Red Pill in Reality, Part 2

(Part 1 is here.)

(1) Red Pill in Reality, Nice Guys Versus Jerks edition: They met on a dating app. Then he robbed a bank on their first date and forced her to be the getaway driver.

So boss. So very, very boss.

And you thought your worst first date story was bad.

A Massachusetts woman became an unexpected getaway driver after a man she met on a dating app robbed a bank on their first date.
Christopher Castillo, the unnamed woman’s would-be Robin Hood, plead guilty this week to armed robbery and three counts of assault and battery on a police officer — all committed on their first date on December 5, 2016 — according to the Bristol County District Attorney’s Office.
Castillo was sentenced to three years in state prison for the robbery, plus two years in the Bristol County House of Corrections for violently struggling against and spitting on police who tried to subdue him, according to the district attorney’s office.
The woman wasn’t charged — the “worst date ever” story was enough punishment.
It all started, the woman told police, when she picked up Castillo from his parents’ home in Chepachet, Rhode Island, and drove him 30 minutes east toward North Attleboro, Massachusetts. She said he drank wine in the passenger seat of her Nissan Maxima (which is also illegal, but he wasn’t charged for that one).
The two had never met in person before that fateful day in 2016, she told police. So why would she think anything was wrong when he told her to pull over as they approached a bank?
He got out of her car and left her there alone for a few minutes. Then, suddenly, he came running back, sweating with sunglasses, a hat, a gun and $1,000 cash in hand, the woman said.
“F**king go,” he told her.
She “panicked,” she told police, so she did as she was told.

(2) Red Pill in Reality, Hamster edition:

I don’t think I’ll ever forget the time an attractive woman said, in all seriousness, that she was different because she was really only attracted to tall, good-looking alpha males, who had a little bit, although not too much, of an edge to them. Yeah, that’s totally different from every other woman on the planet….

LOL. In a similar spirit to this.

(3) Red Pill in Reality, Social Proof edition:

Back in the 1970s, a pair of researchers conducted an experiment to examine the importance of having a physically attractive partner. Participants evaluated men who were either the boyfriend of, or unassociated with, a female; and the female was either attractive, or unattractive. Of the four conditions, the men with an attractive girlfriend were evaluated the most favorably. The men with the unattractive girlfriend were evaluated the least favorably.

From a social proof standpoint, it’s better to be unattached than to be attached to an unattractive woman.

(4) At Alf’s blog: Leftists dude’s girlfriend wonders why their sex is bad.

Spoiler alert: Because he’s an equalist:

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… 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.

(5) Red Pill in Reality, Hamster Redux.

Two articles: (A) A sane one, from McCall’s magazine, 1958, “129 Ways to Get a Husband.”
and
(B) A lame attempt to fisk it in 2018, with wince-inducing results. Surprise! The author of this “Imma strong woman I don’t need no man!” piece writes a column for Psychology Today called Living Single, which says it all. (There’s a photo of her at the link if you’re curious. Summary: No surprises there.)

While the original article has some strange pieces of advice, most of it is reasonable.

A couple of mystifying/amusing ones:
#42, “If you’re at a resort have the bell boy page you.” What? How is that going to lead to romance? They don’t explain.
And #103: “Learn to play poker.” Um… Why?

But it’s also full of good advice to women, e.g.,
#52: “Wear high heels most of the time – they’re sexier!” Damn right! We need to pass a law about this.
And #60: “Go on a diet if you need to.” Duh.

What’s sad is the sour-grapes advice from the author of the 2018 piece. Any young woman who follows this advice is dooming herself to a life of childlessness and addiction to wine and anti-depressants.

E.g. the original article says,

18. Tell your friends that you are interested in getting married. Don’t keep it a secret.

To which the 2018 “Imma strong woman!” doofus responds,

“Tell your friends you have no interest whatsoever in getting married! Don’t keep it a secret. Tell your mother. Tell all your other relatives. Tell all the random people you meet on the street. Declare it on social media.”

The most tragic response is to this:

12. Become a nurse or airline stewardess – they have very high marriage rates.

Doofus responds,

“Become a person who thinks for herself. They have very high rates of living the life that works for them, rather than the life everyone tells them they should want.”

This is idiotic. First of all, women are not constantly told that they should get married in our culture; they’re constantly told that they should not get married, by the bitter old feminists who have taken over our popular culture.

Second, and more importantly, the advice is tragically misguided— most people, men and women, want to pair up, and in any case refusing to do something because it’s the conventional wisdom is just as stupid as doing something because it’s the conventional wisdom. They are two sides of the same idiotic coin, paying attention to the crowd.

(6) Red Pill in Reality, Electroshock Therapy for the Blue-Pilled edition.

A quarter of straight porn searches by women are for videos featuring violence against their own sex… While men still search for significantly more porn than women, search rates for these more extreme types of sexual content are at least twice as common among women than men.

Those statistics make for fairly surprising reading, but are the facts Dr Seth Stephens- Davidowitz, a former Google data scientist, discovered when he was given complete access to PornHub’s search and views data for his upcoming book. “If there is a genre of porn in which violence is perpetrated against a woman, my analysis of the data shows that it almost always appeals disproportionately to women,” he writes.

