Sexual Harassment: The Left’s Three Bad Options

November 2017: The proliferating sexual harassment scandals that started with Harvey Weinstein are now proliferating too rapidly for one to keep track. And they are disproportionately affecting leftist men. Enhancing the deliciousness is the fact that the left itself started this crap, back in the 1990s.

The left now has three bad options for dealing with the current sexual harassment conflagration:

1) Keep going with it, ruthlessly assailing the leftist men and ending their careers. In this scenario, Democrats like Al Franken and John Conyers are forced out of Congress. And many a leftist media personality is gone, gone, gone. The left doesn’t want this, obviously.

2) Admit that it has gone too far and try to step on the brakes. That means that a fullthroated affirmation of the presumption of innocence replaces the “Always believe a female accuser” thing that the left has embraced now. It also means a return to sanity about what constitutes “sexual harassment” and so forth. E.g., grabbing someone’s boobs is sexual harassment; saying something that some woman claims made her “feel uncomfortable” isn’t. This requires a return to sanity by the left and is therefore almost certainly off the table as an option.

The other problem with this option is that feminism is now such a huge part of the modern left. For the non-feminist left to try to excise the feminist branch would not be like excising a tumor; it would be like the tumor trying to excise the rest of the body.

Furthermore, the culture and incentives of “victimhood” are too deeply embedded in leftist constituencies for this to be stopped now. Victimhood claims now ARE the left; that’s what modern leftism IS. To admit, even as a theoretical possibility, that a claim of victimhood could ever be wrong would be to undercut the very foundations of modern leftism itself. They will never do this.

3) Explicitly say “It’s okay if leftist men do it, but not okay if non-leftist men do it.” They actually do go that far, some of them, but it’s not a convincing argument for sane people, naturally.

The problem for the left here, obviously, is that “Anyone who agrees with my politics should be allowed to get away with sexual molestation” is not going to be a winning argument with most people.

In the event, what they are actually going to do is try to have their cake and eat it too, as the left has always tried to do. That is, they will try to make a big deal out of it when men of the right commit some leftist sin, or are accused of doing so, but to totally ignore it, or do the minimum amount of media coverage and commentary possible, when men of the left do it or are accused of doing it. This is a bad choice for the left, especially now that we have the Net to provide information, but they may think that it’s their best of a set of bad options.

Memo to leftists: The actual best option is (2), Admit that it has gone too far and try to step on the brakes.

The left won’t want to do this, though, because it would constitute an admission that it is possible for a leftist witch hunt to go too far. For the left, even admitting that such a thing is possible in theory is unacceptable. So, while that would actually be best for everyone, it won’t happen.

This is one of the reasons, of many, that I hate sharing a planet with leftists. Out of spite and blind stubbornness, they will do everything in their power to AVOID win-win situations, if that requires admitting that non-leftists are correct about something.

ADDENDUM: Mike Pence’s rule about being alone with women who aren’t his wife doesn’t look so dumb now, does it, left-wing morons?

Advertisements

Do You Believe in Republican Traitors NOW?

I mean “believe in their existence,” obviously, not “trust them.”

Fills me with seething rage:

Republicans considering bill to admit millions more replacement workers:

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/10/03/gop-bill-import-million-guest-workers-for-food-industry/

Un-fucking-believable. This is them giving us, their base, the finger and saying, “What are you going to do about it?”

They are literally laughing in our faces and saying, “What are you going to do about, pussies?”

We must primary at least one of these traitors. Failing that, it’s getting closer to time for non-standard options.

Red Pill in Fiction: Index

My “Red Pill in Fiction” series of posts reliably gets more Likes than any other kind of post. Here’s an index to this series of posts, in chronological order; I’ll update as appropriate. A good entry point might be the Suddenly Royal one.

