Tag Archives: SJWs

Comment of the Week: Democracy Spring…. A Conspiracy Theory

This week’s comment goes to H8chan’s /pol/… The implications about the upcoming Democracy Spring are food for thought. But the parts about that Alt-Right being controlled opposition were removed. Tin-foilery has its limits.

In light of recent events, and one new and currently breaking event in particular, I feel it is necessary to point something out that some of you may not realize, specifically about why certain events are taking place, and the motivations behind those events. Some old hands may know this already, or have sussed it out for themselves, but we have picked up quite a few new people recently, so it is, I think, worthwhile to line all of the ducks up in a row and explain precisely what is going on.

I’ll start with a simple question. A kingmaker question. Let us pretend you are a leader of a nation, and that nation is going to experience a cultural and political revolution in the very near future, perhaps ten years from now, approximately. You have access to knowledge and information that makes this very clear, though the general populace does not. Let us further expand the scenario by saying that there is no way to avert or prevent this from happening, because the population has legitimate grievance with the establishment, nor can you simply come clean about what is happening, because you are complicit in the corruption that has brought the nation to the brink of revolution.

You also do not want the revolution to take place, because, having been complicit, you would likely end up lynched for what you have done. So you cannot simply stand by and allow nature to take its course, either.

So what do you do?

Enter a very simple, and very dangerous, idea: Controlled Opposition.

If you are the establishment, and revolution is inevitable, and you cannot allow the revolution to take place, the single best way to ensure the maintaining of the status quo in your favor is to preempt the revolution with a revolution of your own. A revolution that “you” control. A revolution that is created and engineered from the ground up to fail, so as to ‘absorb’ the desire for a revolution from the people, and then quench it by being vanquished by the establishment reasserting itself. A revolution that serves no other purpose beyond being defeated and vindicating the policies of the establishment. A literal and metaphorical punching bag.

If you can’t stop the revolution, you lead it. You lead it and produce it, spin it and control it, and then make a show out of vanquishing it. The ultimate, highest, greatest, and final expression of the bread and circus.

So what does this have to do with anything?

I’m glad you asked.

I’ll answer your question with another question.

What was Gamergate?

Gamergate was a grassroots reaction to the airing of some particularly dirty and embarrassing laundry within the field of gaming journalism. It started on 4chan’s /v/ board, when it was revealed that Zoe Quinn, an amateur game developer and blogger whose real name is Chelsea Van Valkenburg, was exchanging sexual favors behind her now ex-boyfriend’s back in exchange for good reviews. /v/ grabbed onto the story and began spreading it, but the story was, to the amazement of those talking about it, quickly and ruthlessly shut down across numerous unrelated media platforms, most famously on places like Reddit and the comments sections of news media sites, but also disturbingly on 4chan itself, which typically prided itself on at least pretending to be about free speech and freedom of expression. A blackout silence campaign that could even affect 4chan? What was going on?

This scandal, which became known as the Five Guys Burgers and Fries scandal, after the five men Valkenburg had sexual relations with, was rapidly overshadowed by the Quinnspiracy, which was the conspiracy surrounding the attempted hushup of the scandal. To try and hide the corruption, greater and deeper corruption broke ranks and revealed itself.

At this point, I’m merely repeating what most of you already know. But this next part is where it gets interesting. The Streisand Effect went into full swing, and people who would perhaps have not cared nearly as much about this otherwise began demanding answers. Who was this woman, who could get articles pulled or manipulated from the likes of Rock Paper Shotgun, Kotaku, and Giantbomb, who had influence over Reddit, the HR teams of major gaming publishers, and even 4chan moderators?

/v/ came to /pol/ for help. And together, they dug. What they found was a conspiracy that was, impossibly, even larger than it first seemed to have appeared. This was no mere issue of radical feminists and progressives protecting their own. This ran all the way to the top. These people had connections to Common Core and DiGRA, they had received funding from DARPA think tanks and held memberships to the sorts of shady international round tables that receive funding from billionaires. They had connections to social reengineering projects, academia, the government, and massive proposed reformation programs for education departments.

What was going on? How does any of this make sense? Why would DARPA and defense contractors fund social justice warriors, of all things?

