Miscellany 30: Miscellany Beats Four Aces

(1) Summer 2022: I just found out that General Butt Naked is an actual person!!!

Until then I thought “General Butt Naked” was just a metaphor that Jim of Jim’s Blog had made up.

Actual quote: “When I’m naked I activate my spiritual powers faster.”

O brave new world, that has such people in’t.

(2) LOL: Boston Pride committee acknowledges its systemic racism and disbands over QTBIPOC criticism

July 2021

Boston Pride, a group advocating for the LGBTQIA+ agenda, acknowledged systemic racism within its own organization and disbanded.

The board of directors released a statement explaining the reasons for their disbanding…

“It is clear to us that our community needs and wants change without the involvement of Boston Pride. We have heard the concerns of the QTBIPOC community and others. We care too much to stand in the way,” the statement continued.

“Therefore, Boston Pride is dissolving,” they added. “There will be no further events or programming planned, and the board is taking steps to close down the organization.”

Related: Another leftist group commits suicide over self-confessed “racism”: Auckland chapter of New Zealand’s School Strike 4 Climate group admits racism and disbands

(3) Vox Day quotes an article that says,

The Dalai Lama has sparked controversy after he once again defended White nationalism. [Eye roll.] The elderly monk agreed with the statement that, “white people have a right to exist in their own countries.” Explaining himself, he stated, “I do not think a world without white people would be complete. We should celebrate the whole world’s diversity and that of course means nations being their own. I do not think a France without the French would be a good thing, but completely the opposite. I love all people.”

Going on, he stated that, “I can understand the sadness and despair of Europeans and Americans who worry about losing their countries. Immigrants should return to their own countries, especially those who are from safe places. When I travel to Berlin, I wonder, where are the Germans? I weep for what they have lost.”

(4) Commenter Fireball at https://blog.reaction.la/faith/the-trans-cult/, on J. K. Rowling getting daily death threats because of her opposition to the trans thing:

“The old leftists always forget that the revolution doesn’t stop where they are comfortable with it.”

Speaking of which: Police remove lesbians from LBGT parade in Cardiff because they confronted transvestites.

What you did to us is now being done to you. You normalized the politics of “Shut up, you bigot!” And now the politics you created are coming for you.

And again: Women’s rights activists are ‘silenced’ by trans-rights mob clad in black as Bristol anarchists tell feminists they are ‘next’…

And again: The Revolution does not stop where you are comfortable with it.

(5) Oh my God: In Iowa, a man gets sentenced to 1 year in prison for stealing a rainbow gay flag… and another 15 years in prison for burning it, as a “hate crime.”

(6) The three suspected shooters in this mass shooting are all black. Three people were murdered and 14 more were injured. For some reason, there is no front-page coverage of this in the national media. Huh.

For those who will yawn and say, “More leftist hypocrisy, so what?” the response is, Yeah, you may already know that, but somewhere out there are a fuck-ton of 18-year-olds whose political beliefs are just starting to form, and who don’t know it yet. The more we mention this sort of thing, the more those youngsters will happen upon it. One doesn’t call out leftist hypocrisy to shame leftists into stopping the hypocrisy. (As if.) One calls out leftist hypocrisy to draw it to the attention of those whose political beliefs haven’t jelled yet.

(7) “Isolated.” A ton of leftist rhetoric involves this as some sort of “threat.” That reveals what they fear. The latest example as of this writing in 2022 is Vladimir Putin, but there are tons of examples, e.g. Britain during the Brexit debates, etc.

Here’s an example regarding Putin: https://voxday.net/2022/05/15/why-women-shouldnt-lead/. It has a screen grab of a tweet in which one Teri Schultz writes,

Estonian Premier @kajakallas is exasperated that Vladimir Putin’s phone line is so busy:

“If you really want him to get the message that he’s isolated,” she says, boiling it down. “Don’t. Call. Him.”

(8) https://www.yahoo.com/news/worst-idea-world-jennifer-lopez-062810204.html

“In candid interviews and fly-on-the-wall footage captured by director Amanda Micheli in the summer of 2019, [Jennifer] Lopez tries to keep mum about speculation she’s the “front-runner” to headline the [Superbowl] halftime show. So when the announcement comes that September she’ll be joined by Shakira, Lopez’s team calls it a slight against both women, suggesting that the NFL doesn’t believe Latinas can command the world’s biggest stage solo.”

You cannot appease the woke. Putting not one but two Latinas onstage didn’t quell the accusations of being anti-Latina. And putting three, or three hundred, wouldn’t have done so either. The Left cannot be appeased. It can only be defeated.

Not Red Pill in Fiction: The Dirty Girls Social Club

The Dirty Girls Social Club, by Alisa Valdes-Rodriguez, published in 2003. Fair warning: This is mostly just me venting at the identity politics bait-and-switch that is this “novel.”

Aw, man, I had such high hopes for this one based on the first few pages. Classic female chunks of cheese all over the place (details to follow). Then the estrogen-infused cheese disappears. Worse, it becomes a politically correct race-sex-LBGTQ tract. With no plot, not even a pretend plot. Not even a gesture in the direction of faking an interest in thinking about the possibility of coming up with a plot. Sigh. Well, at least I got this for just 50 cents at a local library book sale. If I’d paid full price for this I’d be pissed. I mean, the title, “The Dirty Girls Social Club,” come on! That’s purposefully designed to trick 25-year-old chicks into buying it, expecting a lot of graphic sex, just so they can be conned into reading the author’s political complaints.

