Red Pill in Fiction, Classics Edition: Pride and Prejudice

That man is a scoundrel and a miscreant! His manners are appalling! I would never entertain a marriage proposal from him!

Since little or no new information on the political situation appeared over the Thanksgiving break and we’re not likely to get any until Monday, here’s some lighter material.

In the Red Pill in Fiction posts on Alpha Trio and Suddenly Royal I wrote that female authors often fantasize that they (via their author-insert character) will get the alpha by being “feisty,” and that this seems to be a form of snowflaking. On Suddenly Royal I wrote,

Many women have this fantasy that they’ll attract an alpha male by being “feisty” and “stubborn.” (While all the other girls fail to snag him because they’re too compliant.) I’m not sure what the psychology is here. My current best guess is that it’s snowflaking. I.e., “I’m going to stand out from the crowd by doing the opposite of what all the other girls do with alphas. I’m unique! No other girl is like me! No other girl ever thought of being ‘feisty’ before!”

This is stated explicitly in Jane Austen’s Pride and Prejudice, in the last few pages (Ch 18 of Vol. III). When Elizabeth and Mr. Darcy get engaged, she says,

“Now be sincere; did you admire me for my impertinence?”

“For the liveliness of your mind, I did.”

“You may as well call it impertinence at once… The fact is, you were sick of civility, of deference, of officious attention. You were disgusted with the women who were always speaking and looking, and thinking for your approbation alone. I aroused, and interested you, because I was so unlike them… You thoroughly despised the persons who so assidiously courted you.”

Here it is explicitly, from the horse’s mouth. As I type these notes up it occurs to me that female projection is another reason for this trope of female-authored fiction. That last sentence, “You thoroughly despised the persons who so assidiously courted you,” is the female reaction to any man who seems to really desire her. So: snowflaking plus projection.

There’s other red pill stuff in this novel too. E.g. the main male character, Darcy, comes across as a completely rude asshole at first but then falls for the heroine and they fall in love and get married. At a ball, a mutual acquaintance offers Darcy to introduce him to Elizabeth. Elizabeth is sitting right there. Here’s Darcy’s nuclear neg which is the first thing he says to her… or rather, about her:

“Which do you mean?” and turning round, he looked for a moment at Elizabeth, till catching her eye, he withdrew his own and coldly said, “She is tolerable; but not handsome enough to tempt me; and I am in no humour at present to give consequence to young ladies who are slighted by other men.”

LOL, what an asshole. They end up engaged. Pride and Prejudice was written by a woman in 1813 and is arguably the most famous and popular work of chick-lit in the English language. (The only other contender is Gone With the Wind.) Tell me, go ahead, tell me, that Game is just a bunch of nonsense that some male PUA nutters made up in the 1990s.

More: Later, when they have a little spat he tells her, “Could you expect me to rejoice in the inferiority of your connections? To congratulate myself on the hope of relations, whose condition in life is so decidedly beneath my own?” LOL. Your family sux! Now get on your knees and get on my cock, bitch!

In the end– surprise!– the asshole falls for the heroine. And, bonus, he turns out to have a heart of gold: Darcy pays off a man who was threatening to run off with Elizabeth’s sister without marrying her, thus ruining her reputation. He does this solely because he’s so in loooooove with Elizabeth. So you see, he’s an asshole… Who Really Has A Heart Of Gold Underneath It All.

Oh yeah, thoughts on the novel as a novel: You know, it’s actually not that bad. (I know, I was surprised too!) What happens is, because it’s a classic of chick lit loaded with shopworn tropes like the jerk who really has a heart of gold, etc. you think it’s going to be one huge wedge of cheese dropped on your head like Dorothy’s house landing on the Wicked Witch of the East. Actually, there’s a good deal of humor, which the admirers of this novel really should play up more if they want to effectively proselytize on its behalf. For example, consider the well-known opening sentence:

It is a truth universally acknowledged, that a single man in possession of a good fortune, must be in want of a wife.

