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.

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.

Argumentative Labelling

No day passes without a Democratic politician, a left-wing commentator, or, if I may be excused a redundancy, a left-wing academic labeling Republicans and conservatives racist.
– Dennis Prager

Ideologies pose a danger in that they not only limit their members, but outsiders as well. You obviously have to call your movement something. This is where things fall apart. All too often, the name of the ideology is used as a defense for it. Don’t approve of Black Lives Matter? You’re a racist! Don’t approve of a feminist idea? You must be a sexist! It is the ultimate non-argument, because it literally avoids any possible argument.

This is very important in opposing ideologies. For example, if you attack Democratic ideas, you must be a Republican. If you’re for Democratic ideas, you must be left-wing. This leaves the idea out of the question. You can’t debate the idea for what the idea is worth. You have to line yourself up with a particular ideology in order to debate it.

Another very important issue is “guilt by association” or just simple smearing. On Buzzfeed or other typical leftist sites, Republicans or conservatives are racist, sexist, bigots etc. So, if you are a Republican (or echo a conservative idea) you must be racist. The same thing happens to the alt-right and men’s rights activists. Yes, there are problems with these groups, but they do not give a true sense of the movement or ideas, as they are selected examples (new law: when media posts an article about trolls / “harassment” on the internet, and tweets are embedded, the tweets more often than not have 20 retweets/favorites or less). Of course, it still is ignoring the basis of the ideas. If the idea itself is bigoted, then why do you need to connect it to a movement? If the idea is so helpful and virtuous, can it not stand on its own?

It also leads to endless ad-hominems. “You are not a true conservative” or “you don’t understand the movement” is again ignoring the core idea. Why should I have to know everything about an ideology to criticize an idea that affects broad society? Of course, the person who claims to be a “true” part or that understands the movement, is the other person. It is a position that can not be argued against – because it is not an argument.

Outsiders are crucial , as the entire purpose of a movement or ideology is to attract those not in the movement, and create a positive perception (or so it would seem to an outsider). If someone not in your movement finds something off or generally does not agree, it can be used as a tool of recruitment. One can explain why their argument is flawed, or the movement could gain new insight for a problem. Of course, any internal or external disagreements lead to the collapse of an ideology, hence this behavior and the need for ideological preservation.

Free Speech for Me, but not for Thee

I’ll get back to the regular posts soon enough, but this case is just too good to pass up.

For those (somehow) unaware, Tyler Kissinger held a protest on May 30th, and is facing expulsion. The (failing) New York Times gave the following details:

  • He went in to Levi Hall without permission
  • He lied to security officers
  • He waited and let other unauthorized people in
  • He stormed the president’s office and staged a long-term sit-in

Of course, as someone who literally carries copies of the University of Chicago speech codes with me at all times, he did not comply with any of them. His behavior for sure disrupted the operations of the University. He also gained access to a building that he was not supposed to be in (why wold he wait and hide to let others in if that was not the case?). This is a private university. Any standard protections are gone. So, by all extents, he should be expelled. However, the “free speech activists” have come out of the woodwork to defend him.

This is a standard blatant leftist hypocrisy. If censorship or suppression of free speech goes to stop the violent and racist phrase “Trump 2016” or to shut down any other event, it’s perfectly fine! They’re all bigots! Yet, when a person breaks several rules in the name of a minimum wage, it is a problem. We should place contrived limits on freedom of speech, but when we literally break the actual limits of free speech, that’s perfectly great!

This thought process is incredibly dangerous. It is what leads to such things such as encouraging violence against Trump supporters and people saying that Black Lives Matter can’t lynch people (have we gone full regressive already?!). The “ends justify the means” mentality that is apparent here is despicable. You can’t be a half-activist of free speech. You can’t endorse free speech only when it helps your cause. Maybe I should denounce Trump and endorse Hillary. I can call anything I don’t like “hate speech”, and then commit literal crimes and be protected under the guise of progressiveness.

Bernie did endorse his behavior, but he’s just practicing endorsing criminals.

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.