaas is a bit like comparing Ali-Express to Amazon.

Sinterklaas is a coming of age festivity — a shared narrative among adults and children. Adults get to roleplay, kids learn about the consequences of being good and bad, of being rewarded by gifts when they behave well, and, apocryphally, of being hauled off to Sinterklaas’ home country Spain in a burlap when they behave bad.

Most importantly, everyone has fun – many small things make the whole event enjoyable. Think of putting a shoe next to your fireplace where Sinterklaas drops a present (don’t forget to include a carrot for Sinterklaas’ horse). Think of singing the classic Dutch Sinterklaas songs such as ‘Sinterklaas Kaypoontje’ or ‘See gggginds comes the steamboat’. Think of dressing up as Sinterklaas and black Pete with your friends and families, throwing around ‘pepernoten’, handing out presents and having a blast.

The inclusion of Black Petes has always been good. It’s one of those naturally grown cultural traditions that few have had to say out loud, but all know to be good. In the case of Black Petes, the (minor) lesson has of course always been: do not fear black people, for when they are led by a wise man, they are happy and friendly. Black Petes are a way for children to come into narrative contact with negroes, and learning not to fear them, which one may easily do, for many negroes are feral and aggressive.

But just like the left destroyed the last friendly negro cultures in America, so have they destroyed the last friendly negro culture in the Netherlands — black Pete, who was always a side character of the Sinterklaas show, has through the left’s evil been bombarded to the racist center piece, and Sinterklaas is a bigoted white male. The left, like cancer, destroys everything beautiful it touches.

But even though Sinterklaas might be dead in official channels, rest assured my leftist friends, he lives in unofficial channels, in the majority of homes, the overwhelming majority of the hearts of people. And every time you see someone dressed as Sinterklaas on the streets, or someone dressed as black Pete on the streets, know that it is a middle finger to you and your ilk. You will lose, as the left in the end always loses.

Women and sex

It’s not really that I have writer’s block or anything, just that I have no coherent fleshed out ideas to write. Only random thoughts. Maybe I should take a break from blogging. But I dunno. I like reading other people’s blogs. There’s too few good blogs out there. So might as well try to contribute a little bit. How about I write something every two weeks? Sounds good? Sounds good.

What fun stuff is there to talk about. Oh I know.

There’s this Dutch guy called Tim Hofman. Typical leftist piece of shit. Makes youtube content, gets into fist fights with rich pieces of shit, shoves immigrant kids in the faces of  cuck politicians. The usual usual.

He’s got the tats and the big mouth. So, you’d think this guy would get laid.

BUT, guess what happened? His girlfriend of some years, who is also an aspiring social media content creator, has published a documentary: ‘my sex is broken‘, in which she, no joke, no irony, explores the grand mystery of why sex with her boyfriend just isn’t so good. Naturally, my schadenfreude meter went into overdrive and I watched the documentary with my girl.

Surprisingly, it was pretty good. I thought it was a poignant analysis of dysfunctional modern gender relationships, through the eyes of women.

First things first: Tim Hofman was shat upon like few men are shat upon. Having your girlfriend publicly complain how bad sex with you is destroys all your street cred.

But beyond the public humiliation, a very honest analysis about the general dissatisfaction among feminist women.

‘Honest’ being a relative term: a woman is permanently in denial about what makes her love a man. And so it is with this documentary, which is essentially her ‘honestly’  wondering why her sex is bad, without ever getting to the crux of the question: that she doesn’t really love her boyfriend. The documentary is one big shit-test towards her boyfriend, a shit-test the boyfriend can’t pass, because being the emancipated left-wing prog that he is, he principally refuses to stop her from doing stupid shit. One can imagine their conversations: ‘babe I’m not sure this documentary is a good idea.’
– ‘But honey I just need to express myself! These are my feelings, I feel like I must do this. You support me right?’
‘… Right.’

Poor guy.

After ten minutes of watching, I turned to my girl and said: ‘he just needs to fuck her good is all. This would never happen to us, because I am a sex god.’ Naturally, my girl chided me for being an arrogant asshole, and even more naturally, we had good sex right after the documentary just to prove the point.

Something about the documentary had a very ‘voice of a female generation’ feel. Very typical depressed millenial woman vibe: from the incessant focusing on herself in every camera shot, to the boringly generic talks with a sexuologist, to her genuine wondering: ‘why am I so unmotivated to have sex?’ This is how many many women feel. Depressed, unmotivated, unsexy. Modern women are a sore and unhappy bunch, and it is really not their fault.