And it started so promisingly! Here’s what I’d written when I was a few pages in:

A “novel” about six “Latina” chicks living in Boston. They call themselves “sucias,” which we’re told means “dirty girls.” Each chapter is narrated by a different chick. At least judging by the first chapter there’s a lot of PC whining about being Hispanic in the US, which I am mostly going to try to ignore. But some of it is bound up with the author’s standard-mold female drama queenery, attention-whoring, and humble-bragging, so it’s impossible to avoid all of it. I hope that later chapters, narrated by other characters, will dial this the fuck down or it’s going to get really old really fast.

(Boy, was that hope dashed.)

But judging from the first 3 pages, this is going to be great as far as the female psychology stuff goes. The narrator of the first chapter is one Lauren Fernandez. In a horribly violent act of cultural genocide, I am omitting the accent mark over that last letter a. (I’m tempted to include an umlaut over one of the consonants, like Spinal Tap.) She bemoans her excessively dramatic life in classic female drama queen fashion – in particular the fact that her boyfriend is cheating on her – does a humblebrag about a guy at the bar checking her out even though she describes herself as “gross,” and obsesses about her fingernails and her variable clothing sizes, thus confirming that if men portrayed women as being half as obsessed with clothing and personal grooming as they actually are, feminists would go into tachycardia. She then returns to the fact that the men in her life all cheat on her. Complete with the standard excuse-making and denial of responsibility: “I don’t pick them, exactly. They find me, with that whacked radar…” All this within the first two pages! You can see why I had high hopes for this one.

She’s a reporter, because of course she is. It had to be either that or lawyer. Assuming that another one of the “dirty girls” is a lawyer, what do the other four do? Can’t wait to find out! My guess as of page 5: One of them does something in education, one works for a charity, and one has some sort of “high-pressure” corporate job. That leaves one for government, maybe “social work” of some kind. LATER: Not one but two “journalists”! And one professional musician: how could I have forgotten “rock star”?

P.6: More PC whining about how hard it is being a non-white chick. Complains that when she doesn’t do her job, a white man dares to note that fact:

“I’m always early. It’s the reporter training—come late, lose the story. Lose the story, risk having some envious and mediocre white guy in the newsroom accuse you of not deserving your job.” Can you believe that? Some white guy might say I don’t deserve my job just because I didn’t do my job! The nerve! I’m a non-white woman! I deserve to keep my job even if I don’t do it! Grr. Talk about entitlement mentality! I’m noting this because it’s relevant on the very next page, so put it in your short term memory.

P. 7: In case you didn’t get the drama queenery a couple of pages ago: “Men like Ed [her boyfriend] find me, because they smell the hidden truth of Lauren on the wind: I hate myself because no one else has ever bothered to love me.” Leaping cats! How do people who are so un-serious take themselves so seriously? You can practically see her striking a pose. The back of one hand presses against her forehead as she slumps to the ground in a faint. From all the drama! Of being forced to date jerks!

Still p. 7: More self-obsessed PC whining: “First week on the job an editor strolled past my desk and said in the deliberate, too-loud English they would all come to use on me, ‘I’m so glad you’re here representing your people.’” No whiteys talk like this to Hispanics, at least not that I’ve ever heard. The other two options are to say “I’m not glad you’re here,” in which case she’d complain about the hostility, or to say nothing, in which case she’d complain about being “culturally erased” or something.

Still p. 7: Check this out: Our Narratrix wants another beer, and is peeved that the waitress is distracted by the bar’s TV: “Como? she asks, looking confused. She was watching a Mexican soap opera on a small TV behind the counter and looks annoyed to be bothered with, you know, work.” Jesus, bitch, it was just at the top of the previous page that you complained about being expected to do your job!

P.9: attention whore ultra-fantasy. Our Narratrix is a reporter, as I may have mentioned once or twice. The paper she works for, The Gazette, has recently, well, read:

“It’s getting a little harder to take public transit because the Gazette recently put up billboards all over town with my huge red-brown curly hair and grinning freckled face on them, accompanied by the idiotic words ‘Lauren Fernandez: Her Casa Is Your Casa, Boston.’”

This chick—I mean the author, Alisa Valdes-Rodriguez— is 200-proof female psychology. You can sense her having some sort of attention-whoregasm as she fantasizes about having her face on billboards all over a major city.

Why the billboard thing targeted to Hispanics? Because…

“Money talks, see. Hispanics are no longer seen as a foreign unwashed menace taking over the public schools with that dirty little language of theirs; we are a domestic market.”

What you mean “we,” hon? On several previous pages you mentioned that you don’t speak Spanish, and acted all aggrieved that whiteys might assume that you did just because you’re, you know… Hispanic. (She actually calls that assumption “illogical.”) Now in the context of the Spanish language you’re suddenly using the word “we.”

Seriously, from page 7:

“Here’s how my job interview went: You’re a Latina? How… neat. You must speak Spanish, then? When you’ve got $15.32 in your bank account… what do you say to a question like that, even when the answer is no? …With a name like Lauren Fernandez, they figured Spanish was part of the package. But that’s the American disease as I see it: rampant, illogical stereotyping.” (If you hate it so much here, you are quite welcome to leave.) And page 8: “But what I thought was: Just hire me. I’ll learn Spanish later.”

