Red Pill in Fiction: Every Rose Has Its Thorn

The female porn Romance novel Every Rose has its Thorn has the following description:

Amanda has a problem: She’s attracted to a guy who is all wrong for her! Why does this keep happening!?

Amanda always seems to attract the wrong kind of man. She’s a leather-clad biker chick who deals drugs for a living. Bob is a mild-mannered actuary in a life insurance company. But Amanda just can’t resist HOLD IT.

You’ve never read anything like that on the back of a “Romance” novel, nor will you. (I made it up.) If you’re a red pill denier, ask yourself why.

Women being attracted to bad boys, to dangerous men, is a real thing. It’s not a crazy theory that some nutter PUAs made up. Thus we have the standard Romance description that is, of course, the reverse of the way I wrote it, something like

Amanda has a problem: She’s attracted to a guy who is all wrong for her! Why does this keep happening!?

Amanda always seems to attract the wrong kind of man. She’s a mild-mannered actuary in a life insurance company. Bob is a leather-clad biker who deals drugs for a living. But Amanda just can’t resist his rugged good looks and aura of excitement.

But things come to a head when Bob is accused of killing a rival drug dealer. He swears to Amanda that he’s innocent and was framed. But Amanda’s not sure she can trust him, especially after he cheated on her and lied about it.

The police don’t believe him either, due to his previous arrests, and now Bob says he needs Amanda’s help to prove his innocence.

Is Amanda’s lover a killer? The stakes are the highest as she is unwittingly drawn into a world of increasingly dangerous blah blah.

Anyway, you get the point. You could write this stuff in your sleep. One of these fictional book descriptions speaks the truth about what attracts women. The other is so far off that when you read it you blurted “Wait, what?”

This is why the red pill will become the conventional wisdom sooner or later (it’s already made huge strides in that direction). Sooner or later, the truth will out.

The Budget: Why Trump Should Never Back Down on Border Defense

Why Trump should face down Congress if necessary to insist that the next federal budget include funding for the Wall and other anti-immigration measures:

1) The future of our country depends on it so there’s no reason not to. There’s nothing to lose. You understand, God-Emperor? Even if the Left doesn’t back down, even in some worst-case scenario in which their constituencies riot in the streets, that’s not as remotely as bad as what will happen to our nation if we let immigration continue. And they’re already rioting in the streets and shooting at Republican Congressmen. Besides, as the Left gets more violent, as the Berkeley incidents show, the Right gets more violent in response. Violence doesn’t work well for the Left in this country.

2) The Left will be forced to say to Middle America, “We’re holding firm on the budget because we insist on undefended borders,” while Trump says, “I’m holding firm on the budget because I insist on defending our nation’s borders.”

Middle America loves the Trump position. The only people who like the Left’s position already vote for the Left anyway. So again, nothing to lose for us. It’s a losing position for the Left.

3) The Left has to cave in because the longer federal money is held up, the more people who currently benefit from federal money will find other sources of income and realize they’re not dependent on federal money.

That realization will be a political disaster for the Dems. It will liberate a significant set of voters who are currently in thrall to the Dems due to fear. That is, they vote Dem because they fear that if the federal money tap were turned off, their lives would be upended. Once the money tap is turned off, people will find other ways to do what they need to do. People are resourceful and creative. Welfare dependents will get jobs. Single Moms who need day care will convince their bosses to let them bring their kids to work, or start day care collectives with other local parents, etc. Academic biologists who get federal funding for their latest decode-the-genome project will just give up and move on to other research topics. Etc., etc. Of course, not all these people will stop voting Dem, but some will. Some will vote GOP, some will vote for third-party candidates, some will just have no motive to vote at all, etc.

The Dems simply can’t let this happen. Not if they want to survive politically. They can’t afford to lose some of their voters who are currently held captive to them by fear of the unknown. And if the Dems are too stupid to realize that, and they don’t cave in, then so much the better. Then they won’t survive politically!

Note: State government spending can substitute for federal spending to an extent, but not totally. State budgets are already under stress, especially in blue states, exactly the states that would like to keep the money tap flowing. In other words, state spending is supported, directly or indirectly, by federal spending. This fact is relevant for my next point too.

4) Some immigrants only remain in the country due to “welfare” largesse from the federal or state government. Those immigrants will leave when the money tap stops… and Dems can’t have that.

