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.

Miscellany 24: Shred the Miscellany like You’re a Surfer and It’s the Ultimate Wave

(1) June 2021, the Dark Herald makes a side remark about Lois McMaster Bujold’s novel Memory, prompting me to glance at its Wikipedia article. I find this:

“After years of refusing to marry any of the tall, slim, eligible Barrayaran ladies paraded in front of him…Gregor unexpectedly falls in love with a short, voluptuous Komarran…”

I.e., short and fat. I’m guessing this is a fiction version of…
Sailer’s Law of Female Journalism: The most heartfelt articles by female journalists tend to be demands that social values be overturned in order that, Come the Revolution, the journalist herself will be considered hotter-looking.”

(2) First, some background: The Williams Institute at UCLA is a gay and lesbian think tank. In 2011 they released a study claiming that 3.5% of American adults identify as homosexual or bisexual. (A little over half of those are people, mostly women, who identify as bi.) And since this is a gay think tank, they have an incentive to exaggerate the number. So this is an upper bound on the percent of homo- and bi-sexuals.

With that number in mind, let’s consider a recently-published novel.

Leigh Bardugo’s Crooked Kingdom is a novel about a criminal gang of seven people (To recall them for those who have read it: Kaz, Inej, Matthias, Nina, Jasper, Wylan, and Kuwei). Three of the seven are homo or bi: Jasper, Wylan, and Kuwei. In the follow-up King of Scars, per Cataline Sergius’s review June 2021 https://arkhavencomics.com/2021/06/28/book-discussion-king-of-scars-by-leigh-bardugo/, Nina becomes a lesbian, making it 4 out of 7. So more than half of the main characters are homosexual or bisexual.

This is not about “representation.”

(3) A funny aspect of Game: Because it starts by accepting certain features of female psychology like their desire for assholes instead of nice guys, one way of describing Game in general terms is

“Men cannot change women. Men have to accept women as they are.”

If just left at that, it would prompt shouts of agreement from women in general and feminists in particular: “Right on, pal!” “Preach it, brother!” “You got that right!” But the details— what it actually means to take women as they are instead of trying to change them— is something that fills feminists with rage. Feminists of course cannot abide any speech other than “All women are totally perfect in every way.” And women in general do not like to be understood in the mating game: it destroys much of their power in the game.

(4) Uri Harris, July 2017: Even moderate leftists are becoming rarer in academia.

“What is particularly striking about this shift is that the number of moderates has dropped sharply among professors…

As part of the survey, members were asked to identify their political affiliation on an eleven-point scale, from ‘very liberal’ to ‘very conservative’…

Intriguingly, the least popular point among the left-of-centre points was the most moderate one… More than two thirds (67.8 per cent) chose one of the three points furthest to the left on an eleven-point scale, and more than a third (38 per cent) chose one of the two points furthest to the left. And 16 per cent chose the furthest possible point to the left on an eleven-point scale.

This means that there were almost as many people who chose the furthest possible point to the left as there were who chose all the conservative points, the centre-point and the most moderate left-of-centre point combined.”

(5) I once read that an old definition of heresy was focusing on one of God’s attributes at the expense of others. I don’t think this definition is doctrine, but maybe it should be, since it could damp holiness spiraling. For example, focusing on God’s justice at the cost of ignoring his mercy, or focusing on God’s mercy at the cost of ignoring his justice, would be heresies.

In an environment in which promulgating heresies in this sense is energetically punished, holiness spiraling probably would have a harder time getting off the ground: You and your buddies start holiness spiraling about who can be most like God in the sense of being most just. But soon the inquisitor shows up (or tons of people weigh in on Twitter) to give you a warning about obsessing about God’s justice at the expense of ignoring His mercy. And the opposite if you’re spiraling on mercy. It could be a built-in moderator.

