Game Will Kill the Left

In the comments here, Peppermint articulates a thought (lightly edited) that a lot of men on the red pill right have had over the last five or ten years:

In order to have sex or get to the point of having sex or even get the attention of a woman with options you need to not behave in the ways that every leftist says you should.

Women seek domination. They don’t want you to convince them that everything they were told in school by teachers who wanted them to sleep with low quality men is false using facts and logic. They want you to simply believe in yourself and believe in the things you believe so that they can believe in you…

The #1 reason the left is dead is young intelligent men have to behave in non-leftist ways to hook up with the women they want.

I don’t know if it’s the #1 reason, but it’s certainly a reason. And this is excellent.

And aside from the advantage it gives us fighting the civil war in this particular society in this particular time and place, it also is a beneficial fact for the human species in general: It implies that there is always a biologically instantiated negative feedback mechanism to prevent any set of ideas from becoming too metastasized: Young women want rebels. Therefore, to get sex, young men have to be against the prevailing norms. Therefore there are very strong incentives for young men to set themselves against whatever is the prevailing orthodoxy. This is true of all men in general, who are a significant demographic group, obviously, and especially young men: The fighters.

Advertisements

Feminist: The Players Are Right

Via The Rational Male: Feminist Sheryl Sandberg (of “Lean in” fame) admits that PUAs are right about the nice guys versus jerks thing:

When looking for a life partner, my advice to women is date all of them: the bad boys, the cool boys, the commitment-phobic boys, the crazy boys. But do not marry them. The things that make the bad boys sexy do not make them good husbands.

Of course, she quickly reverts to standard feminist form:

When it comes time to settle down, find someone who wants an equal partner. Someone who thinks women should be smart, opinionated and ambitious. Someone who values fairness and expects or, even better, wants to do his share in the home. These men exist and, trust me, over time, nothing is sexier.

At the end she couldn’t resist a parting shot of standard feminist BS, so she says that women find men who “value fairness” sexy.

Overall, though, it’s interesting and encouraging that even feminists now admit that the playahs were totally right all along about the bad boys thing. (I use the plural “feminists” because Sandberg isn’t the only one who has admitted this.) Though I imagine it’s not politically correct in feminist circles to phrase it as, “the playahs were totally right.” Of course, the accusations of misogynist women-hating rape ideology will not cease, even as feminists say the same things. Orwell was not exaggerating about double-think.

A Twofer from the Chateau

Good Chateau post here:
https://heartiste.wordpress.com/2017/09/26/the-great-men-on-loosed-women/

It starts with a good classic red pill quote, and in the last paragraph, Heartiste NAILS the difference between freedom and license.

First, the quote from Cato the Elder:

Woman is a violent and uncontrolled animal, and it is useless to let go the reins and then expect her to not kick over the traces. You must keep her on a tight rein… Women want total freedom or rather – to call things by their proper names – total license. If you allow them to achieve complete equality with men, do you think they will be easier to live with? Not at all. Once they have achieved equality, they will be your masters…

This quote illustrates what has happened with feminism: When we gave women equality, they wasted not a microsecond before they started forcing men to support children that aren’t theirs, legally discriminating against men in hiring, removing the presumption of innocence for men accused of rape, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. There can be no equality with women; it simply isn’t a Nash stable situation. If men don’t put limits on their participation in social decision-making, before you know it feminists have taken over everything. Now you’re in jail because you and a woman each had a glass of wine and then had sex… but her wine removes her responsibility for her actions, neutralizing her consent… But your wine doesn’t remove your responsibility for your actions, so YOU’RE A RAPIST!!

Next, Heartiste nails the difference between freedom and license:

License is different than freedom in that it grants the recipient a reprieve from personal responsibility and from the consequences of one’s actions. License means basically the removal of moral agency, so when women demand license what they are demanding is blamelessness.

That is beautifully precise. Freedom, properly speaking, would mean that you have the right to get your dumb ass drunk and stupidly hook up with someone you normally wouldn’t bang. Then you wake up in the morning, regret it, and deal with the consequences of your own behavior like an adult. Many women are willing to do this, of course, but too many aren’t. They want the right to say “I was raped!” to blame their fuck-witted choice on someone else. That is not freedom; it’s license.

One Ex-Feminist’s Experience with Feminism

Via the Dark Herald:

Ultra-feminist founder of Femen Brazil declares herself pro life, apologizes

In her new book “Bitch, no! Seven times I was betrayed by Feminism” (Vadia não! Sete vezes que fui traída pelo feminismo), Giromini writes that she was repeatedly pushed to do drugs, to engage in sex with strangers, and was even molested by a lesbian, all at the hands of feminists who claimed to be fighting for women’s equality.

The Left isn’t really a political movement; it’s evil and insane people using the language of politics to advance their evil and insanity in the world and inflict it on everyone else.

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.