SJWs Eat their Own, Parts 2,307,115 and 2,307,116

People of tolerance: Gay Pride Marchers With Jewish Flags Told To Leave Chicago Parade.

The excuse the anti-semitic leftists used was that Jewish flags made people feel “unsafe.”

In related news, Gay pride marches disrupted by minorities accusing white gays of racism:

Gay pride marches in New York City, San Francisco and in between this weekend will have plenty of participants — and also protests directed at them from other members of the LGBT community, speaking out against what they see as… celebrations that prioritize the experiences of gay white men and ignore issues facing black and brown LGBT people.

The protests disrupted other pride events earlier this month. In Washington, D.C., the No Justice No Pride group blocked the parade route. In Columbus, Ohio, four people were arrested after a group set out to protest violence against minority LGBT people…

“The real test will be, can the LGBT movement own up to its historic legacy of racism and evolve to be more accountable and inclusive of people of color?” Minter, a transgender man, wondered.

In unrelated news, scientists have recently discovered that if you put a number of temperamentally quarrelsome creatures who seek conflict, such as fighting fish, in the same tank, they fight with each other.

CNN Producer: Russia Story is “mostly bulls–t”


In the video, when asked whether the Russia story is BS, CNN producer John Bonifield replies,

“Could be bullshit. I mean it’s mostly bullshit right now. Like, we don’t have any giant proof.”

Bonifield explained that CNN’s reason for supporting the Leftist narrative about Russia is “ratings.”

Special Elections: Four out of Four

Excellent! As of June 2017, Republicans have won four out of four special elections since the November 2016 election! STILL! NOT! TIRED! OF! WINNING!

The states in which Republican members of the House left to serve in the Trump Administration are Kansas, Montana, South Carolina and, most recently, Georgia.

The Dems are coming up with innumerable excuses for their four straight losses and it has been hilarious. A couple, like hopeless cow Rachel Maddow, have even said it was the weather in the Georgia race. For fuck’s sake, people! You lost four in a row! If that’s not “voters dislike your goals,” then what would be!?

The NYT’s priceless headline: Jon Ossoff, a Democrat, Narrowly Misses Outright Win in Georgia House Race. (No, I’m not going to give them a link.) LOL. They were just tooooooo saaaaaaad to not have the words “Ossoff” and “win” in the same headline, so they forced the weird circumlocution to put the words together. Sane person headline: Handel Wins. Or, Handel Beats Ossoff. (Maybe sounds too close to Handel beats off. How about, Handel Beats Ossoff, Without Lube. Technically true!) Or, if you must focus on the Dem for some reason: Ossoff Loses. Ossoff Looooooossssesssssssss.

Some Dems, in absolute desperation, have been saying that the margin of victory for the GOP candidates has been falling and using that to try to claim a “moral victory” or whatever. One just assumes that this is the usual blatant lying or deliberately misleading BS from the Left, but even if it’s not, it’s exactly what one would expect to see: In the original elections, there was a GOP primary. The GOP candidate most popular among GOP voters got the nomination. Since he was most popular, he got a large number of votes in the general election. Then when he went to DC to serve in the Trump Administration, the next person in line was not as popular among the GOP voters, obviously. So the Dems are saying, “Republican voters don’t like their second choice as much as they like their first choice.” No shit, idiots. And we still whip your asses.

So grok this: Not only can’t the Dems beat the Republicans’ first-best candidate in these races, they can’t even field a candidate to beat the Republicans’ second-best candidate!

Stupid as all this propaganda is, it gets worse. Notice they don’t point out that Handel’s margin of victory was larger than Trump’s margin of victory in November, and thus infer that Republicans’ popularity is rising. And in that particular Georgia district, Trump only beat Felonia von Pantsuit by one point in November 2016, and Handel beat Ossoff by about 4 points in June 2017. So by that metric, there was a 3-point improvement in the GOP’s performance.

Oh, but it gets more ridiculous. In the Georgia race, for example, the Dem in the replacement election, Ossoff, got about the same number of votes (24 fewer, actually) as the Dem in the original election, one Rodney Stooksbury, despite the fact that Stooksbury spent zero dollars in that election! Ossoff spent more than $23 million.

Also, as the foregoing link points out, Democrats didn’t even field a candidate for the district in 2004 or in 2010. So when Dems claim that Republican special election candidates are winning by smaller margins than usual – even if that’s not just the usual leftist lying – it’s compared to Republican victories some of which were blowouts because there wasn’t even a Dem opponent! To coin a phrase: LOL.

