ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2016 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Sunday, June 21, 2015

Delusion and deterrence

Mr. Smith has a rather unusual theory about the Charleston church shootings:
Adam F. Smith ‏@Adampdx Jun 18
Haters like @castaliahouse  Theodore "Vox Day" Beale are the cause of massacre at SC AME church #SadPuppies #hugoawards
I look forward to the SJWs at File 770 being as horrified and outraged by this ludicrous accusation as they pretended to be by Mike Z. Williamson's "too soon" joke. It's particularly bizarre since I am not Castalia House and @castaliahouse has never taken any position on any American racial or religious affairs.

It's rather amusing to see the many attacks by their own side the SJWs resolutely ignore as they go about their daily posturing and strike their latest outrage poses. Tor employees attack Tor's authors and customers alike, Castalia House has undergone six straight months of cracking attempts, Vox Popoli is now into its third straight day of a DDOS attack, hundreds of people emailing Tor Books have been accused of being bots by Tor employees even as as Tor supporters create fake tweets to feign public support for Tor, and yet science fiction's SJWs still preen and posture as if they're the good guys because a few hundred science fiction readers followed the rules and violated an unspoken gentlemen's agreement to which we were not privy and to which we never agreed.

And yet, some of those on our side still want to pretend this decades-long cultural conflict is some sort of white-glove affair. There is a fundamental disagreement between the noble defeatists and those who are less willing to continue to submit to the SJWs attempt to claim cultural dominance at Sarah Hoyt's post on The Marquess of Queensbury's rules:
thewriterinblack  
Another observation I have made in the past is that our enemies often not only know that we don’t play by the same “rulebook” as they do, they count on it. Those among the Jihadis who have even a ghost of a clue know that if we were really as bad as they make out, well, it would be easier to pray toward Mecca–just face the blue glow.

Apropos of nothing, I am reminded of a scene in an old Fantastic Four comment. Sue Storm as the Invisible Girl (I think this was before she started calling herself the Invisible Woman) facing Dr. Doom. “Doom, do you have any idea how dangerous my force fields would be if I decided to play by your rules?”

That’s us all over.

Dorothy Grant
And this would be why they hate and fear Vox Day above all others: because he does play by their rules.

RES
If we played by their rules the earth would be scorched. But playing by the Devil’s rules would be to concede defeat — what we fight for is ordered liberty, constrained government, rational argument over insanity.

Batman does not become the Joker, Superman does not accept the values of Luthor, Spiderman does not become Doc Octopus.
RES is completely wrong for the obvious reason that SJWs are not the Devil, they are merely his unhappy, not-very-bright children. And the vital point that RES completely misses is that you do not defend ordered liberty, constrained government, and rational argument over insanity with unconstrained liberty, government inaction, and talk. You defend it with force, and you defend it successfully with force that exceeds that of your opponent at the point of conflict.

The Romans did not become the Britons by defeating them with superior force. The USA did not become Nazi Germany by invading Normandy (although it may as a result of the 1965 Immigration Act). The Soviets did not become the Afghans and the Coalition of the Willing has not become the global jihad. Batman would not become the Joker even if he snapped the Joker's neck, but he would certainly save the lives of all of those who would have been killed by the Joker in the future.

What frustrates me about the noble defeatists is that they are like a football team who refuses to accept the newfangled rules that permit the forward pass. They insist on playing the game in the outmoded way they believe to be the correct way, run the ball every down against a defense with 11 men stacked in the box, and inevitably lose when the other team passes for ten touchdowns and wins 70-0.

The problem is a conceptual one at heart. Even those whose devotion to free expression is unquestioned, such as Ken and Clarke of PopeHat, fail to understand that their efforts are doomed to failure so long as they confuse the objective with the methods used to defend it. This is not a "by any means" argument, it is a straightforward argument for Chicago Rules deterrence.

The best defense for free expression is not to permit the other side to freely libel and slander and calumniate and defame and lie while responding with few feeble protests that what they're saying just ain't so. The reason poison gas has made very few appearances on the battlefield since WWI is not because the French, English, and Americans set the Germans a good example, but because they promptly responded by manufacturing and using even more gas than the Germans did. The only reason the USA has not dropped an atomic bomb since 1945 is because the Soviet Union obtained their own in 1949.

Has the assault on free speech waxed or waned since Belgium introduced hate speech laws in 1981? The high-minded non-deterrent approach has failed, continuously failed, for the last three decades. The SJWs find speech-policing to be a useful weapon for marginalizing, disqualifying, and destroying their enemies and they are not going to give it up until they find themselves suffering from it to a greater extent than the free speech advocates do.

If you seek to defend free expression, you can do no better than to follow the lead of Lieutenant General Sir Charles Ferguson, who said of poison gas, which he deplored as a "cowardly" and un-English form of warfare:

"We cannot win this war unless we kill or incapacitate more of our enemies than they do of us, and if this can only be done by our copying the enemy in his choice of weapons, we must not refuse to do so."

This does not mean we must blindly imitate the other side, particularly not in their instinctual resort to stupid and petty lies, transparent psychological projection, and a foolish insistence on defending the indefensible. Nor should we seek to be as blindly ignorant of them as they are of us. What it means is that we should adopt their more effective tactics, and, as the Allies did with gas in WWI, make even more effective and extensive use of those tactics until they agree to abandon them.

Labels: , ,

101 Comments:

Anonymous Stilicho June 21, 2015 5:55 AM  

Amen. As for me and my house, we will fight.

Blogger kh123 June 21, 2015 6:22 AM  

Enablers like @SFWA John "Badass Marine" Scalzi are the cause of kiddie fiddling at Dragoncon. #edkramer #checkyourfacts #jim'llfixit

It'd be more accurate to say "allows professional cover and financial support for kiddie fiddlers." But given the measure SJWs use, the above's beyond accurate.

Anonymous James June 21, 2015 6:31 AM  

Damn right.

Let those who want to keep their hands clean go to church and clasp them in prayer. Don't bother those who feel obligated to actually defend the virtues you claim to hold so dear.

Anonymous PhillipGeorge(c)2015 June 21, 2015 6:34 AM  

Been thinking Vox there isn't officially a tertiary degree in "victimology". How to get grants, how to wear victim badges, how to feign tears, shock, horror, indignation, disgust, how to sniff at the middle class, how to siphon funds, rorte, degrade, denigrate. I suspect the reason is every arts degree already offer it as part of undergraduate core syllabus. What to say - must be a lot of arts degrees at Tor.

Blogger YIH June 21, 2015 6:56 AM  

These morons are still trying to DDoS Google?
Wow, I think they just broke the stupid barrier.

Blogger Laramie Hirsch June 21, 2015 6:57 AM  

I am doing what I can to further our cause among my people, and I've taken the liberty of quoting Vox at length in this forum that I go to. Any thoughts, I'd be obliged to hear them.

Onward, soldiers.

http://www.fisheaters.com/forums/index.php?topic=3468399.0

Blogger Mad Dok Rob June 21, 2015 7:14 AM  

Mr. Smith,

That is a special kind of stupid you got there.