As I was surfing around on this topic I came across the same thought here: https://quillette.com/2017/12/12/worry-piety-contests-not-virtue-signaling/

The problem, rather, is judging the acceptability of statements and actions on the basis of a single sacred criterion. Fundamentalism in this sense is part-and-parcel of the piety contest. No matter what your foundational principle, if you have only one, there will be bullets you have to bite.

The defense against piety contests, therefore, is to cultivate a multiplicity of irreducible sacred values. This gives the moral community a vantage point from which to evaluate the consequences of each norm against something else. Christianity, for example, is filled with pairs of concepts that orthodoxy holds “in tension”: trinity and unity, free will and predestination, grace and works, and so on. Indeed, heresy has been defined as emphasizing one element of one of these pairs at the expense of the other, and throughout Christianity’s history it has been heretical movements of just this sort that have been filled with the fervent zeal of the piety contest.

(6) Biden appoints a person who said that blacks are genetically superior to whites as his civil rights Czar.
https://cnsnews.com/commentary/hans-von-spakovsky/biden-pick-civil-rights-czar-advocated-black-supremacy
The nominee is Kristen Clarke. Writing in the Harvard Crimson,

START OF QUOTE FROM FOREGOING LINK.
Clarke cited a number of “experts” regarding what she called the “truth” about the “genetic differences between blacks and whites.”

She posited that “human mental processes are controlled by melanin — that same chemical which gives blacks their superior physical and mental abilities.” Additionally, “melanin endows blacks with greater mental, physical, and spiritual abilities.”

The liberal editors of [Harvard University newspaper] The Crimson found Clarke’s “racist theories” to be “outrageous,” saying that Clarke had “resorted to bigotry, pure and simple.”… Not long after she penned her letter claiming that blacks are genetically superior to other racial groups, the Black Students Association under her leadership invited professor Tony Martin to campus.

A notorious anti-Semite, Martin’s ensuing lecture about his tract, “The Jewish Onslaught,” was apparently a racist diatribe against the Jewish people, their history, and their traditions, claiming they were the source of the supposedly “ordained” notion of “African inferiority.”

Yet Clarke told The Harvard Crimson that “Professor Martin is an intelligent, well-versed black intellectual who bases his information on indisputable fact.”

END OF QUOTE.

(7) Related: In the comments at https://blog.reaction.la/culture/mate-guarding-game/, Rick says “This isn’t surprising but remember to let your people know the score:
https://www.islandpacket.com/news/local/crime/article251689813.html
Black guy murders white retired police chief, confesses to the crime and the all black jury lets him walk.”

Here’a another link which confirms that he was acquitted: https://www.islandpacket.com/news/local/crime/article251701818.html, though neither link mentions the race of the jurors.

(8) France is worried that US identity politics is penetrating France and damaging it. It’s good to know that they have the sense to be worried. Though it might be too late at this point.
https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/1359139829418758146

“French President Emmanuel Macron has joined numerous French intellectuals & journalists in warning that ‘out-of-control woke leftism of US campuses and its attendant cancel culture’ poses a grave threat due to the social strife it creates.”

Cozying Up with a Good Book is Racist

1. It “helps to mask institutional racism.”
https://gal-dem.com/hygge-helps-to-mask-institutional-racism-in-denmark/

“It’s time for hygge (pronounced hoo-gah)… The Danish concept of hygge – its closest translation into English being ‘cosiness’… As an idea and lifestyle hygge seems pretty harmless, it encourages people to take time out of their day to enjoy the little things in life, make a soothing mug of hot chocolate and snuggle up in warm knits in front of the TV – or a log fire if you want to stay true to the Danish aesthetic.

Danish ‘cosiness’ is a notion that is not extended to those who are black or brown…”

“Extended to”? What the fuck? If you want to curl up with some hot chocolate, who’s stopping you?

