ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2017 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Wednesday, November 06, 2013

The new rules of engagement

This is why it is necessary to punch back twice as hard. This is why you cannot let the poisonous ones into your social circle. This is why you cannot employ them. This is why you cannot indulge in conspicuous tolerance. As Athol Kay has learned, those to whom the personal is the political and the political is the personal have no decency and know no limits:
Back in May 2011 Jennifer and I were taken to Human Resources and had a rather odd conversation in the aftermath of being on Inside Edition. Apparently we’re dangerously monogamous and offensively heterosexual enough to have resulted in no less than six calls of complaint to our employer. Like I said, I always figured I’d be taken to HR, but I really didn’t expect Jennifer to be dragged into it too. Jennifer does have a minor PR role for her company, so we do see their point, but even then, it’s no one’s business but ours.

Thus at the time: Yes sir, no sir, three bags full sir.

There’s really not too much they can do to us directly, it’s not like you can be fired for kissing your spouse on TV. But after that point, I start feeling like the cross-hairs are firmly drawn on my back and I start getting disciplined at work for things that frankly I don’t think I would have been spanked for before that point. I.e. I see which way the wind is blowing, work my ass off and in June 2012 I jump to MMSL full-time.

Which brings us to now, or more correctly a couple months back.

Jennifer gets a message on a Friday, she’s summoned to HR on Monday. Not told what about. I’m unsure if the intent was to ruin our weekend, but it seemed to achieve that goal. Considering Jennifer is the quintessential good employee, it can only be MMSL related and I feel both shitty and angry. We’re just on the very fine edge of me being able to carry the two of us on MMSL income alone, so I Captain up and green light her quitting her job at any point during that meeting.

It turns out someone from a state agency funding Jennifer’s employer, has been printing off a collection of blog posts and anonymously mailing them to the CEO of her company. So anonymous letter, coming inside a state agency envelope. HR really has nothing to say to her but, “Ahhh… this is awkward, but you need to know what’s happening.” It’s also kinda silly being outed to your employer 2.5 years after you were on national television. The surprise factor lacks a little.

Anyway… what it boils down to, is that someone reads this blog, actively hunting for ways to fuck my wife over… and they are willing to play dirty.
Notice that this was directed at the wife of a man who is an atheist from New Zealand and is not exactly a paragon of religious conservative middle America.

It is what the activist Left now does and it is one reason why I will not tolerate their trolls any longer. So let this be a warning to every troll who comments here: do not say anything here you do not wish to become public knowledge with your personal information attached to it here for everyone to see. For the last two years, even the comments that were spammed and deleted have been saved; there are presently 181,807 comments in the database. I've tracked down two trolls in the past, and as it happens, both elected to stop trolling here after discovering that I knew their real identities.

I didn't publish their personal information here or send the long compendium of insults, vulgarities, and obscenities they had spewed to their friends, families, publishers, and employers. But I could have easily done so. And now that it is clear that this is how the game is being played, well, those of us who are already accustomed to the public view can certainly ensure that everyone else's actions are too.

Labels: , ,

182 Comments:

Anonymous Alexander November 06, 2013 9:11 AM  

This is heartwarming. Pox & Friends, before you go nuts, I believe this you are more familiar with this sort of transparency as "Justice for Trayvon."

Choke on it.

Anonymous cds November 06, 2013 9:16 AM  

Good grief. We are an unnecessarily divisive species and it is going to destroy us.

Blogger The Purple Cow November 06, 2013 9:18 AM  

Y-A-W-N

Anonymous Catan November 06, 2013 9:18 AM  

I can't wait to hear the hypocritical wails of the leftards as they decry others for returning fire with the exact tactics they use without any remorse or consideration.

How long until the cries of "McCarthy!" start?

"Just because I don't see you as human, you right wing bagger neo nazi, that doesn't mean it's okay for you to disrespect me!"

Their strategy depends on their opponents following the rules of societal order that they themselves shun, and they know it. So, moves like this truly bring out their hysteria.

Anonymous Josh November 06, 2013 9:19 AM  

We are an unnecessarily divisive species and it is going to destroy us.

Actually, the majority of us (rightists and southrons) just want to be left alone.

Blogger jamsco November 06, 2013 9:19 AM  

Escalation begets escalation.

What happens if the trolls come back, stay quiet and start collecting data on the positive or neutral commenters here?

Anonymous Josh November 06, 2013 9:20 AM  

Escalation begets escalation.

Vox isn't the one escalating.

OpenID rufusdog November 06, 2013 9:22 AM  

The left just keeps constantly reminding me of the Borg.

Anonymous cds November 06, 2013 9:22 AM  

"Actually, the majority of us (rightists and southrons) just want to be left alone"

I don't think it's a geographic or left/right issue. (Do you think dh would do this to someone who disagreed with him?) I agree that most of us (across political and geographic divides) just want to be left alone. As with nearly any issue, however, it isn't the quiet ones minding their own business who make the headlines.

Anonymous Alexander November 06, 2013 9:23 AM  

Josh is correct. But even if they do, so what? Bunch of statists at the NSA already got all my info, yo!

Blogger Nate November 06, 2013 9:24 AM  

"What happens if the trolls come back, stay quiet and start collecting data on the positive or neutral commenters here?"

That's why I use my real name.

Blogger jamsco November 06, 2013 9:25 AM  

Vox isn't the one escalating.

"Twice as Hard" is escalation.

Blogger Some dude November 06, 2013 9:27 AM  

Good on you for taking a stand and doing it with class.

Anonymous Josh November 06, 2013 9:28 AM  

I don't think it's a geographic or left/right issue. (Do you think dh would do this to someone who disagreed with him?)

dh is a very, very unusual leftist. In fact, one could argue that his leftism is an outgrowth of his desire to be left alone by the vibrant sectors of society.

There are dozens, if not hundreds, of examples of leftist doxing and witch hunts. Look at Prop 8 in CA, the tweeting of Zimmerman's supposed address, doxing of various manosphere bloggers, doxing of reddit and /b/ trolls, etc.

Anonymous Josh November 06, 2013 9:29 AM  

"Twice as Hard" is escalation.

No. It's just playing the game by the rules that have been established.

Think of it as a football team refusing to pass after the rule change finally implementing a passing game.

Or swimmers adopting new hitech suits.

Anonymous dh November 06, 2013 9:30 AM  

Yikes. Athol and the girl that VD linked to both got a raw deal. In the Twitter thing all those people who tweeted death threats and dox'd her did so in public. Maybe they need to be hit back at, systematically, twice as hard as well.

Anonymous roger u November 06, 2013 9:30 AM  

Its a culture war, the "rules" are less important than winning.

cds,
Its necessarily geographic and left/right as people prefer to live among those who they can relate to.

Anonymous Alexander November 06, 2013 9:32 AM  

You can't have it both ways. Either you attack first, or you second-strike with overkill. It's the same with girl-through-window guy.

Letting your enemy get the first shot every time and then vowing never to do more than match it is a guaranteed way to lose.

Blogger Booch Paradise November 06, 2013 9:34 AM  

Escalation begets escalation.

Are you predicting the rise of... the joker?

Anonymous Catan November 06, 2013 9:34 AM  

Of course it's geographic.

Familiarity breeds contempt.

Of course it's left/right.

Individualists cannot coexist with collectivists.

Blogger DB Mall 27 November 06, 2013 9:34 AM  


Rules of Engagement ( ROE ) are rules or Directives to Military forces (including individuals) that's define the circumstances, conditions, degree, and manner in ...

Anonymous Alexander November 06, 2013 9:37 AM  

Anyway, none of the trolls have anything to worry about. As the statist is so keen to remind us, you have nothing to fear if you have nothing to hide.

And surely, they'll play by their own rules.

Anonymous Brother Thomas November 06, 2013 9:39 AM  

The crooked hates the straight.

Anonymous DonReynolds November 06, 2013 9:40 AM  

I can honestly testify that the Leftist "Nazi Hunters" go to work every day on the internet, patroling blogs and sites known to be the watering holes and meeting places of conservatives and patriots. They are amateur investigators, to be sure, and often they do not even correctly understand what is being discussed and sometimes get confused about who said what, but they are keenly interested in identifying who the participants are and where they work. If YOU do not already know this, then you can take this as a caution sign regardling road conditions ahead.
.
I participated for many years in the discussions on American Renaissance under the name Memphomaniac, but I notice that nic has been taken up by someone else these days. I also was an occasional contributor to VDare, under my own name, which I now use practically everywhere.....including here and Disqus.
I have already been fired from more than one position. I no longer make any effort to stay under the radar. At the same time, I never write anything I would not want the entire world to read.
.
Lemmie see, what did the hispanic activists call me at the city council meeting?.....a rightist, a nativist, and conservative.....which they felt was reason enough to remove someone from their work. And this is what will be used against every patriot who believes in the rule of law and the Constitution. It seems we are all scoundrels now, this being the last refuge.

Anonymous cds November 06, 2013 9:40 AM  

We may be arguing semantics here. In my mind ‘left’ and ‘right’ refer to political ideology. I know lots of people across the political spectrum that are basically decent, responsible, and hard-working, and have no desire to get into other people’s business or to destroy them for having an opposing ideology. And, there are people across the political spectrum that feel the need to destroy anyone they disagree with.

Now, if you replace ‘left’ with ‘collectivist’, and ‘right’ with ‘individualist’, then it’s a different story. But, I don’t think it’s accurate to do so.

Anonymous Nathaniel Hollyfeld November 06, 2013 9:40 AM  

Vox said “In what sense?” on 11/4 2013.

This post, the “Why do you make me hit you?” (11/3) post, and the “Twice as hard” (11/3) post all seem to represent an escalation in rhetoric on your part, as if something pushed you over the edge. What gives man?

Anonymous Catan November 06, 2013 9:40 AM  

Escalation begets escalation.

Otherwise known as "violence never solves anything."

As Heinlein would say, I'm sure the city fathers of Carthage would be surprised to hear that. Violence solved their destiny quite thoroughly.

Anonymous Salt November 06, 2013 9:42 AM  

I still can't find a decent barbeque sauce to use on liberals. I'm figuring it's not the sauce that's the problem, but the quality of the meat. Even my dog turns his nose up at it.

Blogger swiftfoxmark2 November 06, 2013 9:42 AM  

There is no privacy on the Internet. There never really was. There was only the illusion of privacy.