I will, yet again, answer your question with another question. Why would George Soros give millions of dollars to Black Lives Matter? Why would a radically progressive ninety year old Jewish banker give money to an unorganized mob of idiots who think anything other than total agreement and submission to their opinions is bigotry of the highest order, to be met with violence and bloodshed? What does Soros gain out of that?

Continue reading Comment of the Week: Democracy Spring…. A Conspiracy Theory

The “Social Construct” Trap

Leftists, and (((high verbal IQ))) types, love to create semantic traps whereby they can control, or ‘frame’, the conversation. A favorite is The Social Construct Trap, which works by giving us realists nearly irresistible bait–the claim that ‘X is a social construct’. (Where X is almost always race). Let us imagine a typical scenario, one which I’m sure many of us have lived: A couple of university students are discussing the role of poverty in life outcomes. One of them dares to venture that race has a role to play. The other student, recoiling in horror, invokes that talismanic phrase, “Race is just a social construct.” Our friend denies this. From there the conversation devolves into mere argument. Where did our friend go wrong? He forgot the rhetoric-dialectic distinction and he took the bait.

What, you may ask, is the problem with arguing against that stance, that race is a social construct? There are two subtle problems. The first is that this claim is simply a non sequitur. The example conversation is about the correlation of some phenomena ‘life outcomes/poverty’ and ‘race’. It is not about the ontological status of race, no more than it is about the ontological status of poverty. Our friend is as justified in saying, and perhaps more so, that poverty is “just a social construct”. He may respond like this: “You say race doesn’t exist because it is a social construct. Well, I think poverty doesn’t exist because it too is a social construct. You say humans have clinal variation, hence race is socially and arbitrarily constructed. Well, wealth and income show continual variation, so it too is socially and arbitrarily constructed.” This may be a fun rhetorical gotcha, but it hardly advances the conversation, given that some progtards would probably accept the non-existence of poverty, the non-existence of anything, just so long as they don’t have to accept race. Never mind that you are leaving some good arguments unused.

In many cases like this, our opponent is likely to let that word ‘just’ do most of the argumentative heavy lifting. “Race is just a social construct.” But what could it possibly mean to be just a social construct? I’m not sure we could say even unicorns are just a social construct. Horses exist, as do horns. This word ‘just’ or sometimes ‘merely’ is a major weak point, for all the work it does, like the reactor core on the Death Star. They probably mean to imply that what we call ‘race’ has no basis whatsoever in reality. Assuming they have any reason left, they should accept that skin color does exist, and that this has something to do with what we call race. If they accept this, then they must see that race isn’t just a social construct.

Race might, one must now admit, be considered, along with many other things like colors or money, in some sense a social construct. That is, human needs and capacities modulated through the medium of language give some shape to our world. The colors we perceive have, most assuredly, physical and biological foundations, but there are cultural variations in the number of color words. There is, supposedly a rainforest group that has many common words that pick out a wide number of shades of green. This should not come as a surprise considering their environment. Though English has phrases such as ‘forest green’ or ‘spearmint’ etc. these are more the talk of paint companies than of everyday life. My point being that many of our concepts have some aspect that might fairly be called social construction to them. (For more on this sort of thing, Google around for John Searle, The Construction of Social Reality; Berlin and Kay, Basic Color Terms; and the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis.)

Lucky for us the social construction of race is not the significant part of their argument. Either they think social constructs aren’t real (whatever the hell that means), in which case ask them for all their money or they think racial divisions are arbitrary, in which case ask them to take a step. The first part we dealt with, let’s look at the second. They argue that because there is no distinct or objective boundary between races there are no such things as races. As an analogy, blue and green do not exist because there is no set point at which blue becomes green. This some may recognize as the sorites or continuum fallacy. To use the famous example, I start with a heap of sand and slowly remove grains of sand one at a time. No single grain removal causes the heap to go from heap to non-heap; therefore, no matter how many grains I take away I always have a heap. This is obviously ridiculous, and yet this fallacy is one of the most common of our public discourse. As for asking them to take a step, we all know that that is impossible under our Zenoian physics, an analogous problem applied to distance (see the famous example of the tortoise and Achilles). (That was sarcasm, folks.)

