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.

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.

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.

The Silent Mental Illness

I suspect that here theists and atheists would agree: Human beings have within them the ability to choose evil or good. We wake up each day facing the age-old struggle of good and evil. In some situations, mental illness clouds our judgment.

– Adam Hamilton

To say that leftism / feminism is a mental illness is politically incorrect, yet in some cases it really is true. Every possible explanation of the left’s behaviors can be determined by psychology and behavioral science. Obviously, not everyone who is a feminist / on the left is mentally unhealthy, but a decent majority of them may well be. Interestingly, feminism may be both the cause and the cure in these cases.

The “Coddled” Hypothesis

This is by far the most common explanation given. The overemphasis of danger causes parents to seek to remove all things that can be perceived as dangerous. Children are given strict representations of what is good. Anti-bullying efforts also go too far, citing that anything that makes kids “uncomfortable” is bullying. Obviously, insults are bullying. However, “uncomfortable” and “offensive” have very subjective meanings. Is anything “upsetting” bad? What if its an overreaction? When we teach kids to find anything uncomfortable to be hateful, we clearly end up with concepts such as “linguistic violence”. The stereotypical “participation trophy” complaint may actually also hold some weight.

The “Uncoddled” Hypothesis

It turns out going the complete opposite route also leads to similar results. The theory states that with the increase of child day care, aggression also increases. There are a limited number of day care employees, and to get their attention may require aggressive behavior or throwing tantrums because there is not one employee to look after every child. This teaches the child that aggression gets one attention and whatever the child wants. This theory is on shaky ground, as there are conflicting studies. However, it appears that more factors than just the amount of time in child care may play a factor. First, in Norway, child care is offered by the government. Ensuring the effectiveness and efficiency is top priority. In the United States, day cares range from the good to the mediocre to the bad. If it is a simple, one couple day care, there might be more issues that arise. The age when day care is started is another issue. Starting early can cause a whole host of issues for the child (and mother). This of course is doubly “problematic” as it indicates a biological need for women to be active mothers with their children (which there is, why do female mammals have breast milk to feed their children if they weren’t supposed to take care of them?).

The “Identity” Hypothesis

This is where things get interesting. One of the key aspects of ideology is the impact on identity. You can declare yourself a “rights activist” of any kind (except a men’s rights activist, that would be misogynistic). A threat to the ideology becomes a threat to identity. Of course, this means ideologies server as identities, especially for those who do not have one. Many people struggle with who they are, and are vulnerable to being manipulated. This is especially true of minority populations. They join the local activist group to find like minded people, and then think “this is what people like me are saying, so it must be true”. This is then ripe for blatant indoctrination. Sargon of Akkad has done two very interesting case studies, one on a Black Lives Matter Activist, and another on a Black Supremacist, which I have posted at the end of this post.

The “Paranoia / Victimhood” Hypothesis

Feminism paints people as constant victims of the patriarchy. Men are made out to be dangerous subjects. It also provides a convenient way of determining the cause of problems. Didn’t get the job? The manager is a sexist! A man bumps into you on the sidewalk? He’s a misogynist who wishes to dominate your female space! The problem is that most things are simple. It also leads to perpetual victimhood. One can not blame yourself for your faults. It’s society keeping you down. When you’re in a society that you perceive as putting you down, you can’t beat it, and you can’t better yourself. Everything that happens, good or bad, is because of the patriarchy and because you are a woman. Just ask Jess Phillips, who thinks not getting rape threats is bad because that means she is ugly. Rules 3: SJWs always project.

The “Bully” Hypothesis

The simplest argument is that they are bullies. They enjoy putting others down to their perceived societal level. Shouts of “white tears” are common among feminists. They simply get enjoyment out of putting others down, and hold the power to do so. This ends badly, as they become addicted to this power. But it is all ok, as long as you put down those evil white males!

