Contemporary politics is proof that neuroticism driven hysteria - literal insanity - is a more powerful force of volition than testosterone.

The right may be more masculine, but the left is more zealous, more dogmatic.

And rationality has less force of intensity than insanity.
Dogmatic people hinge themselves to fences and scream their sacred platitudes as both a theatrical display of aberrant piety, and as a means of intimidating the non-believers through the sheer brutality of their insanity.

Sensible people don't exhibit this level of commitment.
This is why they always have a place in any dogma.

Because whilst the leadership disavows them, it tacitly supports them even if it doesn't entirely agree with them, because such crazies are useful - shock troops loyal to the cause that encourage conformity through intimidation.
The downside of course is the bad optics a pink haired obese shrieker on SSRIs has, no movement, ideology or dogma wants its brand image associated with out of control crazies, as it diminishes their credibility as a serious institution. That's what the disavowal tries to offset.
The game is to preserve your image as a credible authority, whilst tacitly supporting buttf*ck insane people that are on your side so you can benefit from their intimidation efforts.

That way you look sensible, but nobody dare cross you through fear of retribution.
They say if women ruled the world, it'd be more peaceful. What they neglected to mention is neuroticism is more hysterical, and as hysteria is unrestrained by logic, it is more tyrannical. Never has this been more evident than in today's political divide.

So when you have one side that has the force of faith, of dogma and of zealotry on its side.

And then you have another that lacks all of these things, but is sensible, fair and reasonable.

You can bet your money on the crazy people winning.

Because they'll go to any lengths.
Sensible people are at an asymmetric disadvantage.

Because to silence the rational, you don't need to be more rational, but to silence crazy, you must be crazier.

Crazy people silence the sensible into non-participation, but the sensible can't reason the crazy out of insanity.
This of course is why you lose almost all arguments with your wife or girlfriend, despite being more accurate and truthful than she is.

Because you're more reasonable than her, you're more willing to concede. Whilst she doesn't care.

But that's another discussion altogether. 😂
The moral of the story here is that intolerance has its place as a virtue

Sensible people must learn a will to intolerance, not for its own sake, but in the pursuit of preserving order, wielding that intolerance with judicious prejudice to prevent the crazies from usurping power
Logic + reason are good things, but alone they're insufficient. Rhetoric and cunning's just as important. It is through the sensibleness of a thousand concessions that the fair enable the whims of the insane, until they become so oppressive the fair are forced to fight

"The timid civilized world has found nothing with which to oppose the onslaught of a sudden revival of barefaced barbarity, other than concessions and smiles." - Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh

Keep Current with 🇬🇧 Illimitable 🇬🇧

🇬🇧 Illimitable 🇬🇧 Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!


Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @TellYourSonThis

24 Nov
A woman who cannot soothe a man when he is mad, does not deserve a man who can soothe her when she is sad

Men refrain from crying, women refrain from raging

Simple rules.

A man must be a rock, and a woman must be a comfort.

Sounds unfair, but it's actually quite complementary
A woman doesn't want to see her man falling apart unable to handle things, even if he feels genuine suffering. He has to soldier through.

In the same breath, getting mad at a man who's angry with you even if you feel it's unjust only makes him worse. She has to soldier through.
No woman who is sad and crying wants a man there who is also sad and crying.

No man who is angry and argumentative wants a woman being angry and argumentative with him.

Men have to suppress their pain, women have to suppress their anger.

This is how we care for each other.
Read 8 tweets
24 Nov
If you get handed off a girl from parents who didn't do a bad job, you're blessed. They've saved you a ton of hassle.

Men realise they have to get it together before looking for love. Women think some man will come along + solve all their problems for them so do none of the work
Obviously generalising here.

Women who do the work (minority) are worth looking at despite their issues - because they're already set themselves apart from the majority by making a commitment to their own self-betterment.

And this is something all men can appreciate and admire.
But yes, average woman does zero work + expects him to handle her baggage and invest a ton of time and energy into making her a quality woman. Yet if she's too egotistical, she'll also complain he's controlling/trying to change her (by leading).

No good deed unpunished. Avoid!
Read 5 tweets
23 Nov
Women leverage perceived vulnerability into self-gain

Men look pathetic when they self-victimise

But when women do it, people feel bad for them and help them which incentivises more self-victimising

Poetically then, women's perceived vulnerability is a source of great strength
Male weakness elicits disgust, whilst female weakness elicits pity

Disgust leads to a loss of face which cannot be leveraged into assistance and protection, whilst pity can be leveraged into acquiring both of those things

Hence why women are more likely to scam with sob stories
Women can be openly and indulgently pathetic, to an absolutely theatrical and inauthentic extent, and get rewarded with help for it.

Whilst men with genuine deep struggle are often dismissed and told to man up. So stay silent

Women have no idea how privileged they are like this
Read 19 tweets
23 Nov
If you were a woman, you would use your looks to get ahead too. It's what they do. It's instinct to them. Because it works, and it's effective. And with all due respect, a lot of men are pathetic and prone to simp. They are easily seduced, and thus easily leveraged.
What I'm saying is, if the average man was a bit more cunning, a bit more disciplined, and a little less desperate - they wouldn't be as easy to take advantage of.

Many women have nothing but their looks to leverage. Absolutely zero. So they have to get something out of it.
So no point resenting them for leveraging one of the only assets they have. It's what everybody does. Yes, it's foolish to rely on only one thing and not diversify, and yes, beauty is a form of power and thus prone to corrupt with narcissism - but they're just playing the game.
Read 4 tweets
22 Nov
Whilst she may condemn violence, she would sooner apologise for a brute than fall in love with a pacifist.

Truth be told women are in fact great lovers of violence, just only when it is employed in service of them, be it for their sexual pleasure, or their bodily protection.
Women are averse to engaging in violence themselves, and of course, afraid of being subjected to it - given their small frames and lack of musculature. It is for precisely this reason they seek to benefit from it by proxy.

And so a man incapable of violence is no man at all.
Men aren't solely violent, but must possess a capacity for it

To be otherwise is to be rendered domesticated.

And in case you think this absurd

How does a man "make her feel safe" with zero destructive capability?

To neurotically neuter man is to eradicate your own protection
Read 7 tweets
16 Nov
A woman's greatest achievement is giving birth to a great man. There is nothing else she can do in her life that will award her higher accolades, or bring her greater honour. Being married to a great man likewise brings her a similar sort of esteem. Nothing else even comes close.
Of course, great men don't grow on trees, and a woman cannot raise a great son without a great man.

The great men who came from single mothers forged their own paths in spite of the difficulties they faced. Crediting such a woman with raising a great man is unjust and erroneous.
It is always men who make the man, especially when self-made

I would call the struggling boy going through metamorphosis by answering the call to adventure in the pursuit of heroism an act of negentropic defiance, not well raised progeny

Not a "meant to be" but an "in spite of"
Read 4 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!

This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!