Having explicitly stated that she doesn’t speak Spanish, and called anyone who assumes she does a bigot, she then says, “Hispanics are no longer seen as a foreign unwashed menace… with that dirty little language of theirs; we are a domestic market.” We?

Let’s skip ahead 100 pages to page 105: Her boss Chuck, a ridiculous dorky white man – of course – can’t speak Spanish. While she doesn’t actually say “I’m aggrieved by this!” it’s a strong subtext:

“It wasn’t until [blah blah] that Chuck figured out who Ricky Martin was. Now he goes around, years too late, singing “Livin’ la Vida Loca,” only he can’t say vida and he can’t say loca, so he ends up singing ‘Livin’ Evita Loqua.’”

He can’t pronounce words in Spanish – a language which I don’t speak either. But I’m going to act aggrieved anyway. It’s so culturally insennnnnnsitive! How DARE you not speak a language which I also don’t speak?! You fucking American bigot!

I remember when Livin’ la Vida Loca was a hit. I never encountered a whitey who couldn’t say it. “Vida” and “loca” are easy words to say. She couldn’t even be bothered to come up with a word that contains, for example, the letter ñ (say “enye”), which is not pronounced like n, and which a non-Spanish speaker might actually be confused about. For someone who writes so voluminously – you should read the 100 pages of pointless filler I skipped over – she sure is a lazy writer. How hard would it have been to make up such an example?

Enraging though all this is, it’s a great example of the sheer illogicality of leftism and female-think. And when you combine leftism and female-think, WOW. First she whines that she’s expected to do her job (how unfair!). Then whines that the waitress isn’t doing her job. Then she denies speaking Spanish, then acts personally aggrieved that some whiteys might have a low opinion of Spanish. Jeez. The sheer lack of any consistency, or any concern for consistency, really is shocking. Yeah, I know I shouldn’t be shocked. I’ve been studying leftists, and women, for decades. Yet the Satan-level hypocrisy and double standards make steam come out of my ears.

A Net search reveals that the author of this identity-politics Communist Manifesto got a job at the Los Angeles Times after this novel was published. (The double-journalist set of characters was obviously an author-insert fantasy.) Anyway, she ended up quitting her job at the L.A. Times, accusing that paper of… can you guess? I bet you can! … racism and sexism! Surprise!

In what other country in the world would people put up with this crap? If you went to China, got a cushy “job” as a “reporter” and then quit with complaints that the newspaper was full of Chinese people, I’m pretty sure they’d “invite” you to leave the country. Only in the white world do we let people come to our countries and abuse us this way. The situation cannot last.

Back to it. P. 102: a diatribe against a right-wing journalist lying. Unreal. Who lies more, right-wing journalists or left-wing journalists? On the same page, a diatribe against a right-wing political group throwing Molotov cocktails. Bitch, please! Who throws more Molotov cocktails, right-wingers or left-wingers? It really is true that leftists always project.

Also on page 102: She recalls that when she started working at the newspaper, an old hand gave her three pieces of advice, Blah, Blah-blah, and “Three, don’t wear your skirts so short ’cuz you’re makin’ me sweat.” You wish, honey.

P. 103: Back near the start of the book, the Narratrix had recalled a scene in which a college professor was so scared of having several hispanic women in the class that he was literally trembling. (WTF?) on p. 103 we get more surreal fantasizing that white people find her scary because she’s hispanic: “I love my desk. I have draped it in Mexican rugs and Santeria beads just to scare everyone.” Then, in the same paragraph, some whining about her boss sending her out to cover a story and adding, “Bring me back some biscotti, almond.” Ah, yes, I always order people I’m scared of to run errands for me.

P. 103-4: Complaining about how her boss sent her on a job to cover some Mexican laborers. How dare he assume that I’m Mexican, just because I’m hispanic! MAYBE THAT HAS SOMETHING TO DO WITH THE FACT THAT YOU DRAPED MEXICAN RUGS ALL OVER YOUR DESK, YOU FUCKING CUNT.

Alright, I’m done. Pretty sure this book doesn’t contain any fun “dirty girl” stuff, now that I’m more than 100 pages into it. Given that nothing prefigured by the title actually appears in the novel, as far as I can tell, I infer that the title was purely chosen to trick people into reading the identity politics screeching.

Defining Leftism

At https://blog.reaction.la/party-politics/end-of-pretence-of-democracy-rescheduled-to-2024/ HerbR provides a good list of definitions of leftism:

– De Jouvenel AKA HLvM [high and low vs. the middle]: Elites weaponizing underclass (collectively “left”) against middle class (“right”).
– Cladistic: Leftist ideologies all share common memes and derive from common ancestor(s).
– Social-network: Leftism inferred from personal/institutional ties, parties attended, etc.
– Antinomian: Christian definition, elevating “divine grace” over established law, usually to describe Puritan/Quaker movements.
– Revolutionary: Actual etymology of “Left/Right”, the revolutionaries vs. royalists – more generally, hatred of non “consensual” authority.
– Economic: Leftism as destruction/”redistribution” of capital, rightism as capital creation.
– R/K: Leftism/rightism as manifestations of different reproductive strategies (r and K, like rabbit vs. wolf).
– Status-maximizing: Leftists as “sociopathic status maximizers”, best to just google it.
– Warrior/priest: Jim Lite, leftism as priestly rule, rightism as warrior rule.
– Game-theoretical: Leftism as defect/defect, rightism as cooperate/cooperate.
– Thermodynamic: Leftism as social entropy, that which creates disorder and regresses us to a more primitive state without constant energy input.