Anonymous Severian June 21, 2015 7:17 AM  

Leave for for a right winger to complain that other rightists are being too mean to the left.

Blogger YIH June 21, 2015 7:18 AM  

The last few days I've noticed attempts to pull up various Blogger/YouTube/Search urls come up with 'connection timed out' errors.
I hit 'reload' and it comes right up. Must be Google bounces legit and illegitimate calls across their whole system as DDoS defense.

Blogger Laguna Beach Fogey June 21, 2015 7:33 AM  

Well said, Vox. Lots of gamma geeks with STEM degrees on the anti-SJW side, I suspect, who would rather walk away from a fight, and whose Christian beliefs, they claim, preclude them from doing anything truly effective to the enemy.

Anonymous Anonymous June 21, 2015 7:36 AM  

Remember:

Ghandi tactics work against the British
Ghandi tactics do not work against the Soviets

Is the American Left more like the British, or more like the Soviets?

Blogger dlw June 21, 2015 7:49 AM  

Not so much "the British", who had no trouble using whatever level of force was required to maintain control, but "the Raj", which operated at a level of incompetence even the Soviets never quite managed.

Anonymous NorthernHamlet June 21, 2015 7:53 AM  

VD,

How does one make use of environments where passive-aggressive questioning is used by those with power above you?

Blogger Cail Corishev June 21, 2015 7:56 AM  

Yes, it's kids' comic book (or maybe just comic book movie) stuff, this idea that if the good kid stands up to the bully with a punch in the nose, he'll suddenly start liking punching people in the nose so much that he becomes the bully. The more likely truth is that if he were the type who liked bullying, he'd already be the bully's lieutenant.

A better example in literature would be the classic Western. After Shane defends the homesteaders and kills the bad guy, he doesn't become their new tormentor. If he were that type, he'd already be working for the bad guy or tormenting some other homesteaders somewhere else.

Knowingly adopting your enemy's tactics isn't the same thing as becoming your enemy. People on our side who fret about that (assuming they aren't simply concern trolls) should ask themselves: am I going to change that much, or am I assuming all these other people are weaker than me?

Blogger VD June 21, 2015 7:57 AM  

How does one make use of environments where passive-aggressive questioning is used by those with power above you?

Ask for clarification to force them to reveal themselves. They cloak themselves in passive-aggression because they dare not be straightforward. The clarification request forces them to either retreat or out themselves.

In other words, play dumb and get them to spell everything out in writing.

OpenID simplytimothy June 21, 2015 8:23 AM  

What frustrates me about the noble defeatists is that they are like a football team who refuses to accept those newfangled rules that permit the forward pass. while refusing to wear face-masks....

Very good post, Vox. Thanks.


Blogger Cataline Sergius June 21, 2015 8:26 AM  

There is no getting around it. The time has come to go after men like RES.

Men like him may honestly believe they are upholding standards but effectively they are active saboteurs of our cause.

Saboteurs have to be treated like saboteurs. Sad but there it is.

If they show up in the comments of our own blogs, slap them down so hard they go whining to the SJWs for succor and comfort.

It's time to drive them from our house.

The dogmas of the quiet past, are inadequate to the stormy present.

Blogger Mr.MantraMan June 21, 2015 8:26 AM  

The Left pays good money for their "respectable conservatives" and they're worth every penny.

But the Wars of Liberation have begun and the "respectables" will make good tread grease.

Of course these crackpots will try and claim the authority of Western Civilization like the RES character but there IMO is no Western Civ besides running water, fairly reliable electricity and buildings full of memorabilia.

Blogger Quizzer W June 21, 2015 8:27 AM  

Another way to fight the lies is to expose the concepts of the left and demonstrate the terrible things they lead to. Most of the commenters here do it with words. I'm trying to do it with a comic strip.

I've been accused of being "one of them" because I'm trying to "culturally appropriate" their ridiculous theories. This is another problem with some on the right, although thankfully it is not as prevalent. Some will read until they see the "buzzwords" and leap to conclusions without comprehending the mockery that it is. Or at least that I try to make it.

In fact, I believe there is a third leg making the dialectic/rhetoric into a stool: satire. Satire is for those in the audience who are too distracted to care about the argument. It serves two purposes: it mocks the opponent's ideas, and it immunizes the mob against the opponents' arguments.

"Intersectional Feminism? That's the bullshevick about how a woman having children oppresses women who don't, right?" -- immunized clueless idiot

Blogger Cataline Sergius June 21, 2015 8:28 AM  

Men like him may honestly believe they are upholding standards...

The truth is they are more often just too queasy about having to fight a real fight.

Blogger Nate June 21, 2015 8:30 AM  

the whole idea of "being the better person" or "doing it the right way" in a conflict like this is retarded. you're counting on the "goodness" of humanity to see what you've done and have sympathy for you.

that's fine and all... except that humanity isn't good. So you're screwed.

Blogger Cataline Sergius June 21, 2015 8:31 AM  

It is instructive to note that the Bolsheviks didn't bother to fight the Whites until after they had crushed the Mensheviks .

Blogger Cail Corishev June 21, 2015 8:34 AM  

Leave for for a right winger to complain that other rightists are being too mean to the left.

I think part of it is that a lot of nice, good people join us because they see we're right and the left is wrong. They're intellectually honest enough to see that the left must be stopped, so they get on the right side. But they don't really like being on the right. We're too abrasive, too blunt, too coldly logical. Emotionally, they'd rather be on the side where people use emoticons and constantly send each other hugs. They still believe battles can be won with enough hugs and talking.

Combine that with the fear Vox is talking about here, that every soldier will come home a serial killer, and you get the "concerned ally." He's technically on our side, but he wishes we were nicer, so he appoints himself a sort of den mother who's going to smooth our rough edges so we can be right AND nice.

If he were a conscientious objector who said, "I won't attack them with violent rhetoric like you guys do, but I'm on board with non-violent stuff like boycotts and logistics," that'd be fine. He crosses a line when he tries to get everyone else to conform to his own limits. An ally who refuses to fight but patches up the wounded and hauls supplies is still an ally; the ally who tries to unload your gun is not.

Blogger Quizzer W June 21, 2015 8:35 AM  

Before you "go after" anyone on the right you'd best make sure they actually are "an enemy". Many of them are your allies, they just need to understand their actions are sub-optimal. It isn't like he is coming here with his ideas. RES is sure as heck NOT an SJW.

Anonymous Steve June 21, 2015 8:39 AM  

Adam Smith, AKA Adam Michaels of Portland, Oregon.

I'm not going to doxx the guy, because that would be cruel, but he lives the sort of life you'd imagine a 30-year old Millenial SJW lives.

Mr Michaels is a "videographer", which means he was once paid to film a Youtube spot for a trucking firm. But his real passion is sending out hundreds of tweets a day crying about "racism", and playing videogames in his rented one-bedroom triplex.

Adam is an angry failure. Life hasn't panned out the way he thought it would, so he's lashing out at his betters through social media.

