Frame Tests and the Fate of the West, Part 2

I’m generally pretty optimistic, never more than since 2016, the Year of Oh Thank God.

But you have to analyze your enemy’s strengths and your own side’s weaknesses, as well as your enemy’s weaknesses and your own side’s strengths. In that vein…

Female psychology is a problem for societies that don’t constrain it.

Women are genetically programmed to shit test their men. If you’re not familiar with this term, it basically means a woman testing a man by throwing shit at him to see how he deals with it. (Variations: frame test, congruence test, or just test.) It’s a way for a woman to separate men who are strong (understood broadly) from those who are weak. This is about the woman’s mate choice, and that means that in practical terms, it’s about sex.

This aspect of female psychology is a societal problem. For the test to really be informative, the woman has to really want to defeat the man. It can’t be play-acting; men would learn to see through that – though women do play-acting shit-tests sometimes too (some admit it). But often, when a woman challenges you, she really wants you to cave in. She really wants you to stop watching sportsball, or to not hang out with your friends at the bar, or whatever. If you’ve ever been in a long-term relationship with a woman, you know that when these tests come, they are serious. At no level is the woman acting. She will use the most dirty, underhanded, unfair tactics. You are fighting an enemy who seriously wants you to lose.

It’s only after you swat down her crap that she feels attracted to you. If you cave in to her, she’ll feel nothing but contempt. This is how the female mind is wired. While the shit test is happening, there is no level of the woman’s mind that wants you to win, not even unconsciously. The mechanism that nature has developed to make women shit test thoroughly is not a conscious-vs.-subconscious split; it’s a now-vs.-later split. In the moment, she really wants you to lose; all of her wants that. It’s only after you tell her, “Get over yourself, bizzitch,” and stick to it, that her attraction for you manifests. And it’s not immediate; it may be hours before she realizes how full of shit she was and respects and is attracted to your strength.

There’s a kind of bird I saw on a nature documentary once. In mating season the male builds a nest. When he attracts a female’s attention, she attacks the nest, trying to destroy it. If she destroys it, she moves on. Only if the nest is strong enough to withstand her does she stick around and mate with the male.

Every boy should be required to watch this.

This is a metaphor for 75% of the stuff that goes on between men and women in the sexual marketplace. If schoolboys were shown this 30-second video clip of a female bird relentlessly attacking a nest, with explanatory voice-over, it would change the world. It’s so visual, so clear. You can see what the female bird is doing.

The point is: Women often want their men to fail. They go about trying to make this happen with fanatic purpose, intensity, and resolve. This leads to anti-male affirmative action, e.g. It leads to them trying to bring in foreign men and have their own men and the foreign men play the “Let’s you and him fight” game. (Any woman who does this one should be subject to the highest penalty the law can impose, IMHO.) If you resist any of this, some of the more extreme ones will quite sincerely try to get you fired. I’m not mentioning this as a wussy “Oh, just give up!” call to surrender. Au contraire, this is identifying a problem so we can crush the fuck out of it.

The point is, we are in a mode right now in which publicly speaking out against the invasion of our western countries by murderous foreigners can induce lots of people – disproportionately green-haired fatties – to descend on your employer and quite seriously try to get you hosed from your job.

This collective shit-test has us in a bad position. It means that countries being invaded are in a position such that the only people really capable of forcefully resisting the invasion – white non-Muslim men – are being undercut by women (who should be) on their own side.

Pause to contemplate how fucking evil this is. The invaders are being given more deference than the natives they’re trying to replace – from the native governments themselves.

It is largely with the electoral support of females that western governments have adopted this position. Leftist women, consciously or not, are doing this to shit test western men. BUT PASSING A SHIT TEST SHOULDN’T REQUIRE US TO START AND WIN AN ARMED REVOLUTION AGAINST OUR OWN GOVERNMENTS! That’s not a reasonable shit test! This whole project of shit-testing western men by turning their own governments against them and seeing if they can revolt and overthrow the governments, is insane. For God’s sake, honey, call me an asshole and see how I respond. That’s a reasonable shit test. But inviting lethally invasive foreigners into the land to kill and rape and impose their religion by force? Does it occur to you western women that your shit testing has become completely fucking insane?

It’s as if we’re crouched beyond a rock during a machine gun fight, and with the shots ricocheting off the rock, I grab your tit and say, “Let’s fuck, babe!” Do you not understand that there are situations in which thinking about sex/mating is completely fucking inappropriate?!