But this list isn’t supposed to be a “pick any one you want” buffet, the reason the list exists is that all of the models have some predictive power (some more so than others) and none of them are complete.

Here’s my take on the main (not the only) defining feature of leftism:

Leftists are people who want the unearned.

Welfare recipients are an obvious example but a lot of it is more subtle, e.g. demands for employment via affirmative action.

But it’s not only people who want unearned money, jobs, etc.

It’s also that fat chick who doesn’t want to exercise or go on a diet, and who demands that beauty standards be overturned so that she’s considered attractive (LOL).

It’s that “Oscars So White” movement demanding that more honors for great acting be awarded to black actors. Not with any reason provided, just there “aren’t enough” Oscars awarded to black actors.

It’s people who say the safest possible things in our society and expect to be praised for their courage. An NFL player came out as homosexual a few months ago and articles on his announcement were constantly calling him “brave,” “courageous,” etc., even though there is nothing safer in the current US than announcing that one is homosexual.

Leftist psychology is eternal. C.S. Lewis portrayed the contemptible demand to call playing it safe “courageous” in 1945: In his novel The Great Divorce there’s a conversation in the afterlife between two souls who were friends in life. One was a priest, and they are talking about their attitude toward religious matters when they were alive:

“It all turns on what are honest opinions.” [the non-priest says.]
“Mine certainly were. They were not only honest but heroic. I asserted them fearlessly. When the doctrine of the Resurrection ceased to commend itself to the critical faculties which God had given me, I openly rejected it. I preached my famous sermon. I defied the whole chapter. I took every risk.”
“What risk? What was at all likely to come of it except what actually came — popularity, sales for your books, invitations, and finally a bishopric?”

Lewis wouldn’t have bothered to satirize such outrageous claims of courage unless they were prevalent in his day. This crap didn’t originate with wokeness. Some details of leftist politics change over time, but there is a definite leftist psychology, and its basic features never change.

Leftist chick self-flagellates because she doesn’t find her dress-wearing boyfriend sexy

Female author at The Guardian: My boyfriend’s wedding dress unveiled my own shortcomings over masculinity.
(Via Ace: http://ace.mu.nu/archives/386163.php)

This is a hilarious work of Stalinist self-criticism. A chick whose brain is colonized by the leftist mind-virus gropes toward rediscovering what any sane, normal human being could have told her: A man in a dress is ridiculous. But she rejects the obvious truth and rebukes herself for being insufficiently woke. This is what leftism does to people’s minds.

I’ve excepted it here; comments in bold.

I’m quick to blame men for their toxic behavior, but in this case, I, the woman, was part of the problem.

My gaze scanned the racks of clothing and stopped abruptly on something I’d never expected to see: my boyfriend was clutching a wedding dress – that he wanted to buy for himself.

“Emily!” he cried with victorious glee. “I’ve found the one!”

Ian thrust the white garment into the air like a trophy. Its lace sleeves sashayed from the tapered bodice and fluffy tulle grazed the tiles of the thrift store floor.

“Oh, wow,” I managed to spit out. LOL.

We were searching for dresses to wear during the annual Mother’s Day Climb up Mount St. Helens, a tradition in which everyone scaling the volcano sports flowing garments.

I knew Ian would be among the most outrageous on the mountain. My boyfriend is aggressively fun and a flair fanatic, Uh-oh which I find wildly attractive on most occasions. Stop lying.

But I found myself unexpectedly uneasy with his new fondness for feminine frocks – a reaction that challenged the progressive ideals I’d prided myself on for decades. Yes! Admit your guilt, fascist! I’d long thought I was contributing to a progressive shift in how we define masculinity, finally allowing men to be emotional and vulnerable, or to ask for help, or to hug their male friends … or to wear dresses.

Men are perfectly capable of asking for help. If I ever need to know how to field strip an AK-47, I’ll ask a guy friend. If I ever want to know about trendy hair styles, NO, that was to see if you’re paying attention! Like that scene in In and Out where Kevin Kline is tricked into saying “What a fabulous window treatment!”

As far as hugging male friends, you’re allowed to do that under certain circumstances – the most obvious one being that you’re on a professional sports team and you just won the playoffs. Then your team is expected to embrace each other, while popping champagne and dumping a barrel of Gatorade onto your coach. You can also do it in other circumstances if you do it right. If you don’t have an intuitive sense of where the line is, just err on the side of no hugs, duh.

While I’m on the subject, Dave Barry: “When is it okay to kiss another male? When he is your brother and you are Al Pacino and this is the only really sportsmanlike way to let him know that, for business reasons, you have to have him killed.” (The Kiss of Death.) And I’m kinda leery of that. Can’t you just have him canceled without going through the bourgeois formalities?