2. Scandinavia Standard:

https://www.scandinaviastandard.com/what-is-hygge-racism-how-did-it-become-so-pervasive-in-danish-culture/

“Most people are familiar with the Danish concept of hygge [“most people”? Anyway…] and the image of candles and coziness it conveys… But hygge is more about a social atmosphere where all members participate: fun and conflict-free. It’s within this context that hyggeracisme happens; where one hears the N-word or sees a Nazis gesture in the name of ‘fun.’”

Danish people in 2020 giving Nazi salutes, uh-huh. Sure. This is good example of how leftists always lie about everything.

But even if this were actually true— it’s not— it is of course completely retarded. If people give Nazi salutes in houses, that proves that…. houses are racist!

3. Slate weighs in.

https://slate.com/human-interest/2017/01/danish-hygge-is-cozy-and-also-tied-to-right-nationalist-xenophobic-populism.html

“The endless stream of books published on the subject stress the benefits of Ugg-booted inertia and snug living rooms, covers pulled right up around adherents’ necks against the chilly world outside… It’s with a terrifying but unwitting accuracy, though, that Helen Russell, in The Year of Living Danishly, calls hygge a ‘complete absence of anything annoying or emotionally overwhelming.’”

Yeah, terrifying.

“Hygge’s turning inward against the world outside comes with a more sinister edge, however. As Charlotte Higgins pointed out… hygge’s ties to the far-right in Denmark are remarkably strong. Pia Kjærsgaard, the leader of the right-wing, anti-immigrant Danish People’s Party, has publicly extolled the virtues of the lifestyle, insisting that her office remain cozy and hyggelig at all times.”

My God! Hitler used to read books! And he was a vegetarian! Reading and vegetarianism are Nazi things! In fact, vegetarianism’s ties to Naziism are remarkably strong.

“Denmark’s welfare state and reputation for tolerance may be admired by progressives in the U.K. and U.S., but, as Higgins points out, the country’s love of hyggefied thatched cottages with closed doors suggests a conservative undercurrent.”

LOL.

But surely there’s some evidence that hygge is somehow racist? Apparently not, since here’s the best Slate can do: In some online forum, someone accused someone else of making a “little Hyggelig racist joke.” So Slate uses the common leftist move of citing someone else’s accusation made without evidence as if it somehow supports Slate’s own accusations made without evidence. They then mention that someone else in the forum, fed up with this sort of “You racist!” bullshit, called the accuser a homosexual. And this came “from a user with the word Hygge in their username.” Well, the original “racism” accusation dragged the word “hygge” into the discussion! If my user name contained the word “baseball” and you said “baseball is racist,” I might be angry too. Duh.

So what is all this really about? I think it’s about white Europeans daring to take pleasure in anything, anything at all, instead of spending every waking hour attending White People Are Evil seminars. And there is a hunting suspicion among the identity-politics left— all the left these days— that the company being enjoyed, by people sitting around enjoying each other’s company, might be Danish! Actual Danish Danish people. (As opposed to “nationality is paperwork” Danes.)

And the books being read may be books written by… Danes! And these books might not be condemning— in fact they might actually be celebrating!— traditional Danish culture! We can’t have that!

Think I’m kidding? Try this quote from the Slate article:

Some writer “says that it [hygge] falls in line with a ‘postcolonial drawbridge theory—the What was lost without [will be found within] way of valuing what little cultural and economic capital Denmark had left after the loss of its empire.’”

“How DARE you value and cherish your culture! You vicious racist!”

Darwin, Hayek, Nash

On my About page I have this:

Politics:

Former libertarian. Establishment libertarianism completely lost me over one issue: Immigration.

Now:

Charles Darwin + Friedrich Hayek + John Nash.

That is,

We live in, or if shocked away from are always heading toward,

Stable equilibria (Nash) of decentralized interactions (Hayek) of multiple self-interested agents (Darwin, Hayek, Nash), which are not optimized for rationality or “utility maximization,” but reproductive success (Darwin).

