Leftism

Feminism Does Not Make People Happy by John Lilley

By John Mark

Sex & City author.PNG

In this article Why Are Marriage Rates Down? Study Blames Lack of “Economically Attractive” Men, we see one of the terrible effects of feminism given the reality of female hypergamy (women’s hardwired, biologically necessary drive to have sex, date and marry “up” with men that are higher on the status hierarchy than they are).

In 1950s America, most men were inherently “higher status” than most women (in the eyes of women’s hypergamy instinct) simply because most men had jobs and huge numbers of women (many or most) didn’t. Today, millions upon millions of people are lonely because almost all women are in the workforce and most college degrees are earned by women (most of the degrees earned by women are nonsense degrees, but it gives them a sense of status and in some cases does improve their earning power).

More women in the workforce and with college degrees + hypergamy = loneliness for millions more people than necessary. Today in America, most men don’t seem very high status to most women. We see this in dating studies as well - 80% of women are only interested in the top 20% of men. That’s somewhat of a reality regardless of time or place (hypergamy is always active), but feminism makes the challenge for both men and women harder by pushing the narrative that “women must be 50% of every high-status job”, affirmative action for women, etc. Women with mostly garbage degrees and/or who are the beneficiaries of affirmative action suddenly feel higher status than men working blue collar jobs. Then many of these women feel like “there are no good men” while the men feel like it is hard to get a woman attracted to them.

(The feminist narrative does not help men figure out how to be attractive to women either, because everything feminism tells men to do - submit to women, put them on a pedestal, etc. - is the exact opposite of what a man needs to do to be attractive to a woman. If this concept is new to you, study “game” - the science of making women’s hypergamy instinct tell her “I want this man”.)

When I got my masters degree, every consulting firm that helps people apply to top programs in this particular field states directly that if you are a woman or person of color it is drastically easier to get accepted to the good schools. I got into my target school anyway, because my test scores were elite level. But even in my program it was obvious that there were some women and people of color there that were not at the level of everyone else. The quality of the white men, of course, was consistently outstanding, because only the best made it in. The standards were significantly lower for women and people of color. Also, fewer women apply (men feel a stronger need to succeed because otherwise they are nothing, whereas any decently in-shape woman is valuable just because she has a womb), fewer blacks apply (lower avg IQ means smaller pool of men who even think of getting a masters degree and who can get decent test scores), and thus allowances must be made to meet diversity quotas.

The thing is, in order for a woman to feel “happy” with her man, she has to feel that he is higher status (stronger, more dominant, higher on the status hierarchy) than she is. Millions of these women have either a garbage degree that doesn’t increase their earning power but increases their sense of status, or a degree that does increase their earning power along with their sense of status. Either way, millions of these women end up lonely. They buy wine and take trips around the world and wonder where all the “good men” are. (By which they mean, men who make as much money as they do or have a college degree like they do.) These cat ladies are miserable. Buying more stuff does not make people happy, family does.

Feminism constitutes an attack on the family. It destroys the ability of millions of women and men to be happy, who in a non-feminist society would be much happier.

Case in point, recently the female author of “Sex and the City” - a hugely influential book and TV show that teaches women to have sex with a bunch of men and live the “glamorous city single life” - came out and said she regrets not getting married and having kids. Duh.

As Curt Doolittle says, these leftists and feminists are little children running with scissors.

Also of note in the article: Black women have an especially hard time finding economically attractive mates. The problem for black women is that a large percentage of black men who make decent money are more attracted to white, latino, or asian women than to black women. I do not say this to be mean, but because it is reality.

Reality is brutal folks. That’s why people lie about it. To feel better. But in the end it doesn’t help. The Western way (truth before face) is to tell the truth and then respect individuals and groups for doing the best they can with what they’ve got. Lying to make people feel better is what weak people and weak societies do (face before truth).

Hypergamy isn’t going away. And that’s a good thing. It’s a eugenic quality-control mechanism for humanity. A woman wants to mate with the best man she can get. That’s a reality. But when something like feminism teaches people lies that make millions of men and women unnecessarily lonely, we have a simple duty:

PUNISH THE LIARS.

Our Enemies Have No Comeback for the Word "Cuck" by John Lilley

by John Mark

(Context: A new movie is coming out called “Cuck”. Yes, it is real. Apparently it tries to paint the “alt-right” - people who call leftists & centrists & civnats “cucks” - in a bad light, as dangerous etc. Obviously the word “cuck” hit a nerve with them and this is an attempt to do damage control and weaken the power of the word.)

THEY HAVE NO ANSWER FOR THE WORD "CUCK". WHY? BECAUSE IT COMMUNICATES THE CONCEPT OF RECIPROCITY IN ONE EMOTION-LADEN, DISGUST-INDUCING WORD

The best they can do is "cucks are good, non-cucks are bad and dangerous."

Essentially, "Be a cuck because otherwise you're bad."