I know what you’re thinking: But if the Dems cave, they lose on immigration anyway. The answer is Yes, but it’s a question of the long term versus the short term. If they cave on the budget they lose the immigration wars slowly over time due to the Wall, increased enforcement, etc. If they don’t cave, and welfare dries up, those marginal immigrants self-deport in a hurry; weeks to months. (We’ve already seen this happen within months of Trump assuming the Presidency.) And once they’re settled back in Mexico are they really going to come North again? Just to possibly have to go back home to Mexico all over again? Doubt it.

For this to matter, it’s not necessary that all or even half of welfare-gobbling immigrants will leave. I don’t know how many will. But many elections are decided pretty closely. Even ten percent of invaders self-deporting could be an immediate political disaster for the Dems.

And remember, we’re talking about the Left here. What wins in a Leftist’s mind when it comes to the short run versus the long run?

Yup.

And it gets better. Because Lefties mostly don’t care about their “movement.” They’re mostly narcissists who care about themselves. Now it’s one thing to stay in Congress and have your support eroded over time by a gradually smaller fraction of immigrants in the population. (And you can deal with that by simply modifying your positions anyway.) But it’s another thing to lose your seat in Congress in the next election due to a sudden surge in illegals self-deporting. To deal with that, you have to try to win your seat back, against the new incumbent, all over again!

Observations on Rhetoric and Dialectic

Vox Day distinguishes between rhetoric and dialectic. As Day uses the terms, dialectic is what most people would loosely call “reason,” i.e., it’s basically noting facts and reasoning about them to draw conclusions.* He defines rhetoric here as “the faculty of observing in any given case the available means of persuasion.”

In practice, the latter often means pushing people’s emotional buttons. This sounds like a Dark Art if you just leave it at that, but of course like any art or science it can be used for good or evil. And if a person has shown himself to be immune to fact or logic, what else is there to do? Day quoting Aristotle: “argument based on knowledge implies instruction, and there are people whom one cannot instruct.”

(* Day has said that “Dialectic is based on the construction of syllogisms,” but that’s too narrow, if by syllogism one means to include only deductive arguments. Day’s use allows for the inclusion of inductive arguments, I’m pretty sure. E.g., “Every gorpf I’ve ever seen was green, so I conclude, probabilistically, that all gorpfs are green.”)

Having been aware of the Rhetoric-vs.-Dialectic distinction for more than a year now, I offer this report to the world, based on Internet interactions with leftists, SJWs, and other varieties of scumbags, liars, and anti-civilization shills:

(1) The Rhetoric-vs.-Dialectic distinction is very real. It’s not something some guy made up; it’s definitely a piece of reality. Once you’re tuned for it you perceive it easily.

I am a regular commenter on a forum in which politics comes up frequently. That people on the left are more inclined to rhetoric and less to dialectic than people on the right is immediately noticeable. Indeed, in retrospect this is not surprising, since we tried dialectic , i.e., facts and logic, on the left for fifty years and that had zero effect on them. (In our defense, dialectic does in fact persuade many people who aren’t already committed leftists. So it’s not like that was a wasted fifty years.)

So you say something, and the lefties on the forum respond with (a) an insult, and (b) often, an insult that is weirdly orthogonal to the topic at hand. (Projection is obviously playing a role here; more on that below.)

For example, you’ll cite stats on the proportion of terrorist acts committed by Muslims compared to members of other religions, and the response will either be something like, “You’re an asshole,” or something like “You’re just angry because you’re suffering from diabetes.” When you don’t have diabetes and have never mentioned the subject of diabetes before. It’s weird. It’s so completely out of left field, it can only be projection, because how else did that topic even enter their head? This is a weird but useful aspect of the left. They reveal so much about themselves with their weird projective insults.

Remember Elizabeth Warren’s bizarre response to Trump calling her “goofy” and “Pocahontas”? Her tweeted response was, “We get it, @realDonaldTrump: When a woman stands up to you, you’re going to call her a basket case. Hormonal. Ugly.” So completely bizarre in that it had no connection to Trump’s tweet. She was obviously just spewing her own insecurities about her appearance or whatever into her Twitter account. This theme is recurrent in interactions with lefties.

(2) That said, there is an aspect of the Rhetoric-vs.-Dialectic dichotomy that should be tweaked. It comes from this observation:

The thing that makes leftists enraged at me is when I use facts to refute their claims.

When they call me a racist and I call them douchebags or whatever, they just laconically call me a racist again or whatever. But when they say that rapes have been steadily increasing over the last two decades, and then I link to an FBI page showing that in fact they’ve been dropping during a large part of that time, I get sheer hatred in response. The level of rage spikes. It goes from a phoned-in “You’re racist (yawn)” to “You goddam motherfucking shit-eating sub-human bucket of puke!!!” So judging by their reactions, they actually are more sensitive to their lies being dialectically proven false than one would think, if one thinks of leftists as being pure rhetoric-bots.

This is not a call to abandon the RvD distinction – as I said, it’s quite useful – but we need to sort out a little more carefully the way it works empirically. Yeah, most leftists are more rhetoric than dialectic, but they are also sensitive to the propaganda value of their outright lies about matters of fact. They know that refuting their lies is a devastating thing you can do to them and they freak out when you do.

I think the key distinction is this: While they don’t care about the truth, they are aware that there are people who do care. So they freak when you definitively refute their lies.

Other thoughts:

(3) The main forum in which I participate has an option to Ignore another poster (i.e., so that his posts are hidden from you) and there are ways to tell when someone has Ignored someone else. Lefties tend to put people on Ignore not when those people insult the lefties, but when they refute the leftists’ claims using facts. Call a leftist a douchebag, and it’s very unlikely that he’ll put you on Ignore. Basically never happens. Refute his cherished assertions about racism or sexism or whatever, and you stand a small but non-trivial chance of being Ignored. Obviously this is related to point (2).

So this buttresses my foregoing point, that lefties are Rhetoric in that they’re more focused on that compared to righties. But they’re not totally blind and deaf to Dialectic; they have enough awareness of it to realize when their important propaganda points are being proven false, and to feel the threat. As Anonymous Conservative would say, it triggers their amygdalae.

(4) A significant fraction of them are absolute pussies – they attack you only after others have started attacking you. This is fascinating to observe. There are lefties who basically never interact with me, who, if two or three other lefties come at me, will suddenly swarm in and add their own little insults. It’s rare to be attacked by just two or three lefties; usually if it’s two or three, it’s instantly five or six. They really are cowardly swarm attackers by nature. And this is so instinctual that it affects their behavior even in an Internet forum in which we can’t physically attack each other, so there’s no meaningful danger. The only-attack-when-others-are-attacking thing is not based on threat assessment. It’s reflexive; it’s how they’re wired. That rabbity herd instinct is a huge deal with these people.

See my post SJW Mobs and Coordination Mechanisms. It is, of course, the same behavior by the same kind of person.

Another way this herd mentality manifests is the oft-observed fact that when they really want to crush you, they tell you that you’re out of step with the herd. This is blazingly obvious projection. You cite some statistic from the Census Bureau, and their response (if it isn’t “You shit-bag!”) is “Everyone else disagrees with you!” It’s obvious that they regard this as the nuclear bomb of debate. They think it’s a crusher. Of course, it doesn’t affect our tribe at all, since we care about truth, not staying in step with the herd. So we’re just baffled. I was mystified for years whenever I encountered this line from leftists, to the point that I wondered if they were actually making some other, more subtle point that I was missing. Nope. Nothing subtle here; it’s just what it seems to be on the surface: They expect you to care about what the herd says, not about reality. Bizarre.

Notice that both tribes generally misunderstand each other: We tried for fifty years to sway them using logic and facts, and have been puzzled and irritated that it all just bounced off them with no effect. No doubt they’ve been just as mystified that they keep telling us that we’re out of step with the herd (whether that’s true or not), without any effect on us.

Moving the Russian Goalposts Redux

Some miscellaneous thoughts following my last post on the Case of the Mysteriously Mobile Russian Goalposts.


Priceless quote from the Carlos Slim blog, I mean the New York Times:

It is unclear whether the Russian lawyer, Natalia Veselnitskaya, actually produced the promised compromising information about Mrs. Clinton.

No kidding. LOL. This is like the hundred and twelfth paragraph, after they’ve spent the first hundred and eleven paragraphs trying to get their readers all riled up over this “story.”


In fact it’s not “unclear.” If the Trump campaign had learned any “compromising information about Mrs. Clinton” and used it against Clinton during the election season, the media would have provided a link to such a Trump speech or tweet by now. So Trump Jr. received no such information. But the leftist media (pardon the redundancy) is trying to suggest that he did. And the narrative is:

“Russia helped American voters to be more informed before voting!

And that’s horrible!”

At first I was going to say that this illustrates how intellectually dishonest the Left is. But then it occurred to me that there’s another possibility: Maybe they really do think it’s horrible for voters to be informed before voting. After all, it’s the left, for whom informed voters are a catastrophe.