To elaborate…

The Basic Ideas

You know who Charles Darwin is. Evolutionary psychology is the only way to make sense of human behavior, just as evolution in general is the only way to make sense of biology in general.

After all, what is evolution? It is simply a combination of ingredients which, taken individually, no sane person denies: Cause and effect, probability, the inheritance of certain characteristics, and the fact that reproductive success is a function of (among other things) inherited characteristics. I have never (literally never) met a human being who denied the reality of any one of those facts, taken in isolation. Creationists deny their combination, strangely. And CURRENT-YEAR leftists… I don’t know what their position on evolution in general is. The left used to love talking about evolution but they seem to have gone quiet on that lately. But bring up evolutionary psychology and you’ll find their position is crystal clear; give any credence to it and you’re a misogynistracistnazifascist.

Notably, feminists say that a woman under the influence of alcohol can’t consent to sex, and thus concede that chemicals in the body can affect judgment and behavior…but they deny that testosterone or estrogen could affect judgment and behavior. I guess. Again, it’s hard to figure out what they “believe” here, because they cannot afford to acknowledge the existence of such questions for longer than it takes to shout “misogynistracistnazifascist!”

(If you’re doing anthropological field work to study leftists and need to blend in with that tribe, just remember: Evolution stops at the neck. From the soles of the feet to the clavicle, natural selection is a valid, though somewhat vulgar, topic. But the brain is magic; it has an exception to phenomena like cause and effect that makes it immune to evolution.)

Friedrich Hayek was a 20th century writer in political science, economics, and the theory of law. He didn’t invent the phrase “spontaneous order” but he did more than anyone else to popularize it. In the social sciences, spontaneous order is the emergence of ordered patterns that are the result of human action but not human intention. The emergence of natural languages is one example of jillions. Spontaneous order is not confined to human interactions; e.g., in biology, evolution is an example of spontaneous order.

Another major aspect of Hayek’s thought is the immense complexity of modern societies and the limitations of our knowledge about them. We’d need a million? a billion? times more information than we actually have in order to “plan” society as socialists want to, or even to regulate it in a way that avoids the Law of Unintended Consequences.

John Nash is the father of game theory. He came up with the basic concept of equilibrium that converted game theory from an ad hoc collection of unconnected examples to a field of study with structural coherence and unity. How? He saw that the appropriate equilibrium notion is simply mutual best responding. That simply means— take a 2-player game for example— that your move is your best response to my move, while my move is at the same time my best response to your move. If both those things are true, then neither of us has any incentive to change his behavior, so that pair of moves is an equilibrium. The concept easily generalizes to any number of players.

This concept is radiantly useful. There are now maybe a dozen refinements of it tailored to specific types of games, but they all have some notion of mutual best response at their core. It’s now called “Nash equilibrium” in Nash’s honor.

In general a given game can have any number of Nash equilibria; none, one, more than one, or indeed infinity. However, Nash proved that under general conditions, a game has at least one equilibrium, if you broaden the things that players can do from just choosing moves to choosing probability distributions over moves. In other words, if you let players be random to prevent other players from predicting what they’ll do. Because the players use a mix of possible moves in this kind of equilibrium, it’s called a mixed strategy equilibrium. Nash proved that unless the game is screwy, in technical terms, there is at least one mixed strategy Nash equilibrium.

Example: About an hour before writing this I was watching some baseball on TV. The pitcher doesn’t want the batter to know what pitch he’s going to throw, obviously. So we must use mixed strategy game theory to analyze what’s going on.

If we’re studying strategic interactions we must start with Nash. But we can’t stop there: Nash and conventional game theory by themselves are necessary but not sufficient to understand a broad set of social phenomena.

Why don’t they suffice? Because conventional game theory-cum-Nash equilibrium takes the game as fixed and known to the players. But in real-world adversarial interactions we often want to burst outside the game as our opponent understands it and do something they didn’t even think of as being possible. The development and use of the first nuclear weapons in World War II is an example.