Blogger Quizzer W June 21, 2015 8:39 AM  

So you are complaining that "they" are tone-policing you while you want to tone-police them right back? Everybody fights different. Vox is right. As long as everyone is shooting more or less at the enemy it's all good.

The Huns at accordingtohoyt are your allies. They have not come here saying *anything* about how the Ilk are fighting. Let them do in their house what they will do. Do in your house what you do.

Anonymous Nope June 21, 2015 8:45 AM  

The only reason the USA has not dropped an atomic bomb since 1945 is because the Soviet Union obtained their own in 1949.

Nope. That doesn't explain all the times we successfully coerced the USSR with the threat of nuking them - a threat that wouldn't be credible if the Soviet bomb deterred us from using ours.

Nor does it explain the times we didn't use the bomb in wars that didn't involve the USSR, such as Korea and Vietnam. In those cases, there was no fear that the USSR would retaliate. In those cases, it was mainly that the President didn't want to incur the extreme political odium of using them.

Change "only reason" to "an important reason" and it works.

Blogger Loyd Jenkins June 21, 2015 8:47 AM  

Batman does not become the Joker. He knocks Joker out (without due process) and sees him locked away.

There are lines we should not cross. But we should play to win. And hold them to their own standards.

Blogger Loyd Jenkins June 21, 2015 8:51 AM  

Cail, I like your Shane example.

Anonymous DT June 21, 2015 8:52 AM  

Haters like @castaliahouse Theodore "Vox Day" Beale are the cause of massacre at SC AME church #SadPuppies #hugoawards

Wait a minute...I thought Fox News was responsible?

Or was it George W. Bush?

No, no...I remember now...it was Reagan. Ronald Reagan was responsible for the church shooting.

Blogger VD June 21, 2015 8:54 AM  

Nope. That doesn't explain all the times we successfully coerced the USSR with the threat of nuking them - a threat that wouldn't be credible if the Soviet bomb deterred us from using ours.

Don't be ridiculous. If the USA had retained its monopoly on atomic technology, it would have used it again at some point in the last 70 years.

Blogger Mr.MantraMan June 21, 2015 8:55 AM  

Are we up to using the tactic of disqualification yet? IMO that is the line of departure for a real battle, as of now the left spews rhetorical jibberish, the right does its part and a new synthesis is created and we lose yet again.

Blogger Cail Corishev June 21, 2015 8:58 AM  

As long as everyone is shooting more or less at the enemy it's all good.

Yes. It's the ones who try to talk us out of fighting who are a problem.

We've seen several of those here (on this site, so I'm not talking about what anyone does elsewhere) just in the past couple weeks. What I've noticed is that, after being called out for it, they all disappeared. I would expect a true ally who is honestly concerned about our tactics, upon being told that he's giving aid and comfort to the enemy, to say, "Oh, I see what you mean. I don't want to do that so I'll stop, but I'll stay and fight in my own way." I've been watching for that and haven't seen it. The usual pattern is that he argues, doubling-down on his concerns about our meanness, and then when he can't get any traction, he leaves entirely.

So unless you already know him, how can you tell him from a concern troll from the other side? If he's not only unwilling to fight our way, but is putting his efforts into stopping us from doing so, is there any difference, as a practical matter?

How would you suggest we reach that person, distinguish him from the dishonest concern troll, and get him to stop trying to hobble his allies, without getting bogged down in constant arguments about whether we're being too mean?

Anonymous PhillipGeorge©2015 June 21, 2015 9:00 AM  

If this were a space craft you'd simply depressurize the air lock. Stop feeding them, cut off the oxygen supply.
Focus on the cremation process.

Anonymous Steve June 21, 2015 9:01 AM  

This is not a "by any means" argument, it is a straightforward argument for Chicago Rules deterrence.

Here's how you get the SJW's: they pull a knife, you pull a gun. They send one of yours to hospital, you send one of theirs to the morgue!

That's the Chicago way! And that's how you get the SJW's.

Anonymous buzzcut #207 June 21, 2015 9:04 AM  

“If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.”
― Samuel Adams

Anonymous Steve June 21, 2015 9:05 AM  

DT - I have been reliably informed that the colour of the state flag in South Carolina caused Dylann Storm Roof to go crazy and murder a bunch of innocent people.

But it's also possible that Sarah Palin, the Koch brothers, and GamerGate are to blame.

Blogger Cail Corishev June 21, 2015 9:08 AM  

Cail, I like your Shane example.

Thanks. It was either that or my dad, who went to war and killed people, then came home and raised a family and never again raised a hand in violence against anyone as far as I know. But I figured more people would recognize Shane.

Conservatives who have these "fighting fire with fire turns you into an arsonist" concerns should consider what that implies about the military men they respect so much.

Blogger Quizzer W June 21, 2015 9:09 AM  

Cail Corishev

Good question. For people coming here with their concerns, I don't see anything wrong. It's your house. Punch 'em in the face (rhetorically). They are wrong. Don't go do that in their house, though.

As far as "converting" the well-meaning but ineffective ally, I'll humbly submit that it will only rarely be done here. This is not the place where that happens. This is the place where the converted end up. This is the place where iron sharpens iron. The tribe Vox has built should not change to do this job.

Nothing keeps you from going into other houses where natural allies might be found and encourage them in a way they might respond to. This is not something everyone is cut out for, however. Each to the fight according to their talents and all that.

Blogger Mr.MantraMan June 21, 2015 9:09 AM  

In a couple of days they go straight to propaganda, it is probable those people in church were decent folks, little did they know their lives were only worth being props in the left's current anti-white zeitgeist. Slave owners valued black lives more than the vermin propagandists of the media.

If you FEEL you are falling for the propaganda and you gals know who you are, then stop watching the stupidvision and go read something that allows you time to think, yes think.

Anonymous Peach Trees June 21, 2015 9:13 AM  

Its clear that the anti-white left liberal establishment intends to brand any and all defense of Western Civilization (White People) as HATE and all those who argue for the preservation of WC-WP as terrorists. We are very near the time when we will be told to accept the SJW narrative or be branded a terrorist, responsible for every crime that the left chooses not to ignore. I think a lawsuit against leftist media and professors who inspire black criminals to attack white victims would be a good start. There was a recent case of a black criminal who cited the movie The Help as inspiring his hatred of whites and motivation for his violent attack on a white victim. In Atlanta, there was another case of a recent black college graduate who was inspired by his college professors to hate white people. He tried to murder three white girls in a parking deck where he worked as "security". He succeeded in killing one of them and paralyzing another. From the article:

"All of Thandiwe's victims are white. He said during his last few years in college, his history studies changed his thoughts about how some white people treated black people.

"In terms of slavery and race, it was something that needed to be answered for. I saw it as something that the black community hasn't recovered from so my initial way to handle that was to spread information to help combat some of the ignorance that was in the black community about our history," said Thandiwe.

Read more: http://www.cbs46.com/story/20816605/man-accused-of-murder-in-midtown-atlanta-parking-garage-takes-the-stand#ixzz3dhYWYtGQ

This seems to be low hanging fruit for an investigation as to which specific professors incited him to murder white people.