Ian giggled. “Isn’t it beautiful?” His chest hair battled the sheer neckline. God, this is gross. I imagined him skiing down Mount St Helens in it, the lengthy rag concealing his chiseled calves and hardened quadriceps, and strained to find it an appealing vision.

This was not the first time I’d found myself a little uncomfortable with the sight of Ian in women’s wear. I hate to repeat myself, but: LOL. It’s not an unusual sight to spot him sporting a skirt, dress, or sarong at a party, picnic, or trailhead. Acknowledge the obvious, honey. He uses his unconventional apparel as a display of his individuality and a reflection of his fondness for fun. What’s a three-letter synonym for “fun” or “festive”? Starts with “G”. I adore both of those qualities, but I was realizing I was less fond of seeing them exhibited through floral numbers or tight sequined garments or wedding dresses.

While it was attraction-at-first sight with Ian, his closet full of feminine gear TALK ABOUT BURYING THE LEDE! put a tiny dent in his desirability from the very beginning… there was a disconnect between what I thought I was OK with a man wearing, and what I actually found appealing on his body.

Honey, your vagina does not want a man in a dress. Your vagina is smarter than your brain. I don’t often say this to women, but: Go with your vagina.

On the first weekend we hooked up, I had to yank a green sparkly dress over his head to unclothe him.

You need to be much, much LESS open-minded.

“That was the first time I’ve undressed a man – from a dress!” I shrieked the next morning. “Oh girl, what an exciting milestone! Congratulations!” hollered Eli, an effervescent gay man who dons many dresses himself.

Intellectually, I enjoyed that Ian was rejecting gender norms and expectations. But physically, my desire didn’t match. Those feelings illuminated some unanticipated boundaries of where I define attractiveness in men and when I still crave traditional masculinity.

You might ask yourself why traditional masculinity is traditional.

My ex-boyfriend had the emotional depth of a paper airplane and couldn’t engage with the deep pain I was enduring – or any other emotion, period. Dweeby, and probably not true, but a typical chick statement, so we’ll make allowances. When I started hanging out with Ian and he immediately wanted to talk about feelings, it was a gulp of ice-cold lemonade on a 98-degree day. Dweeby but a typical chick statement. I’d been craving this vulnerability and openness from the men I dated. Dweeby but a typical chick statement. Conversations like that one drew me to him, as did his emotional openness, his fondness for communication, and his public displays of affection for close male friends. Dweeby but WAIT, FUCKING WHAT!? Unless your boyfriend is a mob boss who’s having rat-finks iced, this signals a problem.

My boyfriend’s wedding dress Honey, pause and reflect here: Your relationship involves sequences of words like “My boyfriend’s wedding dress.” pushed me to perform a scrupulous inventory of my deepest ideas about masculinity and helped me identify my shortfalls as a woman who wants to help rewrite gender norms. As I went through this exercise, I chatted with a handful of girlfriends about it, who could all identify their own small hang-ups with masculinity: their need for men who are bigger and taller than they are, or who are better than them at sports, or who don’t cry in front of them. LOL.

As we interrogated our feelings about masculinity, we recognized gaps between our ideals and reality. I’m quick to blame men for perpetuating toxic behavior, but in this case, I, the woman, was part of the problem.

Yeah, you’re an enabler.

Mother’s Day dawned sunny and crisp in the Washington Cascades. It was a beautiful day for a wedding dress. Depends who’s wearing it.

After we reached the summit, Ian plunged down the frozen slope, his long, white train flowing behind him, whipping from side-to-side like a lacy windsock.

“Do you find your boyfriend as attractive as I do?” whispered Eli, as we watched Ian in his flowing skirt, his laughing smile nearly detectable through the back of his floral sunhat. You can’t make this shit up.

My eyes chased my boyfriend down the mountain, my sensitive, silly, affectionate, emotional, vulnerable boyfriend – skiing in his wedding dress.

“I do,” I promised[, lying my ass off.]

Someone needs to tell this woman that the thing she suspects about her boyfriend is, in fact, true.

Bonus: Sidebar at the Guardian article: “Masculinity is a trap – which is why more men should wear skirts.” The haute reaches of the left really are just trolling their own followers now to see how much they can get away with before the followers are like, “Wait a minute.”

Why is fertility lower among high-status women?

Why is fertility lower among high-status women than low-status women? It’s not just a weird unfortunate coincidence. It’s because they’re high status. Female hypergamy means that the number of men a high-status woman regards as worthy of her are smaller. It’s a terrible thing for a woman to be high status. It hurts her reproductive success. And so it hurts the reproductive success of the population of which she’s a member.

Men and women are different in terms of everything, including the effect of their social status on their reproductive success.

Look at human history with Darwinian eyes. (If you’re an evolution denier, look with Chesterton’s Fence eyes.) As far as can be told from history, women are by default lower status than men in all societies that existed up to around 1900. Why? Not because those horrid men forced them all into low-status roles. All? Seriously, all? In every society in the history of the world? Please. Nothing is “all” in the world of social phenomena. No, indubitably there were some societies just like ours in which deluded social innovators allowed and encouraged women to have high social status. Those societies are gone now.

Because those societies in which women had higher or even equal status by default were outbred. They’re not around any more. They didn’t even survive long enough to leave a noticeable presence in the historical record.

Let us pause to refute some feminist idiocy on this topic. God knows they make it easy.