1. The Inverse Bechdel Test
https://neurotoxinweb.wordpress.com/2016/12/23/the-inverse-bechdel-test/

2. Jerks, Nice Guys, and Female Self-Awareness: An Example
https://neurotoxinweb.wordpress.com/2017/05/21/jerks-nice-guys-and-female-self-awareness-an-example/

3. Red Pill in Fiction: Harry Potter edition
https://neurotoxinweb.wordpress.com/2017/05/26/red-pill-and-fiction-harry-potter-edition/

4. Red Pill in Fiction, part like, whatever
https://neurotoxinweb.wordpress.com/2017/06/06/red-pill-in-fiction-part-like-whatever/

5. Red Pill in Fiction: Jonathan Strange and Mr. Norrell
https://neurotoxinweb.wordpress.com/2017/07/03/red-pill-in-fiction-jonathan-strange-and-mr-norrell/

6. Red Pill in Fiction: Bridget Jones’s Diary
https://neurotoxinweb.wordpress.com/2017/07/10/red-pill-in-fiction-bridget-joness-diary/

7. Red Pill in Fiction: Every Rose Has Its Thorn
https://neurotoxinweb.wordpress.com/2017/07/19/red-pill-in-fiction-every-rose-has-its-thorn/

8. Red Pill in Fiction: Oh My Freakin’ God Edition: Suddenly Royal
https://neurotoxinweb.wordpress.com/2017/08/01/red-pill-in-fiction-oh-my-freakin-god-edition-suddenly-royal/

9. Red Pill in Fiction: The French Lieutenant’s Woman
https://neurotoxinweb.wordpress.com/2017/08/08/red-pill-in-fiction-the-french-lieutenants-woman/

10. Red Pill in Fiction, Classics Edition: Gone with the Wind
https://neurotoxinweb.wordpress.com/2017/08/22/red-pill-in-fiction-classics-edition-gone-with-the-wind/

11. Red Pill in Fiction: Red Pill Romance
https://neurotoxinweb.wordpress.com/2017/10/03/red-pill-in-fiction-red-pill-romance/

12. Red Pill in Fiction, 200-Proof Edition: Nancy Werlin’s Impossible
https://neurotoxinweb.wordpress.com/2017/12/22/red-pill-in-fiction-200-proof-edition-nancy-werlins-impossible/

13. Red Pill in Fiction: The Other Boleyn Girl
https://neurotoxinweb.wordpress.com/2018/01/03/red-pill-in-fiction-the-other-boleyn-girl/

14. Red Pill in Fiction: Grossman’s Magicians series
https://neurotoxinweb.wordpress.com/2018/01/14/red-pill-in-fiction-grossmans-magicians-series/

15. Red Pill in Fiction: Kelley Armstrong’s Driven
https://neurotoxinweb.wordpress.com/2018/02/07/red-pill-in-fiction-kelley-armstrongs-driven/

16. Red Pill in Fiction, Reverse Edition: Heinlein’s Friday
https://neurotoxinweb.wordpress.com/2018/03/26/red-pill-in-fiction-reverse-edition-heinleins-friday/

17. Red Pill In Fiction: Justina Robson’s Keeping It Real
https://neurotoxinweb.wordpress.com/2018/07/15/red-pill-in-fiction-justina-robsons-keeping-it-real/

18. Red Pill In Fiction: The Maltese Falcon
https://neurotoxinweb.wordpress.com/2018/07/28/red-pill-in-fiction-the-maltese-falcon/


LOL. In this thread about movies that pass a reverse Bechdel test, Banksiman’s comment is fuckin hilarious:

Terminator.

1. Are there at least two male characters with names?

i. Kyle Reese ii. Does ‘Cyberdyne Systems Model 101 Terminator with living tissue over a metal endoskeleton’ count as a name? There are bit-part cops named, but wouldn’t count that more than a nametag.

2. Do they have a minute of conversation with each other in the movie?

nope

3. Is the conversation about something other than women?

Its all Sarah Connor this, Sarah Connor that …

A much better chick flick would have had lines like ‘Cyberdine … , you look sad. What’s wrong? If Kyle can’t see beyond the living tissue over the metal endoskeleton he’ll never know the real you, and then its him you should feel sorry for.’

Why Trump’s Election Freaks Out the Left

I drafted this within a few weeks of Trump’s election in November 2016 but didn’t get around to fleshing it out as much as I wanted, so I kept delaying posting it to the blog. It still isn’t really as fleshed out as I’d like, but since it’s been a year, I think it’s time to pull the trigger. Consider it a commemoration of the one-year anniversary of the God-Emperor’s glorious election.

