Why Socialism Doesn’t Work, the Short Version

Imagine that every day at midnight, every person in the world randomly switched bodies.

What would happen? Everyone would eat their favorite foods with no regard for the health consequences. No one would ever do any exercise, except for kinds of exercise which are inherently enjoyable. There’d be a lot of smoking, drinking, and doing drugs, etc., because we’d face no long-term health consequences of such. Obviously the health of the human race would deteriorate horribly. We might even die off.

This is what happens when there is no property, when people have no stake in the long-term management of a resource or asset.

Miscellany 27: When you stare long into the Miscellany, the Miscellany also stares into you

(1) I don’t agree with the view of NRx that monarchy is better than democracy. I suspect the people who think that are comparing the sordid reality of democracy to the radiant vision of the best theoretical monarchy. That’s not a valid comparison; we must compare the sordid reality of democracy to the sordid reality of monarchy.

But.

It looks like we don’t have a choice anyway. Apparently history says either we’re going to get totalitarianism, which as a practical matter is going to be led by one person a la Stalin, or we’re going to get a Caesar, who is going to destroy our current totalitarianism and replace it with a non-totalitarian monarchy. In other words, in the long run it looks like our only choices are one kind of monarchy or another kind of monarchy.

If it is true that those are the only two possibilities, then it indeed makes sense to think about how to bend the coming monarchy, if we get one, into its best-case scenario.

(2) Director Eats Too Many Finger Paints in Art Class, Tries to Make TV Show Trailer

“Drama is people doing amazing things for good reasons; melodrama is people doing amazing things for no reason.” —Dictum of fiction writers.

Via Blind Prison of the Mind
https://blindprisonofthemind.substack.com/p/the-wheel-of-time

There’s a desperately sad trailer for an upcoming Wheel of Time vidya series. The Wheel of Time books are a fantasy series I haven’t read, but they’re well known among fantasy fans.

The trailer goes like this. A bunch of people – suitably racially diverse for Current Year – are sitting around in an old-timey tavern and inn. It’s definitely not a pub, let alone a bar or club, but a tavern. There’s no electricity, everything’s made of wood, etc. There’s a massive fireplace, the fireplace equivalent of a walk-in closet. That bad-ass fireplace turns out to be the best thing about this moronic trailer. We get enough shots of the clientele laughing to get that this is a laid back/party environment where everyone is having a good time. In fact, there’s enough unexplained acausal laughing that I started to wonder what the fucking joke was. But okay, whatever.

There’s a moment of two dudes having some dumb beta orbiter talk about the barmaid.

Then the stupidity really kicks in. The tavern door opens and we see a pair of boots. The camera is on the floor, lingering on this pair of boots. We cut away to some reaction shots of the tavern’s customers. They’re all appalled, or shocked, or just stunned into silence. My God, what is it? Back to the floor-level camera, showing us the boots walking a bit. “This is weird,” I thought, “what’s with the boots?” Then another couple of reaction shots of the stunned clientele. What is it, a dude with two heads or something? Then another floor-cam shot of the boots, walking. At this point I blurted, “What the hell? Is the director of this a foot fetishist?”

Then the camera pulls back and we see what has caused the tense hush among the people. It’s… a man! This is what has shocked the tavern’s customers into speechlessness. Or maybe it’s the fact that he left the door open behind him – on this rainy winter night – and they’re all thinking, “What a douche!”

(New joke:
You: “A guy walks into a bar.”
People you’re telling the joke to: “Yeah, then what?”
You: “I can’t tell you; I’m shocked into silence by a guy walking into a bar.”)

Challenged by the barmaid to identify himself, he dramatically pulls back the hood of his cloak and introduces himself as “Joe Shmoe, moron who was raised in a barn,” or whatever, I wasn’t really paying attention. Then we jump to a flashback or dream sequence or hallucination or something. It’s a severely out-of-focus shot of a figure walking toward the camera. What does it mean? The focus resolves and wait, nope, it’s not a dream sequence; it’s just a woman walking into the tavern, out of focus for absolutely no reason whatsoever. In she walks, and she also leaves the door open, even though there is no one else coming in after her. What a fucking twat!

The man introduces her and she orders a stable for their horses and a room for the night, a move that is so unexpected in this tavern and inn that everyone is still speechless. Finally the tavern owner is like “No prob; I’ll sesh you,” and… that’s the scene.

As one YouTube commenter asks:

“How do you reckon that conversation went? ‘Okay, so here’s the plan. I’ll walk in alone while you stay out in the rain and wait for people to stop what they’re doing to notice me before announcing myself. Then when I announce you you dramatically walk out of the downpour, and we leave the door open.’”

There also is a thread of commenters who have read the books wondering why these two people, who apparently need to be traveling incognito, are doing everything possible to draw attention to themselves short of setting their hair on fire.

The whole trailer is notably fuckwitted, and it raises a question: What the fuck was the animating idea for this scene? Worse, this is what the producers of this thing think is one of the best scenes in the production, good enough to be featured in an ad for it. It’s clear from watching it that the director had no idea what the fuck he – or she! – was doing. An ad for a new show should make us think “Wow, that looks really cool” or “Hmm, I’m intrigued by the mystery.” Instead we’re thinking either (1) Close the fucking door! or (2) Why did they hire a director of foot fetish porn for this project?

That foot thing is surreal. You have to watch the clip to believe it. The director was just copying some technique he saw somewhere and now he thinks that’s just how you do it: You focus on the feet. This is a textbook example of the cargo-cult mentality: copying techniques without the faintest idea of why and how the techniques were originally used. Presumably this kind of shot originally was used in a way that made sense. One can easily imagine such uses. E.g., it’s from the viewpoint of a character who just got slugged and is lying on the floor. Etc. But this dumb-ass director has never even contemplated the notion that cinematic techniques are used for a reason. He just saw it in a music video once and thought, “I’ll do that.”

(Is western society becoming more idiotic? Or was it always this stupid, and the past seems better because the crap is forgotten over time, leaving mostly the good stuff?)

I tried to come up with a hypothesis of some conscious goal that the producers of this crap had in mind as they tried to string a coherent thought together in the fog of their oxygen-deprived haze. And maybe there is a semi-sentient purpose in this: to name two major characters who will be familiar to the fans of the book series. Thus we get Barn-Boy dramatically pushing his hood back and saying “I’m Barn Boy,” then adding, “And this is Standing-In-The-Rain Girl.” (No, I’m not going to re-watch it to see what their actual names are; I’ve already watched the crap twice, which is more than enough.) But this is done badly; badly enough for the YouTube comments to be overwhelmingly mocking. Do it correctly, asshats.

Off the top of my head: We start with the tavern. Two people enter. They don’t leave the door open, they don’t stand there in the middle of the floor, and they don’t do anything else to call attention to themselves. They unobtrusively go straight to a table and take a seat. They doff their hoods, not melodramatically, but normally, and we see that one is a man, who is sitting with his back to a wall so he can see the whole room, and the other, facing him, is a woman. He says to her, “Why don’t you swing around a bit so you don’t have your back to the room, [Her Name].” And she replies, “I don’t have to worry about that, [His Name]; I have you to watch out for me.” Thus we get their names for the fans, and we also get realistic behavior. We also get some mystery for the non-fans, because we want to know why it’s dangerous for her to be sitting with her back to the room and how/why she has this bodyguard traveling with her. And can the average person afford a bodyguard? Presumably not, so that raises the question of her social position as well. Is this a countess traveling incognito or what? And if so, why?