The “Drug Addiction” Hypothesis

There’s also the simple explanation that hearing negative things about a political candidate causes the area in the brain to fire that also fires upon intake of cocaine and heroin. Ideological preservation makes it impossible to hear these negative thoughts. They are simply addicted to their ideology.



The Problem with “Racist” and “Sexist”

Everything is racist. Everything is sexist. Everything is homophobic. And you have to point it all out

– Anita Sarkeesian

Calling things *ist or *phobic is an extremely common leftist tactic. It is of course, not an argument based in fact. One can simply call anything racist or sexist. But it is also dangerous outside of arguments and academia. It only serves as a distraction from reality, in most cases.

The first issue is who gets to determine what is sexist or racist. Is one person enough? What if one person says it is not racist? Does there need to be a group of people? What if a larger group of people says it is not racist? Does it need to be a person who is a minority? What if a person who is a minority disagrees? Do groups of minorities need to agree? What if someone in that group disagrees? What if an entire group disagrees? It is near impossible to determine what is racist just by stating that it is racist. There is no objective test to determine if something is racist or sexist based on outside views.

Therefore, the only way to objectively determine any *ist or *phobic act is the intent. Of course, there are issues with this as well. It is difficult to get a person to admit bias in the first place. So, naturally, the left likes to force the issue of intent. Students found a man in KKK robes roaming on campus. Except it was a Dominican friar. A student posted a swastika pin on a bulletin board. Turns out it was from a trip to India, where the swastika is used as a symbol of luck and success. It is very easy to make up any kind of intent. One might argue that you shouldn’t wear / post things similar to things that can be perceived as racist. You would not be a very good multiculturalist then. This perspective would mean that these minority cultures would have to assimilate to the dominant one.

Another major failing is that wantonly describing events as racist or sexist allows for constant self-serving bias. Didn’t get a job? It’s because the employer is racist! Someone says you’re annoying or bossy? Sexist! It is much easier to blame someone else than it is to address your own shortcomings. This is one of the core tenets of ideological preservation: you can never be wrong. This is not to say that events can’t happen for racist or sexist reasons, or that racism or sexism does not exist. It is difficult if not impossible to prove that something really happened because of it. History is no indicator. Just because people were denied housing loans based on skin color before, doesn’t mean it has happened to you, especially when other factors are obviously in play. It also leads to low self-esteem. People being racist or sexist is out of one’s control, no matter how much the feminists want to think that all racism and sexism can be eliminated (which of course goes back to the question of what can truly be declared racist). It prevents a reevaluation of self. Maybe you didn’t get that job because your resume was badly done. Or maybe you really are just annoying and bossy. Attributing this fact to outside factors only allows events like these to continue. Every time you are called annoying, you can point to sexism or racism. This leads to a never ending cycle, one that can not be broken because it is society’s fault. But if you attribute the event to a personal downfall or error, one can improve oneself. You can pick yourself up and try again, and most importantly, improve yourself and leave feeling stronger. Again, this is not to say that racism doesn’t exist anymore. It’s just that thinking the world is out to get you only leads to paranoia and depression. There is also the point that declaring everything to be *ist only loosens the impact of the term.

Big Media and Critical Thought

“The devil gave humans critical thinking, which God didn’t want us to have.”

– Unknown

Big media has ruined critical thought both intentionally and unintentionally. The notion that the internet is truly open is misguided in practice. Firstly, one chooses what to see. Subreddits and Youtube channels are subscribed to, Facebook pages are liked, friend requests are approved, and who you follow on Twitter are all selected. You get to choose your own environment. This is obviously not an issue on its own. However, one still only gets views that one approves of. This is highly dangerous as one view is usually stated over and over, even if this view can easily be proven factually incorrect. It also labels enemies quite easily. If someone if your group posts something that is not approved of by that group, it is fiercely attacked, even if it shows factual basis. People are more likely to respond harshly online as opposed to in-person. This creates a dangerous atmosphere where people might be afraid to post due to fear of backlash. It is also extremely easy to unfollow / unfriend someone, making it easy to simply hide different points of view or posts rather than confront them.

This issue goes farther when sites are catered to one’s preferences, or just outright censors. In 2011, Facebook implemented an algorithm to tailor user’s main pages based on the links that they clicked. This means that content that did not “interest you” (i.e. you didn’t click the links) would be filtered out. Not only can one tailor social media themselves, the companies can do it for you. One now only has a guaranteed singular perspective. There have been reports of Twitter and Facebook silently censoring views or posts that they do not agree with. It is of course up to the company to decide what is acceptable or not, but they primarily censor conservative views, or any hashtags or posts critical of feminism. This brings the ability to hide views up to the highest level. Now even if people want to see opposing views, they do not have the ability to do so.

This leaves us with an illusion that the internet is truly a free flowing area of information. The main point to take away from this, are the effects in real life. If one spends all of their time on Facebook, they are glued to the views that they hold. When someone comes and challenges that view in person, the view is held on to. You have seen many posts and articles about it, it must be true! Even when presented with factual evidence, the articles have trained you to disregard it, because what you have seen can not possibly be wrong, everyone has said it! It does not help when these views are also parroted by mainstream media, and sites such as Buzzfeed. Big media also prevents considering other points of view by using the usual buzzwords. A great example is the phenomenon known as “gamedropping”, where in a completely irrelevant article, Gamergate is mentioned for no reason. This also frequently occurs in any mention of MRAs (men’s rights activists), whom the media frequently paints as “misogynistic manbabies”, while associating them with shooter Elliot Rodger (who was never even related to MRAs in the first place. Nor is it right to blame the actions of one on a few, unless we already hate that group). Big media truly controls what we see, whether we like to or not. It is extremely dangerous, and has been the root of the formation of ideologies such as feminism and the #NeverTrump movement.

False Offense Offends Me

If someone tells me that I’ve hurt their feelings, I say,  “I’m still waiting to hear what your point is”

– Christopher Hitchens

The words “that’s offensive” or “that’s a sensitive subject” have no place in academia or universities, and in blunt honesty, the world. Many things that need to be debated are these so called sensitive issues, such as abortion rights or whether Islam encourages violence. If we are not debating sensitive subjects, what are we? And yes, you can use that right to ignore that people tout so frequently. Either ignore or debate with ideas, however. Do not attack the other side with “I’m offended”.

A similar tactic is to say that the person can not debate a subject due to their race or gender. The whole “you don’t know what it’s like to live as a woman!! ” card. Firstly, this is what ideologies like feminism hinge on. If men can’t criticize / analyze females or feminist ideals because they haven’t had experience as a female, then women can not criticize or analyze how men act because they have no idea what it is like to live as a man. But of course, men can criticize how other men act in a female or feminist perspective. Secondly, there are women who disagree with modern feminism. There are blacks who disagree with Black Lives Matter’s tactics or ideology. This aspect should not matter. But that’s ok. You can just tell them they have internalized misogyny or racism. This entire argumentative device depends highly on polylogism, the same reasoning that brought us actual racism.

Even so, these words bring us the idea that no ideology can have holes. That some issues are too big to criticize. What does this bring us? Things like A Feminist Glaciology or (because I hate it so much) postmodernism in general. It brings grandiose, insane, illogical, and ill-argued ideas. But you can’t criticize them! After all, A Feminist Glaciology is a feminist paper! You wouldn’t understand, silly white boy! There are critiques. There are critiques of critiques. There are critiques of critiques of critiques. This is how academia operates.


As a side note, two of the articles on the front page of Google when searching for “A Feminist Glaciology” say it was criticized by conservatives and climate change deniers. Yes, they have criticized it. Anyone with a brain can because they have that right. Always label your opponents and their arguments with the most extremist point of view possible. Especially when you haven’t even heard their criticisms yet, silly white male conservative!!