I always read this as a straight line, as if Jane Austen actually believed it. Ha, no. The passage, and indeed the rest of the novel, proceeds in a way that makes it clear that she’s joking:

However little known the feelings or views of such a man may be on his first entering a neighbourhood, this truth is so well fixed in the minds of the surrounding families, that he is considered the rightful property of some one or other of their daughters.

And then we swing right into this bit of dialogue:

“My dear Mr. Bennet,” said his lady to him one day, “have you heard that Netherfield Park is let at last?”
Mr. Bennet replied that he had not.
“But it is,” returned she; “for Mrs. Long has just been here, and she told me all about it.”
Mr. Bennet made no answer.
“Do you not want to know who has taken it?” cried his wife impatiently.
“You want to tell me, and I have no objection to hearing it.”
This was invitation enough.
“Why, my dear, you must know…”

In other words, social satire with understated English humor.

Due to its droll comedy-of-manners humor and its generally well-written dialogue, I am afraid this novel is not even a serious contender for the coveted Ten Chunks of Cheese prize. I can award it several chunks due to its “bad boy who eventually falls for the heroine… and turns out to be rich” blurt, directly from the Universal Female Id. We’ll call it six chunks of cheese. Sorry, Jane Austen, but the state of the art in female porn romance cheese has really advanced since 1813. Your competition is much tougher now. Good effort, though.

Index page for my Red Pill in Fiction posts:

We’re Going to Win, But Not in the Courts

Stop expecting courts, especially the Supreme Court, to do the right thing. Jesus, people!

If you’re on the right, you’re supposed to be skeptical of what the media says. And yet, day after day since the election, I keep seeing people on the right say that the Supreme Court has a 6-3 conservative majority. NO, IT FUCKING DOESN’T! STOP IT!

In the cold, hard world of reality, this Supreme Court won’t even “allow” President Trump write an Executive Order telling immigration authorities to enforce immigration law as it is written. That’s how ultra-left the Court is in reality. Am I speculating here, or has the Court actually done that… twice?

While a favorable Court ruling could happen, it’s a very low probability event. If it occurs, it will be a lightning strike of good luck out of the blue. It almost certainly won’t occur, so plan accordingly. I am buying preservable staples and conserving ammo. I advise you to do the same.

There is no more normality. This will go to bullets. If, God forbid, Trump simply leaves office, then the left very soon– and sooner than you think– will start trying to genocide us. We’ll fight back, of course, so there will be civil war.

If Trump fights– literally, with guys with guns, fights– that’s civil war.

If Trump miraculously manages to get a favorable set of key court rulings, then the left flips out and there is civil war.

Three possibilities. All of them involve civil war.

Don’t listen to the media telling you that the Supreme Court is super-hard-core-ultra right. Are you believing the media? Seriously? Look at what the courts actually do. I quoted Robert Heinlein’s Notebooks of Lazurus Long in my previous post and I might as well quote them again:

What are the facts? Again and again and again — what are the facts? Shun wishful thinking, ignore divine revelation, forget what “the stars foretell,” avoid opinion, care not what the neighbors think… You pilot always into an unknown future; facts are your single clue. Get the facts!

What is actually going to happen, based on the facts– in particular, the entire twentieth century– is that left has reached the moment when it is going to start attempting wholesale slaughter of everyone who’s not both politically left and a member of a left-approved group. Soon after that they will be defeated, since they simply don’t have the numbers to win an all-out toe-to-toe war-of-attrition slaughter-fest. Quantity is a quality all its own, as someone once said.

Given the numbers involved, we could absorb casualties at a much higher ratio than one to one and still beat them handily. I am not under any illusions that politics by creating piles of bodies will be fun, but we will win it.

Now accept this, stop expecting the courts to support Trump, and prepare for what’s coming.

Pessimist by Policy, Optimist by Temperament

Robert Heinlein got this one right:

“Pessimist by policy, optimist by temperament – it is possible to be both.”