If that’s not enough there’s her ring, which figures prominently in the actual trailer. I have no idea what its significance is, but that could be worked in as well. Just have a barmaid come over to take their order and have the woman quickly pull her hand under her sleeve, obviously trying to hide the ring. That adds more mystery. And the whole scene, if I say so myself, has an appropriate measure of drama. None of it involves bizarre camera work that pulls the viewer out of the scene with its grating pointlessness, people traveling incognito going out of their way to call attention to themselves, or humanly unrealistic reactions of people being shocked into speechlessness by the once-in-a-lifetime spectacle of a guy walking into a bar.

Now my version doesn’t end on a dramatic note, so if you want, you can then do the standard rapid-fire montage of action shots to let people know that, yes, there is some action, and yes, we have a special effects budget of more than fifty bucks. Fine. It’s been done, but it’s better than trying to whip up drama with a couple of people requesting lodging at a tavern/inn.

Now as I said, I’ve never read the books. Maybe they’re not on some dangerous quest and my bodyguard notion is off. But I’ve heard this is a classic “band of heroes teams up to defeat the bad guy before he destroys the world” fantasy series. So there’s something interesting about them, or there wouldn’t be a series of like ten books devoted to their quest. Whatever that interesting thing is, the dialogue between them can hint at it.

I literally just made this up, and I dare say it does a better job than the version they actually came up with. I’m pretty sure that my version would at least dodge dozens of comments to the effect of “Close the fucking door, asshats,” and might even interest a few people.

(3) Circa November 8, 2021: I read some article about a guy slashing a bunch of people on a train in Germany. They don’t report the perpetrator’s name or any details. So of course I make certain inferences about the attacker.

If you dig around you can, with a little effort, find out the attacker’s salient identity-politics characteristics. He’s a Syrian immigrant. Surprise!

But that’s not my main point. My main point is that it recently hit me:

We now read the news like the citizens of the Soviet Union read their news.

Soviet citizens would read Pravda not because they thought it told them the truth, but because they could infer certain truths from Pravda by analyzing its content. They noted what it said, what it didn’t say, how it said what it said, how the narrative would do a blatant 180 from one week to the next, etc.

All that is stuff we do now, at least those of us with a clue. The newspaper didn’t tell me that the attacker was a Muslim and/or non-white and/or immigrant, but I inferred that with a high degree of confidence from what they didn’t say.

Of course, those of us who aren’t leftist wackos have been reading in a manner somewhat like this for decades, but it’s become different in the last few years. Consider e.g. the media’s simultaneous assertions, starting in late 2016, that subverting US elections is impossible (and anyone who thinks it’s possible is a fascist), and that Trump and Russia subverted a US election. That is a new level of double-think. The media has demanded that its faithful leftist readers abandon all principle, and embrace hypocrisy, for a long time. But

“US elections cannot be subverted and Trump subverted a US election”

is new. It is a leveling-up of the psychological demands made on the ideologically faithful.

Another case from 2016 is the case of Hillary Clinton having a blatant seizure on video, followed by the media saying, “You did not just see her having a seizure.” This was the clearest case of “How many fingers am I holding up, Winston?” that I can think of.

The other major example over the last few years is the new approach to reporting based on racial criteria. The media always reported in ways that helped the leftist party line on race. But lately the deliberate burying of news stories of black-on-white violence, playing up of the opposite stories, etc., has intensified significantly. It has mutated from silence about black-on-white violence to an attempt to convince the population of the opposite of the truth about inter-racial violence. The truth, which one can still learn from official crime statistics— for the time being— is that blacks are several times as likely to attack whites as vice-versa. But the media purposefully report, and don’t report, news stories in such a way as to create the opposite impression. I fear that many young people in the US might believe that whites attacking blacks is more common than the opposite.

Of course we know the media does this, but here’s an interesting case in which they actually admit to doing it. Here’s a piece at a Binghamton NY media outlet in which they lament, in 2019, that a 2009 shooting has all but been forgotten. Gosh, why was it forgotten?

https://www.pressconnects.com/story/news/local/2019/03/27/binghamton-mass-shooting-aca-american-civic-association-forgotten-murders/3222090002/

“Not that the community wants to be solely identified by its own active shooter at an immigrant center that claimed the life of 13 victims 10 years ago.”

Goodness, a shooting at an immigrant facility! It must have been a white supremacist!

“But with each subsequent mass shooting, it seems the shocking incident that gripped this community in fear and mourning on a rainy and chilly Friday morning fades further from the nation’s collective memory, creating a double tragedy for the innocent, many of whom were foreign nationals in an English class.”

We read a rather lengthy article filled with woe that this shooting has been forgotten. Strangely, the identity of the shooter is never mentioned. Then we get to an editor’s note at the end:

“Editor’s note: Though the identity of the man who killed 13 people at the American Civic Association in 2009 is public record and has been widely circulated, the Press & Sun-Bulletin has chosen not to include his name or likeness in these articles.”

Yeah, I noticed that. A quick Net search reveals this at Wikipedia:

“Jiverly Antares Wong, a 41-year-old naturalized American citizen from Vietnam, entered the facility and shot 17 people…”

Of course we don’t need the editor’s note or an article identifying the shooter to know why they censored his identity. This is merely a rare case in which they are relatively explicit about their censorship.

(What goes on the minds of people who censor news stories, then wonder why those news stories are forgotten? I can’t even imagine what it’s like to be that stupid.)

Even people who aren’t aware of egregious cases like this know the media does things like this all the time. And so we read and watch the media the way people in North freakin’ Korea read and watch their media.

And so we take another step into the psychology of totalitarianism.

Miscellany 26: Shred the Miscellany like You’re an FBI Agent and It’s a Pile of Documents on Electoral Fraud

(1) I do a certain amount of yapping about dark-haired women, but…

I get the thing about blondes if they look like that!

(2) Suones at https://blog.reaction.la/politics/make-women-property-again/ tersely sums up the problem in the priesthood:

“Since superior holiness is the currency of priests, their failure mode is holiness-spiralling.”

This is a clearly true statement about the priesthood. However, the problem is not limited to the priesthood, as a casual glance at the political environment in 2021 reveals. Thus I disagree with e.g. Pooch at https://blog.reaction.la/war/where-we-are-now/

“Open priesthood is at the roof [root] of the holiness spiral problem. A theoretical perfect religion will still inevitably get holiness spiraled to demonic levels with an open priesthood.”

A lot of dudes in NRx think that the main problem of holiness spirals is an open priesthood. Alas, it’s not that simple. Even without an open priesthood, non-priest assholes would still have a desire to holiness spiral to virtue signal, and everyone has an incentive to do it to reduce the chance of being attacked by the swarm. (Some resist the incentive, of course.) The people who post “Refugees welcome” on Twitter don’t do that because they’re hoping for a job in the African Studies Department of their local university. Yes an open priesthood exacerbates the problem, but it’s not the core of the problem.

(3) As a follow-up to the previous point: What are we going to do if we actually win and succeed in closing the priesthood? I mean, as a matter of policy? The unofficial policy, expressed casually, will be something like, “Be pious, but don’t have a stick up your butt about it. And DON’T try to out-pious your neighbors, or we’ll punish you.” Robert Heinlein, in To Sail Beyond the Sunset, had his character Maureen Johnson say something in a similar vein, summing up what makes a person liked in her town, as opposed to resented for being an a-hole about religion: “Commandment number four. Go to church on Sundays. Smile and be pleasant but don’t be too smarmily a hypocrite… Support the church by deeds and money but not too conspicuously.”

So the basic idea is simple. But how can we officially communicate it to the population?

(4) Game: A field report. In my previous Miscellany post I wrote about some shit testing that I’ve encountered at the rink where I’ve been skating lately. Since that post until today that mostly stopped— I suspect this is because as I’ve gotten used to the temperature in this rink I’ve been wearing gloves less, so my wedding ring is now visible most of the time that I’m on the ice.

So anyway, it mostly stopped… until earlier today (the day I’m writing this, not the day I’m posting it). I get this blatant shit testing (STing) from two young women. One of them is the alpha bitch I mentioned in the previous Miscellany post; the other is a buddy of hers. Buddy is also a regular there but has never ST’d me before so I’ll call her New Brat. Now I can’t describe the shit test, because it involves a fairly unique feature of this particular rink, and I don’t want to out my location. It was not subtle. It was one of those, “Let’s blatantly provoke this guy because we’re intensely curious about how he’ll respond” shit tests.

I give myself a C-minus for handling it, by the way; I would say C+ but I’m dinging myself because I should have been expecting it— I got complacent when the tests died down over the last couple of weeks. Anyway…

So in response to the blatantly unreasonable behavior I throw a couple of joking jabs in New Brat’s direction. I’m nowhere near being within reach of her— maybe five feet away— and I’m smirking at the girls’ blatant double-X chromosome antics, so any human who’s not autistic is going to get that I’m kidding. New Brat goes, “Seriously? You’d hit a teenage girl?” Either she’s an autist or this is just another shit test. (What do you think?) Now let’s replay that and dig my immediate response:

“Seriously? You’d hit a teenage girl?”
“Oh yeah, I do it all the time!”

Any reader familiar with the basics of Game will recognize this as Agree and Amplify. But what interests me is that I wasn’t thinking in those terms. It just came out of me spontaneously in response to this dorky rhetorical question by this silly chick. And this is my point: We think of Agree and Amplify as a Game technique, but the reason the technique is a good one is that it’s a man’s natural response when some chick is being a dork and you don’t take her at all seriously.

Of course, this is true of all Game: The entire point is to mimic behaviors of a man who’s not impressed or interested. But it’s been years since I’ve had a chick say something quite that austitically dorky to me. I couldn’t even be arsed to pretend to take her seriously.

Of course, all men who use Game have experienced the delightful change of having the right behaviors become natural and spontaneous. I experienced that decades ago. But I normally think about this in terms of general alpha behavior (Game in the large), not specific techniques (Game in the small). So it was interesting that I spontaneously Agreed and Amplified, a specific technique, without thinking about it.

Ah, the classic techniques. They’re classic for a reason.

By the way, New Brat’s expression changed noticeably in response to my mockery. It looked like she was surprised or confused. Hopefully it’s because she actually heard what I was saying through my words. My words were, “Oh yeah, I do it all the time!” But what I was saying was, “You dork!”

However, since I don’t think I passed the shit test well, overall, there will be a follow-up test some time soon. God damn it, now I have to think about this until it gets resolved. Females are such a pain in the ass!

Follow-up about ten days later: Another shit test!

Memo to anti-Gamers and assorted blue-pillers: Note that Game predicted these young women’s behavior. Game is scientific; it’s a set of generalizations gleaned from a large mass of observations. And so, like classical mechanics enabling us to predict the positions of the planets, Game literally enables you to predict the future.

This time it was the alpha bitch from the previous Miscellany post, whom I am going to refer to as Drama Queen henceforth, for reasons that will immediately become apparent.

This time she and I did sorta kinda have a near miss. But not a very near miss. So she yelps “You almost killed me!” or something like that, while holding her hand over her heart as if she’s having a heart attack, LOL. She then skates over to the boards to get a consoling hug from her friend New Brat. I swear I am not making this up.

So I skate over to them and say to Drama Queen, “You’re okay. Everybody has near misses.” (Really, it wasn’t a very near miss.)

“What?” she says, while she theatrically folds her arms across her chest and tries to give me a piercing Alpha Bitch stare. The problem for her is, while this would be scary if it were Russia a couple of centuries ago and she were the Czarina and had the authority to have me sent to Siberia, coming from a teenage chick in the modern US it’s just silly. Actually it was kind of cute. I wish that all the teenage girl shit testing had been this easy to handle when I was in my teens. Or maybe it was, and I just find it easier to handle now due to experience.

Anyway, at this point I’m already skating backwards away from her because I want to get back in motion, so I make my hand into a trumpet and loudly repeat what I said while keeping eye contact with her, then I turn and skate away.

Thoughts:

Drama Queen’s shit testing is so silly, like she hasn’t had much practice. In general she, like her friend, is kind of a dork.

Two possible explanations (aside from her just being a doofus):

1) She might be younger than she looks.

2) They attend an all-girls school. This would explain the silliness of Drama Queen’s shit testing, as well as the fact that even though she’s hot she obviously isn’t getting laid (man this chick needs to be pronged, as her hilariously melodramatic shit testing reveals).

I seem to have been identified as the situational alpha of this rink. This is flattering, but the ST’ing is annoying as well as amusing. The amusement comes from the fact that her shit testing drama queenery is so over the top. When we both had to stop suddenly, Drama Queen acted like she was in a sub-basement two stories belowground at Hiroshima when the nuke went off, and through a freak combination of circumstances managed to survive. (“I need a hug!”) Also, I was skating backwards and she was skating forwards, so she should have seen me coming plenty of time before I looked over my shoulder and saw her. The annoyance comes from the fact that I am there for ice, not to be ST’d by histrionic females. Women!

Memo to self: PLAN FOR FURTHER SHIT TESTING.

I already have a woman, so leave me alone, you little spazzes! And even if I didn’t, there are also a few other considerations. I don’t want to fail shit tests, because I want to keep my dignity (and honestly, it’s fun to practice passing them). But the more I pass them the more of these chicks’ attention I’m going to draw. The ideal outcome is that they both start getting laid soon and they’ll suddenly be a lot more… relaxed. Then, one may hope, this whole issue will go away.

How to Ice Skate Repost

Reposting this today because it’s October first, a good day to put up stuff about skating. If your local rink isn’t open for the season yet, they will be soon. I think I’ll repost this every year on October 1 (until I forget or get bored). I’ve added some edits this year, particularly some links about stopping, the topic that n00bs at rinks ask me about the most.

Aright, bitches, ’tis the season, so listen up.

Ice skating is awesome. When you’re going fast it is the closest a human being can get to flying. The American Psychiatric Association defines “not liking ice skating” as a mental disorder. It’s in their diagnostic manual.