Sex, for women, is of utmost importance. A woman who has a good sex life is a woman who can take on the world. For a man sex is like releasing pressure on his ball valves, but for a woman sex is an affirmation of everything she holds dear. That’s why female friends always talk about sex: they love love love it.

But a prerequisite for good sex is that the man she sexes must be a man she is attracted to. And female attraction, as extensively discussed, is fickle. It only blossoms when the man is in charge, and comfortably stays in charge by passing her shit-tests. Then, and only then, will women mysteriously find they are wet and much in love. Until then, you are stuck with an entire generation of women whose sex-lives are non-existent, who cry every other day, who dream of being taken captive by manly foreign men, who take anti-depressants, whose relations are one failure after another, who burn out at work, etcetera etcetera.

It is probably too late for Tim Hofman, who is elbow-deep into egalitarian equalist rainbow feminist emancipation. But, not too late for us.

Jimian paths to power

There’s a hard limit to what can be accomplished debating strangers on the internet. So, let’s look at ways to make Jimian knowledge work in your favor outside the interwebs.

I’ve previously discussed the warrior, priest, merchant, lover model. These shall serve as our starting points.


The priestly path to power

Priests gain power by coalescing around a shared story. The story has to be helpful: if your story is that you gain immortality by jumping off a bridge, it is not helpful. A good story cuts reality at the joints.

Essentially, the priest thinks about how reality works and makes his findings work in his favor.

Our story is of course the story of the fall of a civilization. We see a society ruled by corruption, envy and hatred — an unsustainable situation, which has no other ending than crashing into the ground. But we are also the story of hope: vestiges of peace are possible among the rubbles of war. Because of this combination – on the one hand, the fall, on the other hand, hope – we claim memetic sovereignty: our version of reality is the best version. Through people testing out these claims in their own life, experiencing success with it, our ideas spread, and we gain power through the priestly path.

Jim is the best example of this: the majority of his recent posts have centered around describing the story of Trump, and explaining in clear, unambiguous language, what is going on. On the one hand he is advising Trumpists, but on the other he is also providing explanations that are obviously true, with such persuasion that it makes his enemies seem completely out of touch with reality, while simultaneously encouraging his allies to add their own ideas to the mix. That is the priestly path to power.


The warrior path to power

To be a warrior basically means: to put up a fight when necessary. Putting up a fight comes natural to some men, but for many men stuck in a progressive framework, being a warrior is unnatural. After all, progressives look down on warriors: ‘we’re all part of one consciousness my friends, love peace and harmony, no need for fighting!’ Which of course in practice translates to progs acting like women: friendly in your face, knife in your back.

To be a warrior is to fight people in their face. This can be scary for those unaccustomed to it: fighting makes enemies, having enemies is stressful. But my experience is that fighting comes natural to all men. We are risen killer apes, we would not have survived to this point if we were not able to put up a fight. What’s more, fighting works. Simply by keeping a straight spine and fighting for what you believe gains you respect just by the act of doing it. You might find that some of that respect even comes from your newly made enemies. What’s more, winning a fight opens up completely new possibilities which you had previously thought impossible.

So, how do you win a fight?

Different people, different strokes, I think. Here’s a couple of things I’ve learned:

  • Fighting is strangely effective, sometimes addictively so. It’s much more effective than I’d have believed ten years ago. People tend to avoid conflicts, and tend to think that those seeking conflicts must have some advantage. Hence conflicts having a strong chicken game aspect: he who blinks first, loses.
  • Some fights are unwinnable. For example, when bureaucracy is involved, you’re going to have a very hard time.
  • Sometimes it is just as important to graciously bow your head as to stubbornly keep it up. Similarly, it is sometimes good to graciously bow your head even in victory.
  • It’s a trial and error thing.


The merchant path to power

Commies and progs make horrible entrepreneurs, simply because they don’t understand capitalism. Any corporation is only successful to the extent it manages to keep prog infiltration at arm’s distance. Per extension, modern business advice is terrible because it has to be given within a prog framework. Corporations do not work like progs say they do, and while that is of no personal concern when you are yourself not a merchant, if you want to make money, much better to try the Jimian merchant path to power.

The Jimian perspective is that merchants are vulnerable: merchants depend completely and utterly on their customers. If your customers leave, you are done. So merchants, contrary to the prog perspective that they are greedy assholes, are in fact by nature as friendly as possible, and have to if they want to succeed. The customer, not the merchant, is king. Similarly, as a merchant you depend on the goodwill of the state to even conduct your business: there is little point in fighting them, because in a head-on-head confrontation, the state always wins. So again, from the eyes of the merchant, not he but the state is king. Give unto Caesar what belongs to Caesar.

That is, I believe, the successful foundation of anyone wanting to follow the merchant path to power.


The lover path to power

I have discussed this path to power fairly extensively I think. Progs have no sex, divorces and intergender war. Jimians have sex, healthy relations and functional families. Having a good woman by your side is a bliss.

Warrior, Priest, Merchant, Lover

(reposted from AlfaNL)

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.

Jews and Jesus

I’ve felt little need or inspiration to write posts after the publication of Resurrection of God. The book is good, what I’ll write on here is not going to be as good. But eh, this place is more of an experimentation board anyway. So let’s write something anyway.

I feel like the effects of the book must first take place, so me writing on here does not add as much as it used to. First we set the ground rules, then we grow. My interpretation of the ground rules are in the RoG, and although they’re not the definite and absolute version, they are pretty good, if I may say so myself. And luckily, some others seem to agree. For instance, one friendly reader emails:

Thank you for writing this book. Truly. While I had to stop and work through a few areas (and yet to determine if we differ), on the whole yours is one of the most important books I’ve read in decades. I’m starting it again this week, taking a bit more time to process…
I read your blog, and Jim’s, with keen interest. I’m thankful men like you are spreading the truth.

For a book meme to spread it takes time. Marketing, I think, is overrated, in that boomers never had to worry about marketing, and when millenials talk about marketing, they usually talk about faking it in order to make it, because it is getting harder and harder to make it, and makes it easier to make it than playing fair. But naturally, that’s not what this is about, so I conclude that me pushing the book will yield terrible results to compared, y’know, the book actually accomplishing what it sets out to accomplish.

A few people have already completely picked up on the idea and have even taken it further. Notably, ‘who’s this guy and how come his tongue is sharper than Gordon Ramsey’s knives’ commenter Shaman providing a Jewish perspective:

Christianity is the fulfillment of ritual worship; it does away with the dead letter of the law in favor of its spirit, Jesus having an authority no smaller (indeed, greater) than Moses. This notion is rejected by Judaizers, who contend that Jesus could not have had authority on par with Moses’, and that therefore all parts of Mosaic Law are valid today – in explicit contradiction of Deuteronomy 18:18, where a prophet like Moses is promised; who, being like Moses, has divine authority and divine approval to establish a new covenant unlike the previous one (Jeremiah 31:31-32) and to replace the bad statutes (Ezekiel 20:25). Such is the Messiah, the Son of Man, Jesus Christ.

I find this makes complete sense. It is understandable the Jews did to Jesus what they did, but now that the smoke has settled, let us take an honest look at the results:

Christians: conquered America, conquered colonies, invented the industrial revolution.
Jews: centuries of roaming, no home, disliked and surrounded by hostiles.

I mean, c’mon. The results speak for themselves. In hindsight, the Jews obviously erred in rejecting Christ.

Now, Christ was a bit of an asshole, don’t get me wrong. Imagine a guy walking into your temple: ‘Hi folks, I’m Jesus. I have no army, no nation, no crown, but you should just accept me as the son of God anyway.’ Your first response is to shit-test such a guy to death, and that’s exactly what the Jews did. But, in death, Jesus passed the shit-test.

So apart from it being a theological thing, it is also a logical thing: side with the winner, especially considering that the winner was a Jew in the first place. The Jews would be wise to accept the NT as canonical.

How to git gud wit men

Alf I ain’t no gay why should I read advice on dealing with men?

Because you need friends. Listen up.

While I used to be of the opinion that I was a lone ranger, a Wolverine, I have come around to the fact that men are a lot more powerful in groups than they are alone. You stand alone, you stand weak, which is exactly why they want you atomized.

We are social creatures.

So, how do you deal with men, e.g. make friends?