(7) Red Pill in Reality, Empathy by Brute Force edition.
(Via John C. Wright)

A woman named Ann Akana goes bi and develops sympathy for guys. My favorite part starts at the 1:45 mark: She and another “bi” chick are returning from a date and the other one says, at the door to her apartment, “Do you wanna come in and make out?” Akana says “Yes,” and they go inside and proceed to do nothing but talk for hours, to her great frustration. Why? Because each one was expecting the other one to make the first move, obviously. Based on a lifetime of habit, each one was thinking, “I’m the girl, so the other person should make the first physical move.” Neither one apparently had the wit to realize the other one was thinking the same thing. Duh! One would think this incredibly obvious, but I guess not to everyone. Akana goes home at 3:00 am, after no sexyfun.

She gets a lot of flak in the comments about other episodes she talks about, but I think it’s unwarranted. At least she’s open-minded enough to sympathize with guys when, e.g., she’s expected to pay for a date with a girl.

Miscellany 19: Liberal Hack Edition

(1) Video: Arizona Senator Martha McSally calls CNN “reporter” a “liberal hack” to his face on camera. It’s around the 0:45 mark in the linked vid. I originally saw this clip at RazorFist/Rageaholic (lost that link) and he comments that that moment made him want to propose marriage. That was exactly what I blurted when I saw the clip.
Her: “Manu, you’re a liberal hack. I’m not going to talk to you.”
Me: “Marry me!”
McSally is now selling “liberal hack” T-shirts, bless her.

(2) Speaking of leftist agitprop operatives, here’s a practical definition of chutzpah: Greg Sargent of the Washington Post:

“Trump and his propagandists are actively trying to engineer violent civil conflict, by signaling to white Americans that they are under siege in a race war that they’re losing.”

Unbelievable. A lefty reporter, in the current environment, claiming Trump is stirring up civil conflict? The brazenness of leftist lying really is unlimited.

(3) Starting in early June there was a burst of people arriving at my site from searches involving the idea of a second American civil war. While most search engines now mask the search terms that lead people to your site, not all of them do. There have been occasional searches on this theme over the years, but only two or three per year. Check out the recent ones:

June 7: 1 hit from the search term second american civil war.
On June 8 there were two such terms, the 2nd civil war has started, which generated 4 hits, and possibility of a second american civil war, which generated 1 hit.
June 10: second american civil war is starting.
Jun 11: what a second us civil war would look like 2020
June 12: 2nd american civil war 2020
June 23: the 2nd civil war has started
June 24: will the left start a civil war
June 30: civil war 2020
July 1: when will the left start civilwar (sic)
July 5: can the left win the civil war
July 14: Two, time to give the left war tehy want (sic) and is the united states heading for a civil war

People can see what’s happening.

(4) After the riots of late May through (so far) mid-July, the left is freaking out about Trump winning the November election. An additional reason is the Congressional elections. Now that everyone paying attention knows that Democrats are the party of literally burning buildings down, the Dems’ chances of re-taking the Senate just got much lower, and their chance of losing the House got a lot higher. No wonder they’re freaking out!

I pray that every soccer Mom in the U.S.A. sees Minneapolis and all those other cities burning.

(5) I wonder if social media might, in the last analysis, be good for stopping the holiness spiral short of an all-out civil war. The reason is that it makes the holiness spiral accelerate so fast that normies can’t help but notice.

Even people on the left are beginning to notice, and yelp about it. E.g. the petition that Noam Chomsky et al recently signed, Matt Taibbi’s recent article (https://taibbi.substack.com/p/the-left-is-now-the-right), etc.

Nah, pipe dream. Holiness spirals are so inherently unstable by their very nature that they can’t really stop, short of being forced to stop by externally-imposed force. But it is nice that even the “old” brand of leftists like Chomsky – himself pretty damn extreme – are starting to wish the brakes could be applied. That cannot hurt, and maybe it will help.

(6) It’s a notable fact that the right is now the intellectual leading edge of the western world. The left is doing nothing, intellectually, but trying to come up with new ways of calling people “racist” (…sexist, this-aphobe, that-aphobe, etc.). While the right has come up with, to name just a couple, the concepts of holiness spirals, shit-testing (as a concept that is used in political thinking), hypergamy (ditto), Chesterton’s fence (ditto), etc. Intellectually, the left has nothing but “White people are horrible!” and lamely trying to come up with new ways of saying that. The Right is where all the energy, intelligence, intellectual openness, and sheer intellectual alive-ness are. People on the right are not just fighters. We’re intellectually alive and curious and genuinely interested in understanding things. That never existed on the left; it was always just another lie (“left-wing intellectuals”), which they used to help them consolidate power in the universities.

(7) Missouri: Prosecutor Kim Gardner’s Office Tampered With Evidence to Charge The McCloskey’s With Crimes. The handgun the woman was holding was not operative, thus under Missouri law preventing them from charging her with “felonious threat” or whatever. So the prosecutor’s office re-assembled the gun so it would be operative, so they could charge them with a felony. Holy fuck.

In response to being called out for falsifying evidence, the (black) prosecutor and her defenders called the people calling it out “racist.”