The fundamental problem with people who argue like this is their childish selectivity. If they were acting as a modern-day Parmenides, fine. But they are not, they are engaging in selective and self- serving skepticism. They aren’t acting as disinterested philosophers, but as motivated perpetuators of foolish ideas. The say race doesn’t exist, but happily endorse the notion of color, or of distance, or of time. The philosopher David Hume wrote, “Philosophy would render us entirely Pyrrhonian, were not nature too strong for it.” That is, we would be completely skeptical of absolutely everything, but the demands of life prevent it except as philosophical exercise. But when one hates nature and is always in revolt against it, what is left but as much madness as the unkind intrusions of reality allow? What to do with these people? Hume provides, more or less, the answer: “Commit them then to the ovens: for they can contain nothing but sophistry and delusion.”

RED DAWN 5: The Niggalypse

1.01 Democracy is gay

4.04 Anne Coulter article

5.57 Trump at WWE

9.11 (heh) Weekly Reading of the Noble Quran. Surah 8, Verse 22.

11.30 Steve Sailer Classic

12.34 NEET phenomenon

16.11 Great Negroes on Men: Ta-Nehisi Coates on Reparations to Blacks. Feat: DMX, NWA, 50-cent, Juvenile and Mofart

21.20 White Nationalism, is it the Endlosung?

27.44 Sparta compared to antebellum South (modernist, but backs Vince’s point about masculinized Spartan women)

31.00 Uselessness of minorities, even Slavery

33.10 Islam as Zombie Apocalypse

David Chalmers

34.27 Back to Slavery

37.23 Walter Williams and Thomas Sowell mentioned

38.20 Cads vs Dads

45.09 Roosh; unfitness of all before Nordic chicks

46.47 Non-Agency of non-Whites

49.31 More HBD, West Hunter, Gregory Cockran, Henry Harpending, Nicholas Wade

52.05 Breivik-style Zionism

Rape Culture and You

Most of you by now know about the rape culture campaign that has reached fever pitch around the nation. Even Michelle Obama and some other B-list celebrities got in on the action by posting youtube videos talking about ending “rape culture.” This hysteria rages particularly hard on college campuses, making me feel very lucky to be off the dating market at the moment. But not everyone is as lucky as me.

An acquaintance of mine was dating her boyfriend in college for two years. Over the summer before her junior year however, she decided that she had enough. Naturally she gave a myriad of reasons why she wanted needed to break up with him. Apparently he was “holding her back” from experiencing college life. At the time, I took this statement at face value and thought he was just a stick in the mud. More realistically however, she was just starting to get bored of the boring beta that trailed after her at all the parties and wouldnt let her have any “fun.”

And boy did she have fun after they broke up. I had a front row seat to the affair. And since she was like “one of the bros” she didn’t skimp on the details. Full disclosure: she is not a prime catch (otherwise I too would have been tempted to smash), in fact I’d rate her a solid 5, in other words: very average. But most college males are incredibly thirsty and will jump at the opportunity to get with anything that even resembles a girl with interest in them. Suffice to say, she did way better for herself than one would expect based on her looks. She even had a fling with a 35 year old banker that would wine and dine her every week.

This brings up something I’ll never understand: why adults looked wistfully back at their college years as if they were years of abundant poon just falling out of the heaven like unleavened bread. The truth is that chicks dig older guys, and the first half of college is rough for your average male, and only gets a bit better for most as they get older. Personally, I had a blast, but I had the added knowledge of being an acolyte of game. The others though…they’ve been struggling, and probably will continue to do so until they become rich bankers themselves. It doesn’t help that you have the histrionics of the “rape culture” people to deal with either.

Back to the story—one night several months after their breakup she and him met up at a party again. One thing led to another, and they slept together that night. Only several weeks later, the girl went to the administration and claimed that she had been raped. The administration hem-ed and haw-ed and decided that the safe thing to do would be to suspend the boy for a year, pending a further investigation. Did you catch that? He wasn’t proven guilty, he had witnesses that even came to his defense (one of my old roommates), and they were both drunk, but none of these mitigating factors prevented him from even openly debating whether he in fact committed rape or not.