In fact, it’s not clear that Rodney Stooksbury exists either. He had no web site, Facebook page, or photo for the press.

So their spinning starts out damn weak, with, “Ha! You didn’t kick our ass as thoroughly as you have in the past!” This is the best attempt to save face they can come up with, which is not surprising since they lost. And it goes from damn weak to unbelievably pathetic when you realize that their complete argument is, “When we actually field a team, you don’t win as thoroughly as when we default due to not showing up!” No kidding.

It’s time to put it to bed, retards. Stop the “trannies in your daughter’s 8th grade bathroom” crap and white genocide vileness. But for this to happen, the old-school leftists who just want more welfare and a 10% larger budget for NPR are going to have to muster the backbone to purge the “trannies and white genocide” crowd from the “Democratic” Party.

Funny Quote on SJWs

It’s funny because it’s true. Cataline Sergius at The Dark Herald:

Come on did you think the Hivemind would give up after we won GamerGate? It can’t give up because it’s not actually sapient. Think of it as mosquito determined to get through the netting and feast on what it protects. Mosquitoes don’t get bored and have no memory of past events. They have nothing better to do than to keep trying. The SJW Hivemind is no different.

Feminism Is Something New, Really, it Totally Is!

No, it really is not. Does this seem familiar?

In the common law of crime in England and Wales, a common scold was a type of public nuisance—a troublesome and angry woman who broke the public peace by habitually arguing and quarrelling with her neighbours…

The offence, which was exported to North America with the colonists, was punishable by ducking: being placed in a chair and submerged in a river or pond. Although rarely prosecuted it remained on the statute books in England and Wales until 1967.

Note that last date. If we’d kept this law and enforced it, a certain destructive modern political force would have been terminated ab ovum. The Infogalactic article continues,

In the Commentaries on the Laws of England, Blackstone says of this offence:

“Lastly, a common scold, communis rixatrix, (for our law-latin confines it to the feminine gender) is a public nuisance to her neighbourhood. For which offence she may be indicted; and, if convicted, shall be sentenced to be placed in a certain engine of correction called the… ducking stool, because the residue of the judgment is, that, when she is so placed therein, she shall be plunged in the water for her punishment.”


A scold’s bridle, known in Scotland as a brank, consists of a locking metal mask or head cage that contains a tab that fits in the mouth to inhibit talking. Some have claimed that convicted common scolds had to wear such a device as a preventive or punitive measure.

By the way, notice the amused mastery aspect of these punishments. The scolds are not even being ceded enough dignity to punish them in a serious way; it’s more the legal equivalent of being turned over the knee and given a spanking. But of course, no one wants to do that to an ugly woman; only cute babes get spanked. This is echoed in Jim’s comment on how Russia handles disruptive attention-whoring women: “I really love the way Russia deals with Pussy Riot… Recall the wonderful video of them breaking up a Pussy Riot event with whips, not arresting them, just chasing them away like stray dogs.” Seriously, it should be legal for any man to give a woman who acts like this a nuclear wedgie or something.

Of course this isn’t practical, because who’d want to grab the underwear of a pigtank feminist? Ugh. Fanciful notions about wedgies aside:

Women like this really are a problem for any society. Their modern variant, feminists, have affected our society to the extent that First Amendment protections and the presumption of innocence for men accused of rape are being dangerously eroded.

We tend to think of feminism as an ideology, and of course it is, but it is also, and originally, a female personality type. It has been known forever, and encoded in the law for centuries, that some women are inclined to go around accusing all and sundry of various sins, and causing general strife for no reason.

They do this, though they don’t admit it to themselves on a conscious level, to attract attention. Indeed, almost 100% of them are ugly, old, and/or fat. (Relatively bangable ones who participate in this do so in a lukewarm, do-the-bare-minimum way for career reasons or to go along to get along.) Accusing someone of some sort of crime is an effective way to capture attention because it’s hard – indeed, it can be personally costly – to ignore it. That is why attention-seeking losers moved from “You, sir, are a bounder with no manners!” to “You’re a rapist!”

From H. L. Mencken’s “The Uplift as a Trade” (i.e., presuming to uplift others’ morals as a profession), Baltimore Evening Sun, March 2, 1925:

One hears that “the women of the United States” are up in arms about this or that; the plain fact is that eight fat women, meeting in a hotel parlor, have decided to kick up some dust.