President Trump has been following this case. He should send federal marshalls in to arrest her for conspiracy to deprive people of their civil rights, which is a felony. He really should do this. It’s a perfect case for this kind of action. What’s the media going to do to shield her, defend evidence tampering? (Of course they will, but not effectively.) If nothing else the light his tweets shine on it will prevent her from getting away with it. But that’s way too little in response to the crime. And when will we ever get another case this clear?

(8) Let’s end on a couple of cheery notes:

July 23, 2020: Twitter ad revenue plummets by 23%:

Per CNN:

Twitter (TWTR) is actively exploring additional ways to make money from its users, including by considering a subscription model, CEO Jack Dorsey said Thursday. The move comes as Twitter suffers a sharp decline in its core advertising business.

“You will likely see some tests this year” of various approaches, Dorsey told analysts on an investor call held to discuss the company’s second quarter earnings results. Dorsey said he has “a really high bar for when we would ask consumers to pay for aspects of Twitter,” but confirmed that the company is seeking to diversify its sources of revenue…

Twitter reported second-quarter ad revenues of $562 million, a 23% decrease compared to the same quarter a year ago.

Quarterly ad revenue of $562 million seems nice, but the 23% drop, and other info they have, obviously is making them alarmed, or they wouldn’t consider the subscription model, a desperate move for a social media company.

Ace comments: “Most of the country… remains captive in their own homes with only the internet for diversion, and Twitter still can’t sell ads? LOL.”

(9) The ideal woman, based on porn data:

Based on [porn website] xHamster’s survey of 50,000 respondents from over 150 countries, Cosmopolitan Magazine reported in May 2019 that “the ideal dream woman is a 25-year-old, 5’5”, Eurasian, bisexual woman named ‘Shy Yume.’” This supposed “ideal” woman has blue eyes, straight, dark, long hair, an “average” body size, “fully shaved” genitals, and is “not a feminist.”

Sounds pretty fucking awesome to me, though I’d go a couple of years younger than 25. How about 20. And who cares what her name is?

Here’s a fitting celebrity. Can you identify her?

MeganFox-AngelinaJolie

It’s actually a digital amalgamation of Megan Fox and Angelina Jolie.

Another Day, Another Spew of Leftist Projection

A spew of projection from SJW lefty Scott Aaronson.

Aaronson discusses Will He Go?, a book by “legal scholar” Lawrence Douglas. Douglas, being a projecting leftist, kvetches about the bizarre scenario of Trump losing in November 2020, but not admitting that he has lost and trying to stay in the White House. Plainly this is just the usual projection, after the left refused to accept the outcome of 2016. Now they are trying the usual DARVO strategy of accusing the other side of what they’re doing.

DARVO stands for Deny, Attack, and Reverse Victim and Offender. It is behavior typically used by sociopaths and – surprise! – often used by the left. In a breathtaking piece of meta-DARVO, the Wikipedia article on DARVO accuses Trump of engaging in DARVO. This after the left tried to oust him in a dictatorial anti-democratic coup, while accusing Trump of being dictatorial. That is, the Wikipedia article on DARVO actually engages in DARVO. We need to include accusations of DARVO as part of standard DARVO tactics.

Douglas’s book seems to be an attempt to prepare the battlespace for the left’s upcoming electoral fraud, and Trump’s calling out of the same and refusing to leave the White House until after an honest (or as close as we can get to honest) recount. Douglas, like Biden and other leftists, wants to seed people’s minds with the prior belief that Trump will be the dishonest player here.

One might ask leftists, “Why not just adopt political positions that the majority of people don’t find abhorrent, so your side has a non-trivial chance of winning?” But such questions are pointless with the left. Among other things, they can’t stop even if they wanted to because they’re caught up in a severe holiness spiral.

Aaronson:

“Suppose that, as this president’s deepest (and perhaps only) principle, he never backs down, never apologizes, never acknowledges any inconvenient fact, and never accepts the legitimacy of any contest that he loses”

An absolute BLAST of projection. The left lost in 2016 and is still trying to undo that election. They spread rank lies about the President and Russia. They involved a foreign intelligence operative (Christopher Steele) while accusing Trump of enlisting foreign intelligence services. They tried to remove him from office by impeachment, with the accusation that he’d committed a Ukrainian crime that his Democratic opponent Biden actually committed, having explicitly bragged about it on video.

Aaronson: “Suppose that, during the final presidential debate, he pointedly refuses to promise to respect the election outcome if he loses—a first in American history.”

For fuck’s sake! The left refused to accept the 2016 outcome. What is the point of such blatant lies, Aaronson? Do you really believe that no one remembers the “It was Russia!” lies and the attempt to oust Trump based on those lies? Jesus, how short-memoried do you think people are? Let’s review: The “Russia” story, based on works of fiction like the Steele fantasy (“dossier”) was used by the FBI, a rogue intelligence service, to try to overthrow the legitimately-elected government of the United States of America by means of fabricated data. It really is terrifying that they could attempt such treasonous insurrection and not one of them has been executed, or seems likely to be executed, for treason.

