Feminism Is Something New, Really, it Totally Is!

No, it really is not. Does this seem familiar?

In the common law of crime in England and Wales, a common scold was a type of public nuisance—a troublesome and angry woman who broke the public peace by habitually arguing and quarrelling with her neighbours…

The offence, which was exported to North America with the colonists, was punishable by ducking: being placed in a chair and submerged in a river or pond. Although rarely prosecuted it remained on the statute books in England and Wales until 1967.

Note that last date. If we’d kept this law and enforced it, a certain destructive modern political force would have been terminated ab ovum. The Infogalactic article continues,

In the Commentaries on the Laws of England, Blackstone says of this offence:

“Lastly, a common scold, communis rixatrix, (for our law-latin confines it to the feminine gender) is a public nuisance to her neighbourhood. For which offence she may be indicted; and, if convicted, shall be sentenced to be placed in a certain engine of correction called the… ducking stool, because the residue of the judgment is, that, when she is so placed therein, she shall be plunged in the water for her punishment.”

Also,

A scold’s bridle, known in Scotland as a brank, consists of a locking metal mask or head cage that contains a tab that fits in the mouth to inhibit talking. Some have claimed that convicted common scolds had to wear such a device as a preventive or punitive measure.

By the way, notice the amused mastery aspect of these punishments. The scolds are not even being ceded enough dignity to punish them in a serious way; it’s more the legal equivalent of being turned over the knee and given a spanking. But of course, no one wants to do that to an ugly woman; only cute babes get spanked. This is echoed in Jim’s comment on how Russia handles disruptive attention-whoring women: “I really love the way Russia deals with Pussy Riot… Recall the wonderful video of them breaking up a Pussy Riot event with whips, not arresting them, just chasing them away like stray dogs.” Seriously, it should be legal for any man to give a woman who acts like this a nuclear wedgie or something.

Of course this isn’t practical, because who’d want to grab the underwear of a pigtank feminist? Ugh. Fanciful notions about wedgies aside:

Women like this really are a problem for any society. Their modern variant, feminists, have affected our society to the extent that First Amendment protections and the presumption of innocence for men accused of rape are being dangerously eroded.

We tend to think of feminism as an ideology, and of course it is, but it is also, and originally, a female personality type. It has been known forever, and encoded in the law for centuries, that some women are inclined to go around accusing all and sundry of various sins, and causing general strife for no reason.

They do this, though they don’t admit it to themselves on a conscious level, to attract attention. Indeed, almost 100% of them are ugly, old, and/or fat. (Relatively bangable ones who participate in this do so in a lukewarm, do-the-bare-minimum way for career reasons or to go along to get along.) Accusing someone of some sort of crime is an effective way to capture attention because it’s hard – indeed, it can be personally costly – to ignore it. That is why attention-seeking losers moved from “You, sir, are a bounder with no manners!” to “You’re a rapist!”

From H. L. Mencken’s “The Uplift as a Trade” (i.e., presuming to uplift others’ morals as a profession), Baltimore Evening Sun, March 2, 1925:

One hears that “the women of the United States” are up in arms about this or that; the plain fact is that eight fat women, meeting in a hotel parlor, have decided to kick up some dust.

Mencken adds,

The eight fat women, meeting in their hotel parlor, find it easy to alarm the politicians, who are not only dreadful cowards but almost unbelieveable asses. Something thus gets afoot. Governors jump; legislators rush through new laws; judges respond to “public sentiment.”

Plus ca change, plus c’est la motherfucking meme chose. Mencken wrote this 92 years ago, and everything “modern” is here: The ugly sexual marketplace loser women trying to attract attention and spread their misery to everyone else via totalitarian minding of other people’s business political activism, the absolutely spineless elected officials, and the judges, invertebrate and venal, obediently interpreting the law to be in compliance with this week’s loudest-screeching rabble-rousers. And as Mencken also observes (though I didn’t quote it), even back in 1925 all this was facilitated by a cooperative press.

Feminism’s appeal is now almost entirely gone even among women, thank God. The last shreds of its appeal will vanish completely when the last shreds of its costume of being something new have fallen off. Feminism is not something new. It is old, old product in new packaging.

Second Exchange Between Diabolus 31,506 and Diabolus Apprentice 19,751

Diabolus 31,506 to Diabolus Apprentice 19,751:

Apprentice 19,751:

In my previous missive I promised to discuss the worst example in recent decades of humans finding truth in the midst of lies. In fact, in this example they found truth because of lies.

The example has to do with human female sexual psychology and sexual behavior. As we will see, the important part here is their behavior, since the science that men created is ruthlessly empiricist.

Here is a rough outline of events:

1) Beginning in the 1960s (in the usual human dating scheme) we had great success spreading feminism. (Of course you’ll have learned about that in your basic propaganda class.) A major feminist lie was that women are more attracted to men who are nice to them (“nice guys”) than men who treat them with indifference or disdain (“jerks”). We had a good rationale at the time for spreading this lie: By convincing men that women liked nice guys, we gave men motive to accommodate the demands of feminism.