Without further ado…

Why Trump’s Election Freaks Out the Left

1. A very small minority of Lefties are genuinely afraid, because they are truly, deeply insane and they’ve swallowed their own BS about how Republicans want to kill all gays or whatever. The number of people who actually believe this and are not institutionalized is probably only in the double digits, though.

2. The complement of that set within the Left is afraid for the opposite reason: Now that he’s elected and of course will not round up all gays and put them into death camps, the youngsters who bought the BS mentioned above will see that the Left is full of BS. Obviously that’s going to be bad news for the Left. It’s not only bad news for their hysterical “bigots are coming to kill you!” nonsense in general; it’s bad for an attempt to say “Trump’s going to kill you!” in the 2020 election in particular. Your average gay black dude is going to say, “You told me he was gonna kill me in 2016, and he didn’t. Yawn.” I’m not predicting that your average gay black dude is going to vote for Trump in 2020 (though he should, given that Trump wants to hold off the Muslims who really do want to kill that gay dude). What I’m saying is, if that moronic scare-mongering didn’t work in 2016, how the fuck is it supposed to work in 2020, after four years of being proven false?

3. A point related to the first one: They project. They imagine what they would do in Trump’s position, with a federal government as dominated by their party as thoroughly as it is now dominated by Republicans.

4. They like to tell themselves that they’re in the firm, large majority. They want a political minority that’s just large enough to be noticeable that they can claim to be bravely fighting. Odds of about 99-to-1 in their favor are about right, from the left’s point of view. (While they say, all the while, “We’re an oppressed minority, bravely standing up to the Powers That Be at grave risk to ourselves!”)

But the election reveals that this isn’t true. Even if we discount the documented electoral fraud and take the official tallies at face value, it’s still 47% of the country that voted for Trump. That’s waaaaaaaaaaay too much from lefties’ point of view, horribly close to evenly-matched sides. (And they know that it’s actually worse than that for them because they know damn well about the electoral fraud.)

5. The election reveals that they’re not as smart as they thought they were.

“We know how to manipulate the rubes! We’ll just propagandize them into voting for Clinton!” Ha, didn’t work out that way, did it, assholes? Looks like “the rubes” have caught on.

I mean, think about this: They threw everything they had into defeating Trump. They did their absolute best. And it wasn’t good enough. They lost. That does not bode well for the future for them.

6. A related point: The election reveals that media bias can’t guarantee desired electoral outcomes any more. Uh-oh!

7. The election reveals that their victory against the USA is not inevitable, as they thought it was.

8. The election reveals that electoral fraud can’t guarantee desired electoral outcomes, at least this time.

9. The election destroyed the Left’s comforting delusion that the outcome of their war against the West is a foregone conclusion of victory for them. They thought, many of them, that it was in the bag for them. That all they had to do was sit around and wait for the inevitable.

Idiots.

How many people, how many political movements in the last couple of centuries, have thought that the western world was done, was past its peak and safe to attack? How many have said, “The West used to be strong, but is now weak and in decay; it is safe to attack it now, and indeed it’s so rotten that all we need do is give it a little push and it will topple”? How many have said that, hmmm? And how many of those have gotten their asses handed to them? All of them.

This isn’t the first time that a leftist movement has said that the inexorable tides of history are on their side, guaranteeing their victory. Whatever happened to Communism, anyway?

If you decide to take on the most successful system in the history of the world, you should… um, I don’t even know how to finish that sentence. Why would you do that? Unless you actually had some reason, which they don’t. I suspect that, aside from the general genetically-hardwired aggression of leftists, there’s this: Old leftists who came of age during the Cold War are still burned about the collapse of the Soviet Union. They want to destroy the U.S. so they can say, “Ha! You got our main country, but we got yours too! So you didn’t win; it’s a tie. It’s totally a tie!” For fuck’s sake, grow up. GROW. THE FUCK. UP.

