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.


“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


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.

Cave in to Campus SJWs, Lose Enrollment

You might recall the horrid U. Missouri prof Melissa Click who tried, in 2015, to exclude reporters from campus protestors and called for “some muscle” to remove them.

(She also did this on video, suggesting she’s not too bright. Speaking of which… trying to exclude reporters from a protest, that’s interesting. Last time I checked, the entire point of a protest is to get publicity for your cause. But not in Click’s mind! In her mind, it’s “We’re having a demonstration! Make sure no one knows!”)

Well this was too much, and she had charges filed against her and eventually got fired.

But Ol’ Mizzou should never have hired someone like this in the first place, and it should have dealt with Click with firmer measures when it first happened. You see, there’s this thing called the Internet now. Yes, that’s actually real! Not science fiction! Students thinking about applying to your college will, get this, punch its name into a search engine. Turns out, people aren’t too amped about attending a Stalinist boot camp. Who knew!?

Mizzou scrambled to find enough students…

…but couldn’t do it: Mizzou likely to cut hundreds of positions amid expected 7 percent enrollment drop.

“Mizzou has already said it is expecting its smallest freshman class in two decades. The enrollment drop discussed Monday is the first estimate pertaining to the school’s entire enrollment. The loss of students would result in about $16.6 million less in revenue.”

In fact, it turned out to be much, much worse than a 7% drop in enrollment: Mizzou enrollment down 38.5% from 2015!

It will be fascinating to see how colleges and universities deal with the New Transparency. Either they’ll start limiting the ultra-left extremism of their faculty, or they’ll slide into irrelevance. Either way, it’s looking better for people on the right.

Another example: The Evergreen College BS from May 2017. This is the Washington state college that wanted to have a No Whites On Campus Day. Yes, seriously. When one white prof objected and actually dared to show up on campus, all hell broke loose.

Follow-on incidents at Evergreen provided great examples of SJWs eating their own, in that a wussy college administrator was verbally attacked by the very minority SJWs he enabled, and a mixed Hispanic/ Native American student was threatened/borderline assaulted by a(t least one) black student.

That link also contains this very funny bit:

The thugs targeted the police and the student code for inhibiting their abuses. They lobbed bizarre politically correct charges at the police. “Black trans disabled students are actively being sought out and confronted by campus police constantly.”

Uh-huh. Right.

Of course, every High School Junior and Senior starting their college search will see this when they punch Evergreen College into a search engine from now on. Congrats, Evergreen! You’ve just reduced your potential clientele, from now on, to SJW minorities!

Right on schedule, Evergreen experiences a “slight decline” in attendance after the racist thugs rioted. Inter alia, “On Monday, staff and volunteers began calling about 1,200 students who were admitted and haven’t enrolled in classes yet.”

How “slight” was the decline? We need to know the number of students, but I couldn’t find that directly at the school’s web site. So I had to figure it out indirectly. According to this page at Evergreen’s web site, Evergreen’s undergraduate student–to–faculty ratio is 23 to 1. That page also refers to “Evergreen’s 232 faculty members.”

So if all faculty teach at least one undergrad class, and there are 232 faculty, then the number of undergrads is 232 x 23 = 5,336. So a reduction of 1,200 is 1,200/5336 = 22.5% of the (undergrad) student body! The enrollment decline is midway between a fifth and a fourth of the student body!

And it’s going to get even worse… because some students no doubt hate the place but just have another one or two semesters and have decided to stick it out. Once they’ve gone through the pipeline, Evergreen’s enrollment situation will get even worse.

Not to mention the effects of all this on recruiting faculty. Imagine Evergreen trying to hire any white faculty member now that job candidates can see video of a professor being all but physically assaulted for showing up to do his job.

Have fun, Evergreen!

Observations on Rhetoric and Dialectic

Vox Day distinguishes between rhetoric and dialectic. As Day uses the terms, dialectic is what most people would loosely call “reason,” i.e., it’s basically noting facts and reasoning about them to draw conclusions.* He defines rhetoric here as “the faculty of observing in any given case the available means of persuasion.”

In practice, the latter often means pushing people’s emotional buttons. This sounds like a Dark Art if you just leave it at that, but of course like any art or science it can be used for good or evil. And if a person has shown himself to be immune to fact or logic, what else is there to do? Day quoting Aristotle: “argument based on knowledge implies instruction, and there are people whom one cannot instruct.”

(* Day has said that “Dialectic is based on the construction of syllogisms,” but that’s too narrow, if by syllogism one means to include only deductive arguments. Day’s use allows for the inclusion of inductive arguments, I’m pretty sure. E.g., “Every gorpf I’ve ever seen was green, so I conclude, probabilistically, that all gorpfs are green.”)

Having been aware of the Rhetoric-vs.-Dialectic distinction for more than a year now, I offer this report to the world, based on Internet interactions with leftists, SJWs, and other varieties of scumbags, liars, and anti-civilization shills:

(1) The Rhetoric-vs.-Dialectic distinction is very real. It’s not something some guy made up; it’s definitely a piece of reality. Once you’re tuned for it you perceive it easily.

I am a regular commenter on a forum in which politics comes up frequently. That people on the left are more inclined to rhetoric and less to dialectic than people on the right is immediately noticeable. Indeed, in retrospect this is not surprising, since we tried dialectic , i.e., facts and logic, on the left for fifty years and that had zero effect on them. (In our defense, dialectic does in fact persuade many people who aren’t already committed leftists. So it’s not like that was a wasted fifty years.)

So you say something, and the lefties on the forum respond with (a) an insult, and (b) often, an insult that is weirdly orthogonal to the topic at hand. (Projection is obviously playing a role here; more on that below.)

For example, you’ll cite stats on the proportion of terrorist acts committed by Muslims compared to members of other religions, and the response will either be something like, “You’re an asshole,” or something like “You’re just angry because you’re suffering from diabetes.” When you don’t have diabetes and have never mentioned the subject of diabetes before. It’s weird. It’s so completely out of left field, it can only be projection, because how else did that topic even enter their head? This is a weird but useful aspect of the left. They reveal so much about themselves with their weird projective insults.

Remember Elizabeth Warren’s bizarre response to Trump calling her “goofy” and “Pocahontas”? Her tweeted response was, “We get it, @realDonaldTrump: When a woman stands up to you, you’re going to call her a basket case. Hormonal. Ugly.” So completely bizarre in that it had no connection to Trump’s tweet. She was obviously just spewing her own insecurities about her appearance or whatever into her Twitter account. This theme is recurrent in interactions with lefties.

(2) That said, there is an aspect of the Rhetoric-vs.-Dialectic dichotomy that should be tweaked. It comes from this observation:

The thing that makes leftists enraged at me is when I use facts to refute their claims.

When they call me a racist and I call them douchebags or whatever, they just laconically call me a racist again or whatever. But when they say that rapes have been steadily increasing over the last two decades, and then I link to an FBI page showing that in fact they’ve been dropping during a large part of that time, I get sheer hatred in response. The level of rage spikes. It goes from a phoned-in “You’re racist (yawn)” to “You goddam motherfucking shit-eating sub-human bucket of puke!!!” So judging by their reactions, they actually are more sensitive to their lies being dialectically proven false than one would think, if one thinks of leftists as being pure rhetoric-bots.

This is not a call to abandon the RvD distinction – as I said, it’s quite useful – but we need to sort out a little more carefully the way it works empirically. Yeah, most leftists are more rhetoric than dialectic, but they are also sensitive to the propaganda value of their outright lies about matters of fact. They know that refuting their lies is a devastating thing you can do to them and they freak out when you do.

I think the key distinction is this: While they don’t care about the truth, they are aware that there are people who do care. So they freak when you definitively refute their lies.

Other thoughts:

(3) The main forum in which I participate has an option to Ignore another poster (i.e., so that his posts are hidden from you) and there are ways to tell when someone has Ignored someone else. Lefties tend to put people on Ignore not when those people insult the lefties, but when they refute the leftists’ claims using facts. Call a leftist a douchebag, and it’s very unlikely that he’ll put you on Ignore. Basically never happens. Refute his cherished assertions about racism or sexism or whatever, and you stand a small but non-trivial chance of being Ignored. Obviously this is related to point (2).

So this buttresses my foregoing point, that lefties are Rhetoric in that they’re more focused on that compared to righties. But they’re not totally blind and deaf to Dialectic; they have enough awareness of it to realize when their important propaganda points are being proven false, and to feel the threat. As Anonymous Conservative would say, it triggers their amygdalae.

(4) A significant fraction of them are absolute pussies – they attack you only after others have started attacking you. This is fascinating to observe. There are lefties who basically never interact with me, who, if two or three other lefties come at me, will suddenly swarm in and add their own little insults. It’s rare to be attacked by just two or three lefties; usually if it’s two or three, it’s instantly five or six. They really are cowardly swarm attackers by nature. And this is so instinctual that it affects their behavior even in an Internet forum in which we can’t physically attack each other, so there’s no meaningful danger. The only-attack-when-others-are-attacking thing is not based on threat assessment. It’s reflexive; it’s how they’re wired. That rabbity herd instinct is a huge deal with these people.

See my post SJW Mobs and Coordination Mechanisms. It is, of course, the same behavior by the same kind of person.

Another way this herd mentality manifests is the oft-observed fact that when they really want to crush you, they tell you that you’re out of step with the herd. This is blazingly obvious projection. You cite some statistic from the Census Bureau, and their response (if it isn’t “You shit-bag!”) is “Everyone else disagrees with you!” It’s obvious that they regard this as the nuclear bomb of debate. They think it’s a crusher. Of course, it doesn’t affect our tribe at all, since we care about truth, not staying in step with the herd. So we’re just baffled. I was mystified for years whenever I encountered this line from leftists, to the point that I wondered if they were actually making some other, more subtle point that I was missing. Nope. Nothing subtle here; it’s just what it seems to be on the surface: They expect you to care about what the herd says, not about reality. Bizarre.

Notice that both tribes generally misunderstand each other: We tried for fifty years to sway them using logic and facts, and have been puzzled and irritated that it all just bounced off them with no effect. No doubt they’ve been just as mystified that they keep telling us that we’re out of step with the herd (whether that’s true or not), without any effect on us.