The Left’s Rhetoric of Murder

The Left takes another rhetorical step toward attempted genocide:

Utterly vile little Antifa scumbucket, speaking (after being arrested) about the right:

Their existence itself is violent … so I don’t think using force or violence to oppose them is unethical.

This is the language of genocide. To say that a person’s very existence is violence is to try to construct a rationale for killing them. Note she didn’t claim a conditional right to attack people, as in “We have the right to attack them if they do such-and-such.” She claimed an unconditional right to attack people, as in, “The very fact that they exist gives us the right to attack them.” Plainly they are going to try it eventually. They’re going to try to kill us. So we are going to have no choice but to kill them in self-defense.

Hard to believe, but still harder to see how this plays out any other way.

It’s inevitable, because obviously we’re not going to let them kill us; we’re going to defend ourselves. Equally obviously, they’re not going to back down. The Left is designed as a machine that doesn’t back down. Vox Day didn’t articulate “SJWs always double down” as one of the Three Laws of SJWs for nothing.

Wow. That really is sad. It’s all so avoidable. All the leftists have to do is not try to kill us. But they’re not willing to forbear. They’re actually going to try to genocide whites in a majority-white nation. Wow. There’s only one way that ends.

And if you doubt this is going to “all whites” as opposed to just “politically incorrect whites” eventually, consider two facts: (1) Most whites are already deeply incorrect by the standards of the Left. The clear majority of whites voted for Trump, e.g. (2) Just think about the rhetoric of the Left, which is increasingly “ALL whites are guilty of racism and oppression.” See my post The Left, Summarized of a few days ago.

Also note something else: This rhetoric is the rhetoric of someone who literally cannot imagine the people she intends to be her victims fighting back. In a majority-X nation, you don’t say, on the record, “I have an unlimited right to attack all X’s” unless you simply cannot imagine a scenario in which X’s fight back. (Would you walk into a room full of a hundred hockey players and announce, “I have an unlimited right to kill all hockey players”?) This utterly insane failure of foresight and realism is another reason they won’t back down, and another reason that civil war is inevitable.

Some of the more sane, or less-insane, leftists are already starting to be like, “Um, guys…?” to the rest of them, and actually expressing doubts in public. (The situation has become extreme indeed when even leftists are willing to deviate from their herd.) But it’s too late. The momentum has gone past a certain tipping point. It’s now too late to stop the rush into civil war; we can only fight it out.

Advertisements

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.

“Private-Sector Blacklisting is OK!”

Lately I’ve been hearing a lot of flap from SJWs and SJW appeasers to the effect that when private companies enforce disgusting SJW practices, like firing you for your non-SJW political views, that’s OK. “After all,” the party line goes, “it’s not the government, so it doesn’t count as censorship or any other kind of oppression.”

Blatant horsehit.

1. Coming from people who say that disagreeing with them is oppression, rape and violence, this is rather rich.

You say that disagreeing with you is oppression, but ruining someone’s career isn’t. You can see why we’re not listening to you, or trying to “engage” in “debate” with you any more.

(And the left wonders why they lost the election. The question is why they ever win.)

Coming from people who call everyone they don’t like Nazis, and then say “It’s good to punch Nazis,” this is rather rich. If you’re advocating physical assault against those who have different opinions, you’re not a judge of what’s oppression.

2. It’s quite the do-si-doe! The leftist line for time out of mind has been “private-sector oppression is worse than government oppression.” Now that they have the upper hand in much of the private sector, boy did that meme go away fast.

3. “Yeah,” they say, “but the right’s also doing a do-si-doe. They’re the ones who used to say that if it’s not the government, it’s not oppression. Now they’re flipping.” WROOOOOONG. You lose; thanks for playing. We can call out disgusting behavior without saying that it’s oppression. And we’re not advocating having the government shoot SJWs (yet – keep physically attacking us and we’ll see); just doing to them what they’re doing to us: blackballing, boycotts, etc. If these things are OK because they’re private sector, well, then they’re OK when we do them. So too bad.

Additionally, turnabout is always fair play. If you shoot at me, then I have the right to shoot at you.