Personally I know the guy, and he is one of the most vanilla-fied, beta-fied, and pussy-fied herbivores that you will find on a college campus. The idea of him forcing himself on anyone, including an ex-girlfriend that is the exact same height (and weight probably) as him is downright laughable. So perhaps the girl was suffering from a case of buyer’s remorse? It seems like the most plausible explanation, but it begs the question, who is the type of guy that gets falsely accused of rape?

It’s the lesser beta, never the bad boy alpha.

My own experiences add a splash of color to the affair. About a year and a half ago I asked out an Indian chick (HBD 8.5) on a date. I didn’t know it at the time, but I was oozing with charisma and natural game. She was working at the desk as a sort of secretary and was studying for her MCAT when I approached her. Keep in mind that this was before I understood the science behind applied charisma.

Naturally Alpha Me: You look really excited.

Her: What?

NAM: To be working this job.

Her: Yeah, its a blast. (*rolls her eyes*)

NAM: Are you studying for your MCAT?

Her: Yea, it sucks.

Me: I could tutor you!

Her: Are you also taking the MCAT?

Me: Nah

Her: Haha then why do you think you can tutor me?

Me: Just a hunch. We should get lunch before we study together though.

Her: Haha..ok?

Me: When’s your break, I’ll come pick you up then.

Her: Hahahaah, ok 12.

I was wearing a sleeve-less t shirt, ray-ban knockoffs and most importantly I had that special factor x swagger that gave me that mischievous sparkle in the eyes and sly grin on my face that showed her I didn’t take her too seriously. (In retrospect, I suppose I used a variant of Roosh’s elderly opener.) The lunch date became an alcohol date the next day and just as I was escalating for the grand finale, she drops this bombshell on me.

“I have a boyfriend.”

Ooof, game over right? Well the red-pilled male naturally understands that this is just last minute resistance, but I took it at face value. I backed off. Which is a shame because sexual tension continued to grow between us, until one night after we went on a drunk walk through the city at 4am, she insisted on sleeping over in my apartment. When I tried to make an advance on her, she refused and said that we had to sleep separately.  I had a bunk bed and was on top, she was on the bottom. I hop up, close my eyes and hear her say:

“If you were a man, you would take me now”

I jump down, blood boiling, throw myself at her, only to have her start squirming and say, “WHAT are you doing!? I have a boyfriend!”

Confused, I climb back up. One minute later.

“Why did you stop?”

I jump back down. Encounter resistance again, climb back up, confused as fuck.

“I’m in your room and you’re not doing anything to me?”

Third time’s the charm right? Wrong. Same thing happens, I fall asleep soon after.

I wonder to this day what would have happened if I had done what she was begging me to do. Would I be in front of the honor council? Was I alpha enough then to escape her morning after buyer’s remorse? Hard to say, but the deck would have certainly been stacked against me…

The only conclusion that I can draw is that college used to be a sort of training wheels on practice ground for middle-class males. Only now, the learning curve is steeper and the consequences much more dire for failing to internalize the lessons of game. I don’t even think this will stay on campuses for long, so I’ll be the first to say it here: “rape culture awareness, coming soon to a workplace near you.” The moral of the story? It’s alpha or die, dear readers.

Mugged by White Guilt

If you haven’t heard of this story, I present it to you with little fanfare. When will we reach Peak White Guilt? We’ll let the experts in the comments section decide.

This article has everything stereotypically associated with the Liberal Intelligentsia of the West in it. And it should make everyone reading this stop and shudder because these indoctrinated leftist clowns are graduating from school soon- (edit: already graduated and working at an NGO last I heard), and coming to a workplace near you. Here’s some juicy exerts:

Example 1: White Guilt

The millennial generation is taking over the reins of the world, and thus we are presented with a wonderful opportunity to right some of the wrongs of the past. As young people, we need to devote real energy to solving what are collective challenges. Until we do so, we should get comfortable with sporadic muggings and break-ins. I can hardly blame them. The cards are all in our hands, and we’re not playing them.