Summing all this up…

We need Darwin to understand and predict people’s preferences and moves, noting that their “preferences” may not be consciously held in their minds, but more like evolutionarily instantiated behavior patterns.

We need Nash to make sense of and predict what happens when such evolutionarily engineered creatures interact with each other.

But we also need Hayek to remind ourselves that predictability is limited, a limitation on knowledge that applies to both us and our adversaries. And sometimes the very unpredictability is one of the main points. For example: Immigration. Once immigrants and their sympathizers are 51% of the voters, they are not going to vote to eject themselves from the country, so allowing in a flood of immigrants is an irreversible decision with unknown consequences.

(It’s hard to believe that any human being could be stupid enough to advocate rolling the dice on an unknown outcome that’s irreversible. Yet observe the politics of CURRENT YEAR. By the way, one might say, “The consequences of not having immigration are also unpredictable.” Sure, but: That decision is reversible. If we don’t let immigrants in now, we can always let them in later. But if we let them in now, we can’t eject them later. Not easily. Not without something like total war. Which we are far from guaranteed to win, and will be immensely costly even if we do win it.)

And, now that the left is taking things totalitarian, breathtakingly quickly, [Nick Fuentes being forbidden from flying: https://www.unz.com/mmalkin/anti-censorship-legislation-get-it-right/] we also need Nash as one of the things to help us think about the looming civil war. By the way, we’re already in the civil war, if you hadn’t noticed. It doesn’t always have a clear sign. In this case it was kind of like an astronaut’s crossing of a black hole’s event horizon: the astronaut himself doesn’t notice it. (Though future historians will likely settle on some event like the mostly-peaceful protests of January 6 for convenience.)

All of this is a more detailed exposition of the simplified statement on my About page,

“We live in, or if shocked away from are always heading toward,

Stable equilibria (Nash) of decentralized interactions (Hayek) of multiple self-interested agents (Darwin, Hayek, Nash), which are not optimized for rationality or “utility maximization,” but reproductive success (Darwin).”

Some Applications

(1) Why is war unavoidable? Why has there never been a microsecond on Earth during which the entire planet was at peace? Why is it almost entirely men who fight wars?

Evolutionary psychology (Darwin) explains who fights and why. Men fight with each other because uteruses are scarce and they are valuable— in reproductive terms, from a man’s point of view, infinitely valuable. They are worth fighting over. (Men want pussy, but obviously evolution designed us to want pussy because pussy is the gateway to uterus.) Women do not fight because they don’t have to – women can get access to sperm extremely easily. That’s because fucking a chick is low-cost for a man. Men are sexually available to women. In contrast, pregnancy is costly and risky for a woman, and was even more costly and risky in the evolutionary environment that shaped our sexual preferences. It makes sense for a woman to be very picky about who she has sex with. Thus men’s demand for pussy is much higher than women’s demand for cock. Thus men fight for pussy; women do not fight for cock. Men are evolved to be warlike.

So Darwin explains who fights, and ultimately why.

Nash explains why fighting always exists, and unfortunately probably always will, even though it’s costly for both sides. To see this, imagine the contrary – we’re going to do a kind of proof by contradiction. Here we have a wonderful world with no physical conflict! No wars, not even any fistfights. Fantastic! Alas, this situation is not stable – it’s not a Nash equilibrium. Why not? Because if there is no physical conflict then there is no need for defensive measures. No one owns a firearm, no one trains in fighting, no one is alert for the threat of violence. E.g. no one takes care to avoid isolated areas at night, etc. And on longer, evolutionary timescales, no one needs cognitive modules like the ability to model opponents’ intentions, or emotions like anger that help you to make credible threats of retaliation against violence.

In this world with no countermeasures against violence, violence is extremely effective and low-risk. Amoral assholes look around and see a bunch of easy targets with no mental preparation for resisting violence and no weapons that would help them resist it. (Picture those fat immobile people on the Axiom spaceship in the movie Wall-E.) So they use violence to easily get what they want (whether it’s money or pussy or whatever).