Mencken adds,

The eight fat women, meeting in their hotel parlor, find it easy to alarm the politicians, who are not only dreadful cowards but almost unbelieveable asses. Something thus gets afoot. Governors jump; legislators rush through new laws; judges respond to “public sentiment.”

Plus ca change, plus c’est la motherfucking meme chose. Mencken wrote this 92 years ago, and everything “modern” is here: The ugly sexual marketplace loser women trying to attract attention and spread their misery to everyone else via totalitarian minding of other people’s business political activism, the absolutely spineless elected officials, and the judges, invertebrate and venal, obediently interpreting the law to be in compliance with this week’s loudest-screeching rabble-rousers. And as Mencken also observes (though I didn’t quote it), even back in 1925 all this was facilitated by a cooperative press.

Feminism’s appeal is now almost entirely gone even among women, thank God. The last shreds of its appeal will vanish completely when the last shreds of its costume of being something new have fallen off. Feminism is not something new. It is old, old product in new packaging.

Time Inconsistency in the Mating Game and Other Games

In the comments here the talk turned to the game that goes on between men and women who are potential mates. On the temptation to cheat, one commenter ironically asks,

“At once, she wants to defect, but also to provoke a forced cooperation?”

The answer is Sure, this can make sense. The game theory of such situations, in which a person benefits by limiting their own future behavior, is very well-established.

For example, consider a powerful monarch who can default on his debts without his creditors being able to do anything about it. Since potential creditors know this, no one is willing to lend to him in the first place. (This problem doesn’t always occur, but it does if people have sufficient reason to worry that he’ll default.) If the monarch could be submitted to a more powerful entity that could make him pay his debts back in the future – and if this were commonly known – then people would be willing to lend him money today.

Thus it is true that both

(1) the monarch in some sense wants to defect (default on his debts)
(2) the monarch in some sense wants to be forced to cooperate (pay his debts back).

This sort of situation is pervasive and much of human custom and law is devoted to dealing with it. Speaking of male/female mating games, it is the reason that in most societies, marital infidelity is illegal. It is the reason that people are disgusted by those who lie, break promises, welsh on bets, etc. Societies that enforce such norms do better in the long run than those without them. And think of credit markets in general, never mind the above monarch. If the law did not force borrowers to pay back their debts, imagine how difficult it would be to borrow money in the first place. In extreme scenarios, credit markets would disappear entirely.

Put “time inconsistency” commitment into a search engine.

“Time inconsistency” refers to the fact that people’s desires can be inconsistent across time. E.g., at the time that you’re trying to borrow money, you’d like to be forced to pay your future debts back, because knowing that makes lenders willing to lend to you right now. But later, after you’ve gotten your hands on the borrowed money, then (if you’re an amoral asshole) you’d like to be able to default on your debts. Thus we have mechanisms that enforce “commitment,” which in this example means the law commits you to paying back your debts.

In general, people often can benefit by being committed to a course of action in the future, whether it’s marital fidelity or paying your debts back, etc.

Second Exchange Between Diabolus 31,506 and Diabolus Apprentice 19,751

Diabolus 31,506 to Diabolus Apprentice 19,751:

Apprentice 19,751:

In my previous missive I promised to discuss the worst example in recent decades of humans finding truth in the midst of lies. In fact, in this example they found truth because of lies.

The example has to do with human female sexual psychology and sexual behavior. As we will see, the important part here is their behavior, since the science that men created is ruthlessly empiricist.

Here is a rough outline of events:

1) Beginning in the 1960s (in the usual human dating scheme) we had great success spreading feminism. (Of course you’ll have learned about that in your basic propaganda class.) A major feminist lie was that women are more attracted to men who are nice to them (“nice guys”) than men who treat them with indifference or disdain (“jerks”). We had a good rationale at the time for spreading this lie: By convincing men that women liked nice guys, we gave men motive to accommodate the demands of feminism.

2) The men were bound to see through this utter nonsense in time. Naturally the Low Command anticipated that, but the Command made two mistakes in spreading this particular falsehood.

The first mistake was to forget just how important sex is to humans. When the men tried to be nice to women and were cast into involuntary celibacy as a result, we didn’t predict the human males’ reaction. The torment roused them from the bed of lies that we’d prepared for them and spurred them to think independently about human female behavior.

The second mistake was to fail to foresee the Internet. As in so much of life, the Net has drastically hurt our attempts at disinformation. As men quickly learned the truth, they quickly spread it.