Don't start a fight with an Internet thug. But fight back as hard as you can. Travel to their home and confront them face to face (no need for violence then, just talking will shake them up) if you have to.

Anonymous Salt November 06, 2013 9:44 AM  

I thought the marathon costume was funny as hell.

Anonymous Mike M. November 06, 2013 9:51 AM  

The technical term is "reprisal".

The Left has chosen to violate the laws and customs of political discourse. Sought to attack anyone who disagrees with them - not in the public arena of ideas, but in the personal arena. Including attacking noncombatants.

Protesting about the situation has not worked. Which means that more active measures are now required.

All Vox is doing (and he's not alone) is to take reprisals. Fight fire with fire. With any luck, the Left will realize their error and stop.

In which case we can resume political warfare under the old laws and customs. Fight like gentlemen again.

Anonymous DonReynolds November 06, 2013 9:53 AM  

Escalation begets escalation.

Catan....."Otherwise known as "violence never solves anything."
As Heinlein would say, I'm sure the city fathers of Carthage would be surprised to hear that. Violence solved their destiny quite thoroughly."

EVERY Confederate knows that victory is ONLY possible through violence. They also know what Nathan Bedford Forrest said....."get there first, with the most men".

Blogger Joshua Dyal November 06, 2013 9:57 AM  

Now, if you replace ‘left’ with ‘collectivist’, and ‘right’ with ‘individualist’, then it’s a different story. But, I don’t think it’s accurate to do so.

You'd be wrong, then. The left of America has been under the sway of a fiercely collectivist agenda for many years. And while the "right" of America has been under the sway of a mildly collectivist agenda at points in the past, for the most part, Republican collectivists are circling their wagons and hunkering down as grass-roots individualists are the rising stars on the right and have been since about 2009 or so... at least.

Anonymous Alexander November 06, 2013 9:57 AM  

The marathon came up for me a few days ago when a friend of mine from Boston was going on and on about how great Boston was at sports. Red Sox, Patriots...

And I just busted in with, "yeah, but not long distance running."

He laughed.

Blogger wrf3 November 06, 2013 10:00 AM  

DonReynolds wrote: EVERY Confederate knows that victory is ONLY possible through violence.

Except that the war of Northern Aggression didn't really solve the problem, now did it?

Just because individuals in Appomattox, or Carthage, may have been killed doesn't mean that their spirit doesn't live on.

Anonymous Mark in Orlando November 06, 2013 10:05 AM  

One important thing being passed over in Athol's story, it said that someone from the State Agency funding her employer was the one causing trouble, when all of us are dependent on the State for our sustenance whether through welfare or employment, then eventually we all will be bowing down to them.

Anonymous Mr. Teeth November 06, 2013 10:08 AM  

"All politics in this country now is just dress rehearsal for civil war." - Billy Beck, August 2009

Anonymous DonReynolds November 06, 2013 10:09 AM  

Mike M......."All Vox is doing (and he's not alone) is to take reprisals. Fight fire with fire. With any luck, the Left will realize their error and stop."

I gently disagree. These are not reprisals, which could be viewed as revenge and the Left is indifferent to their own losses. They are fanatical and wish to die for the Emperor. LET THEM.

For more than two hundred years of English settlement, they relied on the "trembling defense" of getting in their fraidy holes and block houses whenever the enemy was nearby. This gave the enemy control of the surrounding countryside and the ability to pick and choose their targets at leisure. Jackson changed all that with an "active defense", later known as "seek out and destroy the enemy", hopefully in their own lodges and caves.
.
We should not wait until our enemies have already drawn blood before we see them as a threat. If we do, our attacks become nothing more than vengence, rather than righteous. I am not prepared to sacrifice the outermost of the herd just so we will have an excuse to Hit Back Twice As Hard. Our enemies do not take prisoners, except to torture them to death for entertainment. My rules of engagement.....he who collects the most ears.....wins.

Blogger IM2L844 November 06, 2013 10:14 AM  

I'm figuring it's not the sauce that's the problem, but the quality of the meat. Even my dog turns his nose up at it.

They must be tenderized and cured first. A good old fashioned public flogging followed by a deep water brine (think Mariana Trench) would probably do nicely.

Anonymous Krul November 06, 2013 10:15 AM  

wrf3 - Just because individuals in Appomattox, or Carthage, may have been killed doesn't mean that their spirit doesn't live on.

Does the spirit of Carthage live on, wrf3? If so, where can I find it?

Anonymous Daniel November 06, 2013 10:16 AM  

What happens if the trolls come back, stay quiet and start collecting data on the positive or neutral commenters here?

When I was just a little girl
I asked my mother
What will I be
Will I be productive
Will I keep my stuff
Here's what she said to me

mo-lon Mo, lon labe
Whatever trolls take, they take
This stuff we make we do not make
mo-lon Mo, lon labe
What they take, they take
mo-lon Mo, lon labe

Anonymous Josh November 06, 2013 10:18 AM  

Does the spirit of Carthage live on, wrf3? If so, where can I find it?

Planned Parenthood

Anonymous aero November 06, 2013 10:19 AM  

Meanwhile the trolls are collecting data more so then VD. They are everywhere sucking up data for the NSA or some other group.

Before you hit publish the trolls have already read and stored it.

Blogger cmate November 06, 2013 10:21 AM  

They do more than call employers, a lot more.
http://theothermccain.com/2012/06/25/aaron-walker-swatted/

Anonymous VD November 06, 2013 10:22 AM  

What happens if the trolls come back, stay quiet and start collecting data on the positive or neutral commenters here?

First, they don't have IP addresses and locations. Second, they can only identify people like you who are already out in public and are already targeted for your beliefs. Third, if you haven't written anything to embarrass yourself, you have nothing to be concerned about.

I'm entirely willing to stand by what I have written. Most of the trolls are not. Nothing that I have written is unknown to everyone who knows me. That is not true of the trolls.

And anyone who is familiar with my response to John Scalzi's criticism should know that once I am inspired to start rolling, I don't readily stop. They can't complain they have not been given fair warning.

Anonymous Poli_Mis November 06, 2013 10:23 AM  

It's about damned time. I am really sick of the current rules of engagement in this fight with the sceptic tank that is The Left.

The fact that the forces of good do not fight at all or rather meekly bothers me greatly. If we cannot get engaged and return volleys in kind, how do we ever expect to prevail when things get far more severe?

Anonymous Josh November 06, 2013 10:24 AM  

And anyone who is familiar with my response to John Scalzi's criticism should know that once I am inspired to start rolling, I don't readily stop. They can't complain they have not been given fair warning.

This is the blog version of start nothing, finish everything.

Anonymous Krul quotes Atlas Shrugged November 06, 2013 10:25 AM  

This seemed appropriate given the thrust of these posts:

We saw that we'd been given a law to live by, a moral law, they called it, which punished those who observed it - for observing it. The more you tried to live up to it, the more you suffered; the more you cheated it, the bigger reward you got. Your honesty was like a tool left at the mercy of the next man's dishonesty. The honest ones paid, the dishonest ones collected.

Vox is simply refusing to play a game with the dice loaded against him. Understandable.

Anonymous Sojourner November 06, 2013 10:27 AM  

This reminds me of the time when I was late high school early college in 99-00 and I found something I said on a messageboard for movies to be posted on the site "Fundies Say the Darndest Things" No idea how it got there but I have a feeling that a guy who regularly gets quoted on movie ads now for his review blurbs had something to do with it. Just a very vile man he was.

Anonymous Krul November 06, 2013 10:29 AM  

Well Sojourner don't keep us in suspense. What did you say?

Anonymous Huckleberry - est. 1977 November 06, 2013 10:33 AM  

I thought the marathon costume was funny as hell

It was.
But people can't pass up an opportunity to be insulted on someone else's behalf.
Not anymore.

Blogger wrf3 November 06, 2013 10:33 AM  

Krul asked: Does the spirit of Carthage live on, wrf3? If so, where can I find it?

Anywhere people are fed up with tribute to a foreign bureaucracy, whether the foreignness is due to geography or political bent. So, if you're a man, it's inside you. If you're a rabbit, you'll never find it.

Anonymous The Deuce November 06, 2013 10:35 AM  

I really, really like this idea. Honestly, more bloggers should do it. In fact, they should start networking together to share personal and employment information about left-wing trolls, so they can then publicize it, and commenters can then call up their employers en masse and make complaints about them.

Anonymous Huckleberry - est. 1977 November 06, 2013 10:36 AM  

And I just busted in with, "yeah, but not long distance running."

Sure, none of the runners won, but they had a blast...

Anonymous Sojourner November 06, 2013 10:37 AM  

I believe it was something along the lines of the fact that "alien visitations" were more likely demonic appearances. It was due to the fact that a lot of "UFO" sightings suspiciously look like the creatures from one of the prophet's visions in the Old Testament. Which still sounds like a better explanation than little green men from beyond looking to probe the people of earth. Either way, I ain't married to it but I was younger than and it was used as something to discount my conservative views and Christian beliefs that I was HEAVILY into promoting on the site at the time.

Man we hadn't quite learned yet that the Internet was no place for honest discourse.

Anonymous DonReynolds November 06, 2013 10:39 AM  

wrf3...."Anywhere people are fed up with tribute to a foreign bureaucracy, whether the foreignness is due to geography or political bent. So, if you're a man, it's inside you. If you're a rabbit, you'll never find it."

Who do you think is the first enemy that must be dealt with.....
1) the foreign bureaucracy or
2) your own defeatist leaders, who insist that the tribute be paid (as expected)......or else the foreign bureaucracy will be displeased?

Anonymous Secret Dick November 06, 2013 10:39 AM  

@ VD

First, they don't have IP addresses and locations.

Speaking of which, you once referred to Phoenician as a librarian. How did you get that and you have a location?

I have a prime suspect but need more info.

Anonymous Sojourner November 06, 2013 10:39 AM  

Also I think this bit from Steve Sailer perfectly sums up what the Left thinks about us: http://isteve.blogspot.com/2013/11/throw-whitey-under-trolley.html?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

Blogger hga November 06, 2013 10:40 AM  

My favorite Nathan Bedford Forrest principle is "Get 'em skeered and keep the skeer on 'em".

Which is exactly what the Left has done to (enough of) us. Breaking that cycle is critical to our survival.

Anonymous Josh November 06, 2013 10:41 AM  

Speaking of which, you once referred to Phoenician as a librarian. How did you get that and you have a location?