2) The men were bound to see through this utter nonsense in time. Naturally the Low Command anticipated that, but the Command made two mistakes in spreading this particular falsehood.

The first mistake was to forget just how important sex is to humans. When the men tried to be nice to women and were cast into involuntary celibacy as a result, we didn’t predict the human males’ reaction. The torment roused them from the bed of lies that we’d prepared for them and spurred them to think independently about human female behavior.

The second mistake was to fail to foresee the Internet. As in so much of life, the Net has drastically hurt our attempts at disinformation. As men quickly learned the truth, they quickly spread it.

As always, independent thinking was a disaster for us.

The first thing the men did was resolve to ignore everything that women, especially feminists, said about human female sexual behavior, and instead to observe that behavior for themselves. And of course, the moment they learned the truth, their incentive to be accommodating to feminists’ outrageous demands vanished.

And worse – much worse, Ap. 19,751 – they learned that feminists lie, relentlessly and with no shame, hesitation, or guilt. This has caused immeasurable damage to our attempts to spread more lies via that conduit. The false rape statistics, the 76-cents-on-the-dollar absurdity, and on and on: all of these wonderful lies had their useful lifespans drastically shortened by the wakened skepticism of the male half of the species.

An even worse problem is that it ignited an excited interest in empiricism as such in a broad swathe of human males – this is such a setback that it could be our undoing. It’s cruelly ironic: We spend decades creating and spreading feminism, establishing Women’s Studies departments, etc., only to find that all these efforts are counteracted by some facts that young men learn at bars and parties! It’s as if You Know Who is deliberately mocking us!

That also incited a wave of observation and experimentation in other areas such as political rhetoric and diet and exercise, to name just a couple of examples.

Diabolus Apprentice 19,751 to Diabolus 31,506:

Why was this such a disaster? I mean, why was it more of a disaster than the uncovering of our lies in other subject areas?

Diabolus 31,506 to Diabolus Apprentice 19,751:

Shrewd question, Ap. 19,751, to which I was just getting. A couple of reasons:

First, unlike say, ecological science, understanding female psychology is not a topic that requires expensive scientific equipment or years of scientific training. A man simply ventures out into the world and interacts with women, and observes the results from various approaches. You see the problem here: Unlike trends in global temperatures, e.g., women are a topic that is easily accessible. Indeed, they’re unavoidable; a man can hardly avoid interacting with women on a daily basis.

The second problem is one of interest: Since men naturally desire sex, they are intensely motivated to study this particular topic. It’s not some abstruse boring subject like the energy storage capacity of lithium batteries or whatnot.

Furthermore, due to the changes in the sexual marketplace which feminism brought about, men can’t ignore female psychology even if they wanted to. When women were more dependent on men for economic support, a man had the luxury of remaining ignorant of women’s attraction mechanisms and relying on his provider status to at least acquire a wife. That works much less well now that women are economically independent. In the current world, a man can’t afford to ignore the realities of women’s gut-level attraction triggers.

So we told the men a ridiculous lie and gave them an enormous incentive to uncover the lie around the same time. And the punishment for refusing to acknowledge the truth – involuntary chastity – is a severe punishment indeed for men. And the reward for apprehending the truth – sex – is an enormous reward. Which is to say, the incentive pressures on men to get to the truth were enormous.

And we ourselves created those pressures!

It’s even worse. Men who are studying women for their sexual behavior will also notice other aspects of female psychology as kind of a bonus. So now the men have noticed things like the tendencies to rationalization and self-deception which affect human females more than the males. Aside from being very useful to the men as they deal with women, this also has created another arena in which feminists are exposed as rank liars. It has, therefore, reduced one of our formerly most-valuable contingents to the position of screaming “Two plus two is thirty-seven!” at the top of their lungs. Many (if not most) men have realized that their default belief about a feminist statement should be that it’s a lie, unless there is a specific reason to think it’s true. Immeasurable harm, Ap 19,751.

Obviously feminism was bound to self-destruct due to its dishonesty and hatefulness, but we thought we had 15 or 20 more years than we did. Who would have thought that a collection of seduction techniques developed by an LA-based magician would be the final stake in the heart of feminism? And yet that is just what has happened.

All of this exemplifies my lament from my last missive, that reality in general just isn’t practically censorable, because everything is interconnected, and in unexpected ways.

Infernally yours,
Diabolus 31,506

Feminist debate re-enactment with amusing results

Lefty professor organizes a re-enactment of a Trump-Clinton debate with the gender roles reversed. An actor delivers Clinton’s lines; an actress delivers Trump’s lines. The professor expected people to sympathize more with the Clinton lines when they’re uttered by a man (because Clinton was kept down by misogyny!!!!!!), and to sympathize less with the Trump lines when they’re uttered by a woman (misogyny!!!!!!), but that turns out not to be the case, LOL.

In fact, the opposite is the case, so Clinton was actually helped by being a (nominal) female.

Via The Dark Herald.

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.