As always, independent thinking was a disaster for us.

The first thing the men did was resolve to ignore everything that women, especially feminists, said about human female sexual behavior, and instead to observe that behavior for themselves. And of course, the moment they learned the truth, their incentive to be accommodating to feminists’ outrageous demands vanished.

And worse – much worse, Ap. 19,751 – they learned that feminists lie, relentlessly and with no shame, hesitation, or guilt. This has caused immeasurable damage to our attempts to spread more lies via that conduit. The false rape statistics, the 76-cents-on-the-dollar absurdity, and on and on: all of these wonderful lies had their useful lifespans drastically shortened by the wakened skepticism of the male half of the species.

An even worse problem is that it ignited an excited interest in empiricism as such in a broad swathe of human males – this is such a setback that it could be our undoing. It’s cruelly ironic: We spend decades creating and spreading feminism, establishing Women’s Studies departments, etc., only to find that all these efforts are counteracted by some facts that young men learn at bars and parties! It’s as if You Know Who is deliberately mocking us!

That also incited a wave of observation and experimentation in other areas such as political rhetoric and diet and exercise, to name just a couple of examples.

Diabolus Apprentice 19,751 to Diabolus 31,506:

Why was this such a disaster? I mean, why was it more of a disaster than the uncovering of our lies in other subject areas?

Diabolus 31,506 to Diabolus Apprentice 19,751:

Shrewd question, Ap. 19,751, to which I was just getting. A couple of reasons:

First, unlike say, ecological science, understanding female psychology is not a topic that requires expensive scientific equipment or years of scientific training. A man simply ventures out into the world and interacts with women, and observes the results from various approaches. You see the problem here: Unlike trends in global temperatures, e.g., women are a topic that is easily accessible. Indeed, they’re unavoidable; a man can hardly avoid interacting with women on a daily basis.

The second problem is one of interest: Since men naturally desire sex, they are intensely motivated to study this particular topic. It’s not some abstruse boring subject like the energy storage capacity of lithium batteries or whatnot.

Furthermore, due to the changes in the sexual marketplace which feminism brought about, men can’t ignore female psychology even if they wanted to. When women were more dependent on men for economic support, a man had the luxury of remaining ignorant of women’s attraction mechanisms and relying on his provider status to at least acquire a wife. That works much less well now that women are economically independent. In the current world, a man can’t afford to ignore the realities of women’s gut-level attraction triggers.

So we told the men a ridiculous lie and gave them an enormous incentive to uncover the lie around the same time. And the punishment for refusing to acknowledge the truth – involuntary chastity – is a severe punishment indeed for men. And the reward for apprehending the truth – sex – is an enormous reward. Which is to say, the incentive pressures on men to get to the truth were enormous.

And we ourselves created those pressures!

It’s even worse. Men who are studying women for their sexual behavior will also notice other aspects of female psychology as kind of a bonus. So now the men have noticed things like the tendencies to rationalization and self-deception which affect human females more than the males. Aside from being very useful to the men as they deal with women, this also has created another arena in which feminists are exposed as rank liars. It has, therefore, reduced one of our formerly most-valuable contingents to the position of screaming “Two plus two is thirty-seven!” at the top of their lungs. Many (if not most) men have realized that their default belief about a feminist statement should be that it’s a lie, unless there is a specific reason to think it’s true. Immeasurable harm, Ap 19,751.

Obviously feminism was bound to self-destruct due to its dishonesty and hatefulness, but we thought we had 15 or 20 more years than we did. Who would have thought that a collection of seduction techniques developed by an LA-based magician would be the final stake in the heart of feminism? And yet that is just what has happened.

All of this exemplifies my lament from my last missive, that reality in general just isn’t practically censorable, because everything is interconnected, and in unexpected ways.

Infernally yours,
Diabolus 31,506

Funny Coincidence in Vinge’s True Names

Re-reading Vernor Vinge’s sci-fi novella True Names, written in 1980, I just came across an amusingly prescient passage. (Edited here for brevity.) The time is a few decades in the future, from 1980’s point of view. A member of a group of superhackers is trying to convince another member that some of the others have been trying to leverage their computer skillz to take power in the real world:

“You know what convinced Wiley that the Mailman could deliver on his promises? It was the revolution in Venezuela. It was to be the Mailman’s first demonstration that that controlling data and information services could be used to take permanent control of a state. And Venezuela, they claimed, was perfect: Its data-processing facilities are all just a bit obsolete, since they were bought when the country was at the peak of its boom time.”