10. The election reveals that white/European populations are starting to figure out what the Left is up to. That is, putting it very delicately, population replacement. Bluntly: white genocide. That should be terrifying for the left. If nothing else, it means white voters will start to block vote along identity lines the way minorities do. That’s electoral death for the left.

And maybe the reaction won’t be limited to electoral politics, which takes me to…

11. While the Left doesn’t have guilt, they have a mental module that is functionally isomorphic to guilt: They are aware of how they have screwed over people on the right (Obama’s IRS, e.g.), and European-descended populations generally (inviting a flood of invaders into their countries), and what those groups’ natural reaction could be now that they’ve started to awaken. In short, the Left knows what they have coming to them.

12. Worst, from their point of view – devastatingly – the election reveals that identity politics a la “You’re racist!” is past its peak. It is now on the downswing. And since the left spent the last 25 years leaning on that, and forgetting how to make an argument, once that magic spell has totally stopped working– and it’s close to that point– they are politically dead.

At some level they know this, but most won’t entertain this realization on a conscious level. Even the minority among them who admit it qualify the admission with more of the same! Even the most astute of the post-election analyses from the left, which admit this is a problem, try at the same time to… not admit it. A prototypical such statement has gone something like this:

“Of course a strong minority, at least, of Trump voters are racist and sexist. Trump definitely appealed to the worst impulses of America’s shameful past with vicious bigotry. Yet perhaps we shouldn’t have yelled quite so loudly “You’re an ultra-Nazi!” at every single person who said that the U.S. has the right to exist as a nation. There is a possibility that we might have turned off a couple of voters by saying things like that. Of course, this isn’t to deny the very real problem of ethnic hatred which has persistently plagued the U.S. and to which Trump gave voice and legitimacy…blah blah.”

It really is amusing. At one level they clearly see the problem and the obvious implication that they have to stop doing this, but even as they admit that, they continue to do it! Have frivolous accusations of bigotry become a physical addiction on the Left at some neurological level? It reminds me of a smoker saying, “This shit is going to kill me,” even as he lights up a cigarette.

Consider this, for example: The population of Michigan is around 10 million. Think about the number of white people in Michigan who are fed up with constantly being told “You’re racist!” for no reason. Now think about Clinton’s margin of loss in Michigan: about 11 thousand votes.

Well, whatever. All signs from leftists provide good cause for optimism that they will continue to shoot themselves in the foot with this crap. It’s almost 100% doubling down on the “They’re racist/they’re sexist” stuff. Those of us on the right should find that very encouraging.

13. Or is THIS one the worst from their perspective: The events of 2014 – 2016, especially 2016, reveal that the trend is worldwide in the western world. Continental Europe, Brexit, now Trump… This isn’t history; it is History.

Game Will Kill the Left

In the comments here, Peppermint articulates a thought (lightly edited) that a lot of men on the red pill right have had over the last five or ten years:

In order to have sex or get to the point of having sex or even get the attention of a woman with options you need to not behave in the ways that every leftist says you should.

Women seek domination. They don’t want you to convince them that everything they were told in school by teachers who wanted them to sleep with low quality men is false using facts and logic. They want you to simply believe in yourself and believe in the things you believe so that they can believe in you…

The #1 reason the left is dead is young intelligent men have to behave in non-leftist ways to hook up with the women they want.

I don’t know if it’s the #1 reason, but it’s certainly a reason. And this is excellent.

And aside from the advantage it gives us fighting the civil war in this particular society in this particular time and place, it also is a beneficial fact for the human species in general: It implies that there is always a biologically instantiated negative feedback mechanism to prevent any set of ideas from becoming too metastasized: Young women want rebels. Therefore, to get sex, young men have to be against the prevailing norms. Therefore there are very strong incentives for young men to set themselves against whatever is the prevailing orthodoxy. This is true of all men in general, who are a significant demographic group, obviously, and especially young men: The fighters.

Roy Moore, DON’T Withdraw from the Alabama Race!

I don’t know much about Moore, except that the left and the GOP traitors are against him. That’s enough for me to conclude that the man must be awesome.