Friendships can either be 1-on-1 or in the context of the group. 1-on-1 is rare, in the sense that both friends need to have something exclusive in common that cannot be found outside that friendship. Group dynamics are very healthy in curing weird male ego things. Think of it as social proof: in a 1-on-1 relation the other person is apt to make himself more important than he actually is in relation to you, while in a group he will often be reminded of his actual place in the hierarchy. Therefore, to have a good intimate friendship without group dynamic, both friends must have healthy ego and share a natural connection.

But here my focus is mainly on men in groups, where the greatest power lies. Groups of men get wonderful stuff done that no one else can, like building a civilization or putting a man on the moon or getting VR porn to work. Being part of a group of men can be a very satisfying feeling, a hard to describe, top-of-the-world feeling. Jim sometimes says that we overestimate the power of the government, and with a group of friends it does at times feel like you are your own powerhouse, that the government has no say over you, that your group decides what is just in the world. Such feelings especially arise after you do manly things with your friends such as to building a street fire on New Year’s Eve and drinking a beer around it. Such events raise the testosterone of all the men involved and increase the love of all wives watching. They are functional mini-societies.

So, how to deal with men in groups?

First and foremost, men in group test each other’s strength. As women love to remark, men in groups are one ‘who has the biggest penis’ contest, where biggest penis is a metaphor for… ‘winner’, I guess. Who is the biggest winner. A fluid hierarchy is built from biggest winner to biggest loser, and that’s about it. So, the easiest trick in getting along with men is to be a winner, to build and display strength. People love the strong horse.

It used to be hip to call a group of friends ‘Männerbunds’, but I think I’d rather call it a group of friends. After all, such a group presupposes that only men are in it, since any group of friends which includes women is no group of friends, just a disaster waiting to happen. Therefore, if you want your group of friends to last, put the women in their place. This requires some tact, not in putting women in their place (if you know how to deal with women this is actually the easy part), but in putting white knights in their place. Any group will have white knights. Pick on the biggest white knight in the group, ridicule him for his stupid behavior with women. Such things work great.

Similarly, must ridicule leftist behavior, e.g. the guys who behave like women themselves. Personally I do not believe in pre-emptively throwing leftists out of the group; I think it is unjust and unpractical. Better to let them throw in their own glasses by doing what leftists always do, namely stupid shit that ruins their reputation. Either their reputation will drop to the point where they leave out of own volition, or they drop a healthy few spots in the hierarchy but remain a net positive for the group.

Now, building a group of friends is different from building a corporate career. Many traits that serve your corporate career (ass-licking, dishonesty, disloyalty) will undermine the building of a group of friends, which is more free-flowing, honest… honor-based. In business you win by screwing over the right guy at the right time, in a group of friends you win by being cool. Sometimes they overlap, often they don’t.

Different people have different talents. Some people are leaders, some people are jokers, some people have ideas, some people are connectors, etc etc. Since the rules of power always apply, it tends to be useless to peg people in different categories. Instead, what tends to work is to amass power for yourself and use that to the best of your abilities. Enlightened egotism always works better than any kind of masterplan, since any kind of masterplan is apt to map poorly on reality.

Cooperation is key. People tend to be poor at cooperation, because they are poor at putting themselves in the shoes of other people. I find that what works well is not that I get along amazingly with person B, C and D, but that I can cooperate with all of them. For instance, perhaps person B gets along with person C much better than me, but person B can not get along with person D at all. Then, even if person C likes person B better than me, he sees that I can cooperate with person D, while person B can not, and consequently my status rises. Such situations happen more often than you’d think.

Cooperation also means the ability to make decisions. The ability to make decisions necessitates the ability to follow. This is always a hang-up, because every guy thinks he knows better than every other guy. But again, after initial storming men always settle on a hierarchy and the hierarchy is what allows the group decision-making, is what allows them cooperation. This means that no decision is ever made from weakness; very rarely does the virgin who raises his hand and tepidly says ‘hey guys perhaps we should do this?’ get his idea through. instead the Chad who loudly says ‘hey guys lets do this!’ gets his idea through, and 9 times out of 10 Chad indeed had the better idea.


(reposted from AlfaNL)

The future of this blog

I debated whether or not to write this post, figured I should. I’ve written on the subject before, but lately my thoughts are a bit more fleshed out.

If you want to make money, having an anonymous dark enlightenment blog is the absolute worst idea you can come up with. For one, the audience is about the amount of total followers I have on Instagram (spoiler: double digits), for another, the whole thing is a liability for your real life income.

