We need a social technology to counter the Left’s social technology of infiltration/entryism. Without a way to block that, it doesn’t matter how successful our Glorious Revolution is, because it will only be a short-run success.
Without a way to defeat entryism, any success we have is written on water.
It just seems that way because (1) sex is a big part of the social world and (2) women control access to sex (average pussy being in higher demand than average cock). Therefore whatever women want or like is defined as “good social skills.” That is, women have the social power to define “good social skills.” This is not the same thing as actually having good social skills.
If employers wanted job applicants’ resumes to have every word in a different color, job applicants would be forced to do that, and a resume with that feature would be defined as “a good resume” and a resume without that feature would be defined as “a bad resume.” But this is not actually a good resume by any sane standard. It’s crazy, obviously, but it would be what the less powerful people in that situation were forced to do by the more powerful.
Women in fact can be outrageous assholes. (If you don’t believe me, just ask a woman about the most annoying girl she had to deal with in eighth grade or high school.) However, when it comes to male-female interactions, somehow through the dark magic of social power, female assholery is redefined as a man not being socially adept if he can’t deal with a woman’s assholery.
Example: Years ago I was hanging out with this babe and I went to an ATM to get cash, but due to our bizarre banking laws at that time, you couldn’t get cash with a card that was issued by an out-of-state bank. When this became apparent, the girl gave me the whole eye-rolling “What an asshole this guy is” treatment. Who’s the person with bad social skills here? Me, for not being an expert on interstate banking law? Or her, for acting like it’s an incredible failing that a guy is not an expert on interstate banking law? If I hadn’t fooled around with her later (we did fool around, somehow), I doubt the standard line would be “That chick lost that guy’s interest because she has bad social skills.” I think it would be, “That guy lost that girl’s interest because he was so stupid as to not be an expert on interstate banking law.” Seriously, what would the average gossip say about this? Would it be “She was socially inept” or would it be “That guy’s a loser for failing to get laid”? More people would say the second one. Admit it; you know it’s true.
Indeed, the above anecdote is simply an example of shit testing. Woman acts like asshole, man passes this shit test or doesn’t. If he doesn’t, then through the magic of social power, he’s the one defined as being socially incompetent.
It’s not about objectively good social skills; it’s about power.
Another example: Consider the bizarre notion that communication is good, a notion which disproportionately comes from women. The most outrageous example of this is the idea that one should be explicit in seduction. I.e. that you should tell the other person, “I’m attracted to you. Let us get to know each other such that a romance may develop” or some shit like that. GAH, NO! What are you, a robot? The essence of seduction is to be indirect, oblique. Women don’t want you to be explicit in seducing them. Many of them don’t even understand themselves well enough to understand this! Yet they yap about what constitutes social adeptness. “Better social skills,” my ass.
No, it’s the simple power of being the proud owner of a vagina. Owning a vagina – in evo psych terms, a uterus, actually – is an incredibly powerful reproductive strategy. There’s a reason that men risk their lives to gain access to pussy, but women don’t risk their lives to gain access to cock. And it has nothing to do with “social skills.”
One the one hand, the left is absolutely monolithic: They all always repeat the propaganda line their thought leaders tell them to repeat. E.g., halfway through Obama’s first term the party line became “There’s only one correct position on gay marriage: pro,” and all leftists started repeating this, with no admission that they’d ever thought otherwise. (If you point out this or similar examples they respond, with unblinking glibness, “Society has moved on.” Seriously, try it.)
On the other hand, the left is ravaged by factionalism, with trannies against feminists (lots of examples lately, for example this one), Hispanics against blacks, Jews against Muslims (recall the Ilhan Omar debacle), blacks against jews (e.g. Louis Farrakhan), gays against blacks, etc.
Let me expand on that last one: In 2005 a bunch of mostly white gay Harvard students condemned Jada Pinkett Smith, a straight black woman, for “heteronormativity”: https://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/16/opinion/meanwhilesensitizing-the-heteronormativists.html
Yes, with appropriate rhetorical footwork, you can be a white male Harvard student and still yell at a black woman for oppressing you.
From the NYT piece:
The latest brouhaha at Harvard University, home of the perpetually offended, is over a motivational speech telling women that they can have it all: career, marriage and children. The remarks, delivered by Jada Pinkett Smith on Feb. 26 at the Cultural Rhythms show organized by the Harvard Foundation for Intercultural and Race Relations, were deemed too heterosexual by some. Or, in politically correct newspeak, “heteronormative.”
Here’s a sample of what Pinkett Smith said, as recounted by The Harvard Crimson:
“Women, you can have it all – a loving man, devoted husband, loving children, a fabulous career. We are a new generation of women. We got to set a new standard of rules around here…”
The Harvard Crimson reported that some members of the Harvard Bisexual, Gay, Lesbian, Transgender and Supporters Alliance had been offended by the speech and were calling for an apology from the foundation… So what was the offense? In the words of the alliance’s co-chair, Jordan Woods, “Some of the content was extremely heteronormative…”
Contemporary observers noted that the bulk of these lunatics were white.
Another example, which could be relevant in the 2020 Presidential election in the very unlikely event that Bootigieg becomes the Dem nominee, is the conventional wisdom that blacks and hispanics just aren’t going to turn out to vote for an openly homosexual man with a “husband.”
In your face, assholes!
The good guys won. You lost.
You tried with everything you have to prevent this. And you failed. You gave it your best shot… and your best shot wasn’t good enough.
You know how you leftists are always yapping about “the inevitable tide of history”? Well, guess what, assholes! Here’s the “inevitable tide of history,” long, thick, hard, and in your fucking faces:
(Via Vox Pop.)
Neurotoxin 