Close to right, anyway: Actually the idea is not to be exclusively a pessimist by policy, but to include all scenarios. We need to be prepared for good scenarios so if they happen we can press our advantage and rapidly end this. We need to prepare for bad scenarios so we can win even if a part of the game moves adversely for us. Which some parts will, of course.

We can’t just assume good scenarios. What prompted this post: Righties who are assuming that the courts, especially the Supreme Court, are going to bail us out. The reasons for this assumption seem to be that we have fact, law, and the Constitution on our side. But when did any of those things ever matter to a leftist judge? Anyone who assumes the courts are going to issue the correct, lawful, and just ruling is huffing paint fumes. Based on the courts’ behavior for the last several decades, this assumption is not within a parsec of realistic.

[Neurotoxin’s patented Supreme Court analysis: Roberts, Kagan, Sotomayor, Breyer: Leftist. Alito, Thomas: Rightist. Gorsuch: Has cucked at least once so there’s precedent for him cucking. Kavanaugh: Has cucked at least once so there’s precedent for him cucking. Barrett: Unknown, but is a white woman who virtue signaled hard by adopting two black children. Coldly, objectively: She’s at least as likely to side with the enemy as with us.

If the Supreme Court rules against Trump, this will get violent. Of course, it’s going to get violent in any case. We all knew that was going to happen sooner or later, because the left never gives up. They can’t; not having total power over other human beings is sheer torture to them. So there never was any question about whether things would eventually get bloody in the US; the only question was whether it would happen in our lifetimes. Well, it had to happen in someone’s lifetime. Turns out it’s us. There’s no doubt about that now. If we “lose” in the courts— that is, if the courts continue their habit of blatantly ignoring fact and law to get a leftist result— we will either fight it immediately while Our Guy is President or fight it from a worse position with the left in total power. If we manage to win in the courts, the left will move to the blatant violence part of its plan: Bombing the White House, rioting in the streets, etc. (I’m not sure what the rioting is supposed to accomplish, but they obviously love it.)]

The courts might bail us out, and if they do, great. But we need a plan for the more-likely case that they don’t. There are some good signs here, by the way: (1) Does it look like the Right intends to just roll over? Not from what I’m seeing. And ninety percent of Trump voters think mail-in ballots were manipulated to help Biden. (2) Does it look like the left has a plan in case we don’t just roll over? Well, they must; they’re not novices at violent revolution. But it’s also plain from the “mainstream” media coverage that they are really trying to avoid that scenario. My local paper (my woman subscribes to one for some reason) has “Biden wins” coverage to an extent that’s almost hilarious. Last week they ran a ton of stories with headlines like “Biden Wins” and “How Biden Won” and “What Biden’s Victory Means for (Farmers, Your Retirement Portfolio, whatever)” and “Local Voters React to Biden’s Win” and “Biden’s Task After His Win: Healing a Divided Nation.” Etc. Also the inevitable: “Trump Still Refuses to Concede.” Given the intensity of their attempt to win through bluff, it’s obvious that they really don’t want to have to move to the next part of their Revolution Decision Tree. The fact that that scares them is a good sign for us.

Stiffen your spine, when it needs it, by reminding yourself that the left wants to kill us all if they win.

If you’re young and you don’t believe this, because you attended schools controlled by leftists, find a good history of Communism in the twentieth century. A good history means, among other things, one not written by a communist or communist sympathizer. The surest signal that communists have taken over a country is that large-scale slaughter has begun. They always kill people by the millions, the only exceptions being when a country is so small (e.g. Cuba) that they have to settle for killing people in smaller numbers. Not only can it happen here, they’re planning to make it happen here. On Twitter, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez encouraged leftists to make lists of Trump supporters for “accountability” after they acquire more power.

Freedom is just another word for nothing left to lose. If enough people on the right, including especially President Trump, realize they intend to kill us all, it’s a mammoth strategic advantage for us: It means there’s no risk we won’t take. This gives us the freedom to be very bold in going on the offense.

I have no idea what the state delegations in Republican states that frauded up a Biden win will do. They’ll send Trump electors to the Electoral College if they understand that a leftist victory means eventual murder of them and their families. Do they understand that? In enough states? It doesn’t have to be all of the fraud states, just two or three key states.