I always see a lot of n00bs ice skating, which is great! Here are some tips.

(1) You will fall. Get used to it.

(2) Ice skating is not walking on ice. The physics is different.

When you walk, you push backward with one foot. (See Figure 1.) If your foot has good traction on the ground, it can’t slip back, though, so instead you are pushed forward. (Newton’s third law of motion, “Every action has an equal and opposite reaction.”)

skatefig1small
Figure 1

You cannot do this on ice skates, padawan, because you’re on ice, on a blade that’s like a sixth of an inch thick. If you push your foot straight back, there is not enough area of the blade making contact with the ice to produce good traction. (See Figure 2.) Instead of being planted on the ice and thus propelling you forward, your foot will simply slide back. Then, because you’re a n00b, you’ll fall down. (Newton’s lesser-known fourth law of motion, “N00bs fall down.”)

skatefig2small
Figure 2. The thin black line is your blade’s contact with the ice.

How do you deal with this? Well, plainly you need more area of the blade making contact with the ice. Simply turning your foot somewhat sideways does it. (See Figure 3.) This gives your foot enough traction, so when you push it back, the only thing that can happen is that the rest of you goes forward.

skatefig-3small
Figure 3. (The extent to which the foot is turned here is exaggerated for clarity.)

Meanwhile you are pointing the other foot in roughly the direction you want to go, so you glide forward on that foot. (As per Newton’s fifth law, “Ice is slippery.”)

Then the feet switch roles, with the gliding foot becoming the foot you’re pushing back with, and the pushing foot becoming the gliding foot. Repeat.

Once you learn this, it really is easy and natural.

(3) On falling: One of the problems is that your instincts about righting yourself when you’re off balance are all wrong. Moves that help you regain your balance when you’re on terra firma don’t necessarily help you, to put it mildly, when you’re skating on blades on ice. You have to learn new reflexes (if learned reflexes isn’t an oxymoron). I can’t re-wire your neural wiring that handles these reflexes, so I don’t know what to tell you here, except that you have to practice.

(4) “Crossover,” logically enough, is the term for when you cross one foot over the other. You’ve seen this: It’s that thing a skater does where it seems like his feet are moving independently of the direction his body is traveling in, so it looks like he’s moonwalking or something.

Crossovers function best when you’re turning at high speed and really leaning into the turn. You do this naturally when you turn while running on ground, but when you do that your foot is planted. When you’re skating, in contrast, you continue to glide on that foot as you shift your weight into the turn, so that for a moment the foot is actually moving in a different direction from your body’s center of mass.

Crossovers are a great way to add speed with relatively little effort, because gravity is doing some of the work for you. When you change direction you lean in the direction you want to go in. So you start to fall in that direction. Before you fall very far, though, you put a foot out under yourself so you glide in that direction instead of falling.

By the way, when you take a turn with a fast series of crossovers, it actually is as fun as it looks. Hell, it’s much more fun. There’s a power and smoothness that is like nothing else. Cf. comment above, in re: “flying.”

(5) Control: As long as you’re not going too fast, turning is so easy that it’s practically subliminal. (No crossovers for the moment; I’m not talking about that level of speed.) Actually you’re shifting your weight ever so slightly in the direction you want to go in. But it feels like you’re just thinking yourself into changing direction. Telekinesis!

(6) Efficiency: Another way you can tell n00bs, even after they’ve learned to not fall much, is by how much energy they waste. In extreme cases it looks like they’re expending half again as much energy as they need to per foot-pound of work accomplished.

If this is you don’t worry; this takes care of itself over time. Your body’s natural reluctance to waste energy will quickly make you adjust so that your motion is economical.

(7) Stopping. Several n00bs at rinks have asked me for advice, particularly about how to stop.

The correct answer is: Stopping is for the weak and timid! Are you a wuss!? Are you!? Huh!? No? Then let’s have no more nonsense about stopping.

If you insist, though, you can just point yourself at a wall. That usually works.

All kidding aside: There are several ways to slow down, and if you slow long  enough or hard enough you’ll stop.

The easiest stop for n00bs is the snowplow stop. Just point your skates toward each other, while keeping your legs stiff so your feet don’t actually come together. If your feet bump into each other you’ll fall, obviously. But if you hold your feet apart at that angle, the blades will scrape against the ice, slowing you. And if you keep doing it, stopping you.

You can feel and hear the scraping, at least if you’re not at a rink where they constantly blast fucking country music over the sound system at full volume, what the actual fuck, not that I’m complaining or anything, but what the fuck? Don’t they know that playing that shit voids the warranty on your speaker system? Anyway…

Another popular method of stopping is the much-admired “hockey stop.” That’s the one you think of when I say “how to stop,” where they turn sideways and kick up ice shavings.

Just turn sideways and dig the blade of your leading foot into the ice. You’re also using your trailing foot, of course, but more for balance than friction, at least the way I do it (YMMV). Also, you’re doing some rapid adjustment of your balance, naturally.

When you first try this you’re going to think, “I shall now attempt a hockey stop.” That’s well and good, but you learn faster if you just think, “Shit! I need to stop!” and imagine what you’d do if you really needed to stop suddenly. This makes it more instinctive and less cerebral.

There are also innumerable fancy ways to stop.

If you don’t find those interesting enough try this: These guys are hilarious in their low-key Canadian way.

(8) Sharpness matters so your blades dig in. You need this (a) for acceleration, so your pushing foot can bite into the ice, (b) to slow yourself and stop, and (c) to execute a crossover. (Probably for six other reasons that I’m not thinking of at the moment too.) When you’re doing a crossover, the gliding foot has to bite into the ice to a certain extent or the foot will just slide out from under you. This happened to me once when I was trying to take too steep an angle with my gliding foot. Foot shot backward, rest of body went, “Hello, ice!”

The blade has some thickness; it’s not a knife blade. It’s the blade’s edges that are sharp. A couple of times I’ve actually draw blood from my hand accidentally with the edge. But that was probably right after they’d been sharpened; normally blades aren’t that sharp.

(9) Miscellany:

(A) Little kids on the ice are cute, but DANGER DANGER DANGER!!! Partly this is because they can’t control themselves yet, and partly because even the ones who can control themselves have no social awareness whatsoever. If they see Mom over there, they will simply turn with no warning in that direction, and if you’re behind them you’re going to be doing some fancy dancing to not hit them. This leads to hilarity and occasional bruises, because of course you’re going to steer yourself into a wall or shift so that you take a digger, instead of plowing into a little kid.

I recently cracked my elbow into the wall of a rink because I had to dodge a little one who seemed to execute a right-angle turn right in front of me with no warning. I had to do something to avoid smashing into him and I hit the plexi-glass. He didn’t even realize it had happened, but I got a sympathetic look from someone on the other side of the glass.

They can also turn quite suddenly because their centers of gravity are so low. It’s like they’re equipped with little inertialess drives.

Just remember this:

Little kids on ice = Brownian motion + inertialess drives.

(B) Use your ears as well as your eyes to help maintain awareness of other skaters in your vicinity. Thus you can avoid pulling a “little kid” and turning suddenly just when someone’s coming up behind you.

Caveat: Noise bounces around weirdly in the corners of the rink. Sometimes it sounds like someone is coming up behind you and just about to smash into you. You’re like “Gah!” but when you look around there’s no one within ten yards.