The accusations against him are obviously false. The Uniparty’s line on this is “He has to prove his innocence! We must assume that he’s guilty unless he can definitively prove his innocence!” Boom. The fact that they’re forced to resort to that proves there’s no real case against him. By the way, if you think I’m exaggerating about that party line, read Ted Cruz’s statement on Moore:

“As it stands, I can’t urge the people of Alabama to support a campaign in the face of these charges without serious, persuasive demonstration that the charges are not true.”

In other words, anyone should be able to make a random accusation against a candidate and that should be sufficient to force the candidate’s withdrawal from a race. Well, a Republican candidate. I’ve never heard Cruz say that mere accusations against a Democrat should induce the Democrat’s withdrawal.

This is what we mean when we say that the GOP establishment are traitors to their base. That’s not rhetorical color. It’s the reality.

Cruz went on:

“Both last week and this week, there are serious charges of criminal conduct that if true, not only make him unfit to serve in the Senate but merit criminal prosecution.”

Fucking seriously!? Where were all these Law N Order Republican traitors when Hillary “I’m the most blatantly corrupt criminal in the history of Congress” Clinton was in the Senate?

If you think that’s an outrage, try this:

Head of Senate Republican campaign committee says Moore should be expelled if he wins

Sen. Cory Gardner, the chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, said Monday that if Alabama Republican Senate nominee Roy Moore “refuses to withdraw and wins, the Senate should vote to expel him.”

and

Earlier Monday, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell told reporters that Moore should step aside.

It’s literally out in the open now. The Republican establishment is no longer trying to hide their treason. No, really, they’re not. Read those quotes from Cruz, Gardner, and McConnell again.

That’s why I’ve belatedly created a new tag for my blog posts, “GOP traitors.” I should have had it from the blog’s birth, of course, but better late than never.

As Vox Day says in the comments at the above Vox Popoli link,

Notice the media is not saying anything about how Moore can’t win the Senate race, because of the polls. They’re just shrieking at him to drop out. Then ask yourself why that might be.

Remember the rules for how to deal with an SJW attack: NEVER quit because they are pressuring you to do so.

Does a Children’s Story NEED Gay Kangaroos?

In The Girl Who Fell Beneath Fairyland and Led the Revels There, a fantasy novel variously categorized as children’s or young adult– no, I’m not going to provide a link– writer Catherynne Valente launches a psychotically vicious attack on traditional marriage. Don’t worry, though; she’s not against all relationships: She also includes pro-homosexual propagandizing.

Soon after our heroine enters Fairyland, the poisonously hateful attack on marriage commences. It comes in the form of the Hreinn, creatures who if captured by hunters must do all their cooking, sewing, etc., for them, as well as bearing “the hunters’” children. This is not at all subtle in its bizarre feminist editorializing about traditional marriage being female slavery, ZOMG!!!! Yet the traditional marriage portrayed here has one massive element missing: The man.

What is he doing all day in this rad-fem scenario, while the Hreinn are forced to clean “his” house? Oh, right, working a 40-hour-a-week job to support himself and his wife. All this is completely absent from Valente’s portrayal. The Hreinn (housewives) bitch that they have to cook, but don’t discuss that the man is working to buy the food, or they wouldn’t have anything to cook! OR EAT. They kvetch about cleaning the house. Who is earning the money to pay for the house? Seriously, who is working to pay the mortgage to keep the rain off your brainless little head? In the insane feminist fantasyland, when men say they’re going to work, they’re really just drinking beer and having sex with supermodels while women are doing the housework.

Just in case you’ve ever wondered if feminists are actually as stupid and self-centered as they seem. Talk about “out of sight, out of mind”! If a feminazi can’t actually see you doing the work, it literally doesn’t occur to her that you might be doing work! There seems to be nothing in their heads except for the impressions created by immediate sense data.

“I’m here, vacuuming the rug, and he’s not! Bastard!”
“What do you think he’s doing right now?”
“I don’t know. Never thought about it!”
“Where do you get the clothes you complain about laundering?”
“What do you mean, where do I get them? They come from my closet, duh!”

This is immediately followed by an ethereal “Three cheers for lesbians!” Valente includes a lesbian couple and works in that the poor dears are oppressed. This is because… wait for it… people “look at them askance.” Oh my God! Call Amnesty International! (The funny thing is that since this is fiction, she could have had them getting lynched or whatever. But no, being looked at askance is oppression in this whacko’s worldview.)