Western societies literally are not going to survive if we don’t find a way around this.

There’s more than one strategy for solving this problem, but we sure as shit need to acknowledge the problem.

Here’s one thing that won’t work: Explaining the problem to women and pointing out that an impending societal-level extinction event is not an appropriate context for shit-testing. The female mind doesn’t work that way.

(Yes, above I vented to women, but that’s all it was, venting.)

But we certainly are going to have to defeat western leftist females as part of solving the invasion problem we currently face. If we don’t, we won’t solve it, or if we do, leftist females will just start it right back up again.

Western women won’t be glad that we’ve won until after we’ve won. Then they’ll give us awesome blowjobs, probably without even realizing on a conscious level why they’re doing so. But we have to win first.

As a caveat: I’ve slightly overstated some points here. In particular, most western women – the sane ones – have a preference for their own men over foreign men. (And see the update below.) But it’s only a preference. Women want strong men above all. But that preference will really help us once we start winning against the invaders. Then women will gravitate to us in greater numbers, both because they like to be with winning men and because natural affinity for one’s own kind pushes them in that direction anyway. So the snowball effect will happen with stunning rapidity once it really starts. But we men are going to have to take the lead.

UPDATE: I am delighted to say that (non-leftist) Marine Le Pen has shown virtue and courage and has stood up for the West against arrogant Islam.

Marine Le Pen canceled a meeting on Tuesday with Lebanon’s grand mufti, its top cleric for Sunni Muslims, after refusing to wear a headscarf for the encounter.

…[Le Pen] had been scheduled to meet the Grand Mufti Sheikh Abdul Latif Derian. He heads the Dar al-Fatwa, the top religious authority for Sunni Muslims in the multireligious country.

“You can pass on my respects to the grand mufti, but I will not cover myself up,” she said.

Bonus: This shames the Canadian and Swedish women who meekly submitted to this brazen effrontery. (See my previous post.)

Frame Tests and the Fate of the West, Part 1

This post provides an example of a double standard in female frame-testing of men. Its main point is to illustrate a problem to be discussed further in a second post. (Frame testing is when a woman tests a man to see if he’s a strong male or a weak male, for mating purposes. It’s a fundamental aspect of female sexual psychology.)

Photos of “tough guy” female Swedish politicians, then photos of them walking with smiles past a Muslim man, while they wear hijabs or whatever.

Then there’s Canadian tough guy lesbian politician, who visited a mosque and was told by the imam, you have to sit quietly in the corner because the men are praying, and you have to wear a hijab, and you have to sit aside there until we let you know we’re finished. And she did! This lesbian feminist meekly sat there, as ordered by a man. (Link with photo.)

Now what would happen if a white Christian pastor said the same thing to her? He’d just be ignored. Possibly, she’d tell her security forces to press the issue, and he’d have to admit her or risk being injured in an ensuing scuffle. Certainly, at a minimum she’d walk out, there’d be a media firestorm, and the pastor would be subjected to social media death threats and almost certainly dismissed from his church.

So it’s not just a matter of western men having enough balls to tell a woman to sit aside while the men pray. It’s that a white western non-Muslim man knows that she wouldn’t comply with that order if it comes from him. So it becomes, not a matter of cowardice, but of simple time-wasting. Why waste time pushing an issue where the best possible outcome is that the woman refuses and nothing else happens?

Well, maybe we should. Maybe we should push the issue, not because women shouldn’t be present when men are praying, but to force the hypocrisy and double-standard into the limelight. (Yes, I know that hypocrisy doesn’t bother the Left. But the point of such a move would not be to get leftists to change their minds. The point would be to present an outrageous double standard to the public. Make the left repudiate the hypocrisy or, since they almost certainly won’t, make them take the reputational damage of defending it.)

Anyway, you see part of the problem here; there’s a certain circularity to this frame test (a.k.a. shit test):

The Canadian female politician submitted to the Muslim man because that’s what one does in Canada now.
And that’s what one does in Canada now because refusing to submit to him will just get you kicked out of the mosque.
And you’ll get kicked out of the mosque because you won’t resist when the Muslim man kicks you out.
And you won’t resist because that’s just not what a liberal woman does in Canada when confronted by a firm Muslim man.