Blogger VD June 21, 2015 9:16 AM  

How would you suggest we reach that person, distinguish him from the dishonest concern troll, and get him to stop trying to hobble his allies, without getting bogged down in constant arguments about whether we're being too mean?

Don't bother. Simply point out the observable futility of his arguments and ask him to give you an example of his tactics being successful. He won't because he can't. If he pops up again with the same arguments, repeat as before.

If he persists a third time, he's a concern troll and you can safely nuke him as a fraud.

Blogger IM2L844 June 21, 2015 9:21 AM  

What creates guys like Dylann Roof, who have been told all their lives that they are the problem, they've always been the problem and will always be the problem, is when they discover they've been lied to, embrace their assigned role as the perpetual enemy and, out of weak mindedness, start connecting the wrong dots.

There are a whole lot of weak minded Dylann Roofs out there. It's probably a bad idea to keep telling them their destiny is to be the perpetual enemy before more of them embrace the SJW lie and connect the wrong dots.

Anonymous Legatus June 21, 2015 9:41 AM  

What is the purpose of war? The purpose of war is to compel your opponent to do it your way, anything from a minor trade dispute to compelling them to stop invading your lands and raping your women and taking your stuff.

To this purpose, the way to compel them is to do unto them what they do not wish you to do unto them, and to do as much of it as necessary until they see things your way. In the case of real evil, even God does this, as God said of the Roman soldier, who also acted as the police, “they do not bear the sword for nothing”, and called for war on a few instances, such as to wipe out a people to stop their constant public child sacrifice, or to defeat invaders bent on loot and enslavement.

To accomplish that, the purpose of the soldier is to kill people and break things.

I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided, and that is the lamp of experience. I know of no way of judging of the future but by the past. And judging by the past...Shall we try argument? Sir, we have been trying that for the last ten years. Have we anything new to offer upon the subject? Nothing. We have held the subject up in every light of which it is capable; but it has been all in vain. Shall we resort to entreaty and humble supplication? What terms shall we find which have not been already exhausted? Our petitions have been slighted; our remonstrances have produced additional violence and insult; our supplications have been disregarded; and we have been spurned, with contempt ...In vain, after these things, may we indulge the fond hope of peace and reconciliation. There is no longer any room for hope. If we wish to be free-- if we mean to preserve inviolate those inestimable privileges for which we have been so long contending--if we mean not basely to abandon the noble struggle in which we have been so long engaged, and which we have pledged ourselves never to abandon until the glorious object of our contest shall be obtained--we must fight! I repeat it, sir, we must fight! An appeal to arms and to the God of hosts is all that is left us!

They tell us, sir, that we are weak; unable to cope with so formidable an adversary. But when shall we be stronger? Will it be the next week, or the next year? Shall we acquire the means of effectual resistance by lying supinely on our backs and hugging the delusive phantom of hope, until our enemies shall have bound us hand and foot? Sir, we are not weak if we make a proper use of those means which the God of nature hath placed in our power. ...it is now too late to retire from the contest. There is no retreat but in submission and slavery!

Gentlemen may cry, Peace, Peace-- but there is no peace. The war is actually begun!
Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/533042/posts
The only thing we learn from history is that we learn nothing from history.

Anonymous Bird on a Wing June 21, 2015 9:43 AM  

20. Cataline Sergius

Men like him may honestly believe they are upholding standards...

The truth is they are more often just too queasy about having to fight a real fight.


The person this is referring to is a commenter over at According to Hoyt. From what I've read, he is a smart man, and does some winsome, insightful commentary. He is willing to engage in persistent, logically coherent arguing, with a lively and very satirical spirit.

However, he's an older Baby Boomer.

The self-referential, Vietnam-era, anti-war mentality is inescapable in that particular generational cohort. Even among the ones who are smart, principled, and willing to fight.

He is actually does some very good satire. As Quizzer has observed, satire is an extremely effective weapon.

I think it worthwhile to consider methods of rehabilitating men like this. We would do better with him active and engaged on our side, and most importantly, not taking pot-shots at his fellows. I'm not sure that open contempt is the right approach. In my observation, Boomers don't respond well to that particular correction, having never really experienced it. It doesn't compute.

Ideally, the best way would be an epiphany. There are ways to persuade another by an induced epiphany. It is a tricky thing to manage -- more art than science -- and almost always happens in a one-on-one dialog.

At least, that is my experience, but I'm a girl. I'm interested to see what you gentlemen might produce in that area. I'm positive that it's something I would never be able to come up with, and I'm looking forward with great anticipation to reading more.

Anonymous Legatus June 21, 2015 9:49 AM  

Now, I know what some of you are thinking, “war, what war, why is this guy talking about war?”. When the tactics that the left use are to look for facebook postings that are your own private opinion, and even though those opinions have nothing to do with your job, force you to resign, we are at war. And I do mean war, because to force you to lose your job is to make you unable to feed your family. They mean to not just hurt us, but to hurt our children!

If that is not cause for war, what is??

Blogger VD June 21, 2015 9:50 AM  

I think it worthwhile to consider methods of rehabilitating men like this. We would do better with him active and engaged on our side, and most importantly, not taking pot-shots at his fellows.

Agreed. But the most important thing to do is NOT LISTEN TO THEM. Ignore their advice. They are reliable failures in this particular regard.

Anonymous Ridip June 21, 2015 9:50 AM  

In physical conflict, I will allow the other person an amount of posturing and possibly a few ineffectual attacks while warning them to back down. I've been told I'm one of those guys that gets that scary ass look that says I will not stop once I start. The few people who haven't recognized it, have regretted it.

Recently I've started applying similar methods to SJW interaction. I will allow you some small amount of stupidity, but once you attack the gloves come off.

Just yesterday I had some stupid idiota inform me that an article and its ideas were "repulsive" and then started spewing pseudo-dialectical BS. At that point I amplified her rhetoric right back at her to the point of utter embarrassment and then dropped enough raw data to prove the point for my less-informed dialectical friends.

Blogger Cail Corishev June 21, 2015 10:02 AM  

If he persists a third time, he's a concern troll and you can safely nuke him as a fraud.

Fair enough. I suppose I jump the gun sometimes when it's so obvious. I'll stick to a three-strikes policy here; it'll be good discipline anyway.

OpenID mattse001 June 21, 2015 10:06 AM  

Re DDOS attack:
Let's not be too hasty. How do we know these aren't a tsunami of new, legitimate site hits generated by the Tor controversy? I think these hits should be immediately folded into your hit counts, and thrown back in Scalzi's face.

Anonymous Steve June 21, 2015 10:14 AM  

Bird on a Wing - best to let people contribute to the fight to the degree that they're able to.

Even in the army, most people aren't warriors. But signals, logistics, engineering, intelligence, medics and so on are useful too - as long as they do their thing and don't stand between the fighters and the enemy.

I'm not sure it's possible to convince a middle aged man to change his ways much. Either he's temperamentally suited to bayonetting the enemy, or he isn't.

I'm actually quietly impressed by the way various Sad Puppies and Rabid Puppies and aligned liberty-minded folks have gone about their business without (much) in-fighting.