4. The entire premise is false anyway, because all this stuff IS supported by the government, in at least two ways:

(A) Government-supported universities, which are relentlessly leftist/SJW. They are, indeed, the headquarters of SJWism. Students graduate from college having gone through four years of one-sided anti-white propaganda. Then they get a job in corporate HR and put white applicants’ resumes on the bottom of the pile, as they’ve been indoctrinated to do. Without the many billions of dollars in student loans, grant funding for academic research, etc., at least half of the university system would collapse. And consider the “dear colleague” letter that was sent to colleges during the Obama Administration. It basically required a one-sided presumption of guilt and limited opportunities for defense of young men accused of everything from “sexual harassment” to outright rape.

(B) Then there’s the government in general: “discrimination” lawsuits, sexual harassment lawsuits, what counts as “harassment,” etc., are all totally biased to policies and interest groups of the left. A man accused of sexual harassment is not, on average, treated the same way that a woman is. Chicago’s mayor said that Chick-Fil-A “didn’t support Chicago values” and briefly wanted them denied the right to open a business in that city. The same with Boston. The New York State government’s policy is that it won’t pay for state employee travel on offical state business to states that don’t have the politically correct position on gay marriage and transvestite bathrooms. Etc. There’s an entire government apparatus that coercively enforces and furthers the SJW project.

So the entire premise of the bullshit argument is blatantly false. All this crap IS being enforced, supported, and spread by the government.

Twitter’s Caving in to SJWs isn’t Helping

Twitter adds NO new users in the second quarter of 2017. Shares tumble.

Analysts had been hoping the company would add around four million new users last quarter.

…Twitter had 328 million average monthly active users (MAU) in the three months through June 30, unchanged from the previous quarter [in which users fell, as noted elsewhere in the article].

…Twitter’s net loss widened to $116.5 million, or 16 cents per share, in the second quarter ended June 30, from $107.2 million, or 15 cents per share, a year earlier.

Twitter has never made a profit. And yet someone there decided it would be a good thing to create a left-wing Twitter censorship board. The Orwellian name of this thing is the “Public Trust and Safety Council” and it’s staffed by green-haired feminists and similar types. I repeat, because I am so incredulous: Someone at Twitter thought this was a good idea.

The business world has operational heuristics and rules of thumb like “What gets monitored gets done” and “A metric used as a target becomes a bad metric.” Eventually, one of these dicta will be, “Keep SJWs out of your organization at all costs.” A lot of organizations, like Twitter, seem determined to die rather than learn this lesson, though. But that’s cool. Evolution of social institutions doesn’t just work by learning; it also works by attrition. That is to say, by the death of those who refuse to learn.

Via Vox Popoli.

Slate Star Codex on SJWs Eating Their Own

The Slate Star Codex blogger, Scott Alexander, is an inconsistent, all-over-the-place dude, but he does have some good insights every now and then, when he drops the nootropic pharmaceuticals and phasic sleep experiments.

Case in point: A good post at SSC about Social Justice Warriors, the modern Stalinists, attacking each other.

Alexander discusses an episode of SJWs eviscerating one of their own. The basic structure of the episode was as follows. Some SJW man adult male spread some particularly harmful feminist lies, presumably in an attempt to curry favor with feminists. (Facepalm. Dude… seriously?) Of course this bought him no leeway whatsoever when they decided later that he’d said something politically incorrect. Their attacks on him were as vicious as we’ve come to expect from this sort of incident, and occasionally so extreme that they were funny. E.g., when the victim (a guy named Clymer) took their “criticisms” to heart and changed his behavior accordingly, one SJW tweeted,

Reading @cmclymer’s latest tweets makes me sick. He is taking all the critique and adapting behavior, which is what abusers do. #StopClymer

LOL.

Alexander discusses all this, and the general tendency of SJWs to attack their own, then says,

I think all of this touches on a much more important question: why don’t whales get cancer more often?