The fuck-witted feminist account of all this is this: “In earlier eras, men were higher status than women because men— those brutes!— kept women down with overwhelming physical force. But now, in our modern society, this is not relevant any more.” Why not? Anyway, notice how stupid this is, if you just think about it instead of mindlessly repeating it: Men kept women down by physical force? Really? No they didn’t. What the hell? I love this notion that the average woman was thirsting to be a sailor on a whaling ship but the men used violence to prevent her from doing so. Or the average woman yearned to be a statistician in the actuarial department of an insurance company but those violent men beat her senseless until she stopped trying it. Fucking LOL. In fact, it is the opposite: In the modern world it takes a constant barrage of one-sided propaganda just to make some women think they want to do such things.

Also: Were the highest-status men in the last few millennia the ones who were biggest and toughest? Did you get to be Pope or Corporate CEO or College President by beating up other men? Or even credibly threatening to do so? Bitch, please.

Also notice that this whole moronic feminist argument contradicts the other, opposite feminist argument, that women should be in combat positions in the military because they’re just as good in a fight as a man. Well, which is it? Did men use their superiority in physical conflict to keep women down? Or are women just as good in a fight as men?

Feminists. Jesus. Stop trying to make arguments, sugar-tits. You’re just not very good at it. Now quit being such a skirt and get me a beer; I want something to drink while you’re blowing me.

So that “argument” makes no sense. No, the reason we see no historical societies in which women had higher or equal status compared to men, is that they didn’t breed enough to leave a noticeable presence in the historical record. And the reason for that, or a main reason for it, is that female hypergamy means that high female status is highly contra-reproduction. Lethally so.

The only antidote to the contra-natalist tendency of high female status, that has worked empirically, is a set of social conventions and traditions in which (1) husbands automatically have higher status than wives, and (2) fathers can marry off daughters even if the daughter thinks the prospective husband isn’t good enough for her. In that way the deadly poison of female hypergamy is rendered irrelevant. In a society with these two features, even a girl who is born a heir presumptive to the crowns of the Kingdom of England and the Kingdom of Ireland can be induced to squeeze out baby after baby, enough for seven of them to survive to adulthood.

Miscellany 14: ynallecsiM gnillevarT-emiT

(6) Where did the name of this blog come from, anyway?

I’m not really sure. Aside from just thinking it was a cool word, and a possible band name (when I was younger), it may have been partly inspired by Anders Sandberg’s comment on his website, on his favorite metal:

“Mercury. Reflective, heavy, quick moving, poisons your brain.”


Both parties lie and have always lied, but lie for different reasons. Since Democrats represent the left, and the left is the group of the incompetent and undeserving clawing their way to power over their natural betters, they lie pathologically and universally about the world itself in a nonstop attempt to invert or subvert the natural order that would normally place them at the bottom.

—A commenter at Vox Popoli.

(4) A piece of unintentional comedy in the comments trail at aramblingcollective, April 2019:

“We need more self-build collectives, with a government land-fund and a development agency like the old Housing Corporation – but better. That would also require design guidelines to promote aesthetic diversity

These people are absolutely beyond satire.

(3) Razorfist a.k.a. rageaholic, is hilarious.

Here he is on early 20th century pulp comic hero Solomon Kane:

(Video link hat tip to John C. Wright.)

Razorfist sums up Kane as a “buckle-shoed badass,” a “sunken-eyed pallid Puritan fanatic in a felt slouch hat and form-fitting black Quaker garb, expertly wielding a rapier, a dagger, and a pair of fuckin’ flintlock pistols.” Kane is a kind of “supernatural bounty hunter,” but at least as often he goes up against foes whose supernatural nature is coated in a veneer of pseudo-scientific bafflegab.

Purely natural villains also abound, e.g. when Kane happens across a girl who has been killed, and hunts down the “Franco-Belgian fuckbags” (LOL) who did it.


I’d never heard of Solomon Kane before watching this Razorfist vid, but watching it instantly made me want to strap on a brace of pistols and some sort of blade weapon and stride about the world in a wide-brimmed hat, dispensing justice at sword-point. If it doesn’t inspire the same reaction in you, then check your pulse, because I think you might be dead.

“A damn fine movie” is Razorfist’s assessment of the 2009 Solomon Kane flick. But he’s pissed that it wasn’t released in the US until 2012, and condemns farming out the distribution to “a beret-bedecked gaggle of Euro-trash art fags,” LOL. (No hate to my European readers, bitches.)

Just another day at the office.

You have to watch Razorfist to believe him. He’s wonderfully profane, with a swear-to-non-swear ratio of about 600, which spills out of him because he’s just so fucking enthused, motherfuckers (see, now I’m doing it) about the character, the stories, and the pulps in general.

(2) Red pill in reality: I recently read this 2014 piece on asshole Feinstein because it appeared on Anon Conserv circa September 16, 2018:

What’s of interest is the red pill item in the last paragraph:

A serial killer “whose swagger and looks once garnered courtroom groupies, including one misguided female juror who fell in love with Richard yet voted to convict him.”

Fell in love with a serial killer. Jesus! Well, at least she voted to convict.

(1) In NBC “think piece,” raging feminist loon says space exploration is colonialist rape, etc.

(Via this guy.)