Back in the 90's, I'm sure a lot more people would have been falling over themselves to answer the repeated calls from the likes of G Rape Rape Martin and publicly disavow the Dark Lord Vox.

But instead, most have kept their rhetorical artillery trained on the enemy. It must be confusing and upsetting to the SJW's that their age-old tactic of demanding "rightwingers" eat their own no longer works.

Perhaps, in this post-Gamergate world, those of us who value truth, beauty and freedom have learned a thing or two?

Anonymous ph2 June 21, 2015 10:16 AM  

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

Blogger Cail Corishev June 21, 2015 10:21 AM  

It's your house. Punch 'em in the face (rhetorically). They are wrong. Don't go do that in their house, though.

That's a good policy, but it breaks down somewhat online. In pre-Internet days, the conversations we have here would have been had behind closed doors or in esoteric publications, among the kind of people who wouldn't be shocked by them; while the nicer folks discussed how to reach the other side in their own "conservative" magazines or Rotary Club meetings or whatever. Online, things aren't divided so neatly into houses. People cross back and forth all the time, some under the same names and some under different ones, so arguments of rapprochement-over-attack which are developed elsewhere inevitably show up here.

I'm not saying we should go there and attack them and demand that they see things our way. But it's fair to point out strategies of failure that will harm our efforts, wherever they are. There may be different sites, but they're all part of this dissident/right-wing/realist blogosphere thing. More like cubicles than houses, maybe.

I agree with you that satire can be very effective; the left has certainly made plenty of hay with it. I think of satire as fairly cruel, though, at least when it's effective; so I'm surprised that a satirist would think we're too mean.

Blogger Mr.MantraMan June 21, 2015 10:23 AM  

Go with what Vox wrote, ask the squish if what they do is effective. Most likely they will answer that the only effectiveness is against their own side.

Blogger VD June 21, 2015 10:28 AM  

How do we know these aren't a tsunami of new, legitimate site hits generated by the Tor controversy?

Because the Google pageviews don't reflect them. They are quite good, running between 60k and 75k per day, but that's not 1.5 million.

Blogger Kate Paulk June 21, 2015 10:33 AM  

As I said over there, there's no such thing as a "clean" war: you do what you have to in order to make sure your enemy will not threaten you again. Then you pray that God will have mercy on your soul.

Blogger Quizzer W June 21, 2015 10:34 AM  

Satire can be mean. With our comic we consider the ideas or actions people espouse to be fair game for ridicule. We try not to disparage the person. It is a tough line to see sometimes. Others do it different, of course, and humor is subjective.

I think one of our better examples is coming up tomorrow. The comic is entitled "The Sarkeesian Oppression Counter". That may or may not mean anything to you.

Oh, and you phrased what I was trying to say better than I did, I think.

OpenID mattse001 June 21, 2015 10:35 AM  

In my experience, the main dividing line is between those who think we're all one big, happy family and those who realize "this time is different." Older Boomers think this is a misunderstanding and not war.
When you ask them how many battles they've won with their tactics the response will be "battles?"
My approach would be:
1) Clearly, succinctly state my position and view of the conflict.
2) Acknowledge the Boomer's right to disagree
3) Tell the Boomer that I view them as part of the problem, and if they attempt to interfere they will be attacked.

The small chance they can be converted is dealt with in step 1, if they change their view.

Anonymous Pravda Zvíťazí June 21, 2015 10:36 AM  

"Batman does not become the Joker, Superman does not accept the values of Luthor, Spiderman does not become Doc Octopus."

And that's why they've been merely fighting to contain their enemies for 77 years. Who takes their tactics from a notorious quagmire? How anyone reads those comics as anything other than an indictment of the American criminal justice system is beyond me.

@Nate "that's fine and all... except that humanity isn't good. So you're screwed."

I think they do it to hold on to that belief, the inherent goodness of humanity, at all costs. If they simply disengage from the SJWs, their 1950s will last forever and the Eye of Sauron will never find them in the Shire.

OpenID mattse001 June 21, 2015 10:38 AM  

Because the Google pageviews don't reflect them. They are quite good, running between 60k and 75k per day, but that's not 1.5 million.
That's just the haters at Google, keeping your legitimate fans from seeing your work. It's a conspiracy, I tell ya! ; )

Anonymous bw June 21, 2015 10:40 AM  

Only suffering brings the average person to reality because they are ultimately not rational or curious or seeking enough. They are too comfortable in the West. They are not good enough. They will not be coming to you for penance or Justice. That is not their essence. They are children of the Lie, to include our friends, neighbors and family members who do everything in their power to be naive and avoid the questions and the conflict and the reasonable and logical and historical explanations of wtf is going on.
Who is it again in the natural hierarchy that hates conflict?
Re-frame and Attack. That has been their tactic for 5 decades - again, backed purposefully by the money powers. Hey, who wants a fair fight anyway?
Time to get your Smirk on.

Anonymous Steve June 21, 2015 10:41 AM  

BTW, I read Three Body Problem recently.

It's brilliant. Weird and wonderful and sometimes credulity-stretching like an elongated two-dimensional proton, but brilliant.

I'm going to have a hard time deciding between that book and "Skin Game" when I vote in the Hugos.

One thing that is really interesting about Three Body Problem is the description of the mania of the Red Guards during the Cultural Revolution. The politicisation of everything, the exhausting posturing, the policing of ideas, the gleeful way they seek to humiliate and destroy anyone they deem an enemy.

That's the SJW's in a nutshell.

Blogger Maple Curtain June 21, 2015 10:59 AM  

The "noble defeatists" are such because they have had it culturally ingrained in them that human beings are basically good and, psychologically, they are not ready to accept that this an erroneous assertion. If they were to accept the idea of original sin, of a corrupted humanity, then it would leave them, psychologically, needing to face the reality of a harsh world that is full of uncompromising villains - ISIS without, and SJWs within. The "noble defeatists" are not yet ready, psychologically, to face that fact. It's the same issue as it was with that mean Mr. Churchill (the war-monger) and that 'well-meaning' Mr. Hitler who only wanted what was best for the German people.

Anonymous Bz June 21, 2015 11:01 AM  

One is almost tempted to go the daytime TV route and ask "so how's that working out for you?".

Anonymous bw June 21, 2015 11:11 AM  

that belief, the inherent goodness of humanity, at all costs

It looks to me like they actually believe in the re-shaping of human nature so that it can be a utopia, not that human goodness is something naturally inherent - most of history has been patriarchal after all, and killed animals and disrespected and marginalized snail darters and stuff!
Even so, what they emphasize about human nature is not necessarily even the best or most noble parts. We have simply not begun to contradict them on it yet.
It's an over-turning of nature and a control over it (which is why I constantly note that they actually Hate it. They Hate it, the Environmental /Economic lockdown notwithstanding - that is simply their Techno Totalitarian feel good).
Transformation is what is about for them. Judge yourself an equalitarian constantly, or we will have the State do it for you. Behavior modification.
A counterfeit. The Lie.
It begs the question and is one of the main reasons to have hope: they are kicking against natural law and natural hierarchy which is why they don't try to persuade you ultimately, but rather force you.