Phoenician has a blog where he talked about it, IIRC.

Or Vox used Black Magicks

Anonymous The Deuce November 06, 2013 10:42 AM  

cds: Good grief. We are an unnecessarily divisive species and it is going to destroy us.

Then start agreeing with the rest of us right now or STFU.

Anonymous Huckleberry - est. 1977 November 06, 2013 10:43 AM  

How did you get that and you have a location?
Because if you click on Phoenician's name on any one of his comments, it takes you to his Blogger profile, which links to his blog where he tells you he's a librarian in New Zealand.

Anonymous roger u November 06, 2013 10:45 AM  

swiftfoxmark2 said,
"Don't start a fight with an Internet thug. But fight back as hard as you can. Travel to their home and confront them face to face (no need for violence then, just talking will shake them up) if you have to."

This reminded me of Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back.

Anonymous Krul November 06, 2013 10:46 AM  

The Deuce - In fact, they should start networking together to share personal and employment information about left-wing trolls, so they can then publicize it, and commenters can then call up their employers en masse and make complaints about them.

I just had a mental image of a "troll watch" website where personal information and online aliases are posted for known trolls.

That would be a bad thing, however. Excluding people from your own space is one thing; materially harming them for their beliefs and manners is altogether different.

Anonymous Krul November 06, 2013 10:53 AM  

Sojourner - I believe it was something along the lines of the fact that "alien visitations" were more likely demonic appearances.

I'm pretty sure that alien stories are 90% hallucinations/lies and 10% misinterpreted terrestrial aircraft/natural phenomena.

Still, given the extreme improbability of extraterrestrial life, demons would actually be a more plausible explanation IF you already accept the existence of demons and their unearthly abilities.

Anonymous bob k. mando November 06, 2013 10:56 AM  

Josh November 06, 2013 9:29 AM
No. It's just playing the game by the rules that have been established.



playing by the rules or no, IT'S STILL ESCALATION.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/escalation?s=t

why this concerns you, i have no idea. it's not as if 'escalation', in and of itself, is something to be ashamed of.


another one for the 'Fuck the Police' files, although now we're including an addendum for 'Fuck the Doctors' as well. anal probing, enemas, xrays and a colonoscopy for failing to come to a complete stop at a stop sign. WITHOUT A PROPER WARRANT. bonus icing - the hospital is threatening to refer the victim to a collections agency for 'failure to pay' 'his' bills:
http://www.kob.com/article/stories/S3209305.shtml?cat=500#.UnphnBCtGM3

Blogger Nate November 06, 2013 10:57 AM  

"Still, given the extreme improbability of extraterrestrial life"

You must not be very good at math.

Blogger Nate November 06, 2013 11:00 AM  

"Get 'em skeered and keep the skeer on 'em".

Forrest didn't talk that way.

Anonymous Porky November 06, 2013 11:01 AM  

For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms.

Eph. 6:12

Anonymous Krul November 06, 2013 11:04 AM  

Nate - You must not be very good at math.

I can do math, I just choose not to.

I don't really care about aliens; I'm just channeling the "priviledged planet" guys here. Although if you assume that life is created by God, then there's no way to guess the probability of it happening anywhere.

Anonymous Josh November 06, 2013 11:04 AM  

playing by the rules or no, IT'S STILL ESCALATION.

I don't think responding in kind is escalation. The leftists already escalated.

Even this response by Vox wouldn't be at the level of what leftists are currently doing. They're not going to trek you first, they're just going to send a bunch of information to your family, employer, etc.

Anonymous Secret Dick November 06, 2013 11:06 AM  

he tells you he's a librarian in New Zealand.

Curses. Foiled again.

Anonymous patrick kelly November 06, 2013 11:08 AM  

"..thangs goin' on that you don't know "... getting real, real fast.

Anonymous dh November 06, 2013 11:09 AM  

There are dozens, if not hundreds, of examples of leftist doxing and witch hunts. Look at Prop 8 in CA, the tweeting of Zimmerman's supposed address, doxing of various manosphere bloggers, doxing of reddit and /b/ trolls, etc.

I agree with Josh that the "doxing" trend, and most repellent online behavior emanates from the Left. There are smatterings of it on the right, but first and foremost, most of the really obnoxious trolling comings from people with too much time on their hands, which leans into being a liberal and probably underemployed.

Crossing over from an internet identity into the rest of the world can be a very serious act depending on how outside the mainstream you are. Anywhere where I have to talk about race or gender, I try to be nominally pseudonym protected. Especially when I am doing government contracts even a whiff of problems can impact your family very quickly.

I've been a long-time member the WELL, which is not cheap to be a member of (about $150/year), and verifies and requires using your real name. There is no actual trolling because it's private and member restricted, and your whole identity is there. From time to time someone crosses over the line but they almost always walk it back. The downside being there are lots of discussions about soup, and varieties of oranges, and art, but very few about things which more interesting. Which is why this blog is so great.

What never makes sense to me is why anyone would bother posting or reading somewhere where he or she is not wanted. The internet is wide and deep, and there is a community out there for virtually everyone.

Anonymous John in Highland Park November 06, 2013 11:12 AM  

"And now that it is clear that this is how the game is being played, well, those of us who are already accustomed to the public view can certainly ensure that everyone else's actions are too."

Fuckin A Vox...I agree and encourage eveyone to punch back with extreme prejudice. The lesson of history is clear. These bolsheviks, cultural marxists, statists, progressives, whatever they call themselves now have always made the personal political and will do anything to destroy that which will not conform or whom they consider "counter revolutionary" or "reactionary" to use their terms. If some of them could "re-educate" or remove from society people who are holding up "progress" via forced labor or outright liquidation they would not have a problem with that. They are nothing but evil and deserve no quarter. I think it was Lenin that said if given the choice between being the hammer or the anvil, it is better to be the hammer.

Anonymous Brother Thomas November 06, 2013 11:12 AM  

@Porky November 06, 2013 11:01 AM "For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms. Eph. 6:12"


I'm amazed at the depth of fanatical irrational unquestioning faith of the Left. It's destructive, it's intolerant and it seems to be of something beyond this world. Either that or they're insane.

Anonymous WaterBoy November 06, 2013 11:15 AM  

DonReynolds: "They also know what Nathan Bedford Forrest said....."get there first, with the most men"."

FWIW, Forrest never had to deal with highly accurate directed artillery, guided missiles, and smart bombs.

Nowadays, such a move would earn them the label of "sitting ducks".

Blogger rcocean November 06, 2013 11:17 AM  

Good for VD. Interesting that the first response of so many "conservatives" is a defensive one. Worrying about: "Being too harsh" "escalating" "being unfair to the 'good liberals'" "being unchristian" - no wonder the Right always loses. I half expect someone to write "what about the children?" Let me say this about "good liberals". They don't fight dirty like the more extreme left, but they never call the Left on their dirty tactics. Most of them silently support them. This applies to politics too. When's the last time you heard some liberal, full of concern over human rights, attack Castro?

Anonymous Josh November 06, 2013 11:19 AM  

I'm amazed at the depth of fanatical irrational unquestioning faith of the Left. It's destructive, it's intolerant and it seems to be of something beyond this world. Either that or they're insane.

No...see...this time, it'll work...because the right people are finally in charge...

Anonymous zen0 November 06, 2013 11:19 AM  

@ dh

What never makes sense to me is why anyone would bother posting or reading somewhere where he or she is not wanted.

Urban Dictionary:

Obsessive Compulsive Trolling Disorder.
A progressive mental disorder that compels the afflicted to use a covert cyber identity to malevolently and cowardly persecute online,


I like the use of the term "progressive" in that.

Blogger rcocean November 06, 2013 11:20 AM  

Off-topic. Liberals don't push the extreme left agenda, they simply attack any conservative who tries to battle the extreme left. For years, the Liberals hated Anti-communism more than communism. Even today, most of them think Joe McCarthy was more evil than Joe Stalin.

Anonymous Josh November 06, 2013 11:20 AM  

Let me say this about "good liberals". They don't fight dirty like the more extreme left, but they never call the Left on their dirty tactics.

dh just did, right above you.

Anonymous YIH November 06, 2013 11:23 AM  

Mike M
Sought to attack anyone who disagrees with them - not in the public arena of ideas, but in the personal arena. Including attacking noncombatants.
I've seen that personally. YouTube 'vlogger' RamZpaul has been 'doxed' several times on 4chan style sites. When brought to the attention of the admin the posts would be removed and the poster permanently IP banned. The poster not only posted the real name but the names of his wife and son (alleged) street address, phone numbers and photo of the home.
Originally the rule was ''do not 'dox' staff or posters'' then was changed to ''do not 'dox' anyone - for any reason''
The ramifications of a possible attack by a random nut (John Lennon comes to mind) requires that issue be dealt with harshly.

Blogger wrf3 November 06, 2013 11:24 AM  

Don Reynolds asked: Who do you think is the first enemy that must be dealt with.....

Above my pay grade. However, they're both dealt with the same way: "proclaim the message; be persistent whether the time is favorable or unfavorable; convince, rebuke, and encourage, with the utmost patience in teaching." [2 Tim 4:2]

Blogger hga November 06, 2013 11:24 AM  

Nate said: "Get 'em skeered and keep the skeer on 'em".

"Forrest didn't talk that way."

Which might have something to do with my referring to it as a principle of his, not a quote.

Do you have anything useful to contribute in response to my point?

Blogger wrf3 November 06, 2013 11:25 AM  

Nate wrote: You must not be very good at math.

It isn't about math, but about the assumptions that go into the formula. The range of values that can be used in Drake's formula is so great that the formula is essentially meaningless.

Anonymous Alexander November 06, 2013 11:27 AM  

Heh - leave it to Lenin to fuck up a concept that involves actual labor.

I get the drift of what you're saying he said in terms of being the hitter not the hitupon, but in blacksmithing it's the hammer that breaks, not the anvil.

Socialists: not having a fucking clue about the lives and wants of their stated constituents since 1848.

Anonymous WaterBoy November 06, 2013 11:28 AM  

Huckleberry: "But people can't pass up an opportunity to be insulted on someone else's behalf."

I wonder if they get similarly offended on behalf of all the zombies...those poor, hapless victims of a particularly cruel virus, often originally delivered in a rather violent manner by others of their kind.