Actual title: The patriarchal race to colonize Mars is just another example of male entitlement

Photo caption: Houston, we have a problem. And it’s the patriarchy.

You really can’t tell any more whether this sort of thing is sincere or just the media organization trying to drum up hits by being as idiotic as possible.

Other quotes:

The desire to colonize — to have unquestioned, unchallenged and automatic access to something, to any type of body, and to use it at will — is a patriarchal one.


It is the same instinctual and cultural force that teaches men that everything — and everyone — in their line of vision is theirs for the taking. You know, just like walking up to a woman and grabbing her by the pussy.

If this doesn’t seem to make sense, just take another bong hit. Repeat as needed.

I’m more of a Dale Gribble kind of guy: “Earth First! Make Mars our bitch!”

Bonus: The Author Bio informs us that “Marcie Bianco is a writer and the Editorial and Communications Manager of the Clayman Institute for Gender Research at Stanford University.”

Of course she is.

Women Hate the Idea of Men Having Standards

Women hate the idea of men having attractiveness standards for women. They freak out at the very idea of men being attracted to some women and not attracted to others.

Many women even seem to think it’s evil, even though, aside from the general outrageousness of that opinion, it’s astonishingly hypocritical – women have pickier standards than men, for fuck’s sake. And it’s not as if one can help one’s attractions. “Attraction is not a choice,” as the dictum goes.

Indeed, this crazy opinion is mostly held by feminists, the vast majority of whom would tell you that we should respect gays’ sexual preference, since they can’t help it. I wonder why they think men can help being attracted to young, healthy women, instead of old or fat ones.

Whatever. I know, I know, it’s not as if feminists care whether feminism makes sense. I should stop being surprised by this sort of shiznit.

Funny how you never see beautiful girls flipping out about male standards, isn’t it?

Enter man-hating whackjob Amy Dickinson, a syndicated “advice columnist.” In March 2018 a female reader wrote to Dickinson that some male students in her MBA program were rumored to have created some sort of hot-or-not list of chicks in the program. The reader admitted that she hadn’t seen the alleged list.

Insane fuckwit Dickinson told the reader that this unseen and possibly non-existent list constituted “harassment,” a “toxic environment,” and “predatory behavior.”

Yes, per this hate-filled crackpot, you’re “harassed” by something that hasn’t happened to you, something that’s not in your environment creates a “toxic environment,” and not wanting to date you constitutes predation.

Here are excerpts from the reader’s insane complaint and Dickinson’s insane response. (If you want to read this puddle of barf, connect the following two strings to re-create the URL:

Dear Amy: I am part of an international MBA program… I just found out that [i.e., heard a rumor that] the men in the program have put together a list, ranking all the women in the program by their looks. I’m furious… that the men… have subjected the women in the program to this.

What do you mean, “subjected”? No woman has seen the list, or you would have mentioned it.

I have been told who [allegedly] started the list, and it has been talked about by a few people, but I haven’t seen this list.

[Emphasis added.]

Others have suggested asking for the expulsion of the men who have contributed to the list…


Dickinson responds:

You have every right to be angry.

What the fuck?

normalizing harassment…

It’s not harassment, shitbrain! The woman hasn’t experienced anything! Other than hearing a rumor that a list might exist somewhere!

creates toxic environments…

…defined as “things that aren’t part of your environment”…

and havens for predatory behavior (which this list absolutely is).

“Predatory behavior” is defined as a lack of any verifiable “behavior” at all. Dickinson wrote that with a straight face. Also, I like how she apparently thinks that a brazen piece of nonsense can be made to seem credible if you add the word “absolutely.” Good one, genius!

Amy Dickinson has not only thought thoughts which I find abhorrent (really, I find them abhorrent), she has written those thoughts down. Furthermore, there is no doubt that she has written them down, because she has deliberately disseminated them in public under her own name. Therefore, according to Dickinson herself, I now have the right to engage in “retaliation” against her. Seriously, the title of her piece is MBA “hot list” calls for retaliation.

The only way this could get any more extreme is if Dickinson said that alleged behavior in the Andromeda galaxy, that’s not even in your backward light-cone, “predates” upon you. (Yes, I know you don’t know what that means, Dickinson; look it up.)

This needs to stop.

WHAT needs to stop!? Someone, somewhere, having an opinion that the reader doesn’t like? WTF?

If you can obtain hard evidence that this list exists,

LOL, yeah, that would be a necessary step, wouldn’t it? Ideally, that step would come before the outrage.

If you aren’t able to receive hard proof of the list, make an appointment with a faculty member and the dean. Insist that they investigate your allegation.

Da fuck? If the university administrator has any balls, the conversation will go something like this:

Insane feminist lunatic: “I heard a rumor that some male students may not find all women equally attractive, and may have expressed opinions about it in a list. I want you to punish those men!”

Administrator: “Have you seen the list?”

Insane feminist lunatic: “Well, I mean, no, I haven’t technically, y’know seen it, but I’ve heard that such a thing exists.”

Administrator: “Get out of my office.”

Dickinson continues,
Don’t get discouraged… be fearless…

Not that there’s anything to be afraid of, but it’s too late for that advice. The chick is sent into paroxysms of hate, fear, and rage that some man, somewhere, may have opinions she doesn’t like. If you’re stressing out over someone thinking something, it’s far too late for “be fearless.”

