Stop Making Martyrs

The martyr cannot be dishonored. Every lash inflicted is a tongue of fame; every prison a more illustrious abode.
– Ralph Waldo Emerson

James Damore is another individual added to the growing list of “mundane martyrs” – a list of boring, every day people who speak out against obvious insanity and get attacked by the radical leftists for it. No one cared or knew anything about Bret or Eric Weinstein before the left freaked out over someone not complying to their insane demands, ending with him being unsafe on his own campus. Jordan Peterson now makes hundreds of thousands of dollars through Patreon. If the goal of these radical leftists was to silence and dehumanize dissidents, then they are doing a spectacularly poor job.

Going farther, shutting down speakers (especially in over the top ways) also hinders their cause. If Milo, or Ann Coulter, or Ben Shapiro were allowed to speak, 50 to 100 people would show up, 99.99% of them already supporters. Instead, by lighting their venues on fire, smashing windows, and stalking them at their dinners, they end up getting a book deal and a spot on Fox News. All the left needs to do is let them speak and then write a by-line in the school newspaper about how a racist fascist showed up, and then distort what they said (since no leftist would ever look into the person themselves).

But their ideology won’t allow for that. Quietly silencing enemies isn’t viable for them because they won’t get to grandstand otherwise. This becomes the main point (which cannot be stressed enough): the radical left’s ideology is fundamentally incompatible with winning the culture war. The only reason they have succeeded thus far is because they control almost all of the pillars of society, and also due to the fact that the Right does not actually want to win the culture war. They’re insane and over the top, but not in the correct or productive ways. They can’t have fun. They can’t mock themselves. They’re easily triggered by anything and everything. They excommunicate members for thinking slightly incorrectly. They literally can not win.

And since they are a cult, the left is unable to change their ideology in any significant manner. They must go with what the leaders say. They can not make radical leftism “cool” in its current form. They’re boring, easily mockable, authoritarian, and downright unlikable. There is a reason that the majority of Generation Z is conservative. There is a reason that Whites went for Trump (and not because of “muh racism”). No one wants to join a group of people who call others racists and sexists for having slightly different opinions. It’s not effective marketing. When all the “feminist fail” videos present them in an easily mockable light, while most rebuttals to the Right are overly serious, contrived, or downright unfunny, what do you think happens to younger, rambunctious people? The “Left can’t meme” observation isn’t a joke, and it isn’t to be dismissed as a failure of their group.

So let the left keep making martyrs. Let them keep shutting down guest speakers. Let them keep showing the egregious bias in media and academia. They keep putting themselves at a disadvantage every time they do so. The moderates are watching, and they don’t like what they see.

The Big Misconception

The number of people my age, younger now, a whole generation younger, who are fiercely bright, over-educated, under-employed and who are politicised and purposeless really upsets me. It’s soul-destroying.
– Benedict Cumberbatch

One of the big misconceptions floating around is that people within the radical left / SJW circles are actually defending their ideologies. They aren’t (for the most part). People join the leftist cults (that’s what they are, cults) for many different reasons. Some are scammers only in it for money, power, and fame. Anita Sarkeesian was a televangelist before working behind the scenes as an influencer at Google and Twitter. Shaun King would not pretend to be black if he didn’t get a column at the New York Daily News and a correspondent position at The Young Turks.

There are, however, people who do defend their ideologies. They are in the vast minority (even less than the scammers), and usually come solely from academia. They want to follow in the footsteps of Marx and Marcuse and enact a communist revolution in the United States. These are usually the people at the top of these groups (like with ANTIFA), but again, have a minimal presence.

The real answer is that it gives people a sense of purpose. These people mainly work dull office jobs (or stereotypically as baristas), and have minimal lives outside of their jobs. Maybe they do not have hobbies or fulfilling relationships. We inundate people with messages of “you can be or do anything!!!”. This is not usually how it works. So what better way to feel a sense of purpose than ending racism or sexism. Of course, this is done with the bare modicum of effort (and incorrectly, in my opinion at least. Why do we always read DuBois but not Daryl Davis, Thomas Sowell, or Booker T. Washington?). What better way to say that you’ve been a victim if you didn’t get a top job than by blaming sexism or racism? They hype up Trump as a fascist dictator, so they can claim that tweeting “#resist” on twitter and attending a march while carrying a non-humorous sign is fighting fascism (they do tend to get chicks, as an extra incentive). These people do not defend their ideologies except as a hobby. That’s why Laci Green happens. If she was truly committed to her ideology she would not become “red pilled”. She would go along with the thoughts of the far left. Doing so requires minimal effort and you can feel a sense of purpose combating racism, sexism, or whatever the -ism of the week is. These individuals lack purpose, and it is filled with an easy hatred of pre-selected enemies.

Argumentative Framing

In both law and politics, I think the essential battle is the meta-battle of framing the narrative.
– Ted Cruz

One of the interesting factors in debates is how people decide to frame their arguments. This is usually done to be part of a larger scheme. However, this limits the factors of the issue. It can also maliciously be used to adopt non-argumentative strategies such as name calling.

For example, we frame abortion as a “women’s rights” issue. Yet, far more factors play into the issue. It can easily be framed as a health issue. The health of the mother or fetus can be argued as a basis for or against abortion. It can also be a family issue, since the father could be involved along with the rest of the family. Yet, it is primarily framed only as a women’s rights issue. This could be done for several reasons. One way is to attach the idea of an attack on rights to it, that the idea of preventing unfettered access to abortion is attached to some kind of right turns opponents into authoritarians who will strip away personal liberty. The other method is the ability to call someone who opposes a “sexist”. This of course is not an argument nor is it helpful in debate.

Another issue framed in a negative way is immigration restrictions, either through directly banning certain groups or enforcing existing laws. It is very easy to frame it opposition to unfettered immigration as “xenophobic” or “islamophobic”. Of course, it is easier to frame it as an issue as one involving security. This is especially true when the travel ban was announced for a temporary period until proper vetting mechanisms are in place. This is also true when the very act of being undocumented is a crime. This alters the arguments made. Either enforcing laws is bigotry, or not enforcing the laws makes us less secure.

This pattern presents a disconnect between the different arguments. When one presents a particular argument, it is usually assumed that the opponent is against your argument, rather than possessing their own. It would be assumed that being against abortion makes the opponent a sexist, and being for it makes one a murderer. These extremes are not useful in any discussion. It cannot be thought of that the opponent has different priorities or ideals. The opponent must be against mine. It is important that the framing of an issue does not get in the way of argumentation.

Positive Dehumanization

Perhaps an interesting factor in society is what could be called “positive dehumanization”. This occurs when we dehumanize people by elevating them to a status beyond humanity. This occurs most often with authority figures, particularly judges and scientists, but can also occur on a group basis as well. This is dangerous as it creates a blind trust in a group of individuals, who may often become anonymized.

It is probably standard procedure to immediately accept any political outcome regardless of its logicality as long as it benefits your side. This is, of course, bad thinking. But it gets dangerous when it applies to judges. When a court issues a decision, do we look at the logic behind it? Do we look at any criticisms? When we fail to analyze decisions critically, we unintentionally give a veneer of superiority to the judge. There can be no such thing as an incorrect ruling! Judges can’t be biased! We should thank the judges for damaging our political opponents (and nothing more. And we wonder why our society is so politicized.) What about the fact that the judge in question was a classmate of Obama’s and was in his area a few days before the ruling? Alt-Right conspiracy theory! There is totally no way a judge could be corrupt!

This puts the commentary on Trump’s “so-called judge” comments in an interesting place. First, as a basis, this means that attacking the judiciary (while holding any position) is wrong. Placing judges on a pedestal does not bode well for the future. Not being able to criticize judges on any basis, for childish reasons or not, sets a dangerous environment where criticizing any judge becomes a social taboo. Judges are supposed to recuse themselves on any possible conflict of interest or if there could be any source of bias. This, admittedly, would include race or ethnicity. Perhaps Trump should have pointed to his involvement in La Raza, but race and ethnicity are also important factors. Why do we complain when black defendants get an all white jury? Every factor must be taken into consideration when ensuring a fair trial.

Scientists are also another key example of this trend. We often see articles about “experts” declaring something. We do not usually care how many agree or disagree, and don’t look into their credentials (unless their name is Sebastian Gorka). What university are they related to? Who peer reviewed their papers? Was the paper well received? Was the paper paid for or endorsed by a third party? Was the method correct? It doesn’t matter as they are “scientists” who can do no wrong.

By taking a series of “experts” as an anonymized group, one places blind trust in a group of individuals. It is important to be skeptical of everything, even from so-called authority figures. One can not attach a term to a group or individual and suddenly exempt them from criticism because “they know better”. Placing them in a larger group masks any issues such as agendas or flawed logic or studies hidden. All this does is block needed queries.

No Such Thing As a Crystal Ball

This is a quick aside due to all the geniuses trying to predict the French elections. If Brexit and Trump tells you anything : you can’t. I’m not sure whether Le Pen will win or not, that’s the point. The election is still a week or so away. The final debate hasn’t even happened yet. I’d even say at this point that trying to predict elections at all is a lost cause. Polling is an imperfect science. It is filled with sample and personal bias. All pollsters and “experts” are in their bubbles, and are trying to predict a foreign election anyway. Polls and projections are intended to influence elections, not predict them.

A Cult for the Bullied

It is commonplace to mock SJWs, feminists, and liberals for their ridiculous ideas, attitudes, and behaviors. This may be the cause of their behaviors in the first place. I suppose this is another take on the “coddled hypothesis” that some like to push around. Though, it is a different perspective from what is normally laid out. It is that feminism / SJWs provide a (dangerous) outlet for those that have been bullied previously. This still holds true even if they only ever heard of feminism once they got to college or snooped around on Buzzfeed.

Let’s get the facts out of the way. Republican women are more feminine than women from the Democratic party.  This enhances their attractiveness. Feminists also avoid romantic conflict. Their want to avoid conflict may indicate that they may have been subject to past conflicts. Regardless, the avoidance of conflict is going to be a common theme. People obviously are bullied for their appearance. Republicans report better mental health status than Democrats. Democrats also report more cases of anxiety and depression than Republicans. Having poor mental health may make one more susceptible to bullying, or at least bullying doesn’t help their condition.

The common narrative is that minorities / women are oppressed. This attracts those who were bullied or have depression, or at least creates it. It provides an answer for those that need it.

The only difference between a white supremacist and a feminist is who they insult.


Here is a somewhat bold prediction: the Democratic party will be done by 2020. We will have to see how 2018 turns out, but the parallel Labour party in the UK isn’t doing so hot either. The reason for this prediction is multifaceted, but breaks down to age, the inability of the Democrats to successfully find a wide political market, and the ideological extremities of its members.

The Age Problem

The Democrats are an aging party. Hillary Clinton is 69 years old. Joe Biden is 74 years old. Elizabeth Warren is 67 years old. Feinstein is 83 and Pelosi is 76. There is minimal new blood in the party (part of this is due to the branding problem).  Age and health was a concern in this election and will continue to be an issue. Some prominent Democrats do not wish to run. There is a very limited pool of selectable candidates. This is also a big issue connecting to the youth who feel disconnected from older, more elite candidates.

The Marketing Problem

The marketing or branding problem is one of the many reasons the Democrats lost the 2016 election. To win a presidential election, one must appeal to a broad range of individuals (in our current system. Yes, you can spam the “Trump lost the popular vote!” meme all you want. It doesn’t change the fact that’s not how our elections work, or the fact the entirety of the lead came from California.). The Democrats have not figured out this balancing act. They had no positive message to rally around. The policies were the same as or extensions of Obama’s, which the electorate did not want. There were also issues within the party as well, exemplified in the conflict between the Sanders and Clinton camps. The Sanders camp were mostly younger individuals who might have just gotten started in politics. They were a strong group interested in wage reform, college reform, and generally anti-war. This is in stark contrast to the Clinton camp on every level. The Clinton camp was mainly the elite who had no interest in any of Sander’s policies. One of the key unfoldings is the election of Tom Perez as DNC chair, continuing the line of Clinton-ite leaders who many feel snubbed Bernie from receiving the nomination. These individuals will forever be lost by the Democratic party on that basis alone. The true globalists who do not hold political affiliations (or are just concerned about raw power) have learned that the Democratic party is done. This is why Milo Yiannopoulos got smeared and why McCain and Graham are being trotted out by the media on a regular basis. Without this influence, the Clinton camp will collapse and fade into obscurity.

Ideological Purity & Extremity

The final core issue is the purity and extremism of the Democratic party. They have been known to purge candidates for holding different viewpoints or endorsing other candidates. There is a strong urge to dismiss dissenters. This is disastrous for the party. They will destroy intellectual diversity in the same vain as in colleges. There is also rumor and prediction that the Democrats will try and reduce the number of Whites running in their party. This reduces the number of voices in planning, leading to the branding problem. One can say all parties would be concerned with dissenters, but to be concerned to such a degree that endorsing the wrong candidate (in your own party), or agreeing with only 90% of the issues is a large issue.

The Democrats are falling apart. The only pity is that the viable 3rd parties will surely not take advantage.

Why the left is scared

Nations, like stars, are entitled to eclipse. All is well, provided the light returns and the eclipse does not become endless night.

– Victor Hugo

One of course notices the left freaking out about our fascist, authoritarian, Nazi dictator disguised as the president. It is all very interesting. They are interested in defending the constitution, an oppressive document. They now adore American values that are part of the white supremacist capitalist patriarchy. They suddenly go from attacking our country to defending our country (or their botched idea of our country).

I will not go into whether Trump is authoritarian or not, but it is clear to any objective individual concerned with liberty that the left is far more authoritarian. They want to implement hate speech laws, force job hiring quotas, infringe on our 2nd amendment rights, and some want to do a massive redistribution of wealth. They would adore a leader ignoring the constitution to implement their agenda. It would certainly help if the leader were on their side, but the base principles are the same.

So what is the left scared of? First and foremost, Trump’s very election has dealt a strong blow to the mechanics of the radical left. Taking quotes out of context does not work anymore. Smearing individuals does not work anymore. Calling people the usual leftist buzzwords does not work anymore. Making false accusations do not work anymore. Hillary Clinton winning the election would have given the radical left a mandate. It would have proven that the leftist tactics worked. It didn’t. Gamergate happened. Trump happened. Brexit happened. Their tactics have failed on a global scale. They have suffered a political defeat that, in my opinion, has not been seen since the fall of the Nazis.

They also fear Trump’s agenda. Mainly because he has destroyed or will destroy the three pillars of the left: academia, the media, and Hollywood.
The public’s trust in the media is at an all time low. CNN’s ratings have plummeted while Fox remains king. Breitbart is the most popular political website. Tucker Carlson gets higher ratings in every demographic than the Daily Show. The left has no more media outlets that are trustworthy. It is also key that they are losing moderate leftists over unfair coverage. Their plan to call websites ‘Fake News’ has failed (note the intense projection in the fifth paragraph). Without control over the media, the left has failed to create a compliant citizenry.

Academia has yet to be touched. This will change once DeVos is confirmed (and it is of critical importance that she is). DeVos has donated to FIRE, which means she is at least sympathetic to the ideas they provide. School choice is critical. This means that competition will be created amongst non-college education. If a parent does not want to send their student to Social Justice High School, they can easily attend another school. We know social justice can not compete in the market place. Trump has also advocated for vocational training. This creates competition among universities. They will no longer receive a constant flow of students. They can simply train for 2 years to become a mechanic or plumber. This means that universities will be forced to compete as well. They may offer their own programs, or expand their STEM research. This will thin out sociology and gender studies departments.

The true reason the left is scared is because they know their time is up. They know that in 2 or 3 years, their ideas will be laughed at and ignored. Generation Z favors Trump over Hillary by 15%. Trump’s approval rating is 57%. 47% of Americans approve of the way the country is heading, the highest it has been in 12 years. 57% of voters approve of the recent executive order to freeze certain immigration for 90 days. Those who oppose him are in a vocal minority.

As for the recent trend of political violence, we have not reached the tipping point yet. The violence is not coming from leftists. It is mainly coming from the radical marxists / communists LARPing as revolutionaries. They see this time period as the last chance they have. Most people approving of violence are just people trying to act tough on the internet. We are not there yet, but we might soon be

Bigfoot Logic

My single-minded aim is to give existence to fantasy.

– Claes Oldenburg

Ideological thought is unfalsifiable, due to the immense need for ideological preservation. Any thought that goes against the narrative is almost immediately reshaped into something that does. This usually means that an obtuse, unprovable explanation is given. I call this “Bigfoot logic”.

Imagine you are at a camp site and go away from the tent to go fishing. You come back to your tent destroyed and items broken. What could be the explanation? An animal attack might be logical and sensible. A thief or a bad wind storm might also make sense. The conspiracy theorist’s explanation: Bigfoot! This of course is not provable because there is no solid evidence for Bigfoot’s existence. There was no way of knowing what hit your campsite. A regular animal attack would be provable as it is logical, and footprints and bite marks would be present. But declaring Bigfoot would mean that the conspiracy theorist is correct, and reinforce the narrative.

As an example, Stanford’s rate of sexual assault were low. What could be the reasoning for this? The logical explanation might be that sexual assault is just not committed. Perhaps the sexual assault awareness programs are effective (never mind that the actually are not). What is their answer? The rates must be fixed! The university is clearly covering up the mass amount of rape! Women are reporting less frequently! These are of course, unprovable accusations. If the university was investigated for cover ups and they were found to have done so, it proves the narrative. If the investigation is inconclusive, then it is simply the university covering itself up again. There is no hard way to prove that students are reporting less frequently (and no, self-report surveys have massive problems, not to mention all of the issues that the 1 in 5 studies have on their own). If they do report less often, then the narrative is reinforced. If they do not report less often, it is still a cover up or they are still scared of reporting. There is no way out of the narrative.

Another great example is the one Gad Saad uses. A student wore a hijab for 2 weeks to seek out islamophobia and bigotry on campus. It turns out everyone was kind and accepting. The obvious conclusion is that everyone is not a bigot. The actual answer? It is just the students trying to make up for the fact that they really are bigoted! Not only is there no way out, there is no way to prove that the students are closet bigots, outside of secretly monitoring them.

Now, there is also no way to prove that students are always tolerant and accepting. But “proving” a theory is not necessarily the key point. A simple, straightforward, and logical example is all that should be considered. Assuming the unlikely does not work. An explanation that a normal person would accept should be enough. Ideologues are not normal people, as they are beholden to their narratives.

Ideological Thought

Political ideology can corrupt the mind, and science.
– E. O. Wilson

Another interesting (and dangerous) part of ideologies and bias are the effects on thought. Ideological preservation implants itself into the mind quite easily. People obviously have their biases and read things how they want to, leading to blatant confirmation bias. However, ideologues go much farther, not allowing or giving any possible thought to alternate explanations most of the time. Otherwise, they risk their narrative being shattered. Thus, ideologues need to practice this far more than normal individuals.

Let’s take a simple example: the second amendment.

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed

The process goes something like this: the statement is read in the base language. Additional information such as context are thought of as well. This goes into the mind to be processed by the brain. Then, it hits the “ideological part” of the brain. An NRA member will read the 2nd amendment will focus on the “right of the People to keep and bear arms” segment. An gun control activist will focus on the “well regulated militia” segment. The other parts of the statement will most likely be ignored. Again, we read what we want, but ideologues have a bigger duty to preserve the narrative, and thus the typical bias is enhanced.

Another example is the controversy and narrative around the new Ghostbusters movie. The narrative is that anyone who does not want to see the movie is just a sexist. Any other explanation can be given, such as the movie is not funny or the special effects are bad, but this goes against the narrative. The narrative must be preserved at all costs.

On a different note, the narrative becomes pervasive when it is mixed with identity politics. The narrative needs to be preserved, even with non-arguments. For example, a male saying that the wage gap does not exist would be declared a sexist. One can point to a female saying that the wage gap does not exist, and the answer is usually “internalized misogyny” or they are “uneducated”, all of which are attacks on the individual instead of their position. The narrative implants itself in the brain. There is no possible way a female or a “true feminist” could argue against a feminist narrative or argument. So there has to be some kind of alternate explanation. It is difficult if not impossible to argue against non-arguments. Ideological preservation is the only thing that the ideologue cares about. It again goes deeper than bias, because the bias is necessary for the ideology’s survival. There is no possible way for an ideologue to think neutrally.