Their problem is, no one wants to be a cuck. The very concept of it disgusts people. It implies the worst form of weakness. Any man that is cuckolded has experienced one of the worst events possible in a man's life.

Extremely difficult or impossible to spin as a positive.

The word is also powerful because it carries within it the concept/assumption that something valuable and sacred is being destroyed. It hits the civnats/middle between the eyes with "you are losing something priceless because you're trying to be nice". And the Left doesn't know what to do with it because all their lying, their whole narrative, consists of pretending that they impose no costs on anything or anyone, and that anyone who opposes them is just being mean and unreasonable. Yet it is inherently reasonable to oppose being cucked.

Calling someone a cuck means “you are a disgusting weak loser who is passively accepting or encouraging the destruction of something valuable, precious and sacred (accepting the imposition of costs).” The pairing of the (accurate) accusation of causing destruction with triggering the disgust reaction is very powerful.

Arguing with the left will not defeat them, but discourse can and does affect others who are willing to learn. Our word "cuck" is kind of the equivalent of their word "racist", the difference being the word cuck carries much more truth content, and thus will gain efficacy over time, in contrast to the word "racist" which loses efficacy over time.

It's Not FEAR, It's DISGUST - We Don't Fear the Left, We Find them Disgusting by John Lilley

By Curt Doolittle, from Propertarianism.com

SJW pink hair.png

Just Tell the Truth – They’re Disgusting

—“The Leftist tendency is to conflate the Rightist Disgust response to various things as phobias. In other words, the Left confuses Disgust for Fear.”—

The right is just too well mannered to say:

Actually it’s because we find your/their ____________ behavior disgusting and revolting because it is a genetic defect, and harmful to the tribe.”

I mean. Why can’t we just say that?

“You know, We don’t like dogs dragging their anuses on the carpet, or ___________ doing ________.” 

Genetic defects are disgusting to us. And you’re advocating for genetic defects that are disgusting.

(We have a purity instinct. They don’t.)

Higher Disgust Sensitivity

Conservatives (empiricists) have a higher level of disgust sensitivity. Conservatives are the population’s means of detecting and purging harm – the white blood cells of the social order and polity. Progressives (consumptivists) have low sensitivity to disgust, but high demand for consumption, novelty, experience, and fear of being ‘left behind’.

That does not mean that our disgust sensitivity is always right. It means that we must test whether than harm actually exists by tests of reciprocity.

—”There is a distinction between endocrinological & neurological conservatives, driven mostly by disgust, which tend to be within a SD left of the mean, and market driven (agency) conservatives who recognize cost on longer time-horizons & are able to organize a body law which facilitates the cooperation & trust, necessary for the functioning of enterprise. The former group are right for the wrong reasons & the latter group are right as a matter of agency & incentive.”—Ferdinand Pizarro

We Can’t We Just Tell the Left the Truth?

1) Our civilization has succeeded because it’s been eugenic in every era – right up until the industrial revolution.

2) We find you disgusting.
3) and it’s because you’re unfit.
4) and you are unfit because you lack agency.
5) and you lack agency because you’re still undomesticated.
6) and as undomesticated still an animal.
7) and it isn’t any more complicated than that.

8) We cannot cooperate with you on equal terms any more than we can cooperate with any other animal – you lack the agency.
9) We don’t grant barn animals equality which is why we don’t grant you equality. And we don’t want barn animals in our homes, business, or our commons.
10) This is what we mean when we want to separate from you.

Because you’re disgusting.

We Work By DATA - Not Wishful Thinking, Feelings, Propaganda, Ideology, or Popular Sentiment by John Lilley

By Curt Doolittle

So you know, Stefan Molyneux is pretty good at the data, and he's even better at using his podium and pulpit to interview the thought leaders who know the data. (Which is hard for normies to do.)

So, unlike counter-signaling commenters, some of us work ENTIRELY by the data.

Sales Data
Dating Site Data
Academic and job Test data
Marketing data.
Fashion Rotation Data
Vocabulary and Speech pattern data. (french are most hostile, german most honest, we all know who lies the most)
Normative data (Stereotypes are the most accurate measure in the social sciences.)
Driving record data
Accident and police record data
Fire and emergency services data.
Legal Data (court records).
Property Record Data
Births, christenings, marriages, and death data.
Class Rotation data
Credit and Debt data
Economic Data.
Monetary trace data.
Telephone, messaging, internet traffic data.
Demographic and census data.
Moving data
Voting Data.
Cognitive Science Data
Medical Data
Genetic Data
Archaeological Data

Survey Data (almost useless but useful for debunking majoritarian pretenses.)

And that's just the beginning.

Now, most people use propaganda, literature, philosophy, ideology, popular sentiment, nonsense, or worse, theological nonsense. They use cherry picking. But very rarely do they seek to understand, then seek to falsify, then seek to change their frame.