BUT, I never could resist the temptation of cooking up a new religion. It’s just been too god damn interesting. It’s always felt like the Wild West out here, and I believe it still is; once you realize that the priesthood in power has absolutely no clue what it’s doing, it’s like: I can do that better. I’ll show them how easy it is to do better.

So, that’s basically what this blog has been about. Solving man’s search for meaning. It’s easy, really, the only reason people think it is so hard is because they’ve been taught it is hard. The Resurrection of God is me providing meaning for the twenty-first century, hopefully into later centuries as well. I always felt like the ideas in it are so obvious that it’s been a race to be the first to get it out in book-form. So when I hit the publish button, I felt like I hit the ‘World Record Time’ button. Don’t think anyone else has hit that button yet, so I’ll take the World Record please thank you. No doubt other men will follow suit, but they’ll be imitators, don’t let the only real one intimidate ya.

Whether or not this will turn out to be the religion to save the West, who knows, but to be honest: I’m way too confident that it will. It is the answer, the method works, and if it is not this method, it will be another method that very closely resembles it.

So, at some level, I feel like my work is done. The whole archbishop thing is a cool meme, but I’m not gonna sit behind my laptop waiting for that to happen. I’m gonna do other, non-Alf stuff.

I think the AlfaNL domain expires in half a year or so. I won’t renew it. This site I’ll keep, if not just to sell e-books, I’ll likely write every now and then when I feel the itch. But, you know, not a priority.

I will however reveal that I am in the process of writing one last book for this blog. Way too early to spoil anything yet, but rest assured it’s gonna be a good one.

Trump appreciation post

It’s been almost three years since Donald Trump was elected to office. I had some doubts. Not big doubts, mind you. My attitude has been to prepare for the worst, hope for the best. I always hoped Trump would be one of the best. From the way he handled himself during the election it sure looked like he would be one of the best.

But patience is a virtue. Perhaps Trump would turn out to be another Reagan: a talking head, appeased and subverted by the permanent government. Perhaps he would simply fail to understand the beast he challenged. I remember having my moment of biggest doubt when news broke that Trump, no doubt pressured by the neocons, started bombing Syria.

Yet here we are, a mere two years later, and Trump is moving troops out of Syria. The first president to actually pull out of the sick mess that the US created in the Middle East. How awesome is that. And really, it’s just the tip of the iceberg. I’m trying to summarize Trump’s achievements in a sentence, but I’m finding it hard. Trump dealt with North Korea. Trump dealt with Russia. Trump dealt with Iran. But perhaps even more importantly, domestically Trump is single-handedly taking on the permanent government. He’s bullying leftists, making their heads explode until they can no longer explode. Lefties keep repeating: ‘this is not normal’ because they know in their heart that this is normal, this is the way it is supposed to be. Trump is a one man army raising the testosterone of all the men in the West. What a guy, what a guy.

I think that at a certain point you learn to stop following a man’s every move, and instead decide whether or not to trust that man from a distance. I’ve come to trust Trump. He’s not an intellectual, but that’s a good thing. He’s a doer, a warrior, which is exactly what we were missing.

It’s an intellectual’s weakness to feel like a man as Trump needs to win your affection everyday. “I used to like Trump, but when he tweeted X, I stopped liking him.” Nonsense. You assess a person’s character, and if that character fits the function, there is no need to micro-judge everything that person does. Trump has character, Trump fits his presidential function. Let him do his thing, trust in his instincts to do whatever is best for him, and that his instincts to do whatever is best for him are very likely to be what is best for you.

The only thing you can possibly accuse the man of is not knowing the mess he got himself into. ‘If only you know how bad things really are’ was pretty much the NRx slogan. Well, Trump by necessity found out how bad things were when he moved into the white house. But again, note how Trump dealt with that: he adapted, never stopped fighting, parried every blow the media threw at him, and is now slowly moving to appoint people that are actually loyal to him. I think it was only a month ago that I saw Trump sitting in a room, telling the people around him how great they were, and adding, with pride, that all the people in that room, for the first time, were Trump appointees. I mean, what a, what a guy.