“I am Woman; hear me roar! I mean, until I get wind of a rumor that someone might have written down an opinion about my attractiveness. Then I collapse into a neurotic mass of quivering nerves, and can’t muster the gumption to do anything but complain to authorities, and hope they solve the problem for me.
But other than that, I am a strong, confident, assertive person!”

When I was in school, at a picnic that had male and female students present, there was a pickup game of touch football among the male students. There was some discussion of the possibility of dividing the players into Shirts and Skins, which was ultimately abandoned. But later, one of the chicks who was there recalled that the female students off on the sideline had had a little chat about which dudes should be Skins and which should be Shirts. So I ran off to the Provost of the University and tried to have those female students expelled. Ha, no. Can you imagine a man doing that? That kind of petty freak-out psychotic blue-nosed totalitarianism is almost entirely a female thing.

As Heartiste has noted, a major purpose of feminism is to restrict male sexuality as much as possible while freeing female sexuality as much as possible. The exchange between Dickinson and her reader is a good illustration of the first half of that observation.

Discourse About Discourse and “No Means No”

Deconstruction (although past its sell-by date these days) in its most radical version asserts that any speaking or writing can mean anything, and all interpretations are equally valid. All communication is self-undercutting. Feminists— a group which has significant overlap with deconstructionists— also maintain that “No” Means “No.”

Which is it?

Rapists should love deconstruction. “Sure, she said ‘No,’ but I interpreted that as sarcasm, which is just as good as the interpretation that she meant it literally.” Or, “Sure, her lips were saying ‘No,’ but that tight, short little skirt was saying ‘Yes’.” Or, “Sure, she said ‘No,’ but I interpreted that as ‘Bend me over and slam me hard, stud!’” Or, for a serious deconstructionist: “Sure, she said ‘No,’ but I interpreted that as critical commentary on Isaac Newton’s Principia Mathematica.

Deconstruction and No Means No are mutually exclusive.

There’s something else funny about the whole “No Means No” thing: If a man were not inclined to accept No as meaning No, why would he accept the statement “No Means No” as meaning “No Means No”? Doesn’t that statement itself also require a meta-statement to reveal its meaning? Maybe feminists should put up posters saying

“No Means No” means “No Means No.”

Hmm, just to be safe, better do posters saying,

No Means No means No Means No


No Means No means No Means No

Actually, that’s probably not clear enough. What is actually needed, just to be sure the point is getting across, is… (etc.)

False Rape Accusation Culture

UPDATE: Welcome Jim readers! I had to notice when my “daily views” graph was forced to re-scale its vertical axis.

Recently a Less Wronger/ Slate Star Codex/ Bay Area “rationalist” killed herself.

(Via Jim’s Blog.)

This woman was a horribly evil and insane person who made frequent – apparently almost incessant – false accusations of rape and sexual assault and whatnot about every man who was in the same time zone as her. If you follow the links, you’ll see that several men stopped attending “rationalist” meet-ups in her area on the mere possibility that she’d be there.

Actually that “rationalist” community had been, as per standard SJW practice, taken over by SJWs, who killed it and wore its skin as a skinsuit.

Due to this, the community had no way to deal with this person who was a steaming cauldron of pure poison. Indeed, they couldn’t even call her what she was or address the problem, since the SJW position is that there is not, and never can be, any such thing as a false accusation of sexual assault. Oh, officially that’s not the position, but really, of course, it is.

Thus there was no way to deal with the problem, especially for the men, except by leaving the community.

It’s especially hilarious that the community that literally invented the phrase “evaporative cooling” as it applies to social situations couldn’t see, or name, what was going on there. So much for the “rationalist” toolkit.

At the second link above, the blogger notes that, by her own admission in her suicide note, as well as from other facts about the situation, it is obvious that part of the problem was this nearing-40 woman’s inability to attract the kind of man she wanted. That is, hard alpha.

This affords me an opportunity to climb up on my soapbox on this topic:

So many modern women are so completely insane because the biological hardware in their heads, and their socially-installed software, are telling them exact opposite things. Obviously this is guaranteed to make them miserable.

Female neural hardware, which is many millions of years old, is basically telling them, “Find a strong male who appears physically and emotionally capable of ravaging you, and is tough enough and/or socially dominant enough to get away with it.” If this is an exaggeration, it’s not much of one. Modern SJW/feminist software, which is insane, is telling them the exact opposite of this, that they want a deferential nice guy who will buy them a Maserati before presuming to ask them out on a date, and will, before every sexual move, politely ask, e.g., “May I now kiss your lips? May I now kiss your neck? By the way, girls rule! May I now fondle your left buttock?” Etc. All this is consciously designed by feminists to kill any speck of arousal in anyone.

If the man is aggressive, the feminist software screams “He’s oppressing you!” If he’s a nice guy, the biological hardware screams, “This is a weak male! Avoid mating with him at all costs!”

Given all this, it is no surprise that so many of our women are insane. It is a testament to the power of biology that, in this cultural environment, most of them are still sane. Of course, that’s to be expected; most women see through the ridiculous feminist bullshit, thank God, because it’s so flagrantly idiotic.

Real progress will have been made, and women and men will be much happier, when we’ve changed the social software so that it affirms and complements the hardware, instead of fighting it every moment at every step.