(C) Downhill skating. Sweet! But why didn’t they have this when I was 19? You kids today don’t know how good you have it, let me tell you, when I was your age I had to skate 40 miles to school, and it was uphill both ways! By God!

http://www.redbullcrashedice.com/en_INT

http://www.foxsports.com/north/story/downhill-skating-fun-to-watch-hard-to-do-011112

http://www.foxsports.com/north/story/ice-cross-downhill-competitors-hope-for-olympic-showcase-in-future-022114

(D) This is a politically incorrect blog, so an observation about the sexes. Normal people, continue to read; shrieking feminist shrikes, go somewhere else (permanently).

Still with me? OK, a fun observation:

All good skaters have both power and grace, strength and fluidity. But there is a difference between good female skaters and good male skaters. Good female skaters have strength – you can’t be a good skater without it – but they have more grace compared to male skaters. And good male skaters have grace – you can’t be a good skater without that, either(*) – but they have more power compared to female skaters. Just a nice little “the world is gendered” observation to affirm normality and freak out the screaming SJWs.

If you’re like most people, i.e. psychologically normal, you understand (there was a time when no one denied this!) that the sexes are different and that the differences, in so many ways, can be a source of delight to everyone. This is just a small example of that.

* Even the most brutal hockey player, 190 pounds of muscle and missing three front teeth, who starts throwing jabs at the slightest provocation, has grace on the ice. If you don’t believe me, Youtube is your friend.

(10) Have fun!

UPDATE: DON’T TEXT OR TAKE SELFIES WHILE SKATING! FUCKING RETARDS!

Trusted Institutions By Default Become Untrustworthy

From the movie Last Man Standing:

Capt. Tom Pickett: Things in this town are out of control. Two gangs is just one too many… What I’m concerned with is keeping a lid on things, and what we got here in Jericho is just way out of hand, and Sheriff Galt, here, can’t do much about it, right? Matter of fact, it might be fair to say that he’s part of the problem, right? Now you been going back and forth, playing both sides according to Mr. Galt, here, making yourself a lot of money out of all this. Well, it’s over, son. I’m coming back here in ten days, and I’m gonna bring about twenty rangers with me. I will tolerate *one* gang, because that is the nature of things. A certain amount of corruption is inevitable. But if I find *two* gangs here when I get back, then in a couple of hours there will be *no* gangs here. So it’s simple. One gang quits and goes home. You boys work it out. I don’t give a damn which one.

(Video at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SG0RjhdNPCQ starting at the 1:47 mark.)

Why does Pickett say that a certain amount of corruption is inevitable? Sure, there’s no such thing as perfection in this vale of toil and sin, but might there be a more specific reason?

Yes: If there were no corruption there’d be no reason to have social measures to control corruption, so we wouldn’t have any such measures… but without such measures corruption would be low-risk and very rewarding. So corruption would appear. Thus, as Pickett says, a certain amount of it is inevitable.

For the same reason, as I wrote in a recent post, institutions like news media and educational institutions will always end up with some sort of bias, unfortunately. It is not a Nash equilibrium for them to be bias-free. This is because if they were bias-free, then we’d trust them… but if we trust them, they can get away with being biased without being detected. So essentially there’s no internally consistent scenario without bias.

Similarly, a zero-violence world cannot be an equilibrium: If there were no violence then we’d have no measures to prevent or punish violence, but if there are no such measures then et cetera.

A la mode: Predation and parasitism are ubiquitous in nature. Indeed, when computer folks first started playing around with evolving artificial life, one of the things they often noticed was the rise of parasitism and predation, even when they hadn’t built those features into their worlds at the outset.

It is tempting to think that we can solve this problem with oversight bodies that will discipline the institutions we’re concerned about, but those oversight bodies are subject to the same problem. There’s an infinite recursion problem here. Thus the ancient rhetorical question, Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

This doesn’t mean that we can’t do anything or that all political institutions are equally good or equally bad. After all, the left took over or schools, so in principle we can do the same. But we must be realistic about what is achievable and how long such successes can persist. (If the left thinks their victories will last forever they’re using too short a time scale to think about these things.)

If the Pandemic Is Still Ongoing, Booster Shots Are Redundant

If the COVID virus is still prevalent then post-vaccine booster shots are not necessary: If the virus is prevalent then we’re constantly being infected with it in everyday life anyway.

On the other hand, suppose the pro-booster crowd’s response to that is that you need a booster because you probably go 6 months without encountering the virus. Well, if the average person goes 6 months without encountering the virus, the virus has disappeared; the pandemic is over.

Thoughts on Game, with some mild apostasy based on experience

Wow, you look like my ninth grade math teacher. (No, not really. That’s a mild neg.)

The human mating dance as it occurs naturally does not allow the possibility of the man making the first move. It is always the woman making the first move. I don’t mean the first physical move, which is always the man in my experience, but the first expression of interest. When the man makes the first move, it gratingly violates the biologically hard-wired mating dance, especially from the woman’s point of view: it strikes a woman as awkward and offputting. Women insist that they want the man to make the first move, but ridiculous untruths like this are exactly why we watch what women do instead of listening to what they say.

This guy has also noticed this pattern: https://www.quora.com/How-do-I-know-if-a-girl-wants-me-to-make-the-first-move-1

One way of looking at what I call “Game in the small”—the set of techniques like negs, starting out talking to the friend of the girl you’re interested in instead of that girl, etc.—is that it’s a way for the man to get the seduction process rolling without it letting on that that’s what he’s doing.

In contrast to Game in the small, Game in the large is the basic concepts like hypergamy, the importance of preselection/social proof, not seeming too interested, and the fact that women want alpha, not nice. A particular neg like “Wow, you drink like a guy” (LOL) is an example of Game in the small.

(I’m going to drop the capital G; constantly hitting the Shift key is annoying.)

Before I knew game, all the serious fooling around I ever did came about this way, with the girl making the first move, one way or another. Sometimes she was subtle and sometimes she was blatant, but the chick always initiated.

So I was recently ruminating about how things changed for me when I first started learning the ideas now called game, and I realized something: game radically increased women’s interest in me… but it didn’t change the elemental fact that if the man makes the first move— at least in an obvious way— women are turned off.

Women hate it! They say they love it, but they hate it!

What did game do? And it indeed did something, something electrifying and in-your-face obvious: Game made it easy to arouse women, even when you weren’t trying. Once I internalized the ideas and they became part of my natural behavior, there were two occasions in which half-drunk women blurted to me or my girlfriend that they wanted to seduce me out from under her. Just because I’d automatically, without trying, aroused them so much. And in general game made it easy to stand out from other men; hell; half of it is just avoiding common mistakes like being too modest or offering to buy chicks drinks.

But even with game, penis-in-vagina always came from the chick making the first move, just like before I knew game. It is possible that this is because I was so focused on game in the large, due to the magical success it was giving me in general, that I wasn’t using enough game in the small. But see the comments from others below about “going out to get laid.”

When I was single, the seduction process always boiled down to me “allowing” myself to be seduced by a chick. Game makes this infinitely easier because it makes women electrifyingly attracted to you, but it doesn’t change the basic fact of who moves first.

When PUAs say that cold approaches are hard to do, well, no; they’re easy. Just say Hi, and have several things to say after that. But if they mean that successful cold approaches are hard to do, then yes, definitely. Similarly if it’s not a cold approach but a chick in your social circle: she makes the first move. You can prompt her to do this by being masculine, fit, socially confident, not interested in her, not too nice, etc., but that doesn’t change the elemental reality of who moves first.

(Of course, if alcohol is involved a one-night stand, complete with awkward morning after, is always possible, game or no game.)

So the way I’d practice game today if I were single would probably be something like what Dex does in The Tao of Steve: just “be excellent [and masculine] in her presence” and don’t seem interested in her. You can do cold approaches all the live-long day, and it’s a good skill to have, but it’s not optimal in the sense of hunting where the prospects are best. That’s probably just improving your social circle game, and doing more of it, and going out to bars etc. often, so you get random social collisions with women often. That’s what I think my advice to a young man would be these days.

Specifically,

Be as attractive to women as you possibly can, using the knowledge that game gives us: Act as alpha as you can pull off, work out, have a good social network, don’t be modest about your past sexual experience, and if you’re inexperienced exaggerate your experience with suggestive hints (avoid outright lies; too risky). Have a particular niche; be a jock or an intellectual or a rocker or an artsy type or whatever. You can’t choose this niche at random; it has to be based on who you are. Take the time and money to dress cool, according to whatever is cool in the social milieu where you’re sarging. Use negs as appropriate and always be alert for shit tests and be good at handling them.

The Big Three things: Passing shit tests, social proof, and negs.

(By the way, you will be cockblocked, if she has less-attractive friends, unless you isolate. And in two cases, when I was in college, even when the girl and I did isolate: her “friends” actually followed us, intruded into the situation, and cockblocked! I agree with a Roosh post from years ago; we need to punish cockblockers.)

Thus: Social circle game, because you’ll see the girl again, you can display your awesome self in a natural, unforced situation, and eventually she can let you know she wants to fuck you. She talks to you with a flirty tilt to her head, while rubbing her hand on your shoulder. Or she invites you— and only you— over for a study session if you’re taking a class together. Or, whether you two know each other or not, she rubs her pussy against your crotch on the dance floor at the club. (It occurs to me that I’m assuming that you’re in a certain age bracket.) Or she just invites herself to your place at random.

(BTW, grinding her pussy against your crotch is actually not “making the first physical move” as I’m using that phrase. When I say “the first physical move” I mean something that’s intended to lead directly to sex. The girl is not expecting you to fuck her right there on the dance floor.)

If things are going well, then when the time is right you can suggest that the two of you go back to your place on some transparent excuse. (“Would you like to see my etchings?”)

My experience from when I was single:

Getting laid is either effortless or impossible.

There’s no “moderate difficulty” setting. Either you can’t get laid at all… or a chick you sorta know comes to your college dorm room, uninvited, and essentially demands sex.

And whenever one chick did this, it seemed like at least one other chick would come on to me in the next few days. I swear, women can telepathically sense if you’re getting laid and not looking, and they love that. Thus it’s always drought, flood, drought, flood…

What game does is increase the number of effortless cases.


Coincidentally, as I was drafting this post I came across some comments in a similar vein at https://blog.reaction.la/war/where-we-are-now/ from August 2021:

One commenter says:
“Another thing I’ve noticed is that, if I ever have a conscious plan laid out in my head to get laid, it doesn’t work. There have been times where I knew I was going to get laid, but this wasn’t due to any reflective internal planning or anything like that. Pretty much every time when I go out thinking “I want to get laid” I end up going home and [engaging the manual release].”

Another weighs in:
“This touches on why the manosphere leaders would always stress “Don’t make women your mission.” Leaving your house with the specific intent to get laid (especially by yourself with no tribe) gives off a level of betaness and desperation that women are fine-tuned to pick up in your behavior. Alpha males are busy men who have a mission that takes priority over women. I had drastic improvement in my close rates when I internalized that principle… If I happened across a broad eyeing me up while I was out and about or partying with my bros I would approach as an opportunist, but leaving the house with sole purpose to approach women always produced a low success rate for me, personally.”

A third agrees:

“Yeah- going out “to get laid” doesn’t work. Trying too hard pedestalizes women and ruins your frame. Need to go out to have a good time in a place where there are women around and let the magic happen. The more experience I got, the more the female maxim of “it just happened” makes sense. As long as the conditions are right- that you are high status in the local environment and there is an isolated place to bring a woman to, it does just happen. If you plan to “date”, invite a woman along to do something fun that you like to do, that you would have done anyway, and make what you bring her along to your priority.”

Men should all do a certain amount of go-out-to-score PUA stuff anyway, because it develops certain social skills that are a good force multiplier in social circle game, but have that as your goal and expectation, not getting laid. If getting laid happens, consider it a bonus.

White US Population Drops

Well, that was fun while it lasted.

In the most recent data from the Census Bureau the white population of the US dropped, in numerical terms. It did not merely drop as a percentage of the overall population. (Though it did that too, rather dramatically.)

The actual number of white people fell.

By 8.6% since 2010.

The New York Times: “Meanwhile, the white population, in absolute numbers, declined for the first time in the history of the country.”

It also dropped as a percentage of the population, from 63.7 percent in the 2010 census to 57.8 in the 2020 census, the lowest percent on record.

Miscellany 25: Shred the Miscellany like It’s Ice and You Need to Stop Fast

UPDATE: edited to include a crucial paragraph in the last item that was originally omitted.

(1) Contaminated NEET at https://blog.reaction.la/war/the-isi-with-the-help-of-america-defeated-america/

Well, sure, of course physical violence is ultimately at the base of all power. I don’t disagree with that. Don’t underestimate the importance of organizing, channeling, inspiring, discouraging, rewarding, punishing, and otherwise controlling physical violence with words and ideas, though. That’s the progs’ specialty, and they’re nearly undefeated over the last century or more.

True. They’re evil as fuck-all, but we have to learn what we can from a force that, with the exception of one huge loss, the Cold War, is basically undefeated for the last century.


(2) FUCK, that’s funny: Here’s The Cominator, also at https://blog.reaction.la/war/the-isi-with-the-help-of-america-defeated-america/, in the context of a debate about Christianity:

“So no the story of Christ is not properly viewed as that as a jew nerd who got cast out because he couldn’t fit in with his fellow jew nerds, and then he was crucified by the chad romans… that is the progressive and cuckstian view of jesus.”

Fuck, I’m dying here! jew nerds… chad romans… I’m gonna bust a gut.

Alf comes back with,
“What you mean all the crucifixes from all the churches and painters over the past millenia are evil and homosexual?
[LOL.]
…the crux (heh) of the story, to me, seems to be that he died for our sins, not that he gave his haters the middle finger three days later.”

I just flashed on an image of Jesus, floating up toward Heaven, flipping the bird to all the hatas down below.

Maybe Jesus is a Taylor Swift fan. Hatas gonna hate… Except that he’s not going to “shake it off,” he’s going to open up a can of Cosmic Whoop-Ass on them.