I know, they aren't "real" victims. But if people can get upset over fictional depictions of victims in movies, television, and literature, why not in real life, too?

Anonymous NateM November 06, 2013 11:29 AM  

Terrible, but not surprising. Hell at my last job I was a manager and I got called in to sign a writeup for Inappropriate Web Use for reading THIS blog. Apparently another manager saw it over my shoulder when she came to speak to me and didn't like the look of it, so she got the IT guy to pull my browser history, leading to me getting a slap on the wrist. It was more annoying than anything, especially since she apparently made such a stink that the VP of the division was copied on it. The chicken shit part was that the Project Manager for the site basically kept putting off writing me up because he knew it was stupid, and it was only after HE left to take another job that it happened. And even worse, they didn't even specify in the DA what sort of material I was viewing that was "not appropriate for work". They said it was to help me out but I knew it was just CYA. I even told my direct report who delivered it to me that he could shove it up his ass, and tell the VP the same. (something tells me he didn't pass the message along). After that, I started taking Vox' advise and when that female manager would try to be domineering I would throw it right back in her face, and usually it worked.

And believe it or not I used to be one of those who thought Vox' theory was extreme and not necessary, but now i've learned you can't take the high road and expect to win when someone is fighting dirty.

Anonymous bob k. mando November 06, 2013 11:40 AM  

Josh November 06, 2013 11:04 AM
I don't think responding in kind is escalation.



read the definition again. "increase in intensity". whether or not Vox has yet achieved his stated goal of hitting them back twice as hard is irrelevant.

Vox is INCREASING the intensity of his own responses.

at an interpersonal / customer service level, there are three ways to deal with a conflict:
1 - very calm, speaking quietly and slowly, attempting to address the concerns of the other. by adopting a 'forcefully calm' demeanor you can often induce the other party to slow, calm and quiet down themselves.

this can work well in real life where demeanor and posture are easy to observe. it's almost completely useless on the internet.

2 - nuclear option, presenting the other party with the 'threat' that you are going to go so far over the top of the temper tantrum that they are throwing that they will not like the consequences. this is what police officers often do, trying to induce you to believe that you are in imminent threat of arrest and speaking over other parties.

3 - try to match intensity as presented by the other. this is almost always useless, for several reasons. it's pretty much impossible to gauge exact intensity of the engagement, especially as the actor of a particular act often perceives there to be far less 'force' involved than the receiver. tit for tat usually just means an extended period of escalation til everything goes nuclear anyways.

Anonymous Catan November 06, 2013 11:41 AM  

dh just did, right above you.

Dh is a statistical insignificance. He is such a minority among the left that pointing him out only reinforces the point.

Like others have said, the "moderate" libs don't defend the left's extreme positions. When does the left ever explain its own positions, anyway? The left wins by smearing their enemies. Watched an election recently? There were more Republicans calling Romney out for extremism than Democrats calling Obama out on the most childish campaign i've ever seen.

Anonymous Ferd November 06, 2013 11:44 AM  

In my mind, I see the lefties, Phoneys, Tads, etc. as that girl marine who choked on her mouth protector. Keep smacking them down until they can't comeback. They won't acknowledge it publicly but will understand in their core that they were bested. It may take some time as we have allowed them to soil our paths way too long. But, as God is my witness, they will not harm me in any situation that i can control going forward!

Raises the battle flag!!

Anonymous DonReynolds November 06, 2013 11:47 AM  

DonReynolds: "They also know what Nathan Bedford Forrest said....."get there first, with the most men"."

WaterBoy......"FWIW, Forrest never had to deal with highly accurate directed artillery, guided missiles, and smart bombs.
Nowadays, such a move would earn them the label of "sitting ducks"."

I am sure you know that Forrest was an intelligent man, who would adjust his own methods to the situation and the enemy.
.
I hope you don't think that the modern Army cannot be beat or that it is necessary to defeat the military in order to defeat the government.
The military AND the politicians in the USA are vulnerable....and that fact must create a certain amount of anxiety in their mind.

Blogger Nate November 06, 2013 11:51 AM  

'FWIW, Forrest never had to deal with highly accurate directed artillery, guided missiles, and smart bombs."

Sugartits that principle is still put to good use today. its just applied differently.

Blogger Nate November 06, 2013 11:53 AM  

"Do you have anything useful to contribute in response to my point?"

Look mate... Forrest is misquoted and mischaracterized plenty enough without you adding to it. If you're going to quote him... or his principles... do it right.

Anonymous WaterBoy November 06, 2013 11:53 AM  

DonReynolds: "I am sure you know that Forrest was an intelligent man, who would adjust his own methods to the situation and the enemy."

No doubt. But the truisms of the past do not necessarily apply to the present...or the future. Even in warfare -- especially in warfare.

DonReynolds: " hope you don't think that the modern Army cannot be beat or that it is necessary to defeat the military in order to defeat the government."

No, of course not. Again, though, a strategy that had relevance to one particular scenario in the past does not necessarily apply to the present.

Anonymous Noah B. November 06, 2013 11:55 AM  

"I hope you don't think that the modern Army cannot be beat or that it is necessary to defeat the military in order to defeat the government."

Especially not when they're busy defeating themselves, firing seasoned professionals who are insufficiently supportive of sodomy and replacing them with incompetent affirmative action cases.

Anonymous Jack Amok November 06, 2013 12:02 PM  

What never makes sense to me is why anyone would bother posting or reading somewhere where he or she is not wanted.

The goal is to convince folks on the right that we are isolated wackos with ideas that aren't fit for polite company and to try and prevent a preference cascade that results in people chucking the progs aside.

Picture Patrick Henry, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson and George Washington each sitting alone at a table in a tavern, staring glumly into their beers while a couple of torries went on about how deluded the Tea Party types were. That's the troll's objective.

FWIW, Forrest never had to deal with highly accurate directed artillery, guided missiles, and smart bombs.

Nowadays, such a move would earn them the label of "sitting ducks".


Really? What if the "there" he was getting to first was the control center for the drones or the depot with all the artillery shells?

Anonymous Eric Ashley November 06, 2013 12:03 PM  

I use my real identity, but...1. I have a five mile deep hunting preserve of heavy woods literally touching my backyard. 2. In the event of a Zombie Apoc, you're going to wish you lived in my town/ Eight year olds get their pics in the paper for killing turkeys and deer. 3. I'd regard it as free publicity if I got doxed. "Hey I got doxed, show your support by buying my game stuff and books. Go Team Conservative!"

------------

Combat between the Conservatives and Liberals reminds me of Papua New Guinea inter-tribal conflict. A lot of yelling, spear-shaking, and some poorly aimed tosses across the meadow. If someone actually gets seriously hurt, everyone goes home. Otherwise, its a day out in the woods for the guys.

Anonymous Rasputin November 06, 2013 12:07 PM  

Here's some suggestions for hitting back, courtesy of Saul Alinsky :)

1) “Power is not only what you have, but what the enemy thinks you have."
2) “Never go outside the expertise of your people.”
3) “Whenever possible, go outside the expertise of the enemy.”
4) “Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.”
5) “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.”
6) “A good tactic is one your people enjoy.”
7) “A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag.”
8) “Keep the pressure on. Never let up.”
9) “The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself.”
10) "The major premise for tactics is the development of operations that will maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition."
11) “If you push a negative hard enough, it will push through and become a positive.”
12) “The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative.”
13) “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.”

I'd say that the Right's biggest weaknesses are points 6 & 7. Individualists tend not to enjoy witch hunts and bullying. Which is too bad, since those tactics are very effective and probably necessary for winning ideological battles.

Blogger Laughingdog November 06, 2013 12:15 PM  

Talk about some hate. Turns out my work filter now classifies MMSL as "pornography".

Blogger JartStar November 06, 2013 12:27 PM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Anonymous Anti-Democracy Activist November 06, 2013 12:29 PM  

Yup.

Again, the left has no principles, only ideology. Their actions now that they have gained power show that they do not now nor did they ever really believe in the principle of free speech. And yes, the principle is important. Leftists claim they aren't violating anyone's free speech rights because the First Amendment only limits the government's actions, thus, if they as private citizens try to ruin you and destroy your life for daring to speak out against them, they haven't really done anything destructive of free speech. This is, of course, another leftist lie. Free speech isn't just a law, it' a principle. The First Amendment merely codifies the principle - makes it official policy. Grudgingly acknowledging the existence of the law, while doing everything possible just short of it to terrorize their opponents into silence, shows that the left neither respects nor even really understands the principle behind the law.

As for not wanting to "escalate", this is victim mentality. Bringing a knife to a gunfight puts you in the morgue. And again, there's a word for people who extend others consideration that is not reciprocated: suckers.

The first priority, methinks, is proving the very point made here: that the left is conducting a coordinated campaign of fear and intimidation meant to terrorize anyone who would substantively oppose them into silence. They blacklist. They threaten people's livelihoods and ability to feed their families. They ruin people's careers and reputations. They do everything they once wailed about when it was Joe McCarthy doing it to them - that they said was oppression. And they do it without giving it a second thought. Because their belief in their own rightness gives them the moral license to do absolutely anything to win.

Grab onto this. Shout it from the rooftops. Never let them - or anyone else - forget it.

Anonymous RL November 06, 2013 12:29 PM  

My work filter has classified MMSL as pornography for over 2 years. Vox and Roissy are still OK though.

Anonymous civilServant November 06, 2013 12:32 PM  

EVERY Confederate knows that victory is ONLY possible through violence.

(Incorrect. But speaking as if it is correct ...) Violence alone is insufficient. It must be violence backed by strategy tactics logistics and cooperation. Which is why libertarians will lose any such encounter.

Anonymous civilServant November 06, 2013 12:33 PM  

Individualists cannot coexist with collectivists.

On the contrary they cannot exist without them.

Anonymous WaterBoy November 06, 2013 12:37 PM  

Jack Amok: "Really? What if the "there" he was getting to first was the control center for the drones or the depot with all the artillery shells? "

Do you think that such important resources wouldn't already have a defense against such attacks? And if there is already a defense in place, he wouldn't be getting there first, would he?

Anonymous Noah B. November 06, 2013 12:37 PM  

"On the contrary they cannot exist without them."

Once again, you demonstrate that you don't understand the difference between forming a government whose job is to preserve liberty and anarchy. You seem to be a simplistic, binary thinker.

Anonymous civilServant November 06, 2013 12:39 PM  

as if something pushed you over the edge. What gives man?