And after that attempted coup, which went on for years, Aaronson has the gall to yap about Trump possibly refusing “to respect the election outcome if he loses—a first in American history.”

“Douglas asks: is America’s Constitutional machinery up to a challenge that it’s never yet faced, of a president who accepts democracy itself as legitimate only when he wins?”

The mind boggles at the brazenness of the projection, gaslighting, and DARVO here.

“So suppose Trump has a slight edge on election night, Fox News calls the race for him, but then an avalanche of absentee or provisional ballots shift things in Biden’s favor over the following week. Can you imagine Trump or his supporters accepting the latter?”

Yeah, it’s funny how “those extra ballots we just found” always give the Democrat the victory, isn’t it? What a remarkable coincidence!

“Or suppose that, on election day, Russian hackers cut off electricity or voter registration databases in Philadelphia or Detroit, via computer systems that we know they already broke into and that remain exposed (!).”

Wow. It only takes Aaronson a couple of paragraphs to go from “ZOMG IT’S COMPLETELY FASCIST TO QUESTION AN ELECTION’S LEGITIMACY!” to “What if the election isn’t legitimate?!” Give leftists this: They’re certainly… mentally flexible.

“Trump has already told his followers that voting by mail is a scam to be fiercely opposed, never mind that he uses it himself.” Be serious. George W. Bush got out of jury duty when he was President, because the President’s time is too valuable to spend on that sort of thing. Presidents must be exempted from some rules.

“So again: imagine if mail-in ballots overturn what looked like a Trump win on election night.”

That is indeed a likely scenario, because the left does not accept democratic outcomes when they don’t win. It’s quite plausible that Trump will win by X votes spread across several key states, then in the next several days those states will just happen to “find” 1.2X votes for Biden. We all know this is a pretty likely outcome, which is of course exactly why Douglas and Aaronson are trying to pre-frame it as proving Trump’s tyranny, instead of the left’s tyranny.

“Douglas doesn’t mention, because it happened too recently, the nationwide Black Lives Matter protests [arson, murder, vandalism, looting]… But assuming the protests continue through the fall, they’ll of course give the Trumpists even more pretexts to meddle with the election, in the name of imposing ‘order.’”

“Pretexts,” unbelievable. “France nukes Boston: Watch out for rabid conservatives trying to use this as a pretext for war with France.”

“…Trump’s frequent glorifications of violence, and his heavily armed base.” Which side is burning down buildings and killing people?

Aaronson then says:

“Five years ago, thousands of woke activists shamed me for writing about my teenage experiences on this blog, a few even calling for an end to my career. Especially if those activists emerge victorious from a turbulent 2020—as I hope they will—I expect that they’ll come for me again.”

Scott Aaronson loves Big Brother. I would have thought the psychology of that was pure fiction, invented by Orwell for 1984, but I guess it’s real. Ugh, disgustingly cowardly. On the other hand, it takes out some of our enemies, who are basically announcing, “I’m a soft target!” to people who are itching to take them down. One of the satisfactions of the last few years has been watching the accelerating tendency of the left to eat its own.

George F. Will’s Dementia Increasingly Hilarious

You have to read this hilarious thing in the Washington Post to believe it. In his first sentence, Will calls President Trump the “Crybaby-in-Chief.” In his next paragraph he accuses Trump of a “coarsening of public discourse.”

It gets better. After that Will scolds Republicans in the Senate for their “Vichyite collaboration” with Trump, thus comparing them to France’s Nazi collaborationist regime during World War II, and thus calling Trump Hitler.

Having called Trump Hitler and the Senate Vichy collaborationists, Will goes on to call Trump “unhinged.” Hey, George, someone in this scenario is unhinged, and it’s not Trump. Fun game: see if you can figure out who!

And in a demonstration that moving left politically requires one to have one’s sense of irony removed, Will says, “The nation’s downward spiral into acrimony… has had many causes,” among them, perhaps, calling people you disagree with Nazis.

But wait, there’s more!

The person voters hired in 2016 to “take care that the laws be faithfully executed” stood on July 28, 2017, in front of uniformed police and urged them “please don’t be too nice” when handling suspected offenders. His hope was fulfilled for 8 minutes and 46 seconds on Minneapolis pavement.

LOL. Trump said, “don’t be too nice”… and a mere three years later, George Floyd was killed! Draw the line from A to B, man!

As a side note, this “essay,” if one can call it that, is a good example of the difference between style and substance. All the old Will style from the 1980s is here… well, except for cool understatement, obviously. The vocabulary, the references to Shakespeare and T.S. Eliot, etc. are present. But the substance— reasoned analysis— is gone, completely gone. All that’s left is the vaporous spew of a bitter old man who has forgotten the proper dosage on his medications.

President Trump drives his enemies insane. I usually identify as religiously agnostic, but the last few years tend to make me think God exists and is on Trump’s side. After all, Whom the gods would destroy, they first make mad… and the anti-Trump crowd is bonkers.

What’s Going on with the Left?

Dumbass
“But summoning demons seemed like such a good idea!”

1. Partly – but only partly – there’s a unified plan: Attack Trump with a Xanatos Gambit; he’s either “weak and falling” or a “tyrannical dictator.” So far Trump has threaded this needle very well.