Keep reading; this actually is the first sentence of a vividly-exposited insight. (BTW, I’m dispensing with blockquotes in this post in favor of bold font, on the technical grounds that blockquote is as annoying as fuck when you have a lot of quotes.) He continues,

Cancer results from a series of mutations occurring by chance in a single cell. …If a whale is a thousand times bigger than a person, it should have a thousand times more cells and therefore get cancer a thousand times more often.

But apparently that doesn’t happen. One explanation:

Whales are very big, so in order to threaten a whale, a cancer must also grow very big. In order to grow very big, a cancer must evolve a complicated internal structure determining which cells expand where and who’s going to secrete the factors necessary for blood vessels to grow and so on… But as tumors grow bigger and more intricate, and cells have to spend more and more time altruistically working for the good of the tumor rather than just reproducing, some cells will inevitably defect from the plan and just divide uncontrollably.

That is, since by hypothesis these cells have defected from the body’s mutual cooperation agreement, it’s not surprising that they also defect from the cancer tumor’s mutual cooperation agreement.

In other words, the theory is that whales survive because they are so big that their cancers get cancer and die. … a good definition for “social cancer” might be any group that breaks the rules of cooperative behavior that bind society together in order to spread more quickly than it could legitimately achieve.

Like, e.g., doxxing, electoral fraud, violent thuggery, firing people from their jobs for having different political opinions, taking over academia and the media and engaging in censorship, launching personal attacks at people who disagree with them, using law in blatantly one-sided ways, etc.

Does any of that sound familiar?

Long before a group can take over society, it reaches a size where it needs to develop internal structure and rules about interaction between group members. If you collect a bunch of people and tell them to abandon all the social norms like honesty, politeness, respect, charity, and reason in favor of a cause – then the most likely result is that when your cause tries to develop some internal structure, it will be overrun by a swarm of people who have abandoned honesty, politeness, respect, charity, and reason.

Ya think? First, if you set up your movement to ignore common decency and attack people, it attracts those who like ignoring decency and attacking people. Second, not only have you disproportionately recruited people like that, but you then further train them (along with any decent people you may have recruited) to ignore common decency and attack people. So in both the kind of personalities you initially attract, and in the ways that you encourage people to behave once you’ve attracted them, you’ve done what? Filled your movement with people who reject any kind of decency toward those they disagree with, and instead viciously attack them. And when they disagree with you…?

If you elevate jerkishness into a principle, if you try to undermine the rules that keep niceness, community, and civilization going, the defenses against social cancer – then your movement will fracture, it will be hugely embarrassing, the atmosphere will become toxic, unpopular people will be thrown to the mob, everyone but the thickest-skinned will bow out, the people you need to convince will view you with a mixture of terror and loathing…

…you’ll constantly be in conflict with your own so-called allies, your energy will be largely diverted to attacking them and defending yourself from their attacks, and overall you’ll doom yourself to an irrelevant strife-ridden hell of your own making.

And it couldn’t happen to a more deserving group of people.

Socialism Turns 100

This year is the hundredth anniversary of socialism as a significant political force in the modern world. The horrifying evil began in 1917 with Russia’s Soviet revolution.

One hundred years of peace, prosperity, and freedom!

Hi to all the prosperous and free people in Venezuela, Cuba, the USSR, Cambodia, and North Korea!

(Yes, I’m aware that the USSR doesn’t exist any more. Thank God.)

Memo to leftists: Even though it’s a hundred years old, don’t forget to claim that it’s “progressive” and “revolutionary.”

Really, socialism only had a run of 72 years as an aggressive, expanding force in world history: From Russia’s revolution in 1917 to Germans attacking the Berlin Wall with sledgehammers in November 1989. If we allow ourselves a little poetic license, though, we might say that socialism had a hundred-year run: from the Russian revolution of 1917 to the collapse of Venezuelan socialism in 2017.

I remember that when Venezuelan socialism was just getting off the ground, a newspaper interviewed some moronic young western leftist who supported Chavez. His rationale for supporting a system that always leads to genocide-scale mass murder: “We need alternatives to neoliberalism.”

Global body count of this “alternative to neoliberalism”: At least 100 million people murdered.