I am curious as well. Scatalogical sexual inuendo has been if not commonplace then certainly unremarkable here. Libertarians here speak of murder and hanging and throwing people into woodchippers frequently enough that such statements seem typical of the blog. To take note of such sentiments now seems silly. Unless of course one seeks merely to fan flames ....

Anonymous automatthew November 06, 2013 12:40 PM  

Reading comprehension strikes again. civilServant, there is a difference between "only possible through violence" and "only possible through violence alone"

Anonymous Brother Thomas November 06, 2013 12:40 PM  

The sad part is that we need the Left. We're all going to be much poorer together if we don't wake them up. How do we do it? Is it possible? The international fiat monetary system is robbing us all. Why don't they see it? Why do they see the working stiff with a few bucks in his pocket as the enemy?

I admit I was blind to it a dozen years ago, but I see it now. What's stopping them from seeing it? Is it too obvious?

Anonymous WaterBoy November 06, 2013 12:43 PM  

Nate: "that principle is still put to good use today. its just applied differently."

Sure. Now make it apply to political warfare on the Internet via doxing.

The new rules of engagement have more in common with espionage and blackmail than it does with rapid mobilization of forces to a particular geographical location.

But I'm sure somebody can make it stretch to fit....

Blogger mina smith November 06, 2013 12:46 PM  

At the risk of being repetitive, there are a lot of answers here:
http://www.anonymousconservative.com/blog/touching-the-raw-amygdala-an-analysis-of-liberal-debate-tactics-preface/

Debate tactics, under-handed undermining tactics.

Whatever you call them, just start reading ... I guarantee by the 3rd/4th read you'll be on board.

Anonymous Jack Amok November 06, 2013 12:47 PM  

And if there is already a defense in place, he wouldn't be getting there first, would he

You're forgetting the "with the most" part. But it's a silly thing to argue about - I'm sure you understand the concept of capturing or destroying a vital resource of the enemy's by a surprise raid that overwhelms whatever defense forces are stationed there. If you want to argue such a thing is no longer possible today, fine, but you'll excuse me if I then decline to support your nomination as commander of our defense forces.

Anonymous civilServant November 06, 2013 12:48 PM  

On the contrary they cannot exist without them.

Once again, you demonstrate that you don't understand the difference between forming a government whose job is to preserve liberty and anarchy ...


... between that and ...?

Well. The original statement was in regard to geography and apparently race. Not government and how it is formed.

There certainly are no individualists here. None of you has ever existed for any length of time outside of a society. Not one. None of you has ever existed for any length of time outside of a culture. Not one. None of you has ever existed for any length of time outside of a government. Not one. If ever you find yourself outside of these things you will run back for them as fast as you can to secure your liberties. And you will have to reform those things in cooperation with other people or stand by as they act for you - the latter your most likely course of action. And when you have accomplished this you then will be able to return to complaining about how intrusive government is.

Anonymous civilServant November 06, 2013 12:54 PM  

Reading comprehension strikes again. civilServant, there is a difference between "only possible through violence" and "only possible through violence alone"

Of course. I was pointing out some implications to those who like to think of themselves as individualist.

Blogger Nate November 06, 2013 12:56 PM  

"Sure. Now make it apply to political warfare on the Internet via doxing."

Not hard. The first person to tell the story... who gives the most damning accusations... usually wins.

Anonymous Brother Thomas November 06, 2013 12:57 PM  

We need to find common ground with the Left, the real Left, not the establishment Left.. We have no choice. One possible point of common ground is opposition centrally controlled fiat monetary system, It's draining the wealth from just about everybody. And it hits the lower classes the hardest.

Anonymous Stickwick November 06, 2013 1:00 PM  

Sojourner: This reminds me of the time when I was late high school early college in 99-00 and I found something I said on a messageboard for movies to be posted on the site "Fundies Say the Darndest Things"

Stuff from VP is posted there all the time. Amusingly, a perusal of the "Vox Populi" [sic] submissions shows a a comment by Ann Morgan held up for ridicule. These guys just grab stuff from the comments and assume that everyone posting here is a fundamentalist Christian (whatever that is, in their minds).

Anonymous civilServant November 06, 2013 1:01 PM  

The sad part is that we need the Left. We're all going to be much poorer together if we don't wake them up. How do we do it? Is it possible? The international fiat monetary system is robbing us all. Why don't they see it?

They see it. They believe they will benefit from it. They believe they are entitled/worthy/chosen to benefit from it. In a Pharoah's Tomb Scenario each level of (L/l)eft believes they will be retained in the new order - that they are the ever-diminishing pool of cadre who are the righteous ones who will own the new order - have a place in the new order - be permitted in the new order - be tolerated in the new order - owe a debt to the new order - serve as slaves and like it in the new order.

Just like the libertarians. "Everyone else is stupid. I am smart. I will be a citizen in the new order." No you will not.

Anonymous pdimov November 06, 2013 1:01 PM  

There certainly are no individualists here. None of you has ever existed for any length of time outside of a society. Not one.

I'm sure that you find your own definition of individualist fascinating, but it's useless in practice, for the reasons you give - nobody is one.

Empirically, you can see who cannot live without who by observing who is trying to get away and who is trying to prevent that. Let's see you arguing that the person trying to get away from the collective is the (or a) collectivist.

Anonymous Brother Thomas November 06, 2013 1:24 PM  

civilServant, you make a valid point. I don't like what it portends, but it rings true.


Anonymous Jack Amok November 06, 2013 1:25 PM  

There certainly are no individualists here. None of you has ever existed for any length of time outside of a society.

It seems like you're mistaking your society for the only society that could ever be. Either belong to the Statist Prog Collective or be an utter outcast. That's the message the trolls try to push though, isn't it? That their society is the only society.

It isn't. We don't have to live outside of society in order to live outside of your idea of society. Thankfully your crapsack dystopia is not in fact our only choice. That's just the lie you tell.

Blogger mina smith November 06, 2013 1:41 PM  

"this work explains why simple, freedom loving Conservative societies emerge from conditions of K-selection, only to then slowly become more Liberal, and collapse. The motivation, drive to succeed, morality, loyalty, and decency of the K-selected populace produces societal productivity, which in turn yields conditions of resource excess, and that places an r-selective stress upon the population. r-type individuals proliferate, and then a populace’s productivity, morality, and decency gradually give way to selfish demands for free stuff, immorality, and an absence of concern for the freedom and wishes of one’s fellow citizens."

Collectivism is a word that closely approximates "communism" which strongly implies Liberalism and Leftism. Conflict avoidance.

Individualism is a word, in contrast, that associates to personal freedom balanced by attendant responsibility/accountability, a love of competition,

R selection = Rabbits. Collectivism.
K selection = Wolves, bear, big cats. Individualism.
http://www.anonymousconservative.com/blog/the-theory/rk-selection-theory/

Anonymous Stickwick November 06, 2013 1:44 PM  

It just keeps coming: Teacher calls concerned parent a "neo-Nazi" after he expresses concern over a political assignment given to his eighth-grade daughter. Best part was when the teacher discovered the concerned dad is Jewish and retorts, "But he's tea party right wing!" Man, these people are twisted.

Anonymous Josh November 06, 2013 1:49 PM  

So she Facebook stalked this guy and called his Facebook friends?

Wonder what dirty dark secrets she has on the internets.

Anonymous Gen. Kong November 06, 2013 1:55 PM  

Brother Thomas:
We need to find common ground with the Left, the real Left, not the establishment Left.. We have no choice. One possible point of common ground is opposition centrally controlled fiat monetary system, It's draining the wealth from just about everybody. And it hits the lower classes the hardest.

Do these genuine leftists exist in any significant number? I doubt it. Look at the Tea-Party's mirror-image of useful idiocy, OWS. Did they burn down Bloomberg's palace? Hell no. The only billionaires they whined about were the Koch brothers - a pair of open-borders libertardians.

Anonymous WaterBoy November 06, 2013 2:01 PM  

Jack Amok: "You're forgetting the "with the most" part."

And you're ignoring the "first" part. To be successful, it requires both components -- not just the one -- as Forrest's quote* demonstrates. To allow an opponent to dig in, to control the conditions and approaches to the battlefield, is to invite failure, even if you do have the most men. Otherwise, the principle would simply be, "Get there with the most men."

Jack Amok: "But it's a silly thing to argue about - I'm sure you understand the concept of capturing or destroying a vital resource of the enemy's by a surprise raid that overwhelms whatever defense forces are stationed there."

Yes, it is. But that's not the situation to which the principle is generally applied, which is to push the bulk of one's forces as hard and as fast as they can go, to get to the prospective battlefield before the opposing force can get there and set up their defenses (and ideally, in time to implement their own defensive plan). The "most" part then kicks in as a battle of attrition is fought.

The type of raid to which you refer typically doesn't require the most men as much as it requires the element of surprise -- hence, "surprise raid". In fact, several surprise raids throughout history have been successfully carried out with a smaller force.

Again, though, that's not what this phrase applies to.

* According to this 1918 source, the actual quote was, "Ma'am, I got there first with the most men", in response to a query about the reason for his success.

Anonymous Noah B. November 06, 2013 2:02 PM  

There certainly are no individualists here. None of you has ever existed for any length of time outside of a society. Not one. None of you has ever existed for any length of time outside of a culture. Not one. None of you has ever existed for any length of time outside of a government. Not one. If ever you find yourself outside of these things you will run back for them as fast as you can to secure your liberties. And you will have to reform those things in cooperation with other people or stand by as they act for you - the latter your most likely course of action. And when you have accomplished this you then will be able to return to complaining about how intrusive government is.

While you're stating the obvious, you might as well mention the fact that we all have parents.

The only one here who seems to be advocating the system you describe is Porky. And no one, including any dictionary you can find, defines "individualism" in the way that you seem to. The rest of us understand that the protection of individual liberty requires that some of our actions must be restrained. Once again, this philosophy is described elegantly and concisely in the Declaration of Independence. I suggest you read it and understand it instead of simply shutting off your reasoning abilities when the truth doesn't come neatly packaged in the form of a discrete variable.

Anonymous Brother Thomas November 06, 2013 2:08 PM  

@Gen. Kong November 06, 2013 1:55 PM
"Do these genuine leftists exist in any significant number? I doubt it. Look at the Tea-Party's mirror-image of useful idiocy, OWS. Did they burn down Bloomberg's palace? Hell no. The only billionaires they whined about were the Koch brothers - a pair of open-borders libertardians."