Anonymous Bird on a Wing June 21, 2015 11:23 AM  

51. Steve

Bird on a Wing - best to let people contribute to the fight to the degree that they're able to.

Even in the army, most people aren't warriors. But signals, logistics, engineering, intelligence, medics and so on are useful too - as long as they do their thing and don't stand between the fighters and the enemy.

I'm not sure it's possible to convince a middle aged man to change his ways much. Either he's temperamentally suited to bayonetting the enemy, or he isn't.


Yes, I agree. The middle aged man is probably too set in his ways to acquire a fearsome grimace and a bayonet. What he is good for is the ideal hypothetical obstacle.

Anything that can persuade him, will probably work like a charm on those not as obstinate as he.

Anti-war Boomers are almost incapable of change. However, those they have indoctrinated are only anti-war to the extent of parroting what they've been told. It's not visceral like it is for the Boomer.

If we can persuade an anti-war Boomer to (1) not betray his compatriots and to (2) keep the line, we have accomplished two measurable things.

One, we have proven a successful method of persuasion. The next step will be to reproduce the method, then teach it. Two, we have a faithful AND effective comms officer!! Soon, we will have more...

Perhaps because I am a girl, I am all about the signal boosting and morale lifting. Those two things are extremely effective. What makes that effort more difficult, is when the rough and ready men at the front make a production of lining up the weak-minded and shooting them in the head. Instead, they should choose the most talented, send them to remedial training, and thence to support roles at the back.

Also, I must agree with Vox: NEVER, EVER put them in the strategy room, even if they are rehabilitated and faithful.

Anonymous 11B June 21, 2015 11:25 AM  

Adam F. Smith ‏@Adampdx Jun 18

@GeorgeLDuncan @Spacebunnyday @CastaliaHouse One trait almost all white haters display is craven cowardice #sadpuppies #hugoawards


I realize twitter limits your words, but this tweet from Smith attacking a guy who was defending Vox can be subject to the reader's interpretation. I happen to agree with Smith that white haters do display craven cowardice. Yes white haters, aka SJWs, do display craven cowardice.

Anonymous Rivercity Trader June 21, 2015 11:27 AM  

I think Three Body Problem is the perfect illustration of why we have to fight. I have already voted for it.

Whenever anyone asks me why I voted for it, I take the time to explain the irony.

Blogger Cail Corishev June 21, 2015 11:29 AM  

The "noble defeatists" are such because they have had it culturally ingrained in them that human beings are basically good and, psychologically, they are not ready to accept that this an erroneous assertion.

Right. It's not just a difference in tactics, but a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of the enemy. They think SJWs are misinformed, misled, ignorant, angry, whatever; but no one could consciously choose to support the things SJWs do. If they can be reached, surely they can be reasoned and compromised with. Some of them admit that SJWs won't listen now, so they're reluctantly willing to fight them; but they see the fight as a tool to get SJWs to listen, so they want to keep the skirmishes short and use wooden swords. After every charge, they want to stop and try a parley, and they want us to fight as nicely as possible so the SJWs will be in a good mood when they come to the table.

Only problem with that is the beginning assumption is wrong, so all the rest is too.

Blogger The King's Man (0007) June 21, 2015 11:38 AM  

Don't bother. Simply point out the observable futility of his arguments and ask him to give you an example of his tactics being successful. He won't because he can't. If he pops up again with the same arguments, repeat as before.

If he persists a third time, he's a concern troll and you can safely nuke him as a fraud.


Pay attention to whether he's actually making arguments, though. I came here recently simply asking questions relating to this topic and yet my comments were characterised as advocating for a particular position by one commenter. I don't know about rehabilitating people like RES who have taken a stance for or against, but there will be people who will come here with questions because they're looking for some answer that will free them to do what they already want to do, but aren't persuaded is permissible for them. I would think such people are easily distinguishable from concern trolls and should easily be dealt with by just answering their questions.

Blogger VD June 21, 2015 11:46 AM  

I would think such people are easily distinguishable from concern trolls and should easily be dealt with by just answering their questions.

Yes. There is a small but continuing problem with commenters taking the Ready-Fire-Aim approach. One should always take the trouble to verify that an interlocutor is friendly, neutral, or opposed before taking any shots at them. It costs nothing; there is no percentage in being the first to attack.

Anonymous Thobby (#58) June 21, 2015 11:53 AM  

I just bought two more new books. That makes three new books purchased since Friday. None of them were bought from Tor (or Macmillan).

Anonymous Scintan June 21, 2015 12:10 PM  

the whole idea of "being the better person" or "doing it the right way" in a conflict like this is retarded. you're counting on the "goodness" of humanity to see what you've done and have sympathy for you.

that's fine and all... except that humanity isn't good. So you're screwed.


Ehh.... There's nothing wrong with having lines you won't cross. They may put you at a disadvantage but, in such cases, the key is to find other effective means of victory.

Anonymous bw June 21, 2015 12:24 PM  

there's no such thing as a "clean" war: you do what you have to in order to make sure your enemy will not threaten you again. Then you pray that God will have mercy on your soul.

@Kate Paulk is exactly right. We did not ask for or create these circumstances (actively). We should feel no guilt (a chief weapon of theirs) before them. Let God sort it out indeed. Who's to say it isn't more Unjust to allow them their way than to have our way? Let them wallow in the guilt. We will take our trial like real men and women.
They frame it as if they do no harm, only goodness. It is a purposeful psych inversion by those who push their agenda through their useful idiots.

they do it to hold on to that belief, the inherent goodness of humanity

To the extent this is true, they actually revere and emphasize some of the weaker and more vulnerable traits of humanity, purposefully of course.

What the revolution really believes in is the drive to re-make and transform human nature (and economies and peoples) through behavioral training and the Technochracy that seeks to force and coerce the New Man, sans natural hierarchies and nature itself. (they hate the evidence of nature: see Game).
After all, societies until recently have been patriarchal and snail darters have been dispossessed. It is humanity itself that is the scourge upon the earth (Techno totalitarianism Agenda21 in the name of the environment).
It is an intentional change of values and what it means to be human that they believe in and seek.


Blogger Jack Ward June 21, 2015 12:24 PM  

Have not read the comments yet, but, I would suppose that Markku is probably fighting the good fight against the DDOS attacks and the others. Even so, what makes these cretins think they can attack a citadel secured by truly intelligent computer savvy folk? And, you don't even have to mention the Evil Lord of Evil and His Eminence's vast resources.
I mean, really...

Anonymous Elijah Rhodes June 21, 2015 12:45 PM  

I think a previous commenter is correct in pointing out that ones philosophical belief regarding the nature of man tends to inform ones view of the nature of the culture war.

If you believe, as conservatives typically do, that man is fallen by nature, then it follows naturally that there will be men who become evil.

If you believe, as the left does, that it is purely external forces that compel men to behave badly (i.e. poverty causes crime), then it follows naturally that you will excuse evil.

On a broader level, it is this difference in the understanding of man’s nature that creates our inability to effectively persuade or even communicate with our political enemies. The Right and the Left are essentially speaking completely different languages.