First an oil boom in Venezuela, then revolution. Think about it, maaaaaaaaan. It all makes sense!

First Exchange Between Diabolus 31,506 and Diabolus Apprentice 19,751

(With apologies to C. S. Lewis.)

Diabolus 31,506 to Diabolus Apprentice 19,751:

Gah, they’ve done it again! Every time we try to put forth falsehood, lies, deceit, and confusion, some humans twist it around to make it something clear, interesting, and true!

Consider the lies of feminism. Now we’ve got a good thing going there, don’t get me wrong. But no sooner had we established “Women’s Studies” as an actual thing (LOL), than some human scholar starts twisting it around to ask interesting anthropological questions!

I’m referring to that study that just appeared in The Journal of Feminist B.S. in which a young professor digs into the role of the two sexes in the prehistorical development of human technology. Her basic notion is as follows: Given that men were basically out running around fighting each other and chasing down impalas, and women were walking around holding infants, foraging for plants, and cooking them, it seems reasonable that the technologies of e.g. cooking and baby slings were more developed by women, and the technologies of hunting and war were more developed by men. So this little guttersnipe is investigating the archeological evidence about this.

“Big deal,” you’ll say, “that’s obvious.”

But think about it: We’re trying to divide the humans along certain lines (in this case sex) and make them hate each other. Then this little $#@&^%&^% comes along and starts asking valid questions about human pre-history! It’s all very intellectually curious, which is the last thing we want to encourage. And it’s intellectually honest, since she has no agenda and doesn’t care what the answer is; she just wants to know the answer. Much worse, there’s no hate in it at all! The journal editors forgot to require her to insert something about how men oppressed women by not soliciting their opinions on the bow and arrow, or whatever. That’s not why we invented Women’s Studies, damn it!

Diabolus Apprentice 19,751 to Diabolus 31,506:

But that’s just one example. Not much harm, right?

By the way, you referred to “the two sexes” above. Shouldn’t that be “the seventeen sexes”? Or whatever number we’re up to now?

Diabolus 31,506 to Diabolus Apprentice 19,751:

Regarding “the two sexes,” it’s okay to say that as long as it’s just us chickens. But good awareness.

And it’s not just one example, Ap. 19,751. Here’s another recent one, from “environmental science”: So we get the falsified data, crammed through the ridiculous models, and with enough working over the results (with a sledgehammer, LOL) we get the conclusion we want, which is, of course: You need to establish totalitarian government right now or you’re all going to die!

We thought we had “environmental science” in the bag, but some monkeywrenching little *&^$@&^&$* comes along and gets interested in the environment’s dynamics (i.e., how the system changes over time). So what does he do? He develops his own model – which is drastically simplified, but that’s no help to us because he honestly acknowledges that fact, aargh! – and starts analyzing its dynamics.

The result? He proves a new stability theorem! Some mathematics professors at the university where he teaches heard about his theorem, got interested in it, and have been generalizing and extending it to other kinds of dynamic systems! FUCK! We start this whole enviro enchilada with a view to spreading falsehood, and what happens? Some little asshole comes along and uses it to develop a new intellectual tool for finding truth! How the fuck are we supposed to anticipate and prevent things like this? I can’t work under these conditions, Ap. 19,751. Sometimes I despair, I really do.

Our task is made more difficult by the fact that all truth coheres as a single whole. You never know when some lie you’re telling over here is going to be contradicted by some fact that pops up over there. One just has to hope the humans don’t notice, and that never works in the long run. Their constant experience of everyday reality contradicts some of our lies every second of every day.

Consider one of our marquee lies, “The two (seventeen, whatever) sexes are exactly the same psychologically and behaviorally.” It’s a rare human that makes it to age five believing that one, Ap. 19,751. And naturally, when they figure out that we’re liars it hurts our attempts to spread other lies immeasurably. Just between you and me, I often wish the Low Command would be more strategic about the nonsense we’re supposed to spew. (Consider two of the current big ones: (1) It’s impossible to tamper with the U.S. voting system, and (2) Russia tampered with the U.S. voting system. Even for human leftists, believing both of these simultaneously is a stretch.)

And it gets even worse. My hand is getting stiff from writing this, so I’ll leave off for now, but my next missive will discuss the worst example in recent decades of humans finding truth in the midst of lies.

Infernally yours,
Diabolus 31,506