2. Another major factor is that the left’s thugs are out of control because they’re the kind of people who just like breaking stuff and beating people. Antifa is the obvious example here. They don’t much care who they attack, but the softer the target the better. Leftist mobs’ most recent victim as of this writing is a gay Democrat State Senator in Wisconsin. He was put in the hospital by a mob of thugs who he had thought, up to that moment, were “on his side.”

3. Another major factor is that they’re holiness spiraling.

4. What we haven’t seen yet, but may start to see soon, is the haute left fighting each other. Leftists know they can’t trust each other, so highly-positioned leftists will be very tempted to sort some factional stuff out now, in case they actually win against Trump. The internal power struggle has very high stakes, since lefties know they’ll kill each other for power, as they always have done for the last century. Indeed, they’ve been doing it since the French Revolution of the late 1700s, which is the origin of the saying “The Revolution eats its children.”

It all adds up to exactly what one would expect it to add up to: Increasing violence in general, and an amount of left-on-left violence in particular that must be surprising to someone who doesn’t know the history of the left.

Why not just work together? Remember, the entire point of leftism is betrayal of the broader group. And this is a personality type, not an ideology. Individual leftists don’t cooperate with broader leftism any more than they cooperate with the broader nation. (Leftist ideologies are just tacked-on epiphenomena that are invented to justify betrayal and smash-and-grab. No one believes the ideologies, least of all leftists.)

This is why leftism is most effective when it doesn’t require individual leftists to sacrifice for the leftist common goals. For example, leftist media narratives are pretty consistent across newspapers and networks because it doesn’t cost an individual leftist “journalist” anything to coordinate with other leftists.

Leftists are dangerous to everyone, but at least as dangerous to each other, especially once there is something big at stake like dictatorial power. Betrayers can’t work together.

If you’re an “elite” leftist, why not just exit the situation? Why not just quit politics, announce through channels to your fellow powerful leftists that you’re quitting politics, and move to another country to retire? That won’t work for at least two reasons:

(1) Your fellow leftists won’t believe that you’re quitting, because all leftists are liars and all leftists know that all leftists are liars. A false quitting announcement is exactly the sort of ruse a leftist would use to put his enemies off guard. In fact, Al Gore did exactly this the night of the 2000 presidential election, calling Bush to say he had conceded, while actually assembling his legal team to challenge the outcome while the Bush team was relaxing and celebrating.

(2) Moving to another country provides no safety, since whoever controls the US government reaches everywhere. You probably don’t know what happened to Leon Trotsky after the Soviet Revolution, because the left has decided it’s an inconvenient bit of history and memory-holed it. Short version: Maneuvered out of power by Stalin, Trotsky hopped from country to country, eventually ending up in Mexico. Stalin dispatched an assassin, who found Trotsky and killed him by chopping him through the skull with an ice axe.

Incidents like this are typical in 20th century leftist revolutions. Leftists are constantly riven by factionalism and killing each other. And leftists know it. You may not have known about Trotsky and similar incidents, but hard leftists study revolutions – they know. Their knowing it makes the situation even worse for them: Even if there’s a leftist who has no inclination to murder, he has to, pre-emptively, since he strongly suspects the other leftists will try to murder him. There is no honor among thieves… let alone murderers.

Look at this Reservoir Dogs photo from a previous post of mine:

ReservoirDogs
Is this situation game-theoretically stable?

If you’re in that situation and you know the other guy is a killer, you’d better shoot first.

I originally used that pic to illustrate the situation between Trump and the left. But this is also the situation powerful leftists now find themselves in with respect to each other.

(And Trump has been very good at resisting the left’s attempts to bait him into military action that they can use for propaganda purposes. That is, they are shooting at him, and have been for years, but he has been wearing a bullet-proof vest and dodging their bullets, as their attacks make their true nature obvious to more and more Americans.)

I do not think powerful leftists have started killing each other yet – if so, they’ve kept it out of the news – but they must be heading in that direction. (Update: How could I have forgotten Epstein?!) Antifa attacking the home of the leftist mayor of Olympia Washington, not to mention kicking the Democratic government of Seattle out of Seattle’s capitol area, are just a couple of recent examples. Already each “elite” leftist must be casting suspicious glances at other “elite” leftists around him, wondering who’s going to strike at whom first. “Will I be a target?” he wonders. And maybe starts thinking he’d better strike before he is stricken. Even as you read this, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and George Soros are wondering about each other…

Thoughts from a Random Sampling of Beyond Good and Evil

Nietzsche
A pic of Nietzsche from before his moustache grew to the point where it had its own detectable gravitational field.

Since I’ve read Nietzsche’s Beyond Good and Evil a couple of times I allow myself the liberty of dipping back into it at random every now and then when I have some free minutes. Here are some reactions from a random sampling from June 2020:

1. Nietzsche as Frenchman

The opening of the Preface:

Supposing truth is a woman— what then? Are there not grounds for suspecting that all philosophers, insofar as they have been dogmatists, have been very inexpert about women? That the gruesome seriousness and clumsy obtrusiveness with which they have usually approached truth so far have been awkward and very improper methods for winning a woman’s heart? What is certain is that she has not allowed herself to be won— and today every kind of dogma is left standing dispirited and discouraged. If it is left standing at all!