(3) Simone Biles’s walk-off: Obviously all the media adulation got to her head. And she didn’t have the personality to deal with it (not to say that most people would). She had the bad taste, before the Olympics, to wear a sweatshirt that had “GOAT,” that is, Greatest Of All Time, embroidered on it. Really, Biles? Among football quarterbacks Tom Brady is constantly called the GOAT, but he hasn’t gotten a jersey that says that on it. Lordy. How could Biles not see how narcissistic that looks? And before the Olympic gymnastics started there was a bit on the TV coverage that showed Biles standing near an actual goat, while on the screen they flashed “A goat” with an arrow pointing to the goat and “The G.O.A.T.” with an arrow pointing to Biles.

It was all ridiculous, of course. And any human being, told “You have to win 6,000 gold medals or you’re letting us down,” could get screwed up by the pressure. It got to her head and messed up her performance.

The media’s narrative? Instead of admitting their coverage had been excessive, they spread some BS about her proprioception being shot. I.e. The Narrative is now that there is an actual medical problem with her sense of balance. Which, by a strange coincidence, just happened to manifest during the Olympics. As I recall, this story is ultimately coming from the Biles camp. I don’t believe it. I think she just was fucked up by all the pressure – understandably, really.

Sooooo…. what actually happened in cultural terms? Well, if you’re reading this in CURRENT YEAR you already know: Presented with a black female who is unquestionably extremely good at what she does, the US media just couldn’t resist excessively pumping her up. It’s like putting a bacon cheeseburger in front of a wolf and expecting it not to chow down. So they shot video footage of her next to a goat, et cetera, with results that were pretty predictable.

I wonder what will happen the next time a talented black chick pops up on the public stage. Has the media learned anything from the Biles episode? Or, like the Bourbons, have they forgotten nothing and learned nothing? Or perhaps it doesn’t matter, because they’re so caught up in a holiness spiral that the next time there’s a black woman who excels at anything, the first one to stop clapping gets shot, I mean, the media outlet with the least hagiographic coverage will be called “racist” and they won’t be willing to risk that. On the other hand, media leftists must hate seeing a black female fail to live up to expectations, so maybe they’ll hedge their coverage with the next one. But betting on leftists being sane is never a safe bet, so we’ll have to wait and see.

There’s also an interesting point about sports psychology here. Elite-level athletes are taught that the mental game is crucial and are trained to shrug off “You suck!” comments from the peanut gallery. But so few of them have to deal with “You’re the Greatest Of All Time!” that standard sports psychology training doesn’t cover it. After l’affaire Biles it might.


(4) Leftist ass-hat perceives Big Truth, blurts it out in public before her wrong-think filter can kick in.

Michelle Obama, of all people, says this in her autobiography:


“I have been at probably every powerful table that you can think of, I have worked at nonprofits, I have been at foundations, I have worked in corporations, served on corporate boards, I have been at G-summits, I have sat in at the U.N.: They are not that smart.”

Of course this accurate observation about the limitations of our self-appointed dictators destroys the entire case for having big government intervene in everything.

La Obama, being a leftist ass, uses this Big Truth to push some narrow politically correct message like, “If you’re a woman of color, don’t let white men with Harvard PhDs intimidate you.” The message about not being intimidated by sociopathic morons with “credentials” is good advice, but talk about burying the lede!

(5) Vive la différence, a couple of data points. The regulars at the main rink where I skate are mostly figure skaters, which means they’re mostly women, with one guy who is an out gay and another who is pretty obviously gay. There are also two men who seem straight, but they’re on the older side all they do is skate at walking speed. Now I’m not 19 any more, nor am I Chad Thundercock in terms of my build or height. But I’m the only man there who is reasonably of breeding age, and who is obviously a hockey-style skater, not a figure skater. I’m there to work on my speed, power, and acceleration, not twirl around to Mendelssohn overtures or whatever. You can probably guess where this is going.

Over time, several female figure skaters have been skating ever closer to me during their routines/workouts, to the point that it would be dangerous if I couldn’t control myself on the ice – some sudden stops and fast turns have been needed. Of course, this is either to get my attention or a shit test or both. The key fact is not that there are near misses – shit happens – but that they’re getting more frequent and closer over time. And there are two young attractive women who are particularly interested in me. One I can tell because she’s constantly checking me out. She can’t help it; it’s adorable. Another is a very hot young woman, I would guess 18 years old. She is damn good-looking and has a taut, lithe body (like lots of young women figure skaters), in other words she’s unquestionably an alpha bitch of whatever her social circle outside the rink is.

She tries to get my attention, by e.g. doing weird moves on the ice and glancing at me to see if I’m looking at her, talking loudly with her friends and glancing at me to see if I’m looking at her (which I almost never do for exactly this reason) and – surprise! – shit testing me. In particular, because there are lots of skaters there most days, there are lots of near misses. Figure skaters tend to change direction unpredictably on the ice (don’t even get me started). But one day she and I had something that was not by any stretch of imagination a near miss; she was merely skating behind me and I was skating backwards so I could not help looking in her general direction. She histrionically threw her hands up in the air, as if at my rudeness in daring to skate within a parsec of her. When I didn’t react, she did it again, even more overtly. Ridiculous. She never has done this with anyone else at the rink, with whom she has had some near misses (we all have). In other words: Baseless acausal female histrionics to get a male’s attention and get some data on his reaction.

I already have a woman I’m quite happy with, so am not going to do anything about this, and my point is not to brag about being shit tested by a hot young alpha bitch (well, maybe a little, heh). My main point is this:

It’s amazing how true traditional beliefs are. You think you know this, you think you’ve got it dialed, and then it pops up when you’re not looking for it and reaffirms itself. In this case, the truth is that women like masculine men. I’m the only person at the rink who exhibits a normal Y chromosome and is of breeding age, and BAM! unsought attention from attractive females.

This chick is certainly young enough to have lived her entire life in the Empire of Lies propaganda regime that says that women don’t like “toxic masculinity,” etc. And the sum total effect of that on her sexual interest, compared to decades ago when I was in college/high school, is: Nil.

“Dude, this is obvious!” you say. Yes, among the sane it is. But read my blog’s tag line: It is necessary these days to belabor the obvious.

We live in the Empire of Lies. I wonder what it would be like to live in a world that wasn’t the Empire of Lies. Of course it would be infinitely less stressful. What would we do with ourselves if we didn’t have to devote time and emotional energy to pushing back against lies? Would we seek out even more truth, even more knowledge? Or would we just chillax and enjoy life more? Maybe someday our children will have the luxury of choosing an answer to that question.

Meanwhile, if you’re a man prowling for babes, look for situations in which you’re one of few obviously straight males and have a legit reason other than prowling to be there. I’m at the rink to skate, not score, and no doubt my lack of interest in them is another reason the women like me. If you actually are there to swoop babes you’ll just have to fake it, but all that takes is a tiny bit of effort. See your local Game blog.

I dunno… maybe take a jazz dance class, but make sure you dress and comport yourself in a way that makes it clear that you’re straight. And loudly explain (if someone asks) that you’re there because “I heard that dance will help me bulk up my muscle mass in my lower body” or something. Or you could take up skating. Just buy a pair of figure skates and NO, DUMBASS! that was a joke. Seriously, rent a pair of (hockey) skates; all rinks rent them. Get out there and start learning. Note: Most rinks are not just chicks and gay guys so you won’t automatically provoke female interest just by being there. Also that probably won’t happen until you get reasonably good so you’re personifying masculine power when you’re on the ice. (I’m the fastest skater there, am constantly accelerating as hard as I can, then slamming to a stop in a spray of ice shavings, etc.) But give it a try it if there’s a rink near you.