The surreal pro-homosexual propaganda continues in a later chapter, where we get underground mining kangaroos, one of which has a gay lover. This is established somewhat elliptically, but that’s the best we can say of it. First, the kangaroo, a male, says of another kangaroo, “he broke my heart.” Now this by itself is ambiguous, but there’s more. The two kangas shared a stone and a few sentences later it is remarked that that kind of stone is for lovers. Oh, barf. What kind of sicko attacks man-woman marriage and feels a need to get in three cheers for gay animal sex?

In a children’s book?! How sick do you have to be to write that?

Must we have stumping for gay sex in a children’s book? Would a reasonable, non-ideological person say that’s the best decision? Is it okay to have just… stories? Just stories that don’t leap up and scream politics in your face?

The Left’s usual party line in this kind of context is, “But they show heterosexual lovers and spouses all the time in children’s books! That’s just as propagandistic!” No it isn’t! Portraying everyday normality, and portraying it as everyday normality, is not propagandistic. Getting up and whacking people upside the head with your special-interest political agenda is. “But…but… in your preferred approach, heterosexual relationships are portrayed as normal!” Yes, because heterosexual relationships are normal, you morons!

Gotta love that “portrayed,” by the way.

“Portraying” the sky as blue is not propagandistic. Portraying the sky as an orange background, with the first-string roster of the 1982 Hartford Whalers written across it in flaming green letters, is propagandistic. That’s because the second one is not true, you fucking psychos!

The thing about the gay sex element is, it isn’t about reproduction, even implicitly, since gay sex is not reproductive. Therefore, what we have here is the portrayal of pure sex, sex for its own sake. In a heterosexual relationship, it is all about reproduction, even if only obliquely, because that’s the entire evolutionary reason that sex exists. So even if your young child asks you questions about a man-woman marriage that force you to discuss the sex, you can mention genital intercourse and segue to having kids. I.e., the sex isn’t just about the sex. Do I actually have to say that sex for the sake of sex is inappropriate in a children’s story? Sex for the sake of sex is pornography. Literally, that’s the definition of pornography. I’m all for porn in its place, but in a children’s story?

What exactly are you going to tell your kid if s/he asks about specifics of these gay lovers? What are these gay kangas doing that makes them lovers, as opposed to friends? Well, they’re either sucking each other’s penises, having anal sex, or giving each other handjobs, or I guess, pawjobs. Or all three. There is nothing here about a reproductive sexual act that has some raison d’etre outside itself. No, there is just a couple of male kangaroos fucking each other in the ass.

In a novel intended for children.

So Catherine Valente is so evil and insane, so damaged, that she spews hate propaganda about man-woman marriage… but presents her ideal fantasy land announcing, “I have seen the future, and it is ass-ramming kangaroos.”

Look, people, I don’t mind adult male kangaroos sodomizing each other, in the privacy of their own San Francisco apartment, if that’s what they want to do. It just has no place in a children’s novel.

In 2016 the Left themselves rejected the short story Space Raptor Butt Invasion for a Hugo Award, apparently on the grounds that it wasn’t really a serious nominee for a Hugo. But we’re supposed to keep a solemn expression on our faces and nod profoundly as we contemplate the loving eroticism of kangaroos sixty-nining. People, Space Raptor Butt Invasion was a joke. And it wasn’t offered to children. Ass-ramming gay kangas is presented as serious, and material for children.

Grok this: The Left is not a political movement. It is sheer evil and insanity that has masked itself as a political movement for strategic reasons.

To put it another way, it is the political arm of insanity. The Left is like Hannibal Lechter in that scene from The Silence of the Lambs in which Lechter carves off the dead cop’s face and places it over his own face as a disguise. The Left is not “political” as healthy, sane people understand the word “political.” It is pure evil in political guise.

The Left gave up its last tiny shreds of sanity years ago. It’s now on the descent into the combination asylum and torture chamber that is Hell. And its goal is to drag everyone else there – including your kids – with it.