Hillary! tried to get dirt on Trump via Russia, LOL:

https://consortiumnews.com/2017/07/10/forgetting-the-dirty-dossier-on-trump/


Question:
If an American campaign hearing facts from a Russian would have been treasonous foreign influence on our elections (WTF?) then what is encouraging illegals to actually vote in US elections?

Here’s a video of Obama encouraging illegals to vote. He tells some self-righteous little asshole, who admits that she’s an illegal, “When you vote, then you are a citizen.”

God, that man is evil.


And what was this non-existent info allegedly about? Check out this buried nuclear bomb from the above-linked NYT article:

“After pleasantries were exchanged,” he [Trump Jr.] said, “the woman stated that she had information that individuals connected to Russia were funding the Democratic National Committee and supporting Mrs. Clinton.”

Holy shit! The promised info was that the Clinton campaign, or at least the Democratic party, was being funded by Russia! Now that would be undue foreign influence!

The Left is saying, “A Dem candidate being funded by Russia would be no big deal, but if the GOP candidate learned about this from a Russian and exposed it, THAT would be a big deal.” How DARE you expose Hillary’s funding from Russia!

(NeverTrumper Megan McArdle: “People who love their country do not help rival powers intervene in their country’s elections, even if that intervention might have the lovely side effect of getting them elected.” Heh heh. Where “intervene in” means, “expose intervention in.”)

Or to put it even more tersely, “If we call out foreign contacts we’re being patriotic; if Trump had called out foreign contacts that not only wouldn’t be patriotic; it would be treasonous.”

This exemplifies what some of us mean when we say the Left has gone crazy.

Now. Based on all this we may make a confident prediction about how the Old Media will try to develop this story: They will continue to say, “It is unclear whether there was actually any compromising information about Clinton.” They HAVE to say this. Why? Because if they admit there was no information produced, the story goes away. But if they say there was information, they have to state what it was: And what it was, according to Veselnitskaya, was proof that the Clinton campaign was being funded by the Russian government.

So if they want to damage Trump, they have to leave the whole thing in a gray area, so they can keep saying, “There may have been some dirt on Clinton” …while hoping no one inquires too closely what that possible dirt would have been.


There’s something else remarkable: The brazen, in-your-face dishonesty of the Times. (Well, okay, NYT dishonesty hasn’t been remarkable for decades.) Bear with me through an extended quote here; there’s a reason for it:

When he was first asked about the meeting on Saturday, Donald Trump Jr. said that it was primarily about adoptions and mentioned nothing about Mrs. Clinton.

But on Sunday, presented with The Times’s findings, he offered a new account. In a statement, he said he had met with the Russian lawyer… “After pleasantries were exchanged,” he said, “the woman stated that she had information that individuals connected to Russia were funding the Democratic National Committee and supporting Mrs. Clinton. Her statements were vague, ambiguous and made no sense. No details or supporting information was provided or even offered. It quickly became clear that she had no meaningful information.”

He said she then turned the conversation to adoption of Russian children and the Magnitsky Act, an American law that blacklists suspected Russian human rights abusers… “It became clear to me that this was the true agenda all along and that the claims of potentially helpful information were a pretext for the meeting,” Mr. Trump said.

In other words, he did not change his account of what happened. First he said it was primarily about adoptions, and then he again said it was primarily about adoptions.

The NYT, having presented its readers with the same account, then just brazenly says it was a different account.

This is something new. This is, “Here is what he said, plainly the same thing both times, and we are simply going to assert that they’re different things, even though you yourself can read, on this very same page, us informing you that it’s the same thing.” Wow. The left-wing press is now deliberately schlonging its own leftist readers.

Moving Goalposts: Russia Edition

The moving of the goalposts on the Russia thing has been astonishing, even for the Left. Each failed narrative, instead of inducing them to give up, only seems to intensify their psychological need for another narrative.

First it was, “Russia hacked Dem computers, and not Trump’s computers, and that’s not fair!”

Then it was “…and I’ll bet Trump knew about it!”

The phrasing was often “Russia hacked the election!” meaning, see above. Note the interesting use of the word “hack” to try to suggest that Russia accessed US voting machines.

Then they actually embraced that idiocy and tried to run with it, briefly trying to suggest that “Russia hacked the election” in the literal sense of Russia somehow flipping votes in the election. Even the Left didn’t actually assert this one outright, for the most part, but they tried to imply it. Unfortunately for this line of BS, the head of DHS has admitted that there is no evidence that even one vote was changed by Russia.