(The latest news from Michigan on this front is not good: It seems that Michigan Republicans’ plan is to do nothing and hope that leftists won’t act like leftists this time. On Darwinian grounds those Republicans deserve what the left is eventually going to do to them, but the problem is that their cowardice and stupidity are putting the rest of us in danger too.)

If it goes to the House of Representatives it’s decided, not by a vote of the individual House members, but by a vote of their state delegations, each acting as a single voter. So, 50 states, 50 votes. Currently the House delegation split is 26 Republican, 24 Democrat or Democrat-aligned. That means we can’t rely on the House: the left only needs to find one small-population Republican state with a small number of House members, and get a majority of them to cuck. That makes it 25-25 in the House, so I imagine the outcome would be decided by… the Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi. Don’t worry, though, they’ll never get a single Republican to cuck, right? Establishment Republicans never cuck!

(Sarc off.) You see the problem? It’s not that we can’t win; it’s that we can’t assume we’ll win in the courts or the House. And the Michigan example tells us we can’t rely on the state legislatures. If we don’t win in at least one of those three key points— all of which are uncertain— this goes to either (1) we surrender (which means we are murdered) or (2) bullets flying in both directions. In that scenario we win based on sheer numbers, I think. But the more prepared we are, the better.

Miscellany: Civil War Pre-Game Show edition

1. Jim:

  1. For my normie readers: Will the left really go there; will they really take our cold civil war hot? Of course they will. They have been going there; the George Floyd riots earlier this year were a training exercise for this moment.

The higher-ups like Hillary Clinton and George Soros (or whoever is giving the orders to Antifa etc.) are absolutely convinced that they’re untouchable. They believe themselves to be taking no risks at all in taking the civil war hot. They think they can leave all the physical risk to their street thugs.

And many of the thugs themselves are so mentally damaged that they have no sense of personal risk and will absolutely escalate violence up to the lethal level. Watch the video of the assailants of Kyle Rittenhouse. One of them, earlier that night, walked up to a man holding a firearm and dared him, “Shoot me!” Later that evening, two people attacked Rittenhouse while he was holding a rifle, one kicking him in the face, and another hitting him on the head with a skateboard. Rittenhouse then killed them both. To his attackers it was inconceivable that he would actually use his weapon, even in self-defense. These people are mentally broken; their cognitive modules that handle risk assessment are damaged or missing. So they cannot be deterred by fear, so they will attack us, and we will have to actually kill them in self-defense.

  1. Why is the left going for it now? Why not just wait another four years?

Partly they’re worried that four more years of Trump could set them back a generation. For example, another Trump Supreme Court appointment could scuttle them for the foreseeable future. (Ginsburg can’t last forever. UPDATE: And here we are! I must have written that only a week or two before she died.)

More than that, though, I think it’s that they’re worrying about dying before they get their planned Communist takeover. Leftists in a certain age range – e.g. Soros, Hillary Clinton – have been planning this since at least the 1960s. Soros is 90 years old; he might not be alive four years from now. And leftists slightly younger than him are already too old to really enjoy an absolute dictatorship even if they were to get one now! Another four years of waiting?! Hillary! will be 77 after the election of 2024! They are staring directly at the prospect of their lifetime of planning communist revolution either being ruined or being delayed until after they’re dead. They have to go for it now.

  1. In the comments at Vox Popoli, in the irresolution of the day after Election Day 2020, Ransom Smith quotes someone else as saying,

“I am freaking out a bit.”

To which Ransom responds,

“Stop wimping out.
We knew this was war.
We knew the likelihood of an all out knuckle dragger.
And frankly better than I could have asked for, because conflict breeds success.”

That’s a good mindset. We on the right need to all-out embrace conflict.

We’ve been holding ourselves back for a long time. For how long have we tried to settle our difference with the left with words? Or with votes? Unfortunately – for us but more for them – the left interprets this as weakness. They are, I think, about to find out otherwise.