This language stems from the political lens one looks through. Conservatives look at society through the lens of order vs. disorder. Liberals look through the lens of oppressed vs. oppressor. And libertarians look through the lens of freedom vs. coercion. These are very different lenses, which in turn create a different set of dogmas.

So my basic thesis is that the “moderates”— people who are generally sympathetic to our side but disagree on various issue and often point their arrows at us, fundamentally have a mixed up world view.

They might be conservative in temperament but hold a generally liberal belief regarding the nature of man. Perhaps they learned conservatism at home through example, but fell victim to a steady diet of PC indoctrination at school. Whatever the case, it’s this confused mixture that causes “moderation” and calls for compromise.

Blogger JACIII June 21, 2015 1:08 PM  

bw has the right of it.
The leftist is always looking to weed out the wrong kind of human; to purify the species. Follow their wants, goals, and wishes far enough and you will find a mountain of dead. The SJW will not acknowledge immutable human nature.

The leftist is always ready to kill you for your own good.

This is always the case when one attempts to create heaven on earth and it is not news to Christian peoples.

Anonymous Gabe June 21, 2015 1:27 PM  

Vox day didn't cause any thing in Charleston. But Roof' manifesto sure sounds like a typical rant by the Ilk!

Anonymous SumDood June 21, 2015 1:27 PM  

"The only reason the USA has not dropped an atomic bomb since 1945 is because the Soviet Union obtained their own in 1949." and "If the USA had retained its monopoly on atomic technology, it would have used it again at some point in the last 70 years."

I don't see the logic in these statements, or any evidence to support them. (I refer to historical evidence, not any sort of specific recitation here.)

Our knowledge of nuclear weapons and their long-term effects grew dramatically after Hiroshima & Nagasaki. The genie was out of the bottle. So our decisions about using atomic bombs would ever after be made very differently than the wartime decisions to flatten Hiroshima & Nagasaki.

That decision was made to save the lives of the estimated 2 million American servicemen & 16 million Japanese who would die if mainland Japan was invaded. Paul Fussell wrote a very powerful essay about this, called Thank God for the Atom Bomb. Well worth a read.

More importantly, at what time since those two bombings has the U.S. faced such a terrible choice? I can think of only one occasion: during the Korean war, when China entered combat and the U.N. forces were being defeated and pushed back to the 38th parallel.

At that time, the Soviet atomic bomb was approximately 1 year old; they had no stockpile and they had no effective delivery vehicle. And the Chinese had no nukes. So it was hardly a credible threat, yet we didn't resort to nuking them in those dark days.

Vietnam? What target was worth nuking? We won most of the battles, but lost the war.

Which is why I don't believe that America would have been nuking people if not for the Soviets.

Anonymous Harsh June 21, 2015 1:46 PM  

Vox day didn't cause any thing in Charleston. But Roof' manifesto sure sounds like a typical rant by the Ilk!

I've not once seen a member of the Ilk advocate shooting blacks, so you're either a liar and an idiot.

Anonymous Gabe June 21, 2015 1:50 PM  

The manifesto didn't say a word about shooting blacks, Harsh. However, it sounded identical to numerous racist rants by the Ilk.

Anonymous Scintan June 21, 2015 2:01 PM  

The manifesto didn't say a word about shooting blacks, Harsh. However, it sounded identical to numerous racist rants by the Ilk.

You're an idiot, but I'm sure you already knew that.

Blogger VD June 21, 2015 2:11 PM  

That decision was made to save the lives of the estimated 2 million American servicemen & 16 million Japanese who would die if mainland Japan was invaded. Paul Fussell wrote a very powerful essay about this, called Thank God for the Atom Bomb. Well worth a read.

You're wrong and you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. We've addressed this subject in detail in the past. Japan had been trying to surrender for six months and the USA knew it; the sticking point was whether the surrender would be unconditional or whether the Emperor would be left out of it. That's what two atomic bombs achieved, the surrender of an emperor who was not involved in the war in the first place.

There was no need to invade Japan at all due to US air and sea supremacy and the president, the admirals, and the generals all knew it. They never intended to invade; the fact that plans were drawn up is irrelevant; we also had a war plan to fight England.

Blogger VD June 21, 2015 2:12 PM  

However, it sounded identical to numerous racist rants by the Ilk.

Cite those "numerous" rants or retract, Gabe. Since they're so numerous, provide links to at least five of them and show how they are sound "identical" to Roof's manifesto,

Blogger VD June 21, 2015 2:15 PM  

More importantly, at what time since those two bombings has the U.S. faced such a terrible choice?

You could make a much stronger historical case for nuking Mexico City now than Hiroshima or Nagasaki then. How many Japanese were invading the USA in 1945?

Blogger Josh June 21, 2015 2:18 PM  

How many Japanese were invading the USA in 1945?

Well, according to "In defense of internment" by Michele Malkin...

Anonymous paradox June 21, 2015 2:22 PM  

Nah... The Koch Brothers will be responsible for gay marriage, if the SCOTUS rules favorably.

Anonymous BGS June 21, 2015 3:14 PM  

Haters like @castaliahouse Theodore "Vox Day" Beale are the cause of massacre at SC AME church #SadPuppies #hugoawards

Its fun to see people clutch their pearls when you say" Well now we see how Omar Thornton would have been reported in the news if he and his 9 murder victims were race reversed"

It's probably a bad idea to keep telling them their destiny is to be the perpetual enemy before more of them embrace the SJW lie and connect the wrong dots

The Conservative Treehouse did some really good coverage of him. He voted for Obama, had 1/4 of his facebook friends black, and bought the gun himself passing the background check. Its more likely that with no one telling him Not All Blacks Are Like That, he asked himself Have I Ever Meet A Black Not Like That.? Going from constant excuses for black behavior to nothing might lead to withdraws.

Judge yourself an equalitarian constantly, The left doesn't believe in equality , but that no one is better than they are.

The leftist is always ready to kill you for your own good. Get ready for the self driving car that will swerve you into a light pole to avoid hitting an endangered tortoise.

Anonymous BigGaySteve June 21, 2015 3:20 PM  

The manifesto didn't say a word about shooting blacks, Harsh. However, it sounded identical to numerous racist rants by the Ilk.

I do admit that I said if you cut off the power to a die verse city at the first of the month when Uncle Sugar hands out taxpayer paid benefits, that the Free Stuff Army would take care of the disingenuous white liberals for us. This is of course based on the massive chimpouts on 10-12-2013 when the food stamp card went down for 8 hours in 16 states. You can still find videos of it that youtube has not removed.

Anonymous RobertT June 21, 2015 3:36 PM  

Rush Limbaugh on mass delusion. http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2015/06/16/my_advice_for_apple_s_news_app

Anonymous The other robot June 21, 2015 3:37 PM  

The reason poison gas has made very few appearances on the battlefield since WWI is not because the French, English, and Americans set the Germans a good example, but because they promptly responded by manufacturing and using even more gas than the Germans did.

Which might have prompted the Germans to construct Gas Proof Bomb Shelters and lead to the possible myth of gas chambers at various concentration camps.

Of course, it seems that the British invented the notion of Concentration Camps ...

Anonymous The other robot June 21, 2015 3:40 PM  

The manifesto didn't say a word about shooting blacks, Harsh. However, it sounded identical to numerous racist rants by the Ilk.

Ahhh, trying to shut down the blog by claiming that deranged individuals drew inspiration from it, eh.

Now, about William Ayers.

Blogger Achillea June 21, 2015 4:53 PM  

“Doom, do you have any idea how dangerous my force fields would be if I decided to play by your rules?”

The rest of the FF got a taste of just that when Sue was controlled by the Hatemonger. She damn near killed them.

/comics geek off

Anonymous Harsh June 21, 2015 6:21 PM  

The manifesto didn't say a word about shooting blacks, Harsh. However, it sounded identical to numerous racist rants by the Ilk.

And yet you can't point to one of them, so I repeat that you are either a liar or an idiot. I'll add coward to the list as well.

Anonymous SumDood June 21, 2015 9:13 PM  

"You're wrong and you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. We've addressed this subject in detail in the past. Japan had been trying to surrender for six months and the USA knew it; the sticking point was whether the surrender would be unconditional or whether the Emperor would be left out of it."

Not having seen or taken part in any discussion of this topic here, I used the search tool at the top of your blog to search for "Hiroshima" and found this:

http://voxday.blogspot.com/2009/05/harry-truman-was-war-criminal.html

Which is the only post that came up in the search that seemed relevant. I read it, to ensure I was up to speed.

As "proof" that Japan was allegedly trying to surrender, your post cites this article:

http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v16/v16n3p-4_Weber.html

In a word: not persuasive, and very suspicious in its wording. So I asked myself: "Who is this IHR organization?" The first paragraph of their wikipedia page: "The Institute for Historical Review (IHR), founded in 1978, is an organization primarily devoted to publishing and promoting books and essays that deny established facts concerning the Nazi genocide of Jews.[2][3][4][5][6] It is considered by many scholars as the world's leading Holocaust denial organization.[2][7][8] Critics have accused the Institute of antisemitism and having links to neo-Nazi organizations."

I don't believe that Wikipedia is perfect, or without bias. But the IHR not a credible source on any topic.

"That's what two atomic bombs achieved, the surrender of an emperor who was not involved in the war in the first place."

Victors decide terms, not losers. Without breaking Japan's will, their motivation to resist would still be a problem. Problem solved.

"There was no need to invade Japan at all due to US air and sea supremacy and the president, the admirals, and the generals all knew it..."

Air and sea power do not finish wars; boots on the ground do. We had supremacy over air & sea in Korea, and in Vietnam; Korea was a stalemate that still causes problems today, and Vietnam was an embarrassment. Maybe we could ask the esteemed military historians that Castalia House publishes to expand on the subject.

"You could make a much stronger historical case for nuking Mexico City now than Hiroshima or Nagasaki then. How many Japanese were invading the USA in 1945?"

The government of Mexico has not declared war on the United States, nor have they taken military action against the United States. And most of the people coming across the border are not Mexicans, but other nationalities from farther south:

http://www.borderfactcheck.org/?gclid=CO_yo-6LosYCFYdFaQodUmQL2A

So why would anyone want to nuke Mexico City?

Back to the original point: It's easy for civilians to Monday Morning Quarterback the decision to drop the bombs 70 years later (Paul Fussell was assigned to the force that was going to invade Japan).

And nothing that I can recall since then (except for possibly the Korean example) qualifies as a nuke-worthy incident that was deterred by the Soviet bomb.

Anonymous BGS June 21, 2015 9:38 PM  

So why would anyone want to nuke Mexico City?

Even if they are not all from Mexico, a Duke Nukem wasteland would not be crossed by anyone south of Mexico. The do bring biological weapons grade stupidity. Drug resistant diseases get created when do gooders give free meds to 3rd worlders not smart enough to be capable of following a dosing schedule. Drug resistant TB takes 18+ ,months to treat and from $250,000 - $1.5 million to treat per patient. We don't have a cure for Chagas that is coming across the border along with cases of chikungunya, & Dengue.

Blogger SciVo June 21, 2015 10:08 PM  

@mattse001: In my experience, the main dividing line is between those who think we're all one big, happy family and those who realize "this time is different." Older Boomers think this is a misunderstanding and not war.

A useful acronym that I have encountered online is TWANLOC: Those Who Are No Longer Our Countrymen. It's like in The Thing, where an organism's cells are gradually replaced by foreign cells; we could call them Those Which Are No Longer Original Cells. For awhile it still looks and acts like the original being, but when a tipping point of TWANLOC is crossed and a stressor is applied, the new being shows its true self and assumes its new form, which is a horrific parody of the original.

Too many have been complacent for too long. We cannot allow TWANLOC to continue to convert others to their anti-American ideology. We stop it now or never.

Anonymous OnTorLogical June 21, 2015 11:42 PM  

"I don't believe that Wikipedia is perfect, or without bias. But the IHR not a credible source on any topic."

What's shocking is that of all the sources that Vox Day could have used to make a point about the dropping of the bomb, he chooses one that is openly racist and anti-semetic and bent on selling the myth that the holocaust never happened:

"The Journal of Historical Review is a non-peer reviewed serial, periodical, or journal published by the Institute for Historical Review in Torrance, California. Its subject is primarily Holocaust denial...History Teacher wrote that the "[journal] is shockingly racist and antisemitic...The Organization of American Historians commissioned a study of the journal in which a panel had found that it was "nothing but a masquerade of scholarship."

It's one of the great historical questions of the 20th century. How was it dropped? Why was it dropped? Did it need to be dropped. Some of the most eminent historians of the past 50 years have addressed the question.

And Vox Day chooses to rely on the racist, anti-semetic, holocaust denying joke of a journal and organization.

And oddly, he then doubles down and says that a "better case" could be made for nuking and killing millions of mexicans when we are not at war with Mexico and have never been attacked by Mexico.

There's your psudo intellectual leader.

Blogger MidKnight (#138) June 22, 2015 12:06 AM  

What it means is that we should adopt their more effective tactics, and, as the Allies did with gas in WWI, make even more effective and extensive use of those tactics until they agree to abandon them

Which sounds an awful like iterated prisoner's dilemma.

Amazing how even on the conservative side, many refuse to see that retaliation has its place as a long-term act of mercy.

Blogger Hank Brown June 22, 2015 7:06 AM  

"The only reason the USA has not dropped an atomic bomb since 1945 is because the Soviet Union obtained their own in 1949."

This is exactly backwards. The only reason the USSR didn't use the bomb is because the US had it first. Otherwise, some great points made in this post.

Blogger VD June 22, 2015 7:21 AM  

This is exactly backwards. The only reason the USSR didn't use the bomb is because the US had it first. Otherwise, some great points made in this post.

It's not backwards, it's an equivalence. Whoever had a monopoly would have used it. When the US had a monopoly, it used it. When it lost its monopoly, it stopped. The USSR never had a monopoly and so never used 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