Violence increases until countermeasures against it appear to an extent that makes an increase in violence not worthwhile. That is, we have the world as we know it – there is neither zero violence nor infinite violence. And that, sad to say, is the only Nash equilibrium.

(2) Why is an unbiased media impossible? Why is an unbiased educational system impossible? For the answer we look to Nash.

Again, consider the contrary: Suppose all news media and educational institutions are completely unbiased. So we trust what they say without bothering to verify it. But if we trust what they say without verifying it, it’s very easy to deceive us by infiltrating the news media and schools and lying to us. So malign actors do so. Ergo, in the long run we cannot have unbiased information-conveying institutions. It’s not a Nash equilibrium.

(3) Why do male and female voting patterns on immigration differ? Darwin tells us.

Women have a reproductive interest in mating with strong males. (Interpret the word strong broadly; this is mostly not about muscle mass.) A strong male can defend her against threats and is more likely to conquer than be conquered. As I noted here https://neurotoxinweb.wordpress.com/2018/07/15/red-pill-in-fiction-justina-robsons-keeping-it-real/,

The instinct to play “Let’s you and him fight” is deep in the female psyche. Time and again we see it play out, and not only with humans. There’s a species of duck, e.g., that my high school Bio teacher told us about, where the females do this. A female will sidle up to a male and get him to follow her. Then she’ll swim over to the vicinity of another male, so that the two males fight. Then she mates with the victor. This female behavior pattern has an ancient evolutionary history; it goes back even to pre-human animals.

There is no reason for men to want immigration (unless it’s 95% hot foreign chicks, which it isn’t). There is a reason, in terms of evolutionary psychology, for women to want it: It creates a game of “Let’s you and him fight.” Women also have a preference for their own population group, which is why more than half of white women voted for Trump in 2016. But note that more white men than white women voted for Trump.

(Prediction: In every nation in the world, a higher proportion of women than men support immigration.)

(4) Why does socialism always cause economic disaster? Why do even attempts to regulate society, short of total socialism, so often end in disaster? Gas price controls, busing, public housing, etc. This one is all Hayek.

The problem is that planning an entire economy requires much, much more information than the government could ever have about consumer preferences, available resources, production technology for turning resources into products, etc. The hubris of thinking one could do this!

In contrast, market economies work because they’re decentralized: each small unit— person, household, firm— only has to deal with a relatively small piece of the economy. So production and most other social processes generally work better if they develop at the local, self-organizing level.

Elaborations here.
https://neurotoxinweb.wordpress.com/2017/08/28/socialism-why-you-cant-do-that/

And that is why we need Darwin (evolutionary psychology), Nash (game theory), and Hayek (the social science of limited information and spontaneous order) to understand society.

Miscellany 23: In Which We Give Etiquette Advice Regarding Miscellany to Young Ladies of Respectable Families

(1) From Overheard in New York:

Rainbow Coalition, Part 1:
https://overheardinnewyork.com/archives/17836.html

Middle Eastern cab driver: “I used to have a video store in Washington Heights. But the black bastard put me out of business! Can you believe it? After ten years the black bastard put me out of business! Do you now the black bastard on Dyckman? C’mon! Everybody knows the back bastard! Black bastard! Black bastard video!”

Rainbow Coalition, Part 2:
https://overheardinnewyork.com/archives/1643.html

Black woman: “This here is Chelsea. It’s where all the rich homosexuals live.”

(2) A practical definition of a free society: One in which you don’t have to watch what you say.

(3) Stupid meme I saw which illustrates how liberalism ruins everything. This starts well. It’s blaringly obvious where some feminist/male feminist fuckwit decided to add something and screwed it up.

KISS HER
until she sighs
SPANK HER
until it stings
FINGER HER
until she’s soaked
LICK HER
until she shudders
FUCK HER
until she screams.
And always
respect her.