I fear you're right. I beginning to think you can fit all the true leftists in the country in a small VFW hall.

Anonymous Noah B. November 06, 2013 2:09 PM  

"They see it. They believe they will benefit from it. They believe they are entitled/worthy/chosen to benefit from it."

So -- they're useful idiots.

Anonymous WaterBoy November 06, 2013 2:11 PM  

Nate: "The first person to tell the story... who gives the most damning accusations... usually wins."

Most men = most damning accusations? I disagree. In this analogy, most men = most posters/commenters; most damning accusations would be the most effective weapons.

Having the majority of people saying the same thing doesn't mean they win. But I'll grant the weapon aspect.

Blogger mina smith November 06, 2013 2:16 PM  

noun: collectivism
the practice or principle of giving a group priority over each individual in it.
also: the theory and practice of the ownership of land and the means of production by the people or the state (implying Communism)
Group priority because "there are always more of us, therefore one individual is not important". Rabbits. Mice. Other types of R selected species.

noun: individualism
the habit or principle of being independent and self-reliant.
also: a social theory favoring freedom of action for individuals over collective or state control (Libertarianism,
Individual priority because "I and my family can survive by competing and winning against others". Wolves. Bear. Other types of K selected species.

I always loves getting into these arguments about nuances of words with Liberals. Ever notice how they never want to believe the actual definitions of the simplest of words? Hint: the R selected have under-developed amygdala and so processing the information is just too painful. Better and easier to argue non-sensical nuances around the edges, to avoid the emotional pain.

Blogger Desert Cat November 06, 2013 2:34 PM  

Gen. Kong November 06, 2013 1:55 PM

Brother Thomas:
We need to find common ground with the Left, the real Left, not the establishment Left.. We have no choice. One possible point of common ground is opposition centrally controlled fiat monetary system, It's draining the wealth from just about everybody. And it hits the lower classes the hardest.

Do these genuine leftists exist in any significant number? I doubt it. Look at the Tea-Party's mirror-image of useful idiocy, OWS. Did they burn down Bloomberg's palace? Hell no. The only billionaires they whined about were the Koch brothers - a pair of open-borders libertardians.


In no greater numbers than bankster-aware right wingers are. However, like members of the right who've come around, they can be "made", through relentless education.

First step is to break out of the left-right hegelian paradigm and stop seeing potential allies as implacable enemies.

Blogger Lovekraft November 06, 2013 2:35 PM  

Two thirds of the way through Asimov's Foundation Trilogy. It covers the usefulness of various hierarchies, or systems, through the ages, each having its own purpose.

Secularism and progressivism has very little role to play. Most likely it is a parasitic entity used to interfere and confuse.

Anonymous Jack Amok November 06, 2013 3:02 PM  

push the bulk of one's forces as hard and as fast as they can go, to get to the prospective battlefield before the opposing force can get there and set up their defenses

And taking out an inadequately defended drone command center is exactly that. A war of attrition is not the only kind of war you can wage. Grant waged a war of attrition against Lee while Sherman waged a war of maneuver and surprise.

Anonymous Scintan November 06, 2013 3:44 PM  

And believe it or not I used to be one of those who thought Vox' theory was extreme and not necessary, but now i've learned you can't take the high road and expect to win when someone is fighting dirty.

That's not true. You can take the high road and still win. It's often how you take that high road that determines victory or defeat.

Anonymous WaterBoy November 06, 2013 3:49 PM  

Jack Amok: "And taking out an inadequately defended drone command center is exactly that."

Again, no -- the defending force is already in place, so there can be no "first". Surprise does not change this -- it acts on a third quality entirely, called 'awareness'. And now you're adding a fourth element concerning 'effectiveness' ("inadequate")? How many times are you going to change this scenario?

Jack Amok: "Grant waged a war of attrition against Lee while Sherman waged a war of maneuver and surprise"

There's that "surprise" element again, about which Forrest said nothing in his quote. He specifically mentioned two elements: temporality ("first") and quantity ("most"). Your insistence on including this third element, awareness, in a discussion of the first two, smacks of goalpost-moving.

I'm not a dummy. I know there are even more elements to warfare than just these two, which have not been touched on at all. But they are all irrelevant to the point I was making about what Forrest said specifically about these two, your attempt to so introduce a couple more of them notwithstanding.

Blogger James Dixon November 06, 2013 3:50 PM  

> It seems like you're mistaking your society for the only society that could ever be.

And completely ignoring existing societies which don't fit his model. As I've noted before, he has no idea what life is like in small towns and the country.

Anonymous Alexander November 06, 2013 3:50 PM  

Scintan, don't hold us in suspense.

Please give specific examples of how one can take the high road against an opponent who will use any means to defeat you, and win a practical victory.

And understand that we are not discussing moral victories or eternal rewards - we are discussing steps resulting in a betterment of one's life here on earth. I don't want this shifting into 'well, you might be in the gulag but you still have your principles!'

Anonymous Scintan November 06, 2013 4:01 PM  

Please give specific examples of how one can take the high road against an opponent who will use any means to defeat you, and win a practical victory.

Specific examples? On something that's so easy to see?

Ok.... I had someone lying about some things they claimed I'd done, and consistently making up more lies. Rather than fight back in similar fashion, I simply proved that the claims being made against me couldn't possibly have been true, by getting others to point out that I'd been with them at the time of many of the alleged incidents.

Regarding blogs and writings: I've often just pointed out that someone is a troll, something which is clearly acceptable according to the rules of most blogs and forums, and the troll eventually gets banned. That's not the only solution, but it is one that can be effective.

That's just two simple examples where taking the high road, and doing the 'right' thing, can accomplish the needed result without you needing to resort to similar tactics.

If your girlfriend/boyfriend/spouse cheats on you, you don't need to cheat on her to put a stop to the infidelity.

If someone is physically threatening your family, you don't generally need to hunt him down and kill him. A phone call to the police will often solve the problem.

There are many other examples out there, but that should cover it. Results and approaches need to vary according to specifics, of course, but one can be very aggressive while staying on the high road

Anonymous Alexander November 06, 2013 4:12 PM  

The purpose is to solve the problem. A low road solution is still a solution.

1. Responding to someone lying about what you did by lying about them is stupid - you do not solve the problem of proving they are lying. So lying about them is not a low road solution to proving you are right.

2. Trolls are clearly not allowed hear, and banning them is clearly not effective. Evidence, Tad/Golf Pro/Cretin... So simply banning them and doing nothing more is not really a solution of any sort, high or low.

3. Same as 1 - cheating on a cheater does not solve your problem. It's not even a way to go about stopping it. It's not the low road to some comparable high road - it's a possible but totally unrelated option with a different goal - revenge fuck, not reestablishing fidelity or escaping the relationship.

4. Someone 'physically threatening my family' means they are doing so in my immediate vicinity. A phone call will not solve that problem. You can't "physically' threaten from a distance over the internet.

So yeah, you probably do have to incapacitate/disarm/kill someone who is physically threatening your family.

Give an example where there is a problem, and the high road is the most successful way to *stop the problem*. Not some scenario where you offer one 'high road' and one non-solution.

Anonymous Scintan November 06, 2013 4:20 PM  

Give an example where there is a problem, and the high road is the most successful way to *stop the problem*. Not some scenario where you offer one 'high road' and one non-solution.

No, I'm not going play the game of moving the goalposts. I addressed the issue already.

Anonymous Alexander November 06, 2013 4:20 PM  

Allow me to give a scenario: A group of people make it their intent to go onto blogs and 'out' the writers and commenters on those blogs, with the intent of causing those people to their jobs, or be subjected to the hoards of angry rabbits attacking them, their spouses, their children.

Athol Kay & Sunshine Mary for two real world examples of this.

Now, what's your high road solution?

Anonymous Mavwreck November 06, 2013 4:22 PM  

Lovekraft - what part of the Foundation series are you referring to? I have to admit my memories of the original books are a bit fuzzy.

Anonymous Alexander November 06, 2013 4:23 PM  

You did no such thing. I asked for a case where the high road would solve an issue where another party was set to ruin you, and you offered:

1. Reporting them > Lying about them
2. Trolls are accepted in most places but if you insist, banning them should do the trick.
3. You gave no solution to a cheating spouse, save pointing out that cheating on them isn't proactive.
4. Calling the police is a good solution when you are being credibly threatened with a direct physical attack.

That answered nothing.

Anonymous Alexander November 06, 2013 4:25 PM  

Hilariously, Vox is in favor of that. He is saying as the rules now stand. Trolls should be reported. To their personal associates. By their real names. How is that not your very definition of the high road?

Anonymous SirHamster November 06, 2013 4:32 PM  

WaterBoy November 06, 2013 2:01 PM
Yes, it is. But that's not the situation to which the principle is generally applied, which is to push the bulk of one's forces as hard and as fast as they can go, to get to the prospective battlefield before the opposing force can get there and set up their defenses (and ideally, in time to implement their own defensive plan). The "most" part then kicks in as a battle of attrition is fought.


Nathaniel Bedford Forrest was not known for fighting battles of attrition. As such, your interpretation is probably not what he meant.

I think a better summary of the statement is on the wiki page:

"a novel and succinct condensation of the military's Principles of mass and maneuver"

In Civil War times, mass was accomplished with manpower; a few generations later in the World Wars, it was obtained with concentration of long range firepower and combined arms tactics. Different means, but same principal.

How is mass achieved in a media war? Social media may play a part. Concentrating conservative media to actively and publicly humiliate/shame/"destroy" the leftists who practice underhanded tactics anywhere and everywhere would be a possible application.

Anonymous Scintan November 06, 2013 4:36 PM  

You did no such thing. I asked for a case where the high road would solve an issue where another party was set to ruin you, and you offered:

1. Reporting them > Lying about them
2. Trolls are accepted in most places but if you insist, banning them should do the trick.
3. You gave no solution to a cheating spouse, save pointing out that cheating on them isn't proactive.
4. Calling the police is a good solution when you are being credibly threatened with a direct physical attack.

That answered nothing.


Again, you asked for examples of something:

Please give specific examples of how one can take the high road against an opponent who will use any means to defeat you, and win a practical victory

I gave some. I even offered an example of a situation where the 'low road' would be an ineffective response to 'low road' issues, and another example where taking a 'high road' approach could obviously solve the issue even at the point of threats of violence. You then choosing to move the goalposts (i.e. most successful) is not my concern.