  1. At another Vox Pop thread a commenter says,

“That article someone linked to Moldbug talking about the election makes some reasonable points, that there are multiple Rubicons to be crossed, and to be successful you may have to have the balls to cross them all.”

God, Moldbug is such a fucking idiot.

The idea of multiple Rubicons to be crossed is self-contradictory. The whole point of crossing the Rubicon is that once you’ve done it you’ve condemned yourself to death if you lose. From then on it’s win or die.

The idea of second, third, etc. Rubicons amounts to saying, “And if you cross THIS one and lose, then you’ll be EVEN MORE dead!”

Retarded. Moldbug is, and always was, an idiot. People on the right seriously need to stop fellating this guy.

  1. From the Wikipedia article on the Spanish civil war, a quote from a history book:
    The frequent overt violations of the law, assaults on property, and political violence in Spain … (included) a wave of arson and destruction of property… widespread censorship… virtual impunity for criminal action by members of Popular Front [i.e. leftist] parties, manipulation and politicisation of justice, arbitrary dissolution of rightist organisations… and a substantial growth in political violence…
    Sound familiar?

Here’s the InfoGalactic page:

  1. We cannot settle our differences with the left through debate because (a) they censor us, and (b) they always lie.

We cannot settle our differences with the left through voting because they always commit electoral fraud.

We cannot deter them from attacking us – literally, physically – because the parts of their brains that handle risk assessment are non-functional.

We cannot surrender – even if we wanted to – because if we do they will genocide us.


Fighting Out the Election: The Supreme Court and After

I’m not sure whether Trump should take this shit to the Supreme Court.

Let’s do a head count.

For my non-US readers, who might have heard a lot of leftist bullshit to the effect that the United States Supreme Court has a 6-3 split in favor of right-wingers: remember, the left brazenly lies about everything. The actual distribution of Supreme Court justices is as follows:

Firmly leftist: Roberts, Kagan, Sotomayor, Breyer.

Firmly rightist: Thomas, Alito.

Kinda right-leaning, sorta: Kavanaugh, Gorsuch.

Roberts, as I remarked recently, always votes with the left when (a) it is important and (b) his vote will make a difference to the outcome. The left loves to call him “conservative” to warp people’s perception of where the political center is.

Finally, we have…

Unknown: Barrett.

Amy C. Barrett was just appointed to the Court last month and hasn’t participated in any Court decisions yet. So we lack data. But there is hair-raising evidence that she has a strong desire to virtue-signal to her left: She’s a white female who adopted two black children. Such virtue signaling is seriously worrisome: That’s the kind of person who would have orgasms at the thought of ruling against Trump so she can prove to the world how totally objective she is. “Look at me! I’m sooooo principled and objective! I even fucked over the guy who appointed me and everyone who voted for him!” Of course it’s actually unprincipled, since we’re fighting for the remaining shreds of democracy and freedom, but let’s not suppose that reality intrudes much into the thoughts of virtue signalers.

If Trump appeals an electoral case to the Supreme Court and loses, it might not look good(*) if he then says, “Ah, the Supreme Court doesn’t matter, fuck ’em.” The problem is that appealing to the Court concedes that the Court has authority in the relevant matter. So it looks silly to then say, “You’re wrong”… unless they are blatantly wrong. It is actually possible to reject their decision on those grounds. He should prepare for that by wording his case, or rather his tweets (etc.) that go along with it, in such a way to leave himself room to maneuver.

(* …to praetorians and other people who are prepared to engage in violent conflict, who will matter disproportionately when the civil war goes full-on hot. Making sure we have a good head count among those prepared to deploy force is not virtue signaling.)

The legalisms are of decreasing relevance anyway.

One way or another, this will get more violent. It’s been violent since this summer, and the left never backs down. As someone said recently, we’re past the event horizon of civil war: It hasn’t full-on started yet, but it is now inevitable, inescapable.

Since escalating violence will inexorably happen, we might as well proceed with Trump as Commander-In-Chief.