Let alone any votes being changed by Russia with the knowledge or cooperation of the Trump campaign.

Then it was, “Trump’s firing of Comey – whose departure we leftists were demanding yesterday – is obstruction of justice because Trump was not being investigated, and this constitutes an attempt to thwart that non-existent investigation!”

(Trump accused of murdering centaurs, hobbits, and unicorns. Film at eleven.)

Then it was, “OK, well, someone who used to be connected to Trump, and no longer is, was being investigated, and we’re sure Trump fired Comey to stop this investigation (and not for other reasons e.g. Comey’s blatant pro-Clinton corruption). Also, the fact that this didn’t actually hinder the investigation, as the FBI itself has said, proves that, um, let’s talk about something else now.”

Now it’s, “Trump’s son met with a Russian lawyer who told him she had some dirt on Hillary Clinton.” Yeah, so? Obviously all candidates try to get dirt on their opponents. God knows the Dems do. What’s the problem?

“This information was from a foreign source!”

Yeah, so?

“A foreign government, even!”

Yeah, so?

How is the government of another country telling us the truth a bad thing? Hillary broke national security laws. If we became aware of this because the Russian government told us, good. The appropriate response is, “Thank you, Russia.”

But that’s not what happened anyway.

Trump Jr. claims no such info was revealed during that meeting; the Russian lawyer just wanted to trick him into meeting with her so she could argue for a change in Russia-US child adoption laws. She didn’t actually have any damaging info on Clinton. More’s the pity.

So the claim now is, Trump’s son tried to get some dirt on Clinton, but failed to do so.

Seriously, lefties? That’s the claim you’re running with?

Making it more funny is the attempt to say that this “may have” broken campaign finance laws. That is, learning things from foreign sources is illegal. LOL. Even through your computer screen, you can smell the Left’s desperation.

Furthermore, Trump Jr.’s claim that there was no Clinton dirt is provably true, unless the Left can identify a piece of info about Clinton that (1) the Trump camp used during the campaign, and (2) that the Trump camp could not have received from any other source.

So what Clinton revelation, exactly, did they get from Russia that they used in the campaign and that they couldn’t have gotten anywhere else?

(Crickets chirping.)

Red Pill in Fiction: Bridget Jones’s Diary

The “bad boy” thing from the horse’s mouth, in this case Helen Fielding, in Bridget Jones’s Diary:

• Sunday 15 October: Bridget and one of her friends compare Mark Darcy to the fictional Mr. Darcy from Pride and Prejudice: “…we had a long discussion…both agreeing that Mr. Darcy was more attractive because he was ruder…”

• Saturday 11 November: “…Jerome, henceforth to be known as Creepy Jerome (it was going to be Heartless Jerome but we all agreed that sounded too interesting).”

• Monday 25 December: “Every time I’ve met Julio he has been clean and coiffed beyond all sense and carrying a gentleman’s handbag. Now he was wild, drunk, unkempt and, frankly, just the type I usually fall for.”

Trump the Ultra-Chad

To be quite honest, this is a level of Chadism that I thought was theoretically impossible.

You gotta read this:
http://mpcdot.com/forums/topic/8496-the-donald-trump-presidential-archive/page__st__26480#entry361984

The rest of this post is a selection of choice quotes from this excellent piece. Edited for brevity.


Upon witnesing President Trump’s CNN smackdown tweet today, I was left making much the same facial expression Laurence Fishburn makes at the end of The Matrix when he realizes Neo truly is The One.

Trump is not just a Chad, he is The Chad, in much the same way top-level Taoists claim to become the Tao. If you were to combine every star high school quarterback and Ray-Ban clad summer lifeguard into one, you still would not be scratching the surface of the Pure Chadism that flows through Donald Trump’s veins.

When you see Trump – the President of the United States of America, lest we forget – retweeting a meme of (real, actual) himself delivering a WWE Raw smackdown to the bugman hive that is CNN, you’re watching a completely autonomic response; trolling comes as easy to President Trump as breathing comes to the rest of us.

Many here have spoken at length of Trump’s anti-fragility in the vein of Taleb; I propose that Trump exists outside of the fragility continuum altogether.

When you’re watching Trump troll, you’re not merely watching a maestro at work; no, you’re seeing the very essence of trolling given human form… Trump is essentially delivering public, extrasensory wedgies and swirlies over the air to millions of bugmen at any given moment; to be quite honest, this is a level of Chadism that I thought was theoretically impossible.