Blogger Rseven Rocket November 06, 2013 4:57 PM  

Respond with maximum escalation. Publish the information of the leftist's family and friends too

Anonymous Michael Maier November 06, 2013 5:06 PM  

The fact that "Sex" is in the URL probably accounts for the company software calling it a sex site.

Anonymous WaterBoy November 06, 2013 6:05 PM  

"SirHamster: "As such, your interpretation is probably not what he meant.

I think a better summary of the statement is on the wiki page:

"a novel and succinct condensation of the military's Principles of mass and maneuver"
"


Thank you for the clarification.

SirHamster: "How is mass achieved in a media war? Social media may play a part. Concentrating conservative media to actively and publicly humiliate/shame/"destroy" the leftists who practice underhanded tactics anywhere and everywhere would be a possible application."

As Nate noted, with the correct ammunition, I agree. Simply having multiple people restating the same information over and over -- if incorrect or poorly aimed -- hasn't accomplished anything yet. C.f., Obama's birth certificate.

Anonymous SirHamster November 06, 2013 6:24 PM  

As Nate noted, with the correct ammunition, I agree. Simply having multiple people restating the same information over and over -- if incorrect or poorly aimed -- hasn't accomplished anything yet. C.f., Obama's birth certificate.

Agreed there - duplicates of a sentence bear no extra meaning and are trivially ignored. Agreed there - duplicates of a sentence bear no extra meaning and are trivially ignored.

War with ideas is a different battlefield than war with material; 2 identical bullets are better than 1 bullet; 2 identical comments are not better than a single comment.

Though there is something to be said for the appearance of (or actual) mass support, and "suppressing fire" doesn't need to hit the target to be effective.

Anonymous Jack Amok November 06, 2013 7:18 PM  

Again, no -- the defending force is already in place, so there can be no "first".

I think the idea of "first with the most" just goes right over your head.

Anonymous Jack Amok November 06, 2013 8:41 PM  

But just to make it clear Water Boy, here's an example.

A particular bridge has been identified as critical to Green Force getting their division across a river for offensive operations against Gold Force. Green immediately dispatches a platoon to secure the bridge while the rest of the division gets ready to move. At 9am the Green platoon arrives and sets up a defensive position. At 11am a battalion of Gold Force arrives and by noon has wiped out the Green platoon and taken control of the bridge. By 2pm the bridge is wired and demo'd. At 6pm the rest of Green's division arrives and stands on their side of the river looking at a pile of twisted metal in the canyon below.

Who got there first? Green (9am).

Who got there with the most? Green (a full division)

Who got there "first with he most?" Gold. They denied Green the strategic objective.

No surprise was involved, both sides knew the bridge was important. Gold just got more force to the battle in time to make a difference. That's what "first with the most" is all about. Being there first is no good if your force is too small to accomplish the mission. Having the largest force doesn't matter if you can't get them there in time to matter.

Forrest's cavalry units were often much smaller than the overall Union forces in the theater, but he was able to move fast and repeatedly achieve local superiority. That's why he's associated with the phrase. Well, that and, despite the intellectual slur it implies against him, "firstest with the mostest" is a memorable phrase.

Anonymous Toby Temple November 06, 2013 8:54 PM  

What happens if the trolls come back, stay quiet and start collecting data on the positive or neutral commenters here?

That is suppose to be something that anyone should be concerned about?

Escalation begets escalation.

You seem to imply that escalation is absolutely wrong.

For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms.

Eph. 6:12


36 He said to them, “But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one.

Luke 22:36

Hmm.. I wonder what the sword was for.

Anonymous CLK November 06, 2013 9:38 PM  

"I didn't publish their personal information here or send the long compendium of insults, vulgarities, and obscenities they had spewed to their friends, families, publishers, and employers. But I could have easily done so..And now that it is clear that this is how the game is being played, well, those of us who are already accustomed to the public view can certainly ensure that everyone else's actions are too."

I never thought I would see the day.. one of the last bastions of free speech --- maybe this fight with SFWA had more of an effect on you than you realized ... the best way for an enemy to defeat you is to turn you into them... don't become them..

Anonymous Anti-Democracy Activist November 06, 2013 9:45 PM  

There's a reason why it's hard to argue with leftists. That's because their arguments, in one form or another (snark, sarcasm, ridicule) normally consist of about 99% simple insults. How does one argue with an insult? You can't, because insults aren't even arguments. "You're a fundie/racist/neo-Nazi/homophobe", or "You're so angry/hate-filled" is no less of a simple insult than "You're a motherfucker". How does one respond to that? "Why no, good sir, you are surely mistaken - I have never engaged in sexual congress with my female parent!". What kind of doofus does that?

The answer is: you don't. You're a fool to get tricked into arguing against something that's not even really an argument. Bob Grant, legend of New York talk radio, had great ways of dealing with this sort of thing, and anyone who never listened to him is the worse for it. But for most people, it may be best to simply tell whatever leftist you're dealing with that you'll answer his arguments when he actually makes one, instead of simply hurling schoolyard insults or attempting back-alley psychotherapy on you.

Or, don't bother with them at all. Vox is more forgiving than I am. On my own humble web space, comments are turned off - forever. To my way of mind, the time for arguing or debating is long past. It is now time to boldly tell the truth, and let the chips fall where they may.

Anonymous DonReynolds November 06, 2013 11:41 PM  

Toby Temple......"Hmm.. I wonder what the sword was for."

They use them to make plowshares.
I know.....would seem to be a big waste.

Anonymous DonReynolds November 06, 2013 11:50 PM  

Anti-Democracy Activist....."On my own humble web space, comments are turned off - forever. To my way of mind, the time for arguing or debating is long past. It is now time to boldly tell the truth, and let the chips fall where they may."

I agree with you completely. Everything has already been said. Anyone interested enough can revisit the arguments and counter-arguments, over and over. There is nothing to negotiate and there is nothing left to discuss. Both sides know what the other thinks and believes so any further rehash is entirely pointless.

We both know that the talk will continue because some people refuse to accept that apparent fact that there is no peaceful solution. Talking may be a delay or a distraction, but do not take your eye off the ball. At some point it will be necessary to defend yourself. Either you will die or they will. There will be no happy ending.

Blogger Desiderius November 07, 2013 12:03 AM  

"We need to find common ground with the Left, the real Left, not the establishment Left.. We have no choice. One possible point of common ground is opposition centrally controlled fiat monetary system, It's draining the wealth from just about everybody. And it hits the lower classes the hardest."

Second.

"I fear you're right. I beginning to think you can fit all the true leftists in the country in a small VFW hall."

Do not take counsel of your fears. The many are false because their leaders are false. Should the true regain leadership, the rest will follow. Such is their way.

Divide and conquer.

Blogger Desiderius November 07, 2013 12:05 AM  

"There will be no happy ending."

There will be happiness and sadness. There will be no ending.

Blogger Ann Morgan November 07, 2013 12:59 AM  

Josh wrote: **Vox isn't the one escalating.**

What would you call making obscene comments in response to my post on economics or making death threats against me, when I have never used obscenity or made threats against him?

Anonymous DonReynolds November 07, 2013 1:19 AM  

Ann Morgan......."What would you call making obscene comments in response to my post on economics or making death threats against me, when I have never used obscenity or made threats against him?"

Well Ann, there is adult language here, that is why the Brownie Scouts have their own chat room. I hope I do not promote it, except by breathing, but it is part of the larger world these days. Note: depending on what you consider obscene, I very rarely type ugly or nasty words here.
.
Now about those death threats.....they are not really death threats unless you are certain to die. I know, dying of embarassment seems bad at the time but it is not really a death threat.....especially if the person you think is threatening you is (at least) 7,000 miles away. In cases like that, I would just classify it as "wishful thinking"......not really a death threat per se.

Anonymous Obvious November 07, 2013 1:30 AM  

Bring it, Teddy. :)

Blogger Ann Morgan November 07, 2013 1:42 AM  

Don Reynolds wrote: **Well Ann, there is adult language here, that is why the Brownie Scouts have their own chat room.**

That might very well be, but an obscene comment or a threat in response to a non-obscene and/or nonthreatening comment is still an escalation. It also (as well as his frequent 'shut ups') makes Vox look stupid and rude, since the assumption of most readers who aren't already in 100% agreement with him is going to be that if Vox can't think of a valid argument proving me wrong, it means that he doesn't have a valid argument, or else he wouldn't have to resort to that sort of thing.

Blogger Anthony Walsh November 07, 2013 1:47 AM  

Good post from "Vox Day".

I especially like the use of the word "politics" throughout, since politics isn't only about government administration. More particularly, it's about the logistics of power.

Best regards,

A.W.

Anonymous FrankNorman November 07, 2013 8:45 AM  

Anti-Democracy Activist November 06, 2013 9:45 PM

There's a reason why it's hard to argue with leftists. That's because their arguments, in one form or another (snark, sarcasm, ridicule) normally consist of about 99% simple insults.


In their minds, reality is social. So they don't need to refute you if they can just boo you down.

Also, there's the mindset that believes certain things, not because they are considered true, but as matter of something like moral duty. Real external reality is dismissed as irrelevant. If you present facts and argument that go against the consensus reality they live in, they will react by making a moral judgement of you. They will not consider that what you are saying could actually be true.

Anonymous civilServant November 07, 2013 12:51 PM  

It seems like you're mistaking your society for the only society that could ever be.

You mistake me for libertarians. It is libertarians who reject the notion that anything outside of their own ideas is legitimate in any way. Their first response to any idea that disagrees with their views is "That is stupid" or "You are evil" or variations thereof. This has been well-exampled on this blog and elsewhere.

Sorry. The libertarian ideal is the self - isolated and sufficient and moral in and of itself. One frequently hears libertarians say they hate government but this is untrue. They love government. They love it so much they wish it concentrated in themselves solely and unaccountably. They are their own citizen and legislature and president and judge and jury and executioner and pope and priest and (in honor of the recent threads concerning public education) educator in and of themselves on their own recognizance without check or balance. They wish a six-gun on their hip and no competing policeman in sight. The society they seek is the society of themselves.