Coda:

Gosh, female figure skaters in motion are beautiful. It gorgeously embodies feminine grace.

Pro Tip: You were born gendered. You’re not some disembodied brain floating in a vat of nutrient solution like a scene from a bad 1950s science fiction movie. So bear with me, dear reader, as I once again belabor the obvious:


Women are irresistibly attracted to masculinity; men are irresistibly attracted to femininity.

Hilariously Grandiose Commentary on the Gay NFL Guy

Back in July, Las Vegas Raiders defensive end Carl Nassib announced that he is homosexual, thus becoming the first active NFL player to do so. The commentary on this was over the top, as one would expect in CURRENT YEAR. Here are three examples.

Frank Bodani, York Daily Record
https://www.ydr.com/story/sports/college/penn-state/football/2021/06/22/nfl-tampa-bay-buccaneers-bruce-arians-calls-carl-nassib-a-role-model/5303435001/

“He may well become a beacon for acceptance, in light of his historic Monday announcement regarding his sexual orientation.”

Right, because our society doesn’t have enough acceptance of homosexuality. Meanwhile, back in reality, gay couples are profligately featured on television, both in the programming and in advertisements.

What involves greater risk – THESE DAYS, NOT 100 YEARS AGO – saying you’re homosexual or saying you’re anti-homosexual?

PS: “historic.” Oh, shut up.

“Arians, a York High graduate, owns the most diverse staff in the NFL. His Super Bowl-winning Bucs are the only team with four African-American coordinators and two full-time female coaches.”

Have I been dosed with enough hallucinogens to fell a horse, or did this guy just suggest that there aren’t enough blacks in the NFL?

Then we get a quote from Nassib’s former coach at Penn State, James Franklin:

“Carl’s brave announcement will forge a path for others to be true to their authentic self.”

FOR FUCK’S SAKE! Sometimes I feel like I could handle the propaganda blast if it weren’t so intelligence-insulting. Stop saying that coming out in 2021 is “brave”!

Bodani provides this side note:

“Franklin, meanwhile, is the first African-American head coach in Penn State history.”

Franklin is Penn State coach, and not Joe Paterno, because Paterno was fired for covering up the gay child sex assaults that happened under his watch.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penn_State_child_sex_abuse_scandal
Do an article on that gay guy, Bodani!

Mike Freeman, USA Today
https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/columnist/mike-freeman/2021/06/21/carl-nassib-coming-out-nfl-history-save-lives/5298945001/

The headline: “Carl Nassib’s coming out doesn’t just make history. Raiders DL [defensive lineman] could save lives.”

Oh for fuck’s sake! “Could save lives.” This is the most grandiose thing you could say. If you’re a leftist, notice that your “thought leaders” aren’t even trying to hide the fact that they’re just trolling you now.

The article begins,
“To fully understand just how brave, how stunning, how historic it is…”
GOD! HELP US! PLEASE! Not so much from the gay as from the screaming insults to our intelligence!

Reality check: In 2021, Nassib’s announcement is not in the least brave, not in the least stunning, and not in the least historic.

So brave! Meanwhile, back in reality, it’s literally the safest thing that a white male could do. He can’t change himself to a female and he can’t change himself to black, so announcing that he’s gay is the only way he can acquire political correctness points.

Actually, according to the reigning ideology, he could change himself to female by simply announcing that he’s female. OK, so it’s one of the two safest things he could do. Being safe, huddling behind an identity politics politically correct SJW victim shield is, speaking precisely, the exact opposite of brave. In our society it is the very definition of riskless playing it safe.

So of course the left claims that it’s “brave,” with their perverted sexual fetish for saying the exact opposite of the truth.

Freeman continues,

“All of those things [“hate,” etc.] likely forced a legion of NFL players to stay cloaked and hide who they truly were. They couldn’t publicly say they were gay because they might be physically attacked in the locker room. Or cut by the team. Or any number of other things that could have destroyed them or their careers.”

“Might be,” “could have…” Typically, the left is trying to get people outraged about things that never actually happened.

“Former NFL player Roy Simmons came out after his NFL career. When he published a memoir in 2006, the NFL denied his application for a radio row Super Bowl credential.”

Bullshit. It’s not clear what this means, but it seems Simmons requested press credentials for the 2006 Superbowl… three days before it (see below). Freeman nastily implies that Simmons’s request was denied because he was homosexual. He offers no evidence to support this claim. He uses the slimy phrasing “When he published a memoir in 2006, the NFL denied his application…” No, it wasn’t denied “when” he published his book. Slimy insinuations without evidence from the left. I’ve been studying leftists for decades and they still disgust me.

Per Wikipedia’s article on Simmons: “In 2006, three days before the Super Bowl, Simmons requested a media credential and two tickets to the game. The NFL denied his request, saying that it had received too many similar requests to accommodate all of them.”

Well, yes, I imagine that the requests for free tickets to the Superbowl— the largest sporting event in the US— far outstrip their availability. Especially if you don’t ask until three days before it! By the way, Wikipedia also mentions that Simmons tried to get all victimy about this, with the help of… wait for it… Gloria Allred, the ambulance-chasing lawyer who is so frequently on the scene when there’s a leftist cause to be litigated.

“What Nassib has done is help make being gay in the NFL less something to fear. But it’s bigger than even that. His announcement may have saved lives.”

LOL.

“Maybe a troubled LGBTQ teen, some of whom contemplate suicide, according to surveys, will see Nassib’s words and…”

LOL.

NFL practice squad gay Michael Sam “has said in interviews that the first time he truly understood the power of coming out was after a girl told him his announcement saved her life. She had been bullied and had been on suicide watch.”

Uh-huh.

“‘I decided to be the shield and the sword,’ Sam said…”

OK, well thanks for not getting too grandiose or anything.

NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell refuses to be outdone in terms of breathless rhetoric:
https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2021/06/21/roger-goodell-nfl-is-proud-of-carl-nassib-for-courageously-sharing-his-truth/

“The NFL family is proud of Carl for courageously sharing his truth today,” Goodell said in a statement. “Representation matters. We share his hope that someday soon statements like his will no longer be newsworthy as we march toward full equality for the LGBTQ+ community. We wish Carl the best of luck this coming season.”

“The NFL family.” Ugh. Shut up, Goodell.

“is proud of Carl” For what? Being homosexual? How is that an accomplishment?

“for courageously sharing his truth” It’s not courageous! Nothing is safer in CURRENT YEAR than announcing that one is homosexual! Stop lying!

Since being homosexual is not an accomplishment (as admitted by the “gay community” themselves, since they say they’re born gay and can’t help it) there’s no way to praise being homosexual other than by pivoting, i.e. changing the subject. In our society in CURRENT YEAR, the pivot is to claiming that it’s dangerous to announce that one is homosexual (as if) and so such announcements are “brave.” Ugh. Just shut up, you intelligence-insulting douchebags.