Funny enough, he seems to make a case for “the white man’s burden” in 21st century neo-liberal terms. Basically, “black people need our help because whites hold all the power, and until whites do something to help blacks, nothing will change.” Of course, formally, SJWs would shudder at the thought of this neo-colonial mindset, and yet here it is, spelled out in black and white..

Example 2: Refusing to Account for Personal Responsibility

Young people who willingly or unwillingly go down this road have been dealt a bad hand. While speaking with a D.C. police officer after the incident, he explained that he too had come from difficult circumstances, and yet had made the decision not to get involved in crime. This is a very fair point — we all make decisions. Yet I’ve never had to decide whether or not to steal from people. We’re all capable of good and bad, but it’s a whole lot easier for me to choose good than it may be for them to.

What makes this funnier, is that talking with the DC police officer (I’m going to roll the dice and guess that he’s black), he gets told that socio-economic factors are not enough to remove the agency of choice or willingness to commit violent crime. But of course, the young SJW just brushes it off and blames it on “the system.” Which brings us to example 3…

Example 3: “Its the system, maaaan”

When we play along with a system that fuels this kind of desperation, we can’t be surprised when we’re touched by it. Maybe these two kids are caught, and this recent crime wave dies down, but it will return because the demand is still there, and the supply is still here. We have a lot, and plenty of opportunities to make even more. They have very little, and few opportunities to make ends meet.

A lot of Ivy League and top-tier university kids DO get a leg-up in life. And when they graduate, they will belong to the ruling class of this country and are the liberal left leaning intellectuals that are increasingly becoming a “Liberal Samizdat” in front of which we have to clap harder and harder to not be labeled “homophobes, racists, and sexists.” Even if the parents of these kids are rich conservatives, college will make sure that their children will end up like the mugged student: shrieking termagants begging for annihilation from the Uruk-hai.

Rush Limbaugh picked up on the story and chimes in: (Disclaimer: I’m actually not a big fan of Rush, but he’s spot on here)

Is this not pathetic? This is little glimpse here into the minds of our indoctrinated youth. You know, it used to be said that a conservative is a liberal who’s been mugged. Now, if you want to mug a liberal, you go right ahead because the correct reaction is love for the mugger, understanding of the economic plight of the mugger.

One has to wonder if the Christian ideals of turning the other cheek have not finally reached saturation point, and now permeate the consciousness of the millennial generation. If this is true, the irony is that most millenials reject Christianity for being too barbaric and backward, without realizing that as a generation they represent the culmination of thousands of years of Christian teaching in the West.

Whatever is going on, it is incredible. It seems that even an encounter with near death is not enough to change the belief of this SJW. Such fanaticism is usually reserved only for the extremist sects of most religions, and yet here we find it as well, only in its secular form. This leads us to conclude that progressivism is itself a cult, dedicated to its own message, divorced from reality and dependent on faith alone, with its own strange rituals and initiations that one must go through to join the church.

There is a ray of light in all of this I suppose. The feminists on campus decried the article on the grounds that it was “victim blaming.” (Unfortunately many comments were removed, but not before your humble narrator picked out the juiciest ones.) Deconstructing their logic is a difficult task to be sure, but I surmise that they realized the following: a woman placed in that situation should not be blamed, so I guess we can’t blame this male who got mugged either. Although they then continued to agree that the fact that we are all white and privileged is a problem, and that systematized racism was the culprit behind the mugging. I guess both parties, the mugger and the muggee were the victims. Well there you go, liberal double-think at its finest…and they said 1984 was a work of fiction.

Remember kids- with white guilt everybody loses.

AI Academic Interview Series 1: Libertarianism

von mises

Ritter and Singh discuss libertarianism. Topics include: the fall of Reason Magazine, leftists vs rightists in the libertarian movement and the myth of the robber baron.

Straw poll 1: What will the next big SJW push be, polygyny or pederasty?

Straw poll 2: Will the economy collapse before or after Obama leaves office?

Quran Verse of the Week: Surah 9, verse 34.

Link regarding illegality of discrimination based on immigration status: www.eeoc.gov/laws/practices/inq…es_citizenship.cfm