There’s an obvious point in that in which suddenly the tone changes radically, all the heat and intensity are destroyed, and the air is let out of the tires. What the fuck? Who would add something like that to a sex meme?! Especially one that says “Spank her until it stings.” Is there anything leftists won’t ruin?

(4) Well, whaddaya know, Neurotoxin’s got a theory. In July 2020 I noted that based on a porn website’s survey of 50,000 respondents from over 150 countries the ideal woman has “straight, dark, long hair.”

This goes against the old cliche that men prefer blondes and indeed, I haven’t known many men who actually prefer blondes. Yer humble correspondent himself likes ’em dark-haired. Why? Because that is the sexually and aesthetically correct preference, of course.

But seriously, why? Here’s my theory: When people get old their hair gets white, and what color is the opposite of white? Right, black. So, dark hair signals youth, and female fertility is highly positively correlated with youth. Men who preferred dark-haired women left more descendants in successive generations, on average, than those who didn’t.

You reply, “But dude, there’s such a thing as a young blonde.” Duh. But when a blonde starts to age it’s less obvious in her hair color than it is for a raven-tressed lass. So blonde-preferring men keep happily fucking them, even though their fertility has fallen off. In contrast, black-haired chicks show it when they start to age; they’re no longer black-haired. So black-hair-preferring men are drawn to 100% reasonably young, fertile women. In contrast, blonde-preferring men are sometimes drawn to young women, sometimes to older women. The differential effect needn’t be large to have mammoth effects over many generations.

This explains the prevalence of dark hair in the human species, as the result of sexual selection. When I was in school the story we got was some bullshit story from biologists that the geographic distribution of skin and hair color has something to do with sunlight and vitamin D at various latitudes. Maybe for skin color, I don’t know, but for hair color, BULLSHIT! There is no particular relationship between latitude and prevalent hair color! (Have you ever noticed that our professional “intellectuals” don’t even try that hard? I mean, they hardly even bother to put up a front of plausibility.) Europe is simply an anomaly, that’s all. The only “pattern” there is that Europe’s weird.

Thus I have explained the scientifically observed fact that, other things being equal, dark-haired chicks are hotter.

You’re welcome.

(5) LOL. Jim, arguing with a commenter at https://blog.jim.com/science/natural-selection-is-reactionary/#comments

What else do women think about? …It is dick, dick, dick, dick, dick all the time. Any time a woman opens her mouth, nothing that she says makes any sense except in relation to alpha male dick going into it. Everything a woman does is dick centric.

(6) Illinois: Sponsor of “no cash bail” plan is outraged that man who threatened him with gun only had to post $1,500 bail.

Senator who sponsored cash bail ban is outraged: Driver who threatened him with gun only had to post $1,500 to get out of jail

“By him being released on bail, he’s free to do this again,” [Illinois State Senator] Elgie Sims of Chicago told the State-Journal Register.

Yet just last month Sims tweeted, “money bond doesn’t guarantee public safety or someone’s appearance in court, it supports a system where freedom is based on the size of someone’s bank account.”

(7) The left doesn’t like to back down – I mean, no one likes to back down, but the left REALLY hates to. It can make them stupidly cling to positions that hurt them. Consider e.g. the entertainment industry and its insistence on hating its customers. Or the tampon company that said that some men need tampons, and when female customers objected to this mind-raping insanity, called them “self-hating misogynists” or whatever on Twitter.

Maybe we can use this to damage the left: Goad them into staking out insane positions in public, positions which they’ll resist backing down from once they’ve adopted them. Given how terrified they are of being out-flanked to the left in the holiness spiral, black-knight nudging of them shouldn’t be too hard. It might also work on politicians as well as left-converged businesses.

(8) IMPORTANT!

“If you can’t get yourself into a position to make decisions directly (rather than trying to persuade those who do) your movement is inert.”