My first reaction: Interesting opening. Unfortunately the book does not consistently live up to this opening, though it has its moments.

My second reaction: How very French! If you didn’t know N. was German, you’d probably guess that was written by a Frenchman. You can see why post-moderns like Nietzsche: For stylistic as well as substantive reasons.

Also, note the red pill knowledge here: The gruesome seriousness and clumsy obtrusiveness with which they have usually approached truth so far have been awkward and very improper methods for winning a woman’s heart. Indeed. The essence of seduction is obliqueness.

Speaking of French sensibilities, try this from Section 1:

The will to truth, which will still tempt us to many a hazardous venture, the famous truthfulness of which all philosophers have hitherto spoken with respect— what questions has this will to truth not laid before us! What strange, wicked, questionable questions! It is already a long story— yet it seems as if it had hardly begun. Is it any wonder if we at last grow distrustful, lose patience, and turn impatiently away? That we should finally learn from this Sphinx to ask questions too? Who is it really that puts questions to us here? What in us really wants “truth”?

Indeed we made a long halt at the question about the cause of this will—until at last we came to a complete stop before a yet more fundamental question. We asked about the value of this will. Suppose we want the truth: Why not rather untruth? And uncertainty? Even ignorance?

The problem of the value of truth came before us—or was it we who came before the problem? Which of us is the Oedipus here? Which the Sphinx? It is a rendezvous, it seems, of questions and question marks.

Not sure what the hell all that means, but it sure sounds profound if you don’t think about it too carefully. And oh so French.

This part again: The problem of the value of truth came before us—or was it we who came before the problem? That sounds like a low-brow person’s stereotypical image of “intellectual bullshit spewed by ivory tower eggheads.” Nietzsche’s not doing intellectuals any favors here.

Nietzsche employed his style… or did his style employ Nietzsche? Which is the artist here, and which the art? Or is this questionable question too dangerous to ask? Perhaps it will take harder men, sterner philosophers of the future, to look this question in the eye and (blah blah).

I had a friend who maintained that N. took himself way too seriously. I think not even N’s fiercest partisans can deny his guilt on that count. Here is a relatively mild sampling, from the end of the same section:

It almost seems to us as if the problem [of the desirability of truth] had never been put so far— as if we were the first to see it, fix it with our eyes, and risk it.

2. Nietzsche as Stereotypical “Nietzschean”

The first sentence of Section 29:

Independence is for the very few; it is a privilege of the strong.

That sounds like something that stereotypical Nietzsche would say. There actually is a lot of justice in Nietzsche’s popular reputation. What people like Otto from A Fish Called Wanda miss is that N’s interest in strength and independence were primarily about emotional and intellectual virtues.

3. Nietzsche as Post-Modernist

From Section 38:

The French Revolution… noble and enthusiastic spectators all over Europe have contemplated it from a distance and interpreted it according to their own indignations and enthusiasms for so long, and so passionately, that the text finally disappeared under the interpretation. So a noble posterity might once more misunderstand the whole of the past, and in that way alone make it tolerable to look at.

Or rather, isn’t this what has already happened? Have not we ourselves been that “noble posterity”? And isn’t now precisely the moment when, insofar as we comprehend this, it is all over?

In this passage, especially the emphasized part— the emphasis is in the original— one again can see why the post-moderns liked N.

4. Nietzsche as (Possible) Social Darwinist

From Section 62:

The hitherto paramount religions… are among the principal causes which have kept the type of “man” upon a lower level: they have preserved too much that which should have perished… when they had given comfort to the sufferers, courage to the oppressed and despairing, a staff and support to the helpless, and when they had allured from society into convents and spiritual penitentiaries the broken-hearted and distracted: what else had they to do in order to work systematically in that fashion, and with a good conscience, for the preservation of all the sick and suffering, which means, in deed and in truth, to work for the deterioration of the European race?

It’s not clear to me whether N. is actually talking about genetics here or purely cultural effects. But he is obviously saying that coddling the weak is bad.

5. Nietzsche as Intellectual and Would-Be Prophet

From Section 212:

The philosopher, being of necessity a man of tomorrow and the day after tomorrow, has ever found himself, and had to find himself, in contradiction to his today: his enemy was ever the ideal of today.

A fun perspective on intellectuality… but it has been the source of much mischief in the last 100 years. Think of Marxism, for example, with its hordes of genocidal disciples convinced they were leading humanity into the future.

Also, this quote exemplifies a hilarious theme in Nietzsche’s thought: he’s a real believer in progress! This from the guy who sees himself as a provocative Loki, running around questioning everything, kicking out the legs from the sanctified beliefs of his day by means of radical skepticism! In the passage I quoted from Section 1 he even goes so far as to question whether truth is valuable. Yet he believes it’s possible to anticipate the future’s major beliefs. (Or perhaps he saw himself as creating those beliefs.) The guy who sees himself as a sort of epater le bourgeois crusader, attacking with glee the cherished beliefs of his day as the horrified gentility look on— that guy couldn’t even see through the 19th century belief in Progress! My God, that is funny! That. Is. Hilarious.

N’s belief in progress is in fact a major theme of all his writing, manifest in his constant talk about new philosophers coming up. E.g. the end of Section 2: “One must await the advent of a new order of philosophers, such as will have other tastes and inclinations, the reverse of those hitherto prevalent—philosophers of the dangerous ‘maybe’ in every sense of the term. And to speak in all seriousness: I see such new philosophers beginning to appear.”

6. Nietzsche as Actual Prophet

Nietzsche, writing in the 1880s, looks forward to the twentieth century:

From Section 251:

I have never yet met a German who was favorably inclined to the Jews; and however decided the repudiation of actual anti-Semitism may be on the part of all prudent and political men, this prudence and policy is not perhaps directed against the nature of the sentiment itself, but only against its dangerous excess… That Germany has amply enough Jews, that the German stomach, the German blood, has difficulty (and will long have difficulty) in digesting even this quantum of “Jew” …is the unmistakable declaration and language of a general instinct, to which one must listen… “Let no more Jews come in!” …thus commands the instinct of a people…

A thinker who has the future of Europe at heart, in all his perspectives concerning the future, will figure the Jews, as the Russians, as above all the surest and likeliest factors in the great play and battle of forces.

Well! After World War II and the Cold War, that seems pretty damn prescient!

From Section 208:

I do not say this as one who desires it, in my heart I should rather prefer the contrary—I mean such an increase in the threatening attitude of Russia, that Europe would have to make up its mind to become equally threatening—namely, to acquire one will, by means of a new caste to rule over the Continent, a persistent, dreadful will of its own, that can set its aims thousands of years ahead; so that the long spun-out comedy of its petty-statism, and its dynastic as well as its democratic many-willed-ness, might finally be brought to a close. The time for petty politics is past; the next century will bring the struggle for the dominion of the world—the compulsion to large-scale politics.

This passage prefigures the Cold War and the European Union project!

One could also do a section on “Red Pill Nietzsche” or “Nietzsche on Women” or something, but that topic deserves its own blog post.

This is the Title of My 300th Post

(For more on self-referentiality, click here.)

It’s a momentous occasion, and it calls for something special. So I’m going to “take down the barriers” and let people see the real me, the sensitive Neuropoison that you always knew was in there somewhere. Here’s a little ditty I wrote, inspired by an old song from like medeival times or whatever. (The meadeiaval period is defined as the period so long ago that no one knows, or cares, how to spell “miedeivael” any more.)

Are you going to Scarborough Fair?
Parsley, sage, rosemary and thyme.
Remember Mita Whonhoo lives there.
She once was a true love of mine.

Tell her to make me a sandwich right now.
Parsley, sage, rosemary and thyme.
And if she delays, say, “Do it, you cow!”
Then she’ll start making that sandwich of mine.

Tell her to make it with sourdough bread.
Parsley, sage, rosemary and thyme.
And then when I’m done, she’s to give me some head.
Then she’ll be a true love of mine.

Tell her to lube up her asshole for me.
Parsley, sage, rosemary and thyme.
I’ll assfuck her hard, and I’ll do it for free.
Then she’ll be a true love of mine.

Then when we’re through she’s to fetch me a beer.
Parsley, sage, rosemary and thyme.
Then I’ll fuck her so hard that the neighbors will hear.
Then she’ll be a true love of mine.

Damn, I’m sensitive. Sometimes I’m so sensitive I almost make myself cry. I like taking long walks on the beach too. At sunset. It’s so good to be an enlightened, sensitive, twenty-first century man.

The Recent Moves Against President Trump

Probing the White House’s Passive and Active Defenses

In late May a mob (“protesters”) tried to storm the White House. Best guess: This was not a spontaneous demonstration that just happened to occur. It is the organized Left, an arm of the Deep State, trying to kill President Trump. I don’t mean the Deep State hoped the mob would kill the President: I mean the Deep State had assassins in the mob who were tasked with killing the President while using the mob as cover. This kind of operation it fits their M.O. and their desperation.

But no doubt that wasn’t their realistic goal. If they couldn’t accomplish that, and they had good reason to think they couldn’t, their secondary and more realistic goal was to probe the White House defenses. Now they know something about how White House security will respond to this kind of threat.

On the other hand, now White House security is on alert for this sort of operation, so this may be worse than useless, all things considered, from the enemy’s point of view. Of course the White House can’t maintain a state of high alert forever, but the threat assessment and preparation are now better: The President’s security knows this is a plausible attack and of course have already started drafting plans for dealing with it.

As the civil war accelerates and the stakes climb higher, why doesn’t the left just stop? I’ve been thinking about the left for decades and I still can’t see it. Why not just… give up and do something else? Really, just take up a new hobby. Like fishing. Sure, they’re holiness spiraling, but why not just exit politics and quietly enjoy your ill-gotten bribe money from all those years in Congress, reasonably secure in your gated community?

Of course, they’re soul-swallowingly power-hungry and they think they can operate in secrecy, so one might ask, Why not? They can keep trying forever, and at best they’ll succeed and at worst they’ll fail but will not be caught or punished. Right? Yet the prospect of four more years of Trump plainly has them terrified out of their skins. I’m old enough to recall Reagan Derangement Syndrome, and that was nothing compared to this. I think it has to do with the political power structure that gives them their current immunity to prosecution. If enough Deep State corruption comes to light, and if enough judges are Trump appointees, the bullet-proof status they currently have will be gone. This is the prospect that has them terrified, and therefore enraged.

Example: there are cameras everywhere now, but for the moment the bad guys can order local law enforcement, e.g., to keep their hands off camera footage. This became almost explicit after Seth Rich was murdered on a Washington D.C. street, and… no video? They might as well have issued a press release saying, “We control law enforcement and can order them to ignore camera footage.”

Could you or I make a run at the White House, or kill a man on a Washington D.C. street, and get away with it? It sure as hell wouldn’t be easy. It would be hard to get away from the surveillance in any city these days, but Washington? Near the White House? The cameras in that area must be as thick as flies.

The Left’s Propaganda Strategy

Surveying the news coverage of this and other recent events reveals the enemies’ propaganda strategy. Yes, they do have one, to an extent.

The plan is to get him with a Xanatos Gambit: They’ll say Trump is weak and falling if he doesn’t use the military to control rioters, and they’ll say he’s a “fascist dictator” if he does.

When Trump floated the possibility of using the National Guard to stop people from burning buildings down in Minneapolis, the odious Kamala Harris tweeted that that would be “the act of a dictator.” When Trump doesn’t do such things they say things like “Trump’s regime is falling.” (“Regime,” cripes. As if we’ve forgotten that he’s the legitimately elected President.) “Trump Shrinks Back,” the increasingly retarded New York Times drooled in a recent headline.

A related strategy is to address themselves more or less directly to the guys with guns and suggest that they physically remove Trump or actually kill him. A year or two ago, the Times ran a story in which one of President Trump’s security guards shoots him dead. It still infuriates me that the editors of the NYT stayed out of jail for such an overt threat against the President. It’s that lefty immunity again.

And in the last day or two Senile Joe Biden (remember him?) retained his ability to speak long enough to say that Trump plans to commit electoral fraud (leftist projection alert) and to suggest that the military quickly “escort” Trump out of the White House after that.

I noted in a recent post that it can be hard to tell boldness from desperation. In this case it’s desperation. Their electoral chances were dim even before the “lefties burning down cities” shitshow. Now even with electoral fraud helping them out, they’re estimating their own chances as very low indeed. This is great for us good guys, but remember, the left are now cornered animals. Until we beat them, they’re going to be very dangerous.

Unstable Dynamics

ReservoirDogs
Is this situation game-theoretically stable?

I’ve gotten sucked back into reading the comments at Jim’s blog. It’s hard to resist since it’s the only community that uses evo psych, game theory, and holiness spirals as standard parts of their analytical toolkit.

Today, a commenter said something really out there:

Color Revolution

Some of you guys think we’ll just be teleported instantly from brick-throwing commies and shoe-stealing apes to an ancap paradise of right-wing militias… Even if that’s the endgame – and there’s no guarantee that it is – you’ll have a transitional period that lasts years, maybe decades… In between the inept police departments of today controlled by clown-world genuflecting city officials and the well-regulated militias of the idealist future, you’re apt to get 20 or 50 years of the Red Guard and Khmer Rouge.

20 to 50 years? What the hell!? Uh, no! Given something like the Khmer Rouge, normality is gone instantly and we’re at full-scale, no-one-denies-it civil war.

The current situation is incredibly unstable. It cannot last, for all kinds of reasons, for one thing because the left is desperate, for another thing because they can’t control their thugs, and principally because of the tactical advantage of the first strike.

Trump knows that he either beats them or he gets imprisoned and Epsteined. He can’t back down, not if he wants to live.

And the left won’t back down; that’s not part of the genetically-hard-wired leftist personality profile.

Not to mention the fact that the left’s plan to genocide the Europe-descended population is becoming more explicit all the time: Cf. the graffiti written by rioters, “Kill all white people.” The media isn’t reporting this, but it leaks out anyway. More and more white normies are coming to realize what the left has planned for them.

Normality, meaning politics by something other than widespread violence, is not even going to last 2 years. It would not surprise me to learn that two hours from now, something seismic happens, for good or ill. E.g., the bad guys seizing an Air Force bomber and dropping a bunker buster on the White House, or Trump rounding up the leftist half of the Supreme Court and putting them incommunicado in a holding cell somewhere.

Even low-level, “background noise” civil war is untenable now; these things tend to accelerate.

So let me reiterate my very first post on this blog, from 2016, which was simply a quote from Bertolt Brecht that leapt to mind as I looked at the storm clouds that even then were visible on the horizon:

“Because things are the way they are, they cannot stay the way they are.”

Civil war: How we got here in 48 words

This is something I wrote a couple of weeks ago, before the Second Civil war had started. 48 words on how we got here:


1. The good guys will probably win if there’s an all-out civil war,

but

2. For that very reason the less insane bad guys, who know point 1, will try to prevent a civil war,

but

3. They can’t prevent a civil war because they’re caught up in a holiness spiral.