And now he is tweeting about staying president until 2030, about the coup against him, and about possible measures to counter this democrat madness. Consider his learning curve: we on this dark side of the internet knew the state of Western government by reading, thinking, discussing. We’ve abstractedly come to the conclusion that there is a permanent undemocratic government, that this government is trapped in a holiness spiral, and that it will end in murder and madness. Trump has basically learned all this, not through blogs, but by smashing headstrong into the permanent government and learn from what happens. And he has learned it! How cool is that.

Of course, assuming 2020 goes over well, it is still a mystery what will happen after 2024. But at this point I am confident that whatever Don does, he does in full knowledge of the murderous eyes staring at him. To have someone in power who sees the same frothing, cancerous madness that we see, and who tells that madness in its face: “America will never be a socialist country”, honestly, it helps me sleep like a baby. God bless that man.

A reader reviews Resurrection of God

Valued commenter Kenny has, very friendly and unprompted, written his own review of the Resurrection of God. Since he has no blog that I am aware of, I will paste his review here. Take it away Kenny!

The West is dying. It is a rudderless ship without Captain or Pilot, in stormy waters, tempest tossed. It cannot innovate, it cannot defend its borders, and in a bureaucratic maze, cannot make decisions. Western democracy is supposed to be government by the people, but is now rule by an oligarchy without allegiance. Frustrations of the common man go unheeded, and erupt into violence in the streets, which is becoming a norm. Everywhere is a sense that the story we are told no longer describes reality.

Many continue to hold the illusion that this chaos is progress towards a utopian age, doubling down on liberal and progressive concepts which have failed. A growing number have recognized it as decay. Very few, in our information saturated age, are proposing novel solutions to our current symptoms, much less looking for a path for humanity’s future.

Alf was just one Dutch man trying to get his life sorted and claim his stake in the world. He has spent many years studying and participating in reactionary and dissident right thought and discussion. He has watched the ominous events of the West’s decay unfold while also studying history. Inspired by the likes of Mencius Moldbug, Nick Land, Spandrel, and Jim, he is compelled to explain why things are falling apart, and what we can do about them. His explanation eschews the state, socialism and communism as modern saviours. Rather, he goes back to the roots of our modern malaise, from before the French Revolution, all the way to modern times searching for answers. His thesis is simple, but not easy to accept. It will strike many as reactionary if not regressive. To resurrect the great western civilization, we must resurrect God.

Nietzsche wrote that God was dead and humanity would have to take a different path to advance. Alf respectfully disagrees. The philosophical rejection of God from the Enlightenment onward could not have killed God anymore than it could have killed gravity. Alf seeks to resurrect God in a new form, incorporating aspects of the sciences, of our biology, our behaviour, and our capacities, to create a more compelling vision of the universe and man’s place in it. In the West, we’ve gone down the wrong road, denying our own nature. We create fictions to support grand schemes which only result in waste and suffering. Alf wants us to stop, turn around, and go back to recover our sense of humanity and our place in the universe.

Alf is not some amateur pundit. He’s got skin in this game. He has a family, and a son. He wants his children to inherent a world where they can live, grow and advance, in accordance with their nature and the will of God. Here is his vision on how we can get back on track.

Thank you for your kind words Kenny!

Open application for the job of archbishop

I guess now’s as a good a time as any to make it official: I hereby openly apply for the future job of archbishop.

You’ll find my resumé attached to this site.

Now I hear you asking: ‘Alf, you might be overqualified as archbishop, but what the hell are you going to do when you’re archbishop?’ Good question.

To be completely fair, I only have half a clue of what I’m going to do. Probably similar to what the popes in the old days used to do. Definitely not what the popes do nowadays. It’s kind of a figure-it-out-as-we-go-along thing.

Here’s how I’ll probably start: set up office in Harvard, and oversee the education of a new, much smaller generation of priests. A lot of work will include dismantling institutions of education for old priests; aka the dissolvement of the monasteries. Humanities and social sciences will take a big, well-deserved hit.

Here’s another idea I like: I’ll give a course, Moldbug 101. Eleven men may apply for it. The new crop of priests. The first course, we’ll put online in its entirety. On Youtube or wherever. Moldbug backed by power. How fun would that be.

As for the other responsibilities, I’m sure we’ll figure it out. I think most of it falls under the Dutch axiom of ‘act normal and you act crazy enough’. I’ll be looking forward to working together with the Grand Inquisitor, at least. Hope that’ll be Jim, but if not, I’m again sure we’ll figure something out.