No-one else need apply for this society. After all - they are smart unlike Most People. They are the only citizen they need. Women and blacks need not apply - as need not anyone else whatsoever. Libertarians recognize only four human relationships - those who agree exactly with them and thus are transparent and those who are employees and thus are silently obedient and those who are family and thus are tolerated (but notice how small and isolated libertarian families are) and the remainder who are not present or in contact in any way and thus are irrelevant. All others are statists or thugs or thieves or bullies or idiots.

The ideal society for the libertarian is the old testament patriarch who alone is the owner and ruler of the entire tribe and who alone decides all matters in the tribe. Or rather it would be if libertarians were not averse to other people as such. Thus the practical libertarian society is the society of the isolated self. Observe how many live and work in isolated locations. Observe how many live alone. Observe how many have so few children. Observe how many arm themselves to the teeth and look forward to the day when they can open fire without consequence to themselves and achieve - at long last - their ideal society.

Recently on this blog was reviewed a book about a libertarian rebellion in the American West. This was joke. Should a libertarian "regime" ever arise in that region they promptly would murder each other in self-righteous holy war over water rights. In the same way that atheists are held to be moral parasites on the society in which they live libertarians are civic parasites on the society in which they live. Libertarianism may be entertained only as a hobby from within a societal and governmental structure which provides a means of resolving conflicts. Libertarians have no such means of creating such structures themselves. They are dependent upon others for such.

It is not that "my" society is the only one that can ever be. It is that libertarianism can never be. You take this to mean that NO societies other than my own can exist. The limitation is your own.

Anonymous WaterBoy November 07, 2013 1:17 PM  

Jack Amok: "But just to make it clear Water Boy, here's an example."

Oh for Pete's sake. You've now gone past silly and into ridiculous.

JA: "At 9am the Green platoon arrives and sets up a defensive position."

So, they are the first with the most men at that point in time, since nobody else is even there. The bridge is safe, and we can't see into the future to know that another first with the most men is on its way. Guess that means they win, per the definition, right?

JA: "At 11am a battalion of Gold Force arrives..."

So, now we have a new first with the most men...

JA: "...and by noon has wiped out the Green platoon and taken control of the bridge"

Begging the question, but OK. It assumes, for instance, that Green has no advantages through:

- superior training;
- superior weaponry;
- effective defensive cover;
- mined or booby trapped approaches;
- air support;
- artillery support;
- intelligence (of the military type);
- any other battlefield factors (weather, terrain, etc) unrelated to the number of men that could give them any sort of advantage over the attacking force.

Thus, it comes down to a simple battle of attrition as per Lanchester's Laws, where most men matters.

JA: "By 2pm the bridge is wired and demo'd. "

Boom. Gone. Next?

STOP!

End of scenario. We need go no farther, since Gold has already achieved its objective. How? By having the most men. Period. There is no need for any first with the most men explanation when a simple most men will suffice...and, as before, we can't see into the future to know that another first with the most men is on its way.

But let's go ahead and finish the scenario.

(cont'd next)

Anonymous WaterBoy November 07, 2013 1:23 PM  

(cont'd)

JA: "At 6pm the rest of Green's division arrives"

Ah, good. Yet another first with the most men, since we have already set a precedent that a superior force arriving later is defined as first with the most men. This one now supplants the Gold first with the most men, which reverts back to just more men than the one before it. Now, is this current first with the most men successful? No, they failed, because the force of more men than the one before it already blew up the bridge. How about that? The force of first with the most men failed, contradicting the principle.

So in addition to first with the most men, we have to include something about the objective; mere presence is not enough. Success must now be defined as first with the most men who were successful at completing their objective. Sounds like a tautology, to me. And if you try to disqualify the second Green force as 'not first' since Gold had already achieved their objective, you're right back to the simple most men explanation.

Do you see why I think your example is ridiculous?

Furthermore, if you go way back to my very first comment on the matter, Gold force doesn't even need to show up at all. They can simply send in a drone to take out the bridge without using any of their ground force at all. Green Force becomes the 'sitting ducks' as I first stated. First with most men? Try last with few men.

Now do you understand the problem I have with your version of first with the most men? You have to torture it beyond recognition to make it fit.

This is why I lean toward the explanation proffered by SirHamster, that "most men" was intended to incorporate many of the other elements we have discussed within a single encapsulation, i.e., the principle of Mass. Consider to whom Forrest was speaking when he said that quote -- a woman of the mid-19th century who, it is reasonable to assume, had little to no understanding of military doctrine. It would be far simpler for Forrest to say "most men", than to try to explain all of the other elements involved. Forrest was a battlefield genius; some of the tactics he developed are still used today. But to attempt to derive some kind of superior military doctrine from an offhand quip delivered to a lady is ultimately futile.

I leave you now with another example, which allegedly really happened. The Battle of Gaugamela, in which Darrius was not only first (he even had time to literally level the playing field), and had the most men, but was also first with the most men. And yet he still lost, due to those other factors.

Anonymous Jack Amok November 07, 2013 1:24 PM  

civilServant, I most assuredly do not mistake you for a libertarian. You have made it abundantly clear - repeatedly - that you don't know what a libertarian is or believes. You have a strawman idea in your brain and won't see beyond your own caricature. The same frankly is true of "society." You have your strawman ideas about that too. Frankly, I find nothing you say about libertarians or society valuable because you know so very little about either, your ideas constrained by the self-imposed limits of what you allow yourself to believe.

You're a man wearing a blindfold describing a photograph you've never seen. While sitting in a room with all the lights off and the curtains drawn.

Anonymous WaterBoy November 07, 2013 1:30 PM  

"i.e., the principle of Mass"

Sorry, that should have been "e.g., the principle of Mass".

Anonymous Jack Amok November 07, 2013 4:17 PM  

So, they are the first with the most men at that point in time

WaterBoy, this really is going over your head, or perhaps you're just overthinking it and missing the basic point. This is the relevant point:

Getting there first doesn't matter if you don't have enough force to do the job. Getting there with the most force doesn't matter if you get it their too late. First with the most means getting sufficient force to the objective in time to defeat the enemy force.

That's it. That's what it means. And it's absolutely still possible to do today, which was how this whole disagreement started. If you don't think it is, go ahead and think that, no skin off my nose.

Anonymous WaterBoy November 07, 2013 4:34 PM  

Jack Amok: "First with the most means getting sufficient force to the objective in time to defeat the enemy force."

And there it is. Not just a goalpost move, but you picked up the entire fricking stadium and relocated it to another city.

Sufficient force ≠ most men. It can be done with fewer men via superior tactics, weaponry, etc, as I've repeatedly stated and you've repeatedly ignored in favor of goalpost moving and question begging.

There's no more to be said, you've exposed yourself.

Blogger Tracy Coyle November 07, 2013 6:57 PM  

I occasionally get accused of being a troll, or a progtard (which is pretty funny to me) but I try to be explicit in my comments and positions - I don't argue for the sake of being an ass. That said, I have posted online using my real name and my personal location information is readily available to anyone that spends 2 minutes looking. I have zero use for anonymous crap and generally dismiss such, whether I agree with their comments or not. If you can't say it in front of your 'target', to their face, with your mother standing next to you, STFU. I've been punched in the face for saying something to someone - I'm willing to accept the consequences for my comments - the drive-by haters deserve every bad thing available to us to send their way...

Anonymous Jack Amok November 07, 2013 8:46 PM  

Waterboy, since you have accused me of moving goalposts you will now state in three sentences or less exactly how you think I did so or you will withdraw the accusation.

Blogger Ann Morgan November 07, 2013 11:46 PM  

Jack Amok wrote: **Waterboy, since you have accused me of moving goalposts you will now state in three sentences or less exactly how you think I did so or you will withdraw the accusation.**

I'm sure that should work about as well as my demanding that Crude explain exactly how he is privy to my inner thought processes, such that he can make statements regarding what concepts I do and do not understand.

Anonymous Jack Amok November 07, 2013 11:48 PM  

Trust me Ann, it will work out better.

Anonymous WaterBoy November 08, 2013 1:09 AM  

Jack Amok: "you will now state in three sentences or less exactly how you think I did so"

Trivial, really -- however, I'll only be able to cover two of your statements due to your restriction. But you already knew that, didn't you?

Jack Amok November 06, 2013 12:02 PM:
"What if the "there" he was getting to first was the control center for the drones or the depot with all the artillery shells?"


1. Note the lack of qualifications on the control center.

Jack Amok November 06, 2013 3:02 PM:
"And taking out an inadequately defended drone command center is exactly that."


2. First, it was just a control center; then, after I pointed out that it was likely to already be defended, you changed it to an "inadequately defended" command center -- much easier to defeat, that one is, so goalpost moved.

3. There's much, much more than that, but since I have been superficially restricted to just three sentences, I am unable to elaborate on the rest of them; isn't that just awfully convenient for you, that you would try to prevent me from exposing more of your shenanigans -- one might perhaps maybe possibly potentially consider that dishonest, mightn't one?

I have met your demand, so I will not retract. However, since I also expect you to continue your childish dance and deny the words in front of you or attempt yet again to change their meanings, I will no longer respond to your tantrums. Run along now, little boy.

Anonymous Jack Amok November 08, 2013 2:42 AM  

WaterBoy,

It was impossible that I moved any goalposts because that is only something that happens in a debate. We weren't debating, I was explaining a concept to you. The worst I could be accused of is confusing you, which apparently I did. Since you seem utterly, aspergically incapable of understanding anything you aren't beaten over the head with...

Any location that is defended is BY DEFINITION inadequately defended if an attacking force is able to defeat the defenders. If you wish to claim no command center could possibly ever be inadequately defended, than you are being petulant and foolish. Figuring out how to get enough force there to defeat the defenders is an exercise for the commander faced with the problem. Perhaps he can do it, perhaps he cannot. That's why it's just dumb as a box of rocks for you to claim "goalpost moving" or to even think this is a debate. It's not. It's a lesson, and you're too busy making asinine objections to learn anything. If the enemy has an asset, you look for ways to deny it to him. If he has multiple assets, then he's defending multiple locations and - if you're a mobile, fast moving attacker like Forrest's cavalry was in his day - then you have a very good opportunity to achieve local superiority and be "first with the most" to take out one of his assets.

Like I said, this concept goes over your head. Good night.

Blogger Rhinokage Rio January 20, 2014 8:02 PM  

I like it .-

Post a Comment

Rules of the blog
Please do not comment as "Anonymous". Comments by "Anonymous" will be spammed.

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts