Category Archives: Politics

Je Ne Suis Pas Charlie

As of my writing this the Google news search of Charlie Hebdo shooting nets “About 21,700,000 results“. Rotherham abuse nets “About 27,800 results“. Rotherham rape “About 9,520 results“. The latter story has had four months for stories to be written, the former a couple days.

Here we can see the West’s priorities: a dozen left-wing journalists get killed by the same people they fought so hard to import and it is an international crisis that everyone must care about. 1400 innocent children get raped by those same imports and nobody gives a shit.

You should have been angry months ago.

Anyway, here’s my opinion on Charlie Hebdo: they got ~~what they deserved~~ the natural consequences of their pro-immigration beliefs (Ed: Ill-phrased and added a clarification) and I’m not going to shed a tear. May God grant them mercy in the next life.

Charlie Hebdo was a vile left-wing rag that regularly engaged in anti-Christian blasphemy. They are not ‘us‘. The Muslims aren’t us, but neither are Charlie Hebdo. If our enemies want to start killing each other, why should we involve ourselves? Let them take each other out.

I do have some sympathy for free speech and I might be sympathetic if Charlie Hebdo was staunch ideological pro-free speech organization but like most left-wingers Charlie are very selective in their desire for free speech. From Charlie Hebdo’s wiki:

In 2008, controversy broke over a column by veteran cartoonist Siné which led to accusations of antisemitism and Siné’s sacking by Val. Siné sued the newspaper for unfair dismissal and Charlie Hebdo was sentenced to pay him €90,000 in damages. Siné launched a rival paper called Siné Hebdo which later became Siné Mensuel. Charlie Hebdo launched its Internet site, after years of reluctance from Val.

Charlie gutlessly sacked a cartoonist for violating a more-untouchable taboo. I guess they fear Jews more than Muslims. They are not pro-free speech, they are simply anti-religion. Why should I, or any religious person, support them in this?

To add is this:

On 26 April 1996 François Cavanna, Stéphane Charbonnier and Philippe Val filed 173,704 signatures, obtained in 8 months, with the aim of banning the political party Front National, since it would have contravened the articles 1, 2, 4, 6 and 7 of the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen.

The people at Charlie loved free speech and free assembly so much, they literally tried to ban a political party* and silence 15% of the population. (I wonder if they would/will reconsider their dislike of FN now?)

There is no reason to support Charlie. All this is is a left-wing organization, a supporter of diversity, receiving the natural consequences of diversity. If you invite savages into your country, do not be surprised when savagery results. Mourn not for those who helped engineer the invasion, but for those innocents who suffer due to it.

****

* Mike Anissimov indicated on Twitter that it may have been a joke (as did another rude person), but I haven’t been able to find a source for that. Wikipedia and the article wikipedia sources seem to be playing it straight (‘pilon’, translated ‘drumstick’ at the end, also means to pulp a book). Other sources than wiki seem to take it seriously as well. The translations of a random set of these forum members seem to take the attempted ban seriously. Now, I can’t read French very well, so I would miss any subtleties to these stories that would indicate humour and this story is from two decades ago, before the internet went mainstream, so I am having a hard time finding much. It’s possible that this is a joke, but 173k signatures is a long way to go for a joke, and there was an official inquiry into banning FN that followed soon after. I’m accepting it as legitimate until such someone shows otherwise.

The Law is a Death Threat

VD linked to a post by law professor Stephen Carter that makes a point that can not be made enough, so I’m going to reiterate it here:

That’s too bad. Every new law requires enforcement; every act of enforcement includes the possibility of violence. There are many painful lessons to be drawn from the Garner tragedy, but one of them, sadly, is the same as the advice I give my students on the first day of classes: Don’t ever fight to make something illegal unless you’re willing to risk the lives of your fellow citizens to get your way.

The government exists solely to force people to do something they wouldn’t do otherwise. No matter what the government is doing: public health care, economic redistribution, taxation, fighting obesity, etc., it is doing so by force. At the very least, they have forcibly taken taxes from the citizenry to pay for whatever activity they are doing.

Every law is a threat of violence: Do (or don’t do) this or we will sic the police on you.

The police’s sole purpose is violence, they exist solely to enforce the law through the use of the threat of violence and, failing that, violence.

But even further than that every law is at heart a death threat: Do (or don’t do) this or we kill you.

Don’t believe me, consider the one thing every government needs simply to exist taxation.

Pay your taxes or the IRS will fine (or jail) you. If you refuse to pay the fines, they send police to take you to jail. If you refuse to go to jail, the police will threaten you or forcibly move you to jail. If you do not bow to their threats or rseist them forcibly moving you, they will shoot you. If you resist being shot, they will shoot you until you are dead.

If we remove all the intermediary bureaucracy, the law is: pay your taxes or we will shoot you until you are dead.

Smaller laws and regulations hide this behind layers of bureaucracy. You might have to deal with the Department of Administrative Affairs, then the DAA’s enforcement arm, then the courts, then the Department of Justice, all before finally meeting the police, but if you refuse the law long enough, eventually the police will be there (if they’re don’t eventually arrive, then you simply don’t have to obey, but anarcho-tyranny is another topic for another time).

The police are the eventual enforcement mechanism of any law or regulation, however many layers government may use to muddy the waters, and the police’s job is, at base, to kill you if you don’t obey. Again, the police’s job is muddied as are society is soft and unable to deal with reality, but everything the police do, the Miranda Rights, the “please come with us”, the “do you mind answering a few questions”, the handcuffs, the tasers, the “stop or I’ll shoot”, all of it, is predicated on: if you don’t obey, we will kill you.

Most people in the West abide by the law and so they never go farther than a layer or two into the bureaucratic swamp; even most criminals generally obey the police before it becomes necessary for the police to kill them, so this reality is obscured by common social delusion. This delusion is how leftists can always cry for more laws but whine when the police enforce the laws on the likes of Michael Brown or Erik Garner.

Now, just because every law is a death threat and the police’s job is to kill you if you don’t obey, doesn’t make the law necessarily evil. Sometimes death threats and killing are justified. If someone was trying to rape your daughter, “stop or I’ll kill you” is justified, as is following through on the threat if necessary. Arguably, it’s the only just course of action. So, by calling the law a death threat and saying the police’s job is to kill is no indictment against the law or the police, it is simply a recognition of reality.

This reality is important to remember whenever we theorize on politics or call for more laws: more laws means more death threats and more reasons for the police to kill. It is also important to remember when someone gets themselves shot by the police: the police exist to kill, that is their job.

So remember for all political philosophy or law-making:

The government’s sole purpose is violence and every law is a death threat. Unless you are willing to kill for something no law should be made over it.

NYT Tries to Have a Pregnant Women Murdered

Jim has noted that two NYT journalists published Darren Wilson’s home address so the Ferguson mob can lynch him and kill his pregnant wife.

In response, common citizens can help show them not to wage war on us. I do not have a big a platform as the NYT but I can help boost the signal. Here is the information on the two responsible for doxing Officer Wilson:

Julie Bosman
5620 N Wayne Ave Apt 2
Chicago, IL 60660-4204
Cook County
Twitter
Work Phone: 312-552-7204
Mobile: 646-753-2052

Campbell Robertson
1113 N Dupre St
New Orleans, LA 70119-3203
Orleans County.
Twitter

If you’re ever in either neighbourhood, why don’t you stop by and say hello.

Motte & Bailey Example

To simplify, the Motte & Bailey (M&B) strategy consists of a group using a term or concept in an insane or despicable way among themselves (the bailey), but then, when attacked for their insanity retreating a position where the term or concept means something sane or reasonable (the motte). By this they hope to force aceptance of the term and thereby eventual acceptance of the insanity.

I’ve already shown how feminists use the motte-and-bailey strategy, although, without using the term, but we can see this in action right now, so another helpful little reminder can’t hurt.

Some women have taken taken to react against the excesses of modern feminism by creating the Women Against Feminism (WAF) movement. As with many modern female-controlled internet movements, it consists of taking selfies. Not that I’m complaining, as these selfies are much easier on the eyes than previous selfie campaigns.

Despite the positive aesthetics of the WAF and the generally positive tone of the messages, the WAF does have a problem, it was already entirely pwned before it even began, as this pretty young gal and this older wife well demonstrate:

The WAF are rejecting modern feminism while fully accepting the equality nonsense of first-wave feminism and the women-in-the-workforce concepts as givens, then thinking these are not a part of feminism. Sadly (and to their own detriment), the women are only rejecting contemporary feminism while accepting all of feminism’s original values and goals. If modern feminists weren’t so utterly stupid and evil they’d rejoice and call it a day, they won so very hard that even anti-feminists uphold feminist goals and values.

But of course, feminists are utterly corrupt and the ratchet never ends, so instead the feminists’ answer is, “how dare these ungrateful whores?”

You think I’m exaggerating, don’t you? (h/t: VD)

Its tumblr is constructed of selfies of young women, dressed and posed like ads for DIY escort services, holding up bits of notebook paper on which they’ve scrawled screeds against feminism.
…
Everything about Women Against Feminism suggests it’s a sock puppet for the aggrieved misogynists and pedophiles of the anti-feminist men’s rights crowd. The main clue is that almost all the women on the site are nubile and posed in ways that fulfill dirty old men’s wildest dreams about pliant young things.

Remember, slut-shaming is only evil if it is men or non-feminists shaming actual sluts. It’s awesome when feminists are slut-shaming non-sluts.

I’ll note here that I didn’t see a single picture on on the WAF that would have been out of place walking our modern streets on a sunny afternoon and there was only one picture there that showed more cleavage than Nina Bureligh’s (the author) bio pic.

Of course, from her picture it’s fairly easy to see why Nina Burleigh is expressing hatred towards this pretty young woman:

I guess she never learned that jealousy just isn’t that attractive. But, maybe she can be forgiven, as getting old sucks, especially considering that even when she was younger Bill Clinton still chose this over her. Her calling other women sluts is especially funny given how this adulteress married a guy, then divorced him almost immediately to marry another guy. I guess projection is real.

But now I’m getting mean and off-topic. I still haven’t even started on my original point.

Feminists won, they won a while back and they won hard, but in their victory they’ve only won the original goal of ‘equality’, they have not yet gained what they truly desire: the complete destruction of any civilized restraints on women and the complete takeover of civil society by the state.

So, now they are in the difficult position of having achieved all their even remotely reasonable goals. You can hardly claim misogyny with a straight face when the state pays for your birth control and abortificants, when most employers give you special hiring privileges (affirmative action), when you consistently win in family court (and criminal court for that matter), when your partner can be removed from your home without cause or recourse at a single word from you, and you outnumber men in college by about 3:2, not that feminists don’t still try.

All they have left are their most unreasonable goals, like making it so that men can get jailed with no recourse and no trial simply because a women says rape or forcing men to sit down to pee by law or having all women treat all men like rapists by default.

Feminism itself has become bailey, as many women are beginning to realize contemporary feminism doesn’t actually benefit them.

Whenever anyone posts about how modern feminists, as represented by Jezebel, Feministing, Slate, Salon, Lindy West, Amanda Marcotte, etc., are generally bitter, anti-male, entitled, and looking for special privileges for women, they retreat to the motte.

“Feminism is about equality.”
“Feminism is simply acknowledging that women are people.”

Obviously, Nina above opted for slut-shaming and name-calling rather than the M&B approach, but some feminists aren’t quite so gracelessly, viciously stupid. This one highly linked article put M&B into play quite an entertaining manner.

Basically the article argues that sure, you young woman in North America have a great life free from misogyny and discrimination, but why don’t you think of the Muslim, Indian, and African women who are brutalized?* (Of course, actual feminists almost never talk about the brutalization of foreign women. In fact, they often support the Islamics wishing to bring that brutal behaviour to the West).

But she goes right from gang rapes and forced marriages in third world countries to “women still only fill 24% of senior management jobs”, “comedy panel shows usually only have one female panellist compared to 4-5 male ones”, and “almost every dieting product on the market is solely aimed at women”. (I’m being serious here, read the article if you don’t believe modern feminists are that narcissistically self-absorbed).

Here, she tries to get us to accept the motte of feminism is against horrific evils like mass rape, so we must accept the baileys of the wage gap (which anybody who is not ignorant or ideologically-blinded already knows is a myth) and government enforcement of quotas in comedy panels.

She doesn’t even do so gracefully: a straight jump from gang rape to comedy club panels.

The entire feminist response to WAF is the M&B in action. Pretend modern feminism is about ‘equality’ and ‘women are people too’ to try to convince the average, decent gal to be feminist, while taking a hardline vicious anti-male, anti-child, anti-freedom, anti-civilization elsewhere.

This is the M&B in action, don’t fall for it.

****

* Also, of course, she ignores that the proscriptions against gang rape and forced marriage predated feminism by quite a bit and were actually products of Christian chivalry. I doubt she is going to be happy when she gets her goal and civilized, patriarchical Christian norms are replaced by more primitive and destructive norms.

Victimization

Two recent controversies have shown a particular pathology of the left. The first is the fight over the Washington Redskins, and how the Redskins have lost their trademark for being disparaging. The second is the strong reaction of the left to Miss Nevada saying women should learn to defend themselves from rape.

First, the Redskins. Look at their logo:

Are those logos in any way disparaging or insulting?

No. The first shows a strong, proud man with a calm, dignified bearing, the second shows a a strong, proud warrior raring for action. Both are rather complimentary to Aboriginals.

I am part Norse, so the Vikings team has a mascot of my heritage.

Is this disparaging? No, because, as with the Redskins logo, he’s a strong, determined man. In fact, although I don’t follow NFL at all, my team(an extremely shallow allegiance) is the Vikings, simply because they are the Vikings, and they celebrate my heritage.

So the question is why do leftists think portraying Aboriginals as strong, proud men and celebrating their strength is disparaging?

****

Next we come to Miss Nevada. She stated a very sane and rational opinion:

But I think more awareness is very important so women can learn how to protect themselves. Myself, as a fourth-degree black belt, I learned from a young age that you need to be confident and be able to defend yourself. And I think that’s something that we should start to really implement for a lot of women.

The feminists freaked out.

Here’s one example that really shows the absurdity of this condemnation: a male feminist condemns a man who teaches women to protect themselves from rape as a misogynist, while at the also praising someone who raped children.

So why do leftists think that teaching women to be strong and to protect themselves is misogynistic?

****

The answer to both of these is the same, the words ‘disparaging’, ‘racist’, ‘misogynist’, etc. are not used for their literal definition, they are used merely for their exo-semantic meaning of ‘bad’. They carry the same semantic meaning as a pack of monkeys pointing and hooting.

The words don’t mean much in themselves, but the reason for the pointing and hooting is what’s important.

The left needs women and minorities to remain victims.

If one points the Aboriginal back to his heritage, the proud brave, independent, strong, and free, the impoverished and beaten-down Aboriginal on the reservation may look at his life and ask, “Why are we so broken, so dependent, when our ancestors were so strong, so proud?”

If a young woman learns to protect herself and avoid drunkenness, she won’t have need of the rape hysteria of feminists. If she learns self-responsibility and takes control of her own life, she won’t need feminism and its war against personal responsibility at all.

This is what the leftists fear. They fear Aboriginals might decide to get off the reservation, that women will stop feeling victimized, that blacks will leave the welfare plantation, etc. Leftists need people to feel like victims so they will cry to others, ie. the government, for help.

The leftists strategy is and always has been to expand the state. Victims are dependent on the state, they need the state to protect them, to provide for them. If leftists run out fo victims, they no longer have the cover they need to continue expanding the state.

Leftists hate the Redskins because they need Aboriginals to feel victimized and to not be able to remember the proud warriors and leaders their ancestors were. They hate women protecting themselves, because a confident self-realized woman does not need the state to protect her and provide for her.

Without victims the state is unneeded; without those who make their livings in the victim- and welfare-industrial complexes would not have such cushy jobs.

Leftists need victims to continue their long march.

The New Hypocrite

My post seems to have got eaten somewhere along the way, so, I’ll have to post it Saturday. In the meantime, here’s some Chesterton:

As an instance to sharpen the argument, I take the one case of our everlasting education bills. We have actually contrived to invent a new kind of hypocrite. The old hypocrite, Tartuffe or Pecksniff, was a man whose aims were really worldly and practical, while he pretended that they were religious. The new hypocrite is one whose aims are really religious, while he pretends that they are worldly and practical. The Rev. Brown, the Wesleyan minister, sturdily declares that he cares nothing for creeds, but only for education; meanwhile, in truth, the wildest Wesleyanism is tearing his soul. The Rev. Smith, of the Church of England, explains gracefully, with the Oxford manner, that the only question for him is the prosperity and efficiency of the schools; while in truth all the evil passions of a curate are roaring within him. It is a fight of creeds masquerading as policies. I think these reverend gentlemen do themselves wrong; I think they are more pious than they will admit. Theology is not (as some suppose) expunged as an error. It is merely concealed, like a sin. Dr. Clifford really wants a theological atmosphere as much as Lord Halifax; only it is a different one. If Dr. Clifford would ask plainly for Puritanism and Lord Halifax ask plainly for Catholicism, something might be done for them. We are all, one hopes, imaginative enough to recognize the dignity and distinctness of another religion, like Islam or the cult of Apollo. I am quite ready to respect another man’s faith; but it is too much to ask that I should respect his doubt, his worldly hesitations and fictions, his political bargain and make-believe. Most Nonconformists with an instinct for English history could see something poetic and national about the Archbishop of Canterbury as an Archbishop of Canterbury. It is when he does the rational British statesman that they very justifiably get annoyed. Most Anglicans with an eye for pluck and simplicity could admire Dr. Clifford as a Baptist minister. It is when he says that he is simply a citizen that nobody can possibly believe him.

Sure does sound like our modern-day Puritans, don’t it?

A Winning Conservative Strategy

I had a couple Twitter conversations on how the GOP can significantly cripple the Democratics and gain some actual permanent wins. One single PAC spent $142 million on Romney and received nothing to show for it in the end. With that much money I could signficantly cripple the Dems and win the next decade or two for the Republicans.

Being a reactionary monarchist, I generally avoid partisan politics here, but I thought this would be an enjoyable intellectual exercise.

Since I’m in a generous mood, I’ve decided to share the basic strategy for the GOP to steal and use (or more likely ignore) however they want, but first a little groundwork.

****

The most confusing thing about American politics: how does the side with all the guns perpetually lose?

— Free Northerner (@FreeNortherner) March 20, 2014

The most interesting fact about American politics is how the Republicans totally dominate all levels of violence, yet are always in a perpetual state of losing. The military is primarily Republican, the police are more split but, at least in terms of front-line workers, are generally Republican, and the NRA, while officially non-partisan, is primarily composed of Republicans. The vast majority of people who own and can use a gun are conservative, yet, in the long run, conservatives always lose to their weaker, unarmed brethren.

It is baffling until you realize it is because conservatives refuse to play by the rules the progressives have set. Democrats can steal bags of votes, implement gang-run politics, destroy crimethinker’s careers, and stage shit-ins (among many other things) with impunity and the Republicans refuse to respond with anything worse than requiring ID to vote (and then getting called evil when doing so).

****

First, some theory. In “To Win a Nuclear War” Michio Kaku outlined the concept of ‘escalation dominance’.

Escalation dominance essentially means the actor controlling the highest level of violence (in the book’s case, nuclear weapons) can control all lower levels of violence by threatening to escalate the conflict to a higher level of violence. By controlling the tempo and threat of escalation, this actor can steer a conflict in such ways as to win lower level conflicts even in areas where he may be weaker.

As I stated above, the military, the police, and the NRA are conservative institutions. Conservatives, and thereby the Republican party, control the highest level of violence in American political disputes.

Using this, the Republicans should be able to control the escalation and tempo of lower-violence political conflicts.

****

Note: This does not mean Republicans should start shooting Democrats. The primary point of escalation dominance is to control the lower levels of violence so you don’t have to escalate.

The primary reason for controlling nuclear weapons is not to use nuclear weapons. Controlling lower levels of violence without having to resort to using nuclear weapons through the implied threat of nuclear escalation is the purpose of nuclear weapons.

Controlling the highest level of violence in American politics means that Conservative can control the tempo of lower-violence political conflicts (voting, law-making, regulation enforcement, etc.) and control the escalation of political violence (ie: voting to voter fraud; debate to ideological firings) through the implied threat of further escalation (you witch hunt me and take my job, I witch hunt you and take your job and reputation; you escalate to assault, I escalate to shooting).

I repeat: I am not advocating shooting liberals or doing anything illegal. My strategy does not include physical violence or criminality. I am simply explaining a concept that will under-gird the strategy.

Also, for the purposes of this post any political act, whether it’s voting, protesting, debate, law-making, etc., will be considered a form of violence.

****

Conservatives already have implied a willingness to escalate. “Cold dead hands” is pretty clear, the occasional fringe rant by people like Alex Jones shows that conservatives can be pushed too far, and liberals still bring up McVeigh and the abortion shootings from the 90’s.

So, the base has created a climate where the implication of escalation is clear. Republicans need to use this implied threat to control lower levels of violence so violence does not escalate, but they don’t.

Despite controlling the highest level of violence, Republicans are allowing the Democrats to set the tempo of escalation. In fact, Republicans are allowing the Democrats to escalate while never responding in kind.

This is why they lose. This is why they always lose.

If they want to win they need to match the Democrats escalation, then control the further tempo of escalation.

****

Enough groundwork, now we get to the real stuff. Let’s say I had the $142-million Restore Our Future wasted on Romney or the $54-million American Crossroads used opposing Democrats. $142M over four years is $35.5M each year. Here’s how I’d spend $35M.

Create an information network. $3M*

Instead of wasting money on ads, support the dissemination over the internet. You can reach more people through FB than through some network cable slot. Create a network of cross-linking quasi-official aggregators of content and a quasi-official Republican news source.There are tons of young ideologues willing to do the Republicans propaganda grunt work for them for peanuts. Create a small fund to pay some of the best of them, say $25k each, to do it full-time. Create a small emergency fund for unpaid amateurs (your computer busted and you need a new one, here’s $1000, that kind of thing.) This could all be done for less than $1M. Easy enough.

Create an investigation network. $5M

Create a small fund (say $500k) that the aforementioned bloggers (or just regular Joes) can apply to have expenses paid for doing investigative work on a potential anti-leftist/Democrat lead.

Next, hire a couple dozen ideologically conservative reporters at $50k a piece (plus investigative expenses) and have their sole job to dig up and publish dirt on Democrats, Democrat supproters, liberals, liberal organizations, and the like. Have them work in concert with aforementioned information network.

Next hire a few dozen private investigators. Dedicate them to uncovering the personal information and secrets of leftists. Everybody has secrets they don’t want others to know; find it if possible. Do they cheat on their spouses or their taxes, do they look at weird or illegal pornography, any “emberassing” photographs or incidents in their past, any criminal actions in the past, etc. Have them find it.

Create a quasi-official Enemies List $200k

Create and maintain a database site that’s a catalogue of the the personal information of every remotely public Democrat, liberal, or anti-Republican person or organization. Keep it inside the realms legality of privacy laws, but absolutely no more than that. If it would give more latitude make it a private operation with no official ties to the party. It would include pictures, phone numbers, addresses, family, any wrongdoing or humiliating things from their past, etc.

Publish all the personal/organizational information gained from the investigation network on this list.

Create a legal war team. $20M

The leftists are engaging in lawfare, hit back but harder and more organized. Create two Republican legal firms (make them legally independent if need be).

Have one whose sole responsibility is defending any conservative/Republican who’s in trouble due to their politics (such as any troubles that may happen while enacting this plan). Make this firm small but top quality. Defend your own with the best.

Have a second firm that’s large, sacrifice on quality. Have this team find and bring to court any actionable lawsuits against Democrats, leftists, left-wing organizations, leftists’ businesses, etc. The purpose here is not to win, it is to use the courts as methods of persecution and to drag court cases out. Remember, in lawfare the trial is the punishment and you are looking to punish these people/organizations for being leftists. These cases can be anything; any kind of civil suit that can be concocted to be actionable.

Also, create a fund for paying the legal fees for cases that are lost and avoid cases that would get summarily thrown out.

Create a street team. $2M

As Kate always says, failing to show up for a riot is a failed conservative policy. Hire a bunch of young conservative/Republicans (at low wages) as organizers. Anytime leftists protest, the hired organizers would create a counter-protest. They would then organize their own protests. Do what leftists have learned; don’t protest in public streets, target. Is there a particular individual, protest in front of his house/place of employment for a week; is there an organization, protest outside the organization during the day, outside the home of the CEO/Director/Manager during the evenings. Remember, the leftists made the personal political.

Make sure to give clear instructions to avoid illegal actions and avoid stepping frmo “free speech” into “”harassment”.

Create a phone/e-mail team. $2M

Hire a few coordinators for different ideological areas to create a lists of volunteers. Every time it becomes necessary, have the coordinators coordinate a phone team. Have the each volunteer phone a leftist being targeted once a week (make the call polite: “Hi, sir, I would like to respectfully disagree with you or your organization’s policy on), but have enough volunteers that the person is getting a phone call every hour for the entire week. Keep this up for a few weeks. You are not phoning the PR people, you are not phoning secretaries, you are phoning these people directly. Get their numbers from above. Then have the volunteers phone their boss, the organization they volunteer with, etc. to register their displeasure.

Also, if there’s a leftist being targeted, have everybody e-mail bomb them and where they work registering displeasure.

Create an employment network. $300k

Spend a few hundred thousand to hire a few guys whose sole job is to help Republicans/conservatives who lose their jobs due to their ideology find new ones. One advantage the left has is that a leftist who does something leftist and stupid can always find employment with some leftist organization. Many conservatives don’t have that, so they are forced to curtail their political activities or hide behind screennames. All these guys have to do is find some Republican employers to participate, then link cosnervatives in need to them.

Hire a coordination office. $1M

Hire a coordinator to coordinator, and if necessary some office staff, to coordinate all these different teams.

Ad Hoc. $2M

A small fund for the coordinator to take advantage of any unforeseen opportunities that may present themselves.

With more, simply do all this, but bigger.

****

With everything in place, have the coordinator run ruthless personal campaign after ruthless personal campaign.

Find a leftist and destroy him/her on a personal level. Targets can include actual elected officials, bureaucrats abusing their positions for partisan reasons (ie. the IRS), leftist bloggers, leftist media figures, leftist academics, leftist activists, leftist businesses, leftists NGO’s and non-profits.

The investigation network will find out everything they can about it, they will pass it to the information network who will distribute it, and it will be logged in the enemies list. If the pesron has done anything actionable, the legal war team will pounce on it. The street and phone team will protest in their own manners.

You could have dozens of these campaigns running at once.

For an example of how it could look, let’s go back to John Cook, who published the names of every gun owner in New York and let’s pretend this network is in place.

The investigation network would find his address, his personal phone number, pictures of his home and kids, his porn habits, his marriage therapy sessions, whatever they legally could find. The information network would distribute this widely. A dossier of him and his family would be written up on the enemies list. So, now everything about him is freely available on the internet.

The legal war team would find whatever arcane law or “injured” they could to make a civil action of this. They’d bring John to court personally and tie him up in months of legal battles. Every hour of every day for weeks, both him and his wife would receive a polite phone call from a different person expressing polite disapproval; their personal inboxes would load with polite e-mail expressing disapproval. His boss at Gawker would be receiving continual calls and e-mails to fire him.

A small group of (non-harassing) protesters would show up on the sidewalk outside his house in the morning as his children are leaving for school and in the evening as they are getting home from school, having dinner, going to bed. They’d be in front of his place of work during the day.

After a month of that peaceful, legal attack, do you think anybody would be stupid enough to try to publish gun owners name’s again. Even after the rather weak, uncoordinated response to John the alst time no one has since published another gun owners list. Now repeat that for every offending leftist, every offending organization, and the occasional random leftist, how long until the public action of the leftists can’t sustain itself anymore.

Without the constant leftist campaigns and organizations, the electoral support of leftists begins to whither over time. A few elections down the road, Republicans are consistently winning and getting their agenda through because most leftists are too cowed to fight back.

****

Now, if you find this distasteful, remember, leftists are already doing this. They already fully agree that this is kind of personal action is acceptable practice. They’ve done it many times, and will continue to do it. The recent dust-up at Mozilla makes that clear. So, it is either respond in kind or lose.

Right now, the leftists have escalated to a higher level of political violence than the Republicans; the Republicans need to match it and escalate a step further.

****

The obvious question then becomes, why won’t the leftists/Democrats organize, then escalate further?

They will, to which the Republicans respond by escalating again.

This is where we get to escalation dominance.

At some point of escalation, the left will be to afraid to escalate further, because the right controls the highest level of violence.

While the reaction to the Gawker story wasn’t enough to do more than irritate John Cook, a similar reaction to a similar piece in for a newspaper, resulted in the paper hiring armed guards.

Once the escalation has been pushed high enough, the left will blink at the implied threat of physical violence and then perhaps deescalation can occur.

****

That’s the basic outline for a long-term win for the GOP.

If any higher placed GOP flak with the funds would like to win, win hard, and win permanently rather than throw massive amounts of money down the RINO-hole, I am willing to sell my services. I will gladly be hired to write up a detailed plan and I would be happy to be hired to implement it (for appropriate compensation of course). I might not believe in democracy, but Democrat tears are their own reward.

Also, my offer of selling my services applies to other country’s conservative parties. I do live in Canada after all.

Think about it GOP operative or rich conservative donor reading this. You can hire me for peanuts (relatively speaking) and win, or you can continue to throw millions upon millions at candidates that always seem to let the country continue left.

****

For this strategy, I’ve stayed within the realm of legality.

Now the Democrats have already escalated into illegality through ballot-stuffing, voter fraud, voter intimidation, and gang politics. If certain GOP operatives were willing to escalate into the realm of illegality the possibilities would be near endless.

I am not going to give any advice on illegality and will not condone or encourage illegal actions, but I would note I do love intellectual challenges and might be willing to engage in hypotheticals for a hefty payment.

****

*All numbers are very quick and rough estimates. I’d need to be paid more than nothing for greater accuracy.

On Triggers and Bullies

Scott Alexander has a interesting post on triggers and safe spaces (h/t: Jim), in which he writes:

The rationalist community is a safe space for people who obsessively focus on reason and argument even when it is socially unacceptable to do so.
…
If you are the sort of person with the relevant mental quirk, living in a society of people who don’t do this is a terrifying an alienating experience. Finding people who are like you is an amazing, liberating experience. It is, in every sense of the word, a safe space.

If you want a community that is respectful to the triggers of people who don’t want to talk about controversial ideas, the Internet is full of them. Although I know it’s not true, sometimes it seems to me that half the Internet is made up of social justice people talking about how little they will tolerate people who are not entirely on board with social justice ideas and norms. Certainly this has been my impression of Tumblr, and of many (very good) blogs I read (Alas, A Blog comes to mind, proving that my brain sorts in alphabetical order). There is no shortage of very high-IQ communities that will fulfill your needs.

But you say you’re interested in and attracted to the rationalist community, that it would provide something these other communities don’t. Maybe you are one of those people with that weird mental quirk of caring more about truth and evidence than about things it is socially acceptable to care about, and you feel like the rationalist community would be a good fit for that part of you. If so, we would love to have you!

But if you want to join communities specifically because they are based around dispassionate debate and ignoring social consequences, but your condition for joining is that they stop having dispassionate debate and take social consequences into account, well, then you’re one of those people – like Groucho Marx – who refuses to belong to any club that would accept you as a member.
…
This would be a good time to admit that I am massively, massively triggered by social justice.

I know exactly why this started. There was an incident in college when I was editing my college newspaper, I tried to include a piece of anti-racist humor, and it got misinterpreted as a piece of pro-racist humor. The college’s various social-justice-related-clubs decided to make an example out of me. I handled it poorly (“BUT GUYS! THE EVIDENCE DOESN’T SUPPORT WHAT YOU’RE DOING!”) and as a result spent a couple of weeks having everyone in the college hold rallies against me followed by equally horrifying counter-rallies for me. I received a couple of death threats, a few people tried to have me expelled, and then everyone got bored and found some other target who was even more fun to harass. Meantime, I was seriously considering suicide.

But it wasn’t just that one incident. Ever since, I have been sensitive to how much a lot of social justice argumentation resembles exactly the bullying I want a safe space from – the “aspie”, the “nerd”, that kind of thing. Just when I thought I had reached an age where it was no longer cool to call people “nerds”, someone had the bright idea of calling them “nerdy white guys” instead, and so transforming themselves from schoolyard bully to brave social justice crusader. This was the criticism I remember most from my massive Consequentialism FAQ – he’s a nerdy white dude – and it’s one I have come to expect any time I do anything more intellectual than watch American Idol, and usually from a social justicer.

Scott hovers around a good point and gives it a light jab or two, but doesn’t go for the throat, so I will.

Bullying is not a regrettable by-product of social justice, social justice does not resemble bullying, rather:

Social justice is bullying.

The purpose of social justice is, was, and always will be bullying. Social justice warriors are bullies, nothing more, attempting to use social, economic, and, occasionally, physical force to enforce group conformity in favour of their ‘one true faith’ of ‘equality’.

SJ is the attempt of the weak and vile to force their abnormalities and disorders on the rest of us to make us as broken as they are. When we are all as pathetic as they are, we will all be equal.

To put it in social justice terms, the purpose of the non-normative discourse is to colonize and occupy white male space.

****

This is why you never give the SJW’s an inch. These are not simply well-meaning but broken people who need a bit of respect. These are not simply sensitive people who should be given a bit of compassion out of politeness. In normal life some minor accommodations to those naturally predisposed to sensitivity driven discourse is simple politeness, but SJW’s are not these types of people and they should not be given even the smallest of accommodations.

How can you tell that the SJW’s are bullies, rather than simply broken, but well-meaning people?

Simple, they seek to enter where they don’t belong. They purposefully seek out things to feel victimized.

A normal person who is sensitive to something (and might be worthy of some accommodation) generally seeks to avoid that something. As a trite personal example, I find emotional outbursts and certain forms of strong emotionalism uncomfortable; it could be fairly said, I am ‘sensitive’ to them. Because of this I tend to try to avoid situations where they occur and I avoid the type of people who are prone to them. It’s basic common sense.

The SJW, on the other hand, purposefully goes out of her way to intrude in other people’s spaces where she knows she will be uncomfortable and condemn them for making her uncomfortable.

We can see that in Scott’s example above: an SJW tries to enter a rationalist community devoted to a safe space for dispassionate discourse and demands that everybody stop with the dispassionate discourse.

You can see it in all the women offended by RoK or Matt Forney. They intrude on a male space dedicated to masculine discussion, where they know they will be offended and feel ‘victimized’. We can see this with SRS on Reddit, who intrude into RPR and act offended.

In real life, the colonization of male space can be exemplified by the current concerns of the military; the SJW types demand women be allowed into the military, then whine when the military doesn’t bend over backwards to cater to their every whim.

It would be like me going to an Emotions Anonymous (I was only mildly surprised that existed) meeting and demanding they all stop being so weepy and emotional. It would be simply wrong. It’s not my place to be there and, if I am there as a newcomer or guest, it’s not my place to demand they change for me.

This is who you can know the SJW’s are bullies. They refuse to live and let live; they barge into other’s spaces and demand that these spaces change for them.

Never accommodate them.

****

I’ve outlined a number of ways they attempt to bully their allies (and others) into conformity, but of all these, the trigger warning is the most insidious attempt at colonization.

Not only does the SJW demand you kowtow to her will in her own spaces, she demands you kowtow to her will in your own space.

****

As an aside, Scott, if you end up following the backlink and reading this, I know I still haven’t got around to addressing your response to my response to the antireactionary FAQ. I still plan to. Hopefully, eventually.

The Monarch and the Poor

Calvin on the monarch and the poor:

“As God had promised to extend his care to the poor and afflicted among his people, David, as an argument to enforce the prayer which he presents in behalf of the king, shows that the granting of it will tend to the comfort of the poor. God is indeed no respecter of persons; but it is not without cause that God takes a more special care of the poor than of others, since they are most exposed to injuries and violence. Let laws and the administration of justice be taken away, and the consequence will be, that the more powerful a man is, he will be the more able to oppress his poor brethren. David, therefore, particularly mentions that the king will be the defender of those who can only be safe under the protection of the magistrate, and declares that he will be their avenger when they are made the victims of injustice and wrong. . . .

“But as the king cannot discharge the duty of succouring and defending the poor which David imposes upon him, unless he curb the wicked by authority and the power of the sword, it is very justly added in the end of the verse, that when righteousness reigns, oppressors or extortioners will be broken in pieces. It would be foolish to wait till they should give place of their own accord. They must be repressed by the sword, that their audacity and wickedness may be prevented from proceeding to greater lengths. It is therefore requisite for a king to be a man of wisdom, and resolutely prepared effectually to restrain the violent and injurious, that the rights of the meek and orderly may be preserved unimpaired. Thus none will be fit for governing a people but he who has learned to be rigorous when the case requires. Licentiousness must necessarily prevail under an effeminate and inactive sovereign, or even under one who is of a disposition too gentle and forbearing. There is much truth in the old saying, that it is worse to live under a prince through whose lenity everything is lawful, than under a tyrant where there is no liberty at all.”