Yes, this goes in a circle. That’s part of my point. Western women give in to foreign invaders, but not to their own men. (They persecute their own men using the government and other socially powerful mechanisms.) And they do this because Muslim men are more powerful (at least in this sense). And Muslim men are more powerful because women give in to them, but not to their own men.

All the while western women sneer at western men for not being powerful enough. But it’s the women’s own behavior that creates the unequal social power! What exactly do you expect us to do, honey? Do you want a white Christian priest to pick a fight with five of your armed security guards? WTF? How is that a reasonable fight to expect him to win?
(And do you seriously not notice the fucking circularity in your own fucktarded shit test?)

You see the problem? If women were aware of shit testing at a conscious level and understood what a moronic shit test this sort of thing is, they’d stop it. BUT THEY AREN’T. THE FEMALE BRAIN DOESN’T WORK THAT WAY. They’re just shit testing, automatically, as required by their genetic hardwiring. Hence the outrageous double standard and flinging of a shit test that it’s absurd to expect a priest to be able to pass.

Thus the problem: In a scenario with a white Christian priest, The woman seriously wants him to lose. She’s fighting to win! She has armed security guards with her precisely to make this happen! She is NOT subconsciously thinking, “I hope he beats me.” No, she’s trying to beat him. Yes, it’s crazy, but that’s the nature of shit tests.

A sane woman would think, “Why the fuck am I doing this?” and stop it. But sane left-wing women aren’t exactly in large supply.

This is why female sexual psychology is a devastating force for any society that does not control it. Every traditional society has kept women out of important decision-making positions. These examples illustrate why: Women are too inclined to submit to male invaders showing strong frame, while shit testing their own men, with whom they are more familiar. If the native men allow this to go on long enough, it creates a full-bore invasion.

“But how,” you ask, “did men historically understand this, and move to keep women away from this kind of power?”

The fearsome answer: Not all of them did.

The Inverse Bechdel Test

Female psychology and fiction: Thoughts inspired by (the first 53 pages of) A Darker Shade of Magic, by Victoria Schwab.

I’m a dimension-hopping wizard. You’d think the author would be able to do something interesting with me.

This novel suffers from a common problem with its beginning.

1) The problem: Not much happens in the first 53 pages, where I paused to record these thoughts. E.g., the opening scene has the magician Holland conversing with a prince. But we don’t hear much of the conversation and it’s not enough to pique our interest. Worse, the initial conversation between another magician, Kell, and a King doesn’t realize its promise. When Kell delivers a letter from a monarch in one universe to a monarch in another, we expect some earth-shaking development that will precipitate the story: A declaration of war or something. Instead, we get a polite inquiry about the recipient’s health: The royal equivalent of “Howya doin?! Arite, check ya later!” Huh? Something should have happened there. Fifty-three pages in, almost nothing has happened.

2) Why does this problem occur? Note: The first 53 pages are almost 100% super-alpha males – kings, princes, and powerful magicians – and almost 100% of their “screen time” is them talking to other super-alpha males. Of course alpha males, especially super-alphas like kings and princes, are intrinsically fascinating from a female point of view. But from a male point of view, well, no.

In the funniest example of this problem, a prince (super-alpha) discusses his birthday party plans with his parents (King (super-alpha) and Queen) and brother (powerful magician and adopted prince; super-alpha). To a male reader, this is like some accountants planning a birthday party. Maybe the author and her female readers are rapt, because ALPHA MALES!!! But this male reader, and I imagine most male readers, are thinking, “Planning a birthday party? Why are we being shown this?”

In fact, this scene is actually two entirely different scenes, depending on the audience. For the (female) author and female readers, the scene is OH MY GOD, SUPER-ALPHAS!!! For a male reader, the scene is some accountants talking about a birthday party.

There’s nothing wrong with women being attracted to alpha men, any more than there’s something wrong with men being attracted to young, beautiful women. But if a novel is intended for both sexes – as opposed to being romance porn for women – it should not contain scenes like the above. I’m not objecting to porn, I’m just saying, sort out your goals and intended audience before you start writing.

All of this leads me to propose, for female writers, an analogue of the Bechdel Test (the test feminists use to assess female roles in fiction). The Inverse Bechdel Test is:

Would a scene that features men be equally interesting if the men were all accountants?

If not, you might be letting female sexual preoccupations overwhelm your authorial professionalism. Honestly ask yourself whether the scene should be there.

Index page for my Red Pill in Fiction posts: