ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2018 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Monday, March 05, 2018

He's no Jack Ward

I do not stand with Jack Burroughs, whose thinking demonstrates why conservatives reliably lose:
The Left's assault on Free Speech in the US--outside of the Universities--has really only just begun. Most of the public recoils from these repressive excesses. At present, the Right has the considerable political virtue of being pro-free speech. That is a powerful moral and political weapon against the Left. It is an important reason why the ranks of the Right are growing.

But if you try to fight fire with fire by arguing that since the Left does censors speech, we should do it, too, then you have sacrificed the moral high ground in the eyes of the broad public. The Right will then be no better on this defining issue than the Left, and will have given up one of the main reasons why fast growing numbers of people prefer the Right to the Left.

If the Right becomes hostile to free speech, then it will drastically weaken its moral standing in the eyes of the broad public, thereby diminishing its political appeal.
Every bad argument has its roots in false foundations. Can you identify the false foundations here?

It's amusing that he thinks "moral standing" is relevant in a political environment in which basic, fundamental concepts such as "male" and "illegal" are treated as variable, and traditional definitions are designated as outdated and immoral. It's understandable, though just as incorrect, to claim that free speech is a moral issue. It is not. In fact, the pro-blasphemy position is actually the observably immoral position.

But his biggest mistake is to claim that "the moral high ground" is why one side wins. This is simply more conservative posturing that reliably leads them into disaster. The center is not abandoning the Left because the Left has abandoned a moral high ground that it never held, it is being abandoned by a Left that moves ever deeper into madness.

Those who believe in a path to victory through "the moral high ground" inevitably find themselves outflanked by those who are willing to surrender even more nobly. That is why no successful strategist in history has ever designed a strategy that relies upon moral posturing. And appealing to the moral sense of an immoral people whose morality is constantly in flux is neither a rational strategy nor a winning one.

Listening to a conservative talk about strategy is like listening to a blind man's advice on how to drive a Formula One race car. They are reliable counter indicators.
"In terms of speech, the Left would reword it: “Say what thou wilt.” And to preserve their natural right to expression–whether it’s pornography, vulgarity, blatant or tongue-in-cheek anti-Christian propaganda–the Left has enacted the Strange Doctrine, happily bludgeoning their enemies on the Right, and this has been going on for quite some time."

Hey, let's just censor them, then. Why the hell not?

It's only going to make the Right much less popular, because it will needlessly sacrifice one of the main positive values that increasingly differentiates the Right from the Left in the public mind.

But when you have people out there who are saying whatever they want--including many mean things about the Right, and even about Christians--it's obviously far more important to shut them down than it is to prevail politically over the long term.

Let's just do to them what they do to us, without any consideration of the strategic consequences at all.
We already know what the strategic consequences of relying on the moral high ground are, which is decades of consistent defeat. Not only have we considered the strategic consequences, we have done so and we have found the conservative strategy of "hold the moral high ground and win" to be entirely wanting.

Labels: ,

247 Comments:

1 – 200 of 247 Newer› Newest»
Blogger Ron Winkleheimer March 05, 2018 1:16 PM  

The center is not abandoning the Left because the Left has abandoned a moral high ground that it never held, it is being abandoned by a Left that moves ever deeper into madness.

The Left went full Wiemar. Never go full Wiemar.

Blogger Markku March 05, 2018 1:16 PM  

Conservatives are absolutely infatuated with losing. It gives them a bigger high than heroin.

Blogger Ron Winkleheimer March 05, 2018 1:19 PM  

Left: We shouldn't beat up gays because its wrong.

General Public: That's sounds reasonable, OK.

Left: Then you will certainly agree that men must have sex with other men if they put on a dress and claim they are women, even if they still have testicles and a penis, otherwise you're a bigot.

General Public: WTF!

Blogger lowercaseb March 05, 2018 1:20 PM  

"He Never Sacrificed The Moral High Ground" sounds like a tombstone epitaph.

Blogger Jack Vibe March 05, 2018 1:22 PM  

"Pro-blasphemy"

I have never thought if it from this perspective before. I'm going to have some very interesting conversations with friends and family in the next few weeks. Thank you.

Blogger Snidely Whiplash March 05, 2018 1:24 PM  

sounds like a tombstone epitaph.

It is graven on the headstone of The Conservative Movement.

Blogger Ron Winkleheimer March 05, 2018 1:24 PM  

Left: No, really. If you don't agree to have sex with that woman with a penis then you are totally deplorable. A transphobe. You have to have sex with the penis packing women or you are going to be socially ostracized and we are going to get you fired from your job and totally ruin your life. Oh, and by the way, we also want to confiscate all of your guns. Its all for the children. Everything we do is for the children. "Cackles rather ominously and rubs hands together."

General Public: Something is wrong with you dude!

Left: Hate Speech! No more Twitter or Facebook for you!

Blogger Mocheirge March 05, 2018 1:27 PM  

Can't target effectively from a moral high ground. You have to build a hunting stand.

Blogger NO GOOGLES March 05, 2018 1:27 PM  

It's interesting that so many cuckservatives have the inability to realize the actual moral level of conflict. I'm no expert but the moral level of a conflict is very important - but they are making the mistake of misidentifying what it is.

In reality, there's nothing immoral about "turnabout is fair play". When you are dealing with people who are obsessed with power and exercising that power over others many times the only way to stop those people is to make them understand that they will suffer if they try to attack you. Cuckservatives are all about giving empty warnings and then when they are actually attacked, they cry out that we shouldn't strike back because that's "immoral" or will reinforce a "bad standard".

Allowing power-mad communists to run rough-shod over you is the worst possible standard to create but it seems to be the cuckservative go-to.

Blogger VD March 05, 2018 1:29 PM  

In reality, there's nothing immoral about "turnabout is fair play".

Of course not. That is literal justice.

Blogger CM March 05, 2018 1:30 PM  

The false foundation is the same one that argues someone has no right to self defense. Time to ban guns, because shooting someone to save your own life means you gave up the moral high ground.

Blogger Markku March 05, 2018 1:33 PM  

"Millions and millions of murdered babies are nothing compared to being a good loser"
-conservatives

Blogger John March 05, 2018 1:35 PM  

“Free” speech
“Free” trade

Analogy?

Blogger Aeoli March 05, 2018 1:38 PM  

Listening to a conservative talk about strategy is like listening to a blind man's advice on how to drive a Formula One race car. They are reliable counter indicators.

"""
…In [the] book’s second half, however, Orwell turned his gaze to a different problem: the comparative unpopularity of socialism in the UK at the time, despite the clear and painful inequity observable everywhere. He concluded that the tweed-wearing, armchair-philosophizing, victim identifying, pity-and-contempt-dispensing social-reformer types frequently did not like the poor, as they claimed. Instead, they just hated the rich. They disguised their resentment and jealousy with piety, sanctimony and self-righteousness. Things in the unconscious—or on the social justice–dispensing leftist front—haven’t changed much, today. It is because of of Freud, Jung, Nietzsche—and Orwell—that I always wonder, “What, then, do you stand against?” whenever I hear someone say, too loudly, “I stand for this!” The question seems particularly relevant if the same someone is complaining, criticizing, or trying to change someone else’s behaviour.

I believe it was Jung who developed the most surgically wicked of psychoanalytic dicta: if you cannot understand why someone did something, look at the consequences—and infer the motivation. This is a psychological scalpel. It’s not always a suitable instrument. It can cut too deeply, or in the wrong places. It is, perhaps, a last-resort option. Nonetheless, there are times when its application proves enlightening.

If the consequences of placing skatestoppers on plant-boxes and sculpture bases, for example, is unhappy adolescent males and brutalist aesthetic disregard of beauty then, perhaps, that was the aim. When someone claims to be acting from the highest principles, for the good of others, there is no reason to assume that the person’s motives are genuine. People motivated to make things better usually aren’t concerned with changing other people—or, if they are, they take responsibility for making the same changes to themselves (and first). Beneath the production of rules stopping the skateboarders from doing highly skilled, courageous and dangerous things I see the operation of an insidious and profoundly anti-human spirit.

-Jordan Peterson
12 Rules for Life
"""

Blogger Markku March 05, 2018 1:43 PM  

brutalist aesthetic disregard of beauty

Pet peeve: I absolutely hate it when words are changed to what you THINK they mean, as opposed to what they actually mean. Brutalism means making buildings out of concrete. Nothing else.

Anonymous Anonymous March 05, 2018 1:54 PM  

Where did Burroughs say this, please?

Blogger VD March 05, 2018 1:56 PM  

In the comments a few posts down.

Blogger tuberman March 05, 2018 2:02 PM  

Free speech would allow the full message of what the NWO intended to get out to everyone.

What intentions do the Left, NWO, or Globalist have for us? Simple, extinction at their whim, with as much terror and humiliation as they can supply. Their leaders enjoy terrorizing children before using them for what ever their satanic desires are at that time. Their favorite game is disrupting innocence. They are ignorant enough to think that this is strength.

They must be eliminated permanently.

Blogger tuberman March 05, 2018 2:09 PM  

Eric Hoffer once said (paraphrase, and not exact). "Those who would be angels, end up being devils." Yet, he was talking about the useful idiots AKA fanatical true believers. The people pulling the strings know they are devils and love that fact.

Blogger Mr.MantraMan March 05, 2018 2:26 PM  

Conservatives have not a clue about the moral level of war/conflict. Throw them some Smart Badges and let them count their money and they are happy.

Blogger artensoll March 05, 2018 2:34 PM  



I am Jack Ward.

And so can you.

Blogger Laramie Hirsch March 05, 2018 2:54 PM  

Okay. I just want to re-iterate some things from the previous conversation:

"Free speech is a tactic, not a principle. Nobody actually believes in it." -dfordoom

There is no such thing as a natural right to free speech. This is Lockean nonsense that we've all been drinking in for centuries to our detriment.

Flat out: We require a strong Catholic Monarch, one in which evil speech is curtailed and prevented from having influence.

Reality: The Left will be eating the Right alive, adhering to John Locke's "Strange Doctrine" until the Right who remained noble to their Lockean end is dead.

The reality is that the Right is going to go on pretending that the post-Enlightenment West had it all figured out, and our "team" will go on believing this until we're destroyed.

Blogger peppermint88 March 05, 2018 2:59 PM  

"Men must have sex with men who claim to be women" isn't the counterpoint, everyone at some level understands that fornication is wrong.

The counterpoint is men who say they're women must be given access to women-only spaces, men who say they're women must be allowed to dress up like clowns and read to children, and of course men must be allowed to walk around naked or dressed in fetish gear in front of everyone on gay pride day.

Blogger peppermint88 March 05, 2018 3:01 PM  

We need to attack them *while* trying to force free speech laws on large Internet companies. How do we get those laws passed? By convincing normies that freedom of speech is under attack from all sides and needs protection, not by convincing normies that only nazis like freedom of speech.

Blogger Ceerilan March 05, 2018 3:06 PM  

Ho Chi Minh strikes me as someone who won via moral posturing, although it wasn't the main thing he relied on...and anyone with a cursory knowledge of the Vietnam war's details would laugh at.

Over the last century, until only a few years ago, there was only one side fighting a cultural war, leftists. The right felt morally obligated to preserve the democracy by engaging only on a political level, not the level of tribal segregation and elimination, which is what was observably happening. The result was they betrayed their people and made the problem worse.

Blogger Ron Winkleheimer March 05, 2018 3:09 PM  

and of course men must be allowed to walk around naked or dressed in fetish gear in front of everyone on gay pride day.

https://www.theonion.com/gay-pride-parade-sets-mainstream-acceptance-of-gays-bac-1819566014

Blogger Jack Burroughs March 05, 2018 3:12 PM  

VD: "It's amusing that he thinks "moral standing" is relevant in a political environment in which basic, fundamental concepts such as "male" and "illegal" are treated as variable, and traditional definitions are designated as outdated and immoral."

Vox, you often praise the military acumen of William S. Lind, whose work you publish. He has many interesting things to say about the moral level of war:

"...the central dilemma of Fourth Generation war: what works for you on the physical (and sometimes mental) level often works against you at the moral level. It is therefore very easy to win all the tactical engagements in a Fourth Generation conflict yet still lose the war. To the degree you win at the physical level by utilizing firepower that causes casualties and property damage to the local population, every physical victory may move you closer to moral defeat, and the moral level is decisive.”

Admittedly, he is speaking of the moral level of war for the Goliath of the the greater power, against the David of insurgencies. Nevertheless, the moral level of war is strategically relevant for everyone, because if people are morally unpersuaded by the justice of your cause, then they will experience your victory as illegitimate, and it will not be long lasting.

"It's understandable, though just as incorrect, to claim that free speech is a moral issue. It is not. In fact, the pro-blasphemy position is actually the observably immoral position."

You can think that all you want, but you will have trouble persuading many people to agree with you. Because free speech IS a moral issue to countless people. It certainly is to me. If you want to call free speech the "pro blasphemy position," I could with equal justice call your anti-free speech stance "the pro mind control position." After that, it's just a matter of whose vision of morality persuades the most people. I suspect that mine would be more widely persuasive than yours, because even most nominal Christians do not want to live in a theocracy.

This is one of the reasons why guys like Stefan Molyneux and Alex Jones, who reliably support free speech, are so much bigger than people on the Right who are more censorious and theocratic: most people want real liberty.

They want free speech, and they want freedom of conscience, and they do not want to be told by maniacs on the Left, or by Christian Nationalists like Vox Day, what they can and cannot think and say.

Blogger Stilicho March 05, 2018 3:12 PM  

These conservatives confuse (without understanding) "holding moral high ground" with the moral level of warfare.

Has Bill Lind taken them to task yet? If not, it would make an excellent column for him.

Blogger Jack Burroughs March 05, 2018 3:12 PM  

"But his biggest mistake is to claim that "the moral high ground" is why one side wins. This is simply more conservative posturing that reliably leads them into disaster."

I am not a conservative, and I am not arguing that the moral high ground is strategically decisive in every case. I'm just arguing that it is strategically *relevant* in every case, and that it is, given contemporary political realities, strategically decisive in this case.

"The center is not abandoning the Left because the Left has abandoned a moral high ground that it never held, it is being abandoned by a Left that moves ever deeper into madness."

It's true that the Left has never held the moral high ground, but there is a reason why it has always *pretended* to hold the moral high ground, and why it makes almost exclusively morally-charged arguments: the moral high ground matters tremendously to ordinary people.

And part of the madness of the left IS a moral madness. People are morally revolted by them, as much as anything else.

Speaking purely--but abundantly--anecdotally, I can tell you that I know many people who are eager to embrace a sane and viable alternative to the madness of these times, but the last thing they want is to to lose freedom of speech.

In the United States, whoever stands up most vehemently for true, impartial freedom of speech is going to politically prevail over any alternative--at least with white people, and for substantially moral reasons. Because for most people who support it, free speech is emphatically a moral value.

In arguing for censorship, you are needlessly alienating countless potential allies from your cause.

"Those who believe in a path to victory through "the moral high ground" inevitably find themselves outflanked by those who are willing to surrender even more nobly. That is why no successful strategist in history has ever designed a strategy that relies upon moral posturing. And appealing to the moral sense of an immoral people whose morality is constantly in flux is neither a rational strategy nor a winning one."

No one is talking about moral posturing. You are strawmannirg me by willfully misunderstanding what it means to retain the moral high ground in a war.

And no one is talking about appealing to the moral sense of immoral people. I'm talking about providing a morally appealing and viable alternative to sane and sensible people who are revolted by the brazen immorality and hypocrisy of the Left.

Presently, the Right can say, "look, the Left is tyrannical. They are hostile to free speech and to freedom of conscience. We are not."

People who are revolted by the left are seeking out morally superior and saner alternatives. In supporting censorship, you are needlessly handing your enemies a very effective rhetorical weapon, because now they can say, "See? They are no better than we are. They support censorship, too."

"Listening to a conservative talk about strategy is like listening to a blind man's advice on how to drive a Formula One race car. They are reliable counter indicators."

I'm not a conservative, and nothing I've said here is about embracing noble defeat. I'm talking about cause-and-effect realities in the realm of contemporary politics, and you are uncharacteristically ignoring those realities. Very many people are revolted by the Left, but very few of those people believe that the solution to that problem is to prohibit speech that criticizes Christianity, or whatever else you have in mind.

Maybe you should reread Michael Lind, so as to reacquaint yourself with the strategic importance of the moral level of warfare, Vox.

It always matters.

Blogger Quilp March 05, 2018 3:23 PM  

"After that, it's just a matter of whose vision of morality persuades the most people
In the United States, whoever stands up most vehemently for true, impartial freedom of speech is going to politically prevail over any alternative--at least with white people, and for substantially moral reasons."

"And no one is talking about appealing to the moral sense of immoral people. I'm talking about providing a morally appealing and viable alternative to sane and sensible people who are revolted by the brazen immorality and hypocrisy of the Left."

"People who are revolted by the left are seeking out morally superior and saner alternatives."

My Goodness you have a one track mind. Is anyone saying morality has zero relevance, or is it the degree to which it matters to those engaged in the fight what counts? I am part of the general public, and I believe I can speak for untold millions when I say if I have to read one more article by high moral ground conservatives screaming that democrats are hypocrites, I too am going to give up on free speech just to see that word banned.

Blogger Laramie Hirsch March 05, 2018 3:26 PM  

"Because free speech IS a moral issue to countless people. It certainly is to me."

What a bunch of ideological, self-righteous preening.

There is no free speech in Heaven. I'll just lay that down right now.

There was no free speech in Levitical law. So there's also that.

Keep bitching about how you feel--and how you think I feel--along with the rest of the cucks and constitutionalists.

The idea that some speech ought to be curtailed is beyond you and most people.

Blogger Azure Amaranthine March 05, 2018 3:28 PM  

"“Free” speech
“Free” trade

Analogy?"


"Do as thou wilt." The Satanic creed.

"Pet peeve: I absolutely hate it when words are changed to what you THINK they mean, as opposed to what they actually mean. Brutalism means making buildings out of concrete. Nothing else."

Pet peeve: I also hate it when people conjoin common words to mean things that are absurdly limited in scope compared to what the conjunction obviously ought to mean.

It's like the British rhotic R. It's been done to make communication more difficult for no reason other than vainglory.

"Flat out: We require a strong Catholic Monarch, one in which evil speech is curtailed and prevented from having influence."

Cut the denomination monarchy monomania already. It's never going to happen in this country, ever, and that's even on TOP of "Catholic" with a capital C being a "brand name" rather than an honest word.

If your name is a lie... you probably shouldn't throw stones.

Blogger pyrrhus March 05, 2018 3:32 PM  

@24 Ho Chi Minh strikes me as someone who won via moral posturing, although it wasn't the main thing he relied on...and anyone with a cursory knowledge of the Vietnam war's details would laugh at.

No, Ho Chi Minh won because he was a nationalist, who had been supported by the US during the war against Japan....After the US stupidly assassinated the nationalist leader of South Vietnam, Ho was the only nationalist on the field, and both South and North wanted reunification....A nationalist movement will always win against a foreign invader, no matter how powerful its military. A good example is the Hundred Years War in France, where Britain won almost all the battles, but never had a chance to win the war.

Blogger Ingot9455 March 05, 2018 3:34 PM  

It's as simple as this.
The Left punishes the Right for daring to attempt free speech.
Turnabout is fair play.
The Right must punish the Left for daring to attempt free speech. and punish them yet harsher than they can imagine.

Blogger James March 05, 2018 3:36 PM  

Jack Burroughs wrote:
No one is talking about moral posturing. You are strawmannirg me by willfully misunderstanding what it means to retain the moral high ground in a war.

Maybe you should reread Michael Lind, so as to reacquaint yourself with the strategic importance of the moral level of warfare, Vox.

It always matters.


Perhaps you could educate me. What moral high ground exists in war? Real war. Not the pansy ass "war" you are patting yourself on the back about how you are defending the "moral high ground" while actually surrendering the strategic high ground. A "moral high ground" does not exist when one side will commit any atrocity it can to obtain its objective. You are presented with the choice of life or death. In that choice, life IS the "moral high ground".

Blogger Laramie Hirsch March 05, 2018 3:40 PM  

@31 "Cut the denomination monarchy monomania already. It's never going to happen in this country, ever, and that's even on TOP of "Catholic" with a capital C being a "brand name" rather than an honest word.

If your name is a lie... you probably shouldn't throw stones."


I've mentioned monarchy once in this conversation as a baseline of where I stand.

I am quite aware that we will not have such a thing on this continent. I rather expect a gigantic Haiti to form, courtesy of mass stupidity and lost opportunities.

I am quite aware that the vast majority of people are perfectly content with the fictions and mythological values that surround their revolutionary regimes that violently dethroned their monarchs. I am content and amused to "play democracy" and watch this thing burn down as everyone scrambles trying to figure out "how to do this."

But I figured that going to the source of this idea--John Locke--would have been a good contribution to the discussion. Oh well. Instead, maybe I should say: We need to fight fire with fire! The rules are a double standard for us! We need to be an alternative to what we once were, and curtail their free speech...so we can have our free speech back!" Perhaps that's all you can stomach.

Blogger Jack Burroughs March 05, 2018 3:41 PM  

"My Goodness you have a one track mind. Is anyone saying morality has zero relevance, or is it the degree to which it matters to those engaged in the fight what counts?"

Vox dismissed the relevance of moral standing in the contemporary political climate, as well the moral dimension of the free speech issue. I have a "one track mind" because I like to focus on the issue under discussion.

"I am part of the general public, and I believe I can speak for untold millions when I say if I have to read one more article by high moral ground conservatives screaming that democrats are hypocrites, I too am going to give up on free speech just to see that word banned."

No one who comments on Vox Day's blog is part of the general public. If you're writing here, then you are necessarily a political anomaly.

Blogger dienw March 05, 2018 3:42 PM  

Beneath the production of rules stopping the skateboarders from doing highly skilled, courageous and dangerous things I see the operation of an insidious and profoundly anti-human spirit.

If Jordan Peterson was referring to lawyers and tort law, well yes; you can jump off your neighbors garage all day long as long as your neighbor knew that you could not sue him or make any insurance claims.

One of the quirks of living in North Carolina is that the property owner is not responsible for clearing ice and snow on sidewalks or driveway; even landlords do not have to clear parking areas for their tenants; in fact, the property owners are in greater tort danger if they do clear ice and snow: you see, ice and snow are acts of God and clearing such interferes with an act of God and makes the owner liable.

Blogger Markku March 05, 2018 3:44 PM  

Vox dismissed the relevance of moral standing in the contemporary political climate

No, he denied that your position is in fact moral.

Blogger VD March 05, 2018 3:45 PM  

I am not a conservative, and I am not arguing that the moral high ground is strategically decisive in every case. I'm just arguing that it is strategically *relevant* in every case, and that it is, given contemporary political realities, strategically decisive in this case.

No, it is not strategically decisive in this case and we absolutely KNOW it cannot be, because it has not been.

Maybe you should reread Michael Lind, so as to reacquaint yourself with the strategic importance of the moral level of warfare, Vox.

You should definitely stop assuming, incorrectly, that free speech is the core of the moral level of the culture war. It isn't. You're blathering on and on about an irrelevancy. You keep babbling about your "strategic thinking" when it is apparent that you're totally incapable of it.

The free speech center is not going to run to THE LEFT if the Right refuses to hold to free speech above all else because that's not an option for them. At least we won't repress their speech like the Left will. So they don't matter. The Right remains preferable for them whether it protects the free speech of the Left or not.

Blogger VD March 05, 2018 3:48 PM  

Vox dismissed the relevance of moral standing in the contemporary political climate, as well the moral dimension of the free speech issue. I have a "one track mind" because I like to focus on the issue under discussion.

I did no such thing, as Markku has already pointed out. You have a one-track mind because you are incapable of grasping the larger picture.

You may not be a conservative, but you are just as dedicated to defeat and "muh principles" as the average conservative. You can't even grasp that the Right still has the high moral ground even if it represses the free speech of the Left so long as it doesn't repress the Center.

Blogger Jack Burroughs March 05, 2018 3:50 PM  

"There is no free speech in Heaven. I'll just lay that down right now. There was no free speech in Levitical law. So there's also that. Keep bitching about how you feel--and how you think I feel--along with the rest of the cucks and constitutionalists."

Ok, Laramie. I'll do that. And you keep right on arguing for a Christian theocracy, complete with references to the speech codes in Heaven.

You make your arguments, and I'll make mine. And let's see who persuades the most people.

Do you really believe that people who are revolted by the Left's censoriousness are going to suddenly find it persuasive when you come along and say that we've got to limit speech because "there is no free speech in Heaven"? They're gonna say, "you know, I think Laramie has a strong point there. We've gotta follow the Book of Leviticus with our laws on speech"?

If you do, then I don't know what to tell you. Do you what you've gotta do.

Blogger TroubleSpeak March 05, 2018 3:50 PM  

"At least we won't repress their speech like the Left will."

We will if they advocate for gun control.

Blogger Markku March 05, 2018 3:51 PM  

Free speech, as applies to the Left, can even BEGIN to be a moral issue if they are searching the truth in earnest and in good conscience, and have merely been mistaken. This is what most of us thought, because we projected our own motivations on them. Most of us have then come to realize, through copious amounts of actual experience, that this is the exact opposite of truth.

Blogger VD March 05, 2018 3:52 PM  

You can think that all you want, but you will have trouble persuading many people to agree with you. Because free speech IS a moral issue to countless people. It certainly is to me.

It may be to you. It means nothing to nearly everyone else. Pro-gun is a winning position. Pro-free speech is not. That's why no one - NO ONE - even quits Twitter over it.

Not even Stefan Molyneux. You are flat-out wrong.

Blogger Patrick Kelly March 05, 2018 3:52 PM  

Fn' conservatives competing in a popularity contest instead of fighting a war.

Nobody is going to join and fight with the right because we're "popular" or hold the "moral high ground". Those motivated by such drivel are worthless anyway.

This is a war you fn idiots. During peace you don't shoot people and blow up their stuff. During war you do.

Anyone getting fainting vapors over "muh free speech" needs keep there head down, stay out of the way, and stfu.

Cuz' if all you do is poke your silly little head up to point and shriek at those fighting on the right, you're gonna take bullets from both sides.




Blogger Markku March 05, 2018 3:57 PM  

"Congress shall make no law". Fine. As long as the federation still exists, then find some other way to do it than Congress making a law.

Blogger peppermint88 March 05, 2018 4:10 PM  

Which is the bigger infringement on free speech, Vox not allowing faggots to erect a giant butt plug instead of a Christmas tree, or faggots not allowing normal people to tell their children the truth about reproduction and faggotry?

When has anyone ever gotten in trouble for insulting Jesus or the pope in private conversation? Hulk Hogan's career was destroyed for dropping an n-bomb in private conversation and every single "liberal" thinks he should have been jailed as well.

It used to be considered next to illegal to call for the assassination of the president.

Blogger Jack Burroughs March 05, 2018 4:19 PM  

Vox: "No, it is not strategically decisive in this case and we absolutely KNOW it cannot be, because it has not been."

Apart from the speech codes in the academic world, the war over free speech is only just now seriously beginning. You cannot judge the outcome when the battle has barely even begun.

"You should definitely stop assuming, incorrectly, that free speech is the core of the moral level of the culture war. It isn't."

I don't claim to speak for everyone, but it certainly is for me. In a more general sense, I'm not assuming it; I'm *describing* it. Do you not think that "give me liberty or give me death" has no moral dimension? Free speech goes to the very heart of liberty. Liberty is a moral value, and real liberty certainly is at the moral core of the culture war.

Even you had a twitter exchange awhile back with some Rabbi who supported the AIPAC law, in which you were saying that Americans will fight to the death to protect freedom of speech. You were right then, and you are wrong now. Do you not think that there is any moral conviction behind Americans' willingness to fight to death for freedom of speech?

"You should definitely stop assuming, incorrectly, that free speech is the core of the moral level of the culture war. It isn't."

You are assuming far more than I am. One of the greatest political strengths of Right, presently, is that it can credibly claim to support free speech, while the Left provably opposes it. You are assuming that you can sacrifice that advantage without damaging your cause. If you keep this up, you are going to learn the hard way how wrong you are.

"You're blathering on and on about an irrelevancy. You keep babbling about your "strategic thinking" when it is apparent that you're totally incapable of it. The free speech center is not going to run to THE LEFT if the Right refuses to hold to free speech above all else because that's not an option for them. At least we won't repress their speech like the Left will. So they don't matter. The Right remains preferable for them whether it protects the free speech of the Left or not."

You're basically saying, "where else are they gonna go? We've got em!" That's some serious strategic thinking there, Vox. Because, for one thing, you're opening up the Right to the danger of deep division. For instance, you hate Richard Spencer, right? If you take the anti-free speech view, and Spencer takes a pro free speech view, then Spencer's version of the Alt Right will gain political traction, and yours will lose it.

And saying you "won't repress speech like the Left will" is a shockingly unpersuasive argument. You open yourself to an inevitable challenge from people who say, "we will not censor your speech at all."

When that challenge comes, you will certainly lose the support of people like me. And on this issue, there are many more people like me than there are people like you.

Blogger James Dixon March 05, 2018 4:19 PM  

> the moral level of warfare

The "moral level of warfare" is not the same as "the moral high ground". The fact that you don't understand this is what renders your entire argument pointless.

Blogger SciVo March 05, 2018 4:21 PM  

Aeoli wrote:I believe it was Jung who developed the most surgically wicked of psychoanalytic dicta: if you cannot understand why someone did something, look at the consequences—and infer the motivation. This is a psychological scalpel. It’s not always a suitable instrument. It can cut too deeply, or in the wrong places. It is, perhaps, a last-resort option. Nonetheless, there are times when its application proves enlightening.

Interesting, I didn't know that's where it came from. I must've learned it by proxy somewhere along the line.

(Even if a false mental model is commonly held, why have people not discarded it for being contradicted by results, if that's really the point? See Keynesianism for example -- to policymakers, it doesn't really matter if it works, as long as they can use it to justify bigger budgets and lavish spending on their cronies. Ditto socialism, with the addition of power and control over others.)

Aeoli wrote:Beneath the production of rules stopping the skateboarders from doing highly skilled, courageous and dangerous things I see the operation of an insidious and profoundly anti-human spirit.

And there we see the aforementioned limits of that technique. Skateboarders will get hurt, and sometimes people who get hurt on city property will sue the city for not stopping them, and sometimes people who sue on irrational grounds will win anyway because a jury felt like giving someone a lottery win at little cost to themselves. (Not to mention the expense of repairing the crumbling concrete, and its ugliness between repairs.) So, even cities that otherwise favor spontaneous individual expression will install skatestoppers, just to protect their budgets.

Blogger TroubleSpeak March 05, 2018 4:27 PM  

The left loses on Free Speech because they use censorship to shut down debate and prevent non-PC badthink from spreading. Consider that no one would give a damn if a university or some social network were to censor the speech of terrorists, pedophiles, mass murderers, or rapists. What people do notice is that the left are the liars because they are always attempting to suppress those that speak what is known to be true. The key to victory for the right is therefore to keep on speaking the truth, no matter what. It does not need to regard free speech as sacrosanct in order to win because truth always wins out in the end.

Blogger freddie_mac March 05, 2018 4:29 PM  

It's only going to make the Right much less popular

Because the Right's main problem is being popular, and not the (well-deserved) reputation of never hitting below the belt (aka Queensbury Rules) when the opponent has two guns, a knife, brass knuckles, and a mob backing him up

Doesn't matter how high-minded "muh principles" are if you refuse to stand and fight.

Blogger VFM #7634 March 05, 2018 4:35 PM  

You are assuming far more than I am. One of the greatest political strengths of Right, presently, is that it can credibly claim to support free speech, while the Left provably opposes it. You are assuming that you can sacrifice that advantage without damaging your cause. If you keep this up, you are going to learn the hard way how wrong you are.

@Jack Burroughs

Oh, horse hockey. So if the Right decides that SJWs aren't allowed to spout their BS all over the place and cracks down on them like China would, we're all going to give up on them because muh free speech and start supporting abortion, open borders and gun control?

Most of us would be cheering them on. We'd love to see SJWs taken down. We've been thirsting to see that for decades.

Blogger Jack Burroughs March 05, 2018 4:40 PM  

JB: "Vox dismissed the relevance of moral standing in the contemporary political climate, as well the moral dimension of the free speech issue. I have a "one track mind" because I like to focus on the issue under discussion."

VD: "I did no such thing, as Markku has already pointed out."

You did, though. Here is what you said: "It's amusing that he thinks "moral standing" is relevant in a political environment in which basic, fundamental concepts such as "male" and "illegal" are treated as variable, and traditional definitions are designated as outdated and immoral. It's understandable, though just as incorrect, to claim that free speech is a moral issue."

That sure seems to be an explicit denial, in plain language, of the relevance of moral standing in the contemporary political climate. And you said it was incorrect to see free speech as a moral issue.

If I'm getting you wrong, I'm pretty sure it's not my fault. Those are the words you wrote.

VD: "You have a one-track mind because you are incapable of grasping the larger picture...

"...You can't even grasp that the Right still has the high moral ground even if it represses the free speech of the Left so long as it doesn't repress the Center."

It's rather that *you* are incapable of grasping the larger picture. Sure, you might gain a tactical victory if you argue for retaliatory censorship of the Left on the gun issue. But you refuse to see the longterm implications of what you've done. Because once you've sacrificed a core principle like free speech, it never stops with that issue.

Do you really believe that the Right would not seek to repress the speech of the center? What IS the center? I mean, you seem to want anti-blasphemy laws. Do you think the political center would agree with you about that?

For instance, South Park has made many jokes at the expense of Jesus. That show is very popular. Would South Park be censored under Vox Day's speech regime?

If it would, then we have clear case of the Right censoring centrist speech. And even if you don't support such censorship, the momentum of your movement guarantees that it--and far more than it--would happen eventually.

Nothing like this ever stops where you want it to stop.

Blogger Jack Burroughs March 05, 2018 4:43 PM  

James Dixon: "The "moral level of warfare" is not the same as "the moral high ground". The fact that you don't understand this is what renders your entire argument pointless."

James, if you're going to make a point like that, then you have an obligation to explain what the difference between them actually is.

That you fail to do that here suggests that you are pretending to know something that you don't actually know.

Blogger tuberman March 05, 2018 4:45 PM  

Jack, are you a fan of the Bush Family?

Blogger Josh (the sexiest thing here) March 05, 2018 4:48 PM  

I'm waiting for the "GOOD DAY SIR. I SAID GOOD DAY." comments

Blogger tuberman March 05, 2018 4:49 PM  

Jack, do you think Cruz, Romney, and Rubio are great "conservatives?" Just trying to get a feel for you broader scope on politics, as it effects these single issues.

Blogger Jack Burroughs March 05, 2018 4:54 PM  

Vox: "You may not be a conservative, but you are just as dedicated to defeat and "muh principles" as the average conservative. "

Freddie_mac: "Doesn't matter how high-minded "muh principles" are if you refuse to stand and fight."

Look, guys. I'm not suggesting that you not fight. I'm actually arguing the opposite: that you should fight to *win*.

It's true that conservatives have a tendency to rationalize cowardice in the name of principles. But it's also true that those on the anti-conservative Right have their own signature psycho-strategic weakness: they tend to believe that what *feels* strong will be strategically the most effective thing to do.

This is a great quality when that happens to be true. But it's self-defeating when reality does not conform to that belief.

This trait is simultaneously Vox Day's best and worst quality.

Blogger Jack Burroughs March 05, 2018 4:57 PM  

tuberman: "Jack, do you think Cruz, Romney, and Rubio are great "conservatives?" Just trying to get a feel for you broader scope on politics, as it effects these single issues."

No. They are all loathsome mediocrities, and tools of the Establishment. I can't stand them.

Blogger tuberman March 05, 2018 4:58 PM  

Jack, no, the whole population, or at least 75% of us, will go much further than banning SJW's free speech in another few years. VD is very mild, and very measured.

Blogger James March 05, 2018 4:59 PM  

Is that a moral obligation to explain or just the "mental masturbation obligation" that is your speciality? Do you want me to explain the difference between life and death to you? Since you didn't bother to specify, and since there are at least 3 situations that contain "differences", let's review them. Let's see, there was real war and pansy assed (pretend self-righteous) war. There was moral high ground and strategic high ground. And life and death. I normally wouldn't bother to explain something as obvious as these things, but you seem to spend your time arguing about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, so I'll make an exception so you can dig yourself in deeper. Oh, and do you need me to define moral obligation and mental masturbation obligation while I'm at it?

Blogger Jack Burroughs March 05, 2018 5:01 PM  

tuberman: "Jack, no, the whole population, or at least 75% of us, will go much further than banning SJW's free speech in another few years. VD is very mild, and very measured."

Even if you're right about that, you will be lucky if your "victory" lasts even a generation before it provokes a massive repudiation of everything you thought you had won.

Blogger Jack Ward March 05, 2018 5:01 PM  

Good Lord! Never thought I would be featured in the title of a Vox Post. Don't know whether to be worried or not. I do know that I believe in those 'stands' I take. And, I think those stand statements would be pleasing to most who come here who appreciate the smell of gunpowder in the morning or any other of the 24 hours in a day. But, one must always remember that fame, no matter how narrow gauged, can be a fleeting thing indeed.

Blogger Snidely Whiplash March 05, 2018 5:05 PM  

@Jack,
Where are all these people who will turn on you or abandon you in the name of freedom of speech? I sure don't see anyone abandoning the Conservatives or the Left when they want to shut up Nazis, or anti-Abortionists or skinheads or the KKK.
The simplest explanation of the observed and absolute lack of people willing to so much as consider changing political affiliation or even brand preference and social media use on the basis of support for free speech, is that the number of such people is negligible.
You can safely be ignored.

Blogger Jack Burroughs March 05, 2018 5:06 PM  

James: "Is that a moral obligation to explain or just the "mental masturbation obligation" that is your speciality? Do you want me to explain the difference between life and death to you?"

When you make a polemical distinction between terms, then you should explain what that distinction is.

If you don't do that, then you arouse suspicion that you are pretending to know something that you don't actually know.

And if, when challenged, you dodge the point with irrelevant mockery, then you justify the certainty that you are pretending to know something that you don't actually know.

You obviously don't know what you are talking about. You should stop pretending.

Blogger Timmy3 March 05, 2018 5:09 PM  

I suppose there’s no high moral ground when it is obvious the Left has none. You can’t appeal to such concerns. So fight on their lawless grounds. Take away their freedom of speech. That’s what they decried about in the past like the 1960s era indecency cases. The Left is the new Victorians who can’t tolerate the Right’s speech.

Blogger Markku March 05, 2018 5:10 PM  

Even North Korea is on its third generation of rulers, and it's quite the tragicomical example of what extremes you can go in this. We'll be fine. Probably at least five generations. Perhaps by then the moral quality of the people is again such that more freedom of speech can be given.

Anonymous Anonymous March 05, 2018 5:11 PM  

Free speech is a property rights issue

If I own a hall or hire it for the night, I can give any speech I want to give. But if I come into your home and start spouting BS that you do not want to hear, you can rightly tell me to stop or toss me out of the place.

The problems discussed in this thread comes from the government of the empire passing laws that trump private property rights or that concern "public property". There should be no government owned "public property" --- and if there were none there would be no "free speech" issues.

Again, going slowly here, you may say what you want on your own property but NOT on mine.

~ Mark

Blogger tuberman March 05, 2018 5:12 PM  

Jack, there are various stages of a Movement, or a Revolution, and smart people in a Crisis Movement or War know when to back off and step it down after a vile enemy is completely destroyed. There is a war going on now, and to lose means extinction, and this is called an emergency or a crisis. Extreme measures are taken when survival is at stake, and the only thing that cannot happen is letting the enemy off, so that they can come back, ever. This is for all the marbles.

Their leaders, middle-management, and violent pawns have to be completely demolished in every way.

Blogger Noah B The Savage Gardener March 05, 2018 5:12 PM  

The Second Amendment does have limits. Your right to have a weapon does not include the right to point a gun at someone without cause.

The First Amendment has limits too. Your right to speak does not give you the right to lie and conspire to destroy this nation without consequences.

Blogger Orthodox March 05, 2018 5:17 PM  

The Founding fathers were pro-free speech when it came to politics. The country was far more right-wing when it had blasphemy laws and banned pornography.

Treat speech like pollution. When someone creates pornography, they spew it out like SO2. You can avoid it, but how to prevent children? I would happily side with the Mormons and impeach Donald Trump if they would also impeach everyone who speaks vulgarities in public and also shut down all of Hollywood and MSM for violating basic decency.

Blogger tuberman March 05, 2018 5:21 PM  

Orthodox,

Naw, let's put McMullin and Romney too, away for Treason instead.

Blogger NeoNietzsche: March 05, 2018 5:23 PM  

@28 "People who are revolted by the left are seeking out morally superior and saner alternatives. In supporting censorship, you are needlessly handing your enemies a very effective rhetorical weapon, because now they can say, "See? They are no better than we are. They support censorship, too.""

I'm not sure it's censorship exactly. I miss the COURTESY that used to hold in speech and writing. You didn't use 'bad' words because they were 'bad.' Was that about morality? That seems too ... philosophical, university, detached from day-to-day speech and interaction. The 'Seven Deadly Words' WERE deadly not because of morality per se, but because they offended people, and it was 'inappropriate' (impolite: not morality, courtesy) to offend people.

The careless casual use of swear words today coarsens EVERYthing about society. Guys doing a podcast on FOOD (for cryin' out loud!) are 'this effing spice' and that 'effing pan'! It's NOT 'cool' -- it doesn't make you entertaining, and it does drive away people who want courtesy. (If every other word you speak is a swear word -- what do you use when you ACTUALLY need to swear about something!?)

I'm not asking for curtseys ("courtesys")and bowing; I'm thinking it's way less-than-optimal speaking to coworkers like you do to your gaming buddies; or speaking to a minister or your granny as if they were 'the guys on your bowling team.' (Metaphorically: does ANYone still have a bowling team?)

Censorship is "you may NOT say this!" Courtesy is "please take into account the result on the psyche of the person to whom you say this." (Of course, this requires parents to TEACH courtesy to their offspring... So, nice pipe dream.)

A huge part of that coarsening is the commie: "we are ALL THE SAME!" The commies taught the Chinese that spitting of the street was a good thing (because people who DON'T do disgusting things -- and people who think such things are disgusting -- must be elites and should be killed. When the Chinese 'won' the Olympics, they had to struggle mightily to undo that -- because 'civilized societies were coming to visit and would rightly be disgusted by it!

IS 'censoring' (as against courtesy) only black and white? Either we allow everything or we allow nothing? (Oh! I see, it's zero tolerance.... VERY leftie!) Or are there shades of gray that a civilized White society can easy live with --since we did for hundreds of years?

Blogger NeoNietzsche: March 05, 2018 5:27 PM  

@34 "A "moral high ground" does not exist when one side will commit any atrocity it can to obtain its objective. You are presented with the choice of life or death. In that choice, life IS the "moral high ground"."

+100!

Blogger Noah B The Savage Gardener March 05, 2018 5:29 PM  

Also, shutting down the left's speech isn't giving up the moral high ground. We have a virtual monopoly on truth and reason; they have only lies and smear. I do not and would not support the abolition of honest and rational discussion, but such a thing is vanishingly rare in our current political environment.

Blogger tuberman March 05, 2018 5:34 PM  

This thing about "censoring the Left," is going to so obviously happen that arguments like this will look silly in a few years. It will happen, and most will be on board when it happens Everyone will be surprised that it did not happen earlier.

Connecting the dots, toward the future, suggests that most of the Left's plots will be turned on them, it will be necessary.

Blogger NeoNietzsche: March 05, 2018 5:34 PM  

@37 "Beneath the production of rules stopping the skateboarders from doing highly skilled, courageous and dangerous things"

This is one of the places where I disagree strongly with Peterson. Where "children's playing" involves damaging and eventually destroying parts of magnificent cement buildings, degrading PUBLIC spaces, and creating noise and havoc in other people's spaces... then those children's play is NOT "a lovely thing."

The lawsuit thing? Sure - that's part of a pathological system ("first, kill all the lawyers"!). But the damage done to OTHER people's properties in order for these children to have fun is unacceptable to me!

Even without the parents being able to sue for injury, their children have no right to do damage to public spaces. (Unless the public/building owner can sue the parents for damage to the curbs and benches?) (Any y'all remember the negress who sued a furniture store because an out-of-control child tripped her and she got hurt? And she won a boatload of $$$ from the store -- AND IT WAS HER CHILD!?!?) Pathological system!)

Blogger James March 05, 2018 5:37 PM  

Jack Burroughs wrote:
When you make a polemical distinction between terms, then you should explain what that distinction is.

You obviously don't know what you are talking about. You should stop pretending.


Talk about projection. Look wanker, I asked you to clarify what terms you wanted defined. You didn't. But, here's the crux of the biscuit. To determine what a "moral high ground" is with someone, you have to agree on what it is. We are at war, real war, not mental masturbation war. If you believe that there is a morality you should never cede and your opponent does not, you will lose. I hope you believe in God, but if you don't, and your opponents don't, there is no ultimate morality. In the end, when the highest morality your opponent knows is that the end justifies the means, and there are lines you won't cross, you will lose the war. The United States doesn't win wars because it is good. In fact, it hasn't won a war in over 70 years. It merely controls the perception of its motivation and declares itself good. I assure you that the war we are in right now will boil down to "Will you do whatever is necessary"? And in wars of destruction, the only morality there is is to defeat the foe. The American people, which you want to pretend to represent, will eventually decide they don't care what is done in the service of their perpetuation. If you think they will, you don't know anything about humans.

Blogger Laramie Hirsch March 05, 2018 5:43 PM  


@41 Jack Burroughs

"Ok, Laramie. I'll do that. And you keep right on arguing for a Christian theocracy, complete with references to the speech codes in Heaven.

I most cerainly will. Mankind should aim for a Social Kingship of Christ, rather than keep piddling with making their political gods out of mud and "bright ideas."

(I'd also like to add that speaking in the long-term, and I mean LOOONG TERM, this era of Freemasonic Republics is going to come to an end. I just wish we'd all live long enough to see it.)

But, more interesting and more relevant, you say:

"You make your arguments, and I'll make mine. And let's see who persuades the most people. ... Do you really believe that people who are revolted by the Left's censoriousness are going to suddenly find it persuasive when you come along and say that we've got to limit speech because "there is no free speech in Heaven"?"

This is interesting to me, because you think I'm interested in persuading people. I'm under no illusions that I can persuade the masses. As a matter of fact, by mentioning Locke, monarchy, Free-speech illusions and all that--by mentioning this, I am bringing up an unpopular point in a group that is a minority of a minority. I highly doubt that the red-pilled, Alt-Right, neoreactionary Radical Traditionalist Catholic is going to really convince anyone of anything. Realistically, it's my hope that the points I mention interest at least someone somewhat, and that they amuse Vox to some degree...as it's his blog, after all.

Blogger Laramie Hirsch March 05, 2018 5:44 PM  

Oh, and I completely forgot. Your statement completely betrays the fact that you are trying to persuade everyone and win everyone's approbation. Which is a far cry from what I do in these comment boards.

Blogger Markku March 05, 2018 5:45 PM  

Moral high ground means the PERCEPTION of which side is behaving morally, by the majority of the people involved. So, I agree with him that "moral high ground" and "moral side of war" refer to the same thing. I do not believe that the amount of censorship we are advocating would cause us to lose said moral high ground. Yes, there is the possibility that it would lead to more censorship, to a degree where we would become queasy about it. But there are dangers in any choice in a war. The one we've been taking for decades has caused nothing but losing, and the opposite approach taken by the enemy has caused nothing but winning. It's time to take that risk.

Blogger Markku March 05, 2018 5:47 PM  

Especially considering that the first time in decades, after changing our strategy, we are actually winning. It's a very good sign that we have been horribly wrong.

Blogger Noah B The Savage Gardener March 05, 2018 5:49 PM  

Jack just doesn't get it and his entire argument is based on false equivalence. The right isn't outraged by censorship per se; it's a matter of what is being censored. The left is attempting to turn morality upside down, demanding that the public square accommodate vulgarity while squelching righteousness. Most of us of the right have no problem whatsoever squelching vulgarity. The Western world functioned perfectly well on this basis for nearly two thousand years regardless of Jack's contemporary libertine preferences.

Blogger Jack Burroughs March 05, 2018 5:49 PM  


James: "Talk about projection. Look wanker, I asked you to clarify what terms you wanted defined."

The terms were explicit in your own initial comment James. Here is what you said: "The "moral level of warfare" is not the same as "the moral high ground". The fact that you don't understand this is what renders your entire argument pointless."

You knew perfectly well what terms needed clarifying, because you were the one who made the distinction between those terms in the first place.

Stop making fake points, James. Stop pretending. Of if you're going to keep on pretending, then you need to do a much better job of it than you have so far.

Blogger NeoNietzsche: March 05, 2018 5:51 PM  

@48 "You open yourself to an inevitable challenge from people who say, "we will not censor your speech at all.""

If you are, as you write, "in touch" with the common man, then you most SURELY know that the common man WISHES very strongly that the left were NOT be allowed to say many of the things they keep saying (and doing!). Did you read that article someone linked above to at The Onion? As I read it, ye GODS! I kept hoping it was NOT The Onion, but instead the NY Times or Forbes! I WANTED it to be a real paper, a REAL report, the ACTUAL 'news on the ground! MOST normies WANT those sorts of people to just STFU!

You're all 'moral high ground' and 'ooooh free speech is the number one desire of Americans'... Uh. No. No it's not.

"Free speech" meaning men is ass-less chaps marching in front of 4-yr-olds in the public square is ABSOLUTELY the kind of "speech" normal people want censored!! We would be DELIGHTED to have Vox Day's army censor that sort of thing!

"Free speech" meaning a bastard of a "preacher" shouting swear words at a grieving military family (we don't CARE the guy was gay -- we care that he gave his life for this country! We sure don't LIKE gay -- but that preacher needed to be STFU!)

"Free speech" meaning a rich-bitch negro college girl screaming swear words at a professor (whom SHE helped hire!) because "this is our home!" And "we sholudn't have to deal with costumes we don't like!" I SO hope her parents sank into the ground in embarrassment (though I expect they didn't -- and I'm angry that the college admin ddin't have her arrested and dragged off the college grounds)! Not just censored -- but kicked out of school.

THAT is your "free speech as the highest value." (And if it's "well, it's MY highest value"... are we supposed to care about your feelings?)

Blogger Jack Burroughs March 05, 2018 5:55 PM  

Laramie: "This is interesting to me, because you think I'm interested in persuading people. I'm under no illusions that I can persuade the masses. As a matter of fact, by mentioning Locke, monarchy, Free-speech illusions and all that--by mentioning this, I am bringing up an unpopular point in a group that is a minority of a minority."

Ok. As long as you know what you're doing, then all due respect for that.

Blogger James March 05, 2018 7:06 PM  

Jack Burroughs wrote:

The terms were explicit in your own initial comment James. Here is what you said: "The "moral level of warfare" is not the same as "the moral high ground". The fact that you don't understand this is what renders your entire argument pointless."

You knew perfectly well what terms needed clarifying, because you were the one who made the distinction between those terms in the first place.

Stop making fake points, James. Stop pretending. Of if you're going to keep on pretending, then you need to do a much better job of it than you have so far.


No, you need to stop channeling George Will and William F. Buckley and remove your cranium from your anal sphincter. You’re just showing your lack of reading comprehension here. Here was my “initial” comment, and double check this one to verify what I’m saying is true:

“What moral high ground exists in war? Real war. Not the pansy ass "war" you are patting yourself on the back about how you are defending the "moral high ground" while actually surrendering the strategic high ground.

Where did I actually say the “moral level of warfare” is not the same as the moral high ground in my initial comment?

You are confusing me with James Dixon, George. I see why you might do that, seeing as how we both have the same first name. Try to keep up, but for God’s sake, please stop digging that hole.

Blogger Jack Burroughs March 05, 2018 7:25 PM  

You're right, I've confused you with James Dixon.

However, the reason I've confused you with James Dixon is a) because your name is James, and b) you seemed to be responding to my reply to James in language that suggested I was speaking to you: "Is that a moral obligation to explain or just the "mental masturbation obligation" that is your speciality? Do you want me to explain the difference between life and death to you?"

As a matter of principle, I apologize for the confusion.

On the other hand, you've been such a needless prick in this exchange that I've gotta admit that I don't really feel bad about it.

"“What moral high ground exists in war? Real war. Not the pansy ass "war" you are patting yourself on the back about how you are defending the "moral high ground" while actually surrendering the strategic high ground."

You're right, James. There is no moral high ground in war, and morality has no strategic value at all. If they chop off one head, then we should chop off a thousand heads. Why not? And we should rape their women by the thousands, too, right? After all, rape is a well known weapon of war. To do anything less than what the enemy does at his worst would be a pansy ass pseudo-war hardly worthy the name.

That's the only strategically effective way to win a war! No true warrior has a moral code in battle. All this morality talk is obviously for pussies.

What was I thinking?

Blogger VD March 05, 2018 7:31 PM  

Even if you're right about that, you will be lucky if your "victory" lasts even a generation before it provokes a massive repudiation of everything you thought you had won.

And now the totally-not-a-conservative has retreated to the Dire Warning Stage.

Jack, you lost. You're wrong. You're a terrible strategist. And you're defeatist. You have completely failed to convince anyone here.

But don't worry. Your free speech is so ineffective there is no need to worry about anyone on our side shutting it down.

Blogger Ominous Cowherd March 05, 2018 7:35 PM  

Burroughs, the only argument for or against using a tool in war is: is it working? We have reason to believe that if tried, curtailing freedom of speech will work fantastically well for the Right. After all, muzzling us a a favorite tool of the Left. In any event, we must try it, and see what happens.

If we frame it as forbidding indecency and oppression, no one will argue. After all, the principle is already established that if anyone is so much as made uncomfortable by any speech, that speech must be shut down. Point out that men in assless chaps makes everyone uncomfortable, point out that it's for the children, pass a law, and we've seen our last queer pride parade.

Point out that advocating unconstitutional laws (as opposed to advocating amending the constitution) is an attempt to violate our civil rights, and Lefties start rolling off to jail.

The beautiful thing is that no one will miss any of them. ``First they came for the aggressive, in-your-face grievance mongers, and I was quiet, because I couldn't stand those people. Then they came for the commies and the virulent annti-Americans, and I was quiet because they never belonged here in the first place. Then, life got pretty good, and nobody bothered to come for anybody, and we all lived happily ever after.''

Blogger Cecil Henry March 05, 2018 7:40 PM  

These 'conservatives' don't want to win. They want attention and to look good.

They don't have enough love to know that its a MUST win. We know better.

Blogger tz March 05, 2018 7:42 PM  

Kurt Schlicter comes from another angle but makes the same point

SJWs aren't about rational debate on logic or evidence. They want to screech, get you fired, deplatformed, or whatever else. But they will be quick to accuse you of being "uncivil".

The telos of "free speech" is argument based on reason and evidence, and mostly dialectical, lesser rhetorical.

Exchanging ideas is reasonable and you can argue to protect such, as you can desire protecting nature and species. But there is no reason to protect rabid dogs or plague carrying rats.

Blogger tuberman March 05, 2018 7:47 PM  

Free Speech as a rhetorical device, in the present, is okay, if someone like the God Emperor uses it. Yet people like J.Corsi actually mean it, it's sort of amusing. He IS the type of guy that will snatch defeat right from the jaws of victory.

Blogger Snidely Whiplash March 05, 2018 7:51 PM  

The "Moral High Ground" and the moral level of war are very obviously different things. It's not even questionable. The miral level of war refers to those actions that affect the morale of your troops, encourage your supporters, and discourage your opponents.
Beheadings, for example, greatly encourage Jihadis, and tend to keep people from criticizing Islam too harshly. For Moslems, lopping the heads from infidels is a winning tactic at the moral level of war.
The Moral High Ground is merely a vantage point that allws everyone else to see your excellent virtue and rock-solid, unconquerable principles.

Anonymous Anonymous March 05, 2018 8:09 PM  

That is why no successful strategist in history has ever designed a strategy that relies upon moral posturing.

Someone mentioned Ho Chi Min as a good example of successful moral posturing, which is highly debatable. Surely Gandhi is a better example. Perhaps Mandela, certainly the 19th century anti-slavery brigade.

Perhaps VD is at loss to identify a successful moral strategist because he has confined his thinking to conservative figures - no surprise there.

Anyway, there is a word for the approach that VD is urging conservatives to adopt: Realpolitik.

Which is kinda odd, because I haven’t noticed a lack of realpolitik in Washington, where, by the way, Conservatives reliably win -at least half of the time.

But I presume VD is not talking about Washington, but about the culture war being waged on campuses, the media and society. In any case, his thinking strikes me as muddle-headed.

To regard one’s adversaries as utterly immoral - satanic even- and yet all powerful is a reliable indicator of the paranoid style. So too is the notion that the struggle is an existential one, which can brook no compromise. VD is a perfect exemplar of this style, displayed practically every day on this blog. To be fair, I see this style emerging from the SJW brigade nowadays also.

The paranoid style always loses because it cannot recognise victory. The only ‘victory’ that counts is the complete and final destruction of one’s enemies. VD regrets ‘decades of consistent defeat’ even as his ‘God Emperor’ sits in the White House. Muddled.

The paranoid style always leads to muddled thinking. When facts are wanting it inserts presumptions, which then magically become facts - alternative facts. In this upside down world, every high school massacre becomes a conspiracy to assault the 2nd amendment, while in the real world gun sellers enjoy a bonanza, and the moral high ground recedes every further into the distant.

Actually, I’m not arguing with VD here because in a sense he is correct. Realpolitik is the only way conservatives will win - or have ever won.

Blogger Jack Burroughs March 05, 2018 8:10 PM  

VD: "And now the totally-not-a-conservative has retreated to the Dire Warning Stage."

Yes, Vox, a warning about blowback is absurd defeatism on its face. Why would anyone but a cowardice-rationalizing conservative ever be concerned about that?

You sound like the many liberals I warned 5 years ago about the coming blowback for their anti-white rhetoric.

"Jack, you lost. You're wrong. You're a terrible strategist. And you're defeatist. You have completely failed to convince anyone here."

Vox, I've made numerous substantive points against your argument, and you've hardly answered any of them. You've merely dismissed them. I can't "lose" an argument if an argument hasn't even taken place.

You know, when confronted with a serious challenge, you really do have a pronounced tendency to replace rational argument with name calling.

I'm starting to suspect that you didn't distill the algorithm of the SJW mind through observation; you did it through introspection.

It's looking more and more like the secret of your method was that you merely had to analyze your own impulses under certain kinds of pressure.



Blogger Nakota Publishing March 05, 2018 8:50 PM  

Why can't the God Emperor just withhold funding from any university that has any sort of speech code? Whatever you think of free speech, Vox, this would be guaranteed to make the SJW's lose their kaka. On top of that, make a rule that anyone damaging university property and threatening or injuring speakers during a protest be permanently barred from campus and permanently banned from receiving financial aid anywhere. They did the latter to minor drug offenders and I don't think the courts challenged it. Perhaps I'll start a change.org petition, LOL.

Blogger Snidely Whiplash March 05, 2018 8:52 PM  

Jack Burroughs wrote:Vox, I've made numerous substantive points against your argument, and you've hardly answered any of them. You've merely dismissed them. I can't "lose" an argument if an argument hasn't even taken place.
You've made a single argument, Jack. It's "I don't like it and everyone else thinks just like me."
Nobody cares. Literally nobody cares enough to actually do anything. If they won't even stop using Facebook or Twitter, if they'll sing along in chorus when the Left and the Conservatives shut down opinions that are unfashionable, if they won't even bother to defend their OWN freedom of speech, they are not like you.

Blogger Snidely Whiplash March 05, 2018 8:53 PM  

Jack Burroughs wrote:I'm starting to suspect that you didn't distill the algorithm of the SJW mind through observation; you did it through introspection.

It's looking more and more like the secret of your method was that you merely had to analyze your own impulses under certain kinds of pressure.

Gammas. You always find them, Vox.

Blogger tuberman March 05, 2018 8:54 PM  

The reason why the smarter Civic nationalist like Trump will go very far with this is that he now knows that the life of his whole family is on the line, even down past his great grandchildren. Plus the military behind him, a few are use to thinking in terms of a vile, vengeful enemy. Valery Jarrett made vengeful statements even before losing the election, and she is/was BHO controller. "These people are evil." Count on it.

The real problems with this will occur with Feminism, and to a lesser extent, all the victim hood nonsense. The Right, including the more intelligent Civic Nationalist will reach the point where they will take down the majority of the current NWO/Globalist leaders, middle-management, and pure savages, and it will be world wide, not just here. Colleges and universities will fail, as they should, as they are mainly propaganda. There will be major school reform.

Yet even with all that a simmering brew of "I'm a victim" groups will persist, and they will not care about the benefits of more freedom.

This will be a job for the Alt-Right to finish this crap off, as even the wise Civic Nationalist will not put this garbage completely Right

Blogger James Dixon March 05, 2018 8:54 PM  

> James, if you're going to make a point like that, then you have an obligation to explain what the difference between them actually is.

Really? Do I have to explain that fire is not water to you also? If you can't tell the difference once it's pointed out to you, I could spend the rest of this year trying to explain it and you still wouldn't understand.

> That you fail to do that here suggests that you are pretending to know something that you don't actually know.

The fact that you can't understand something everyone else does doesn't mean anyone else is pretending. Warfare by definition has different rules than non-warfare situations.

> Moral high ground means the PERCEPTION of which side is behaving morally, by the majority of the people involved.

Even if I accepted that argument, in a time of war those perceptions shift dramatically from what they would be otherwise. You can't pretend they're the same as they would be in other circumstances.

What they shift to depends almost entirely on the nature of the war and whether you're winning or losing. Thus, the demand to explain the difference is pretty much impossible to fulfill.

> you seemed to be responding to my reply to James in language that suggested I was speaking to you

When you replying using a shortened version of someone's username, these things can happen.

> That's the only strategically effective way to win a war! No true warrior has a moral code in battle. All this morality talk is obviously for pussies.

The only morality in a war is winning. That's it. Nothing else matters. If you lose, you're dead, and your wife and children will likely follow you. There is far more truth to your obviously intended to be satirical comment than in anything else you've posted on this thread.

Blogger tuberman March 05, 2018 8:58 PM  

97. Nakota Publishing

There will be a withholding of funding, and for many reasons, but now is too early. Timing is everything.

Blogger Markku March 05, 2018 9:34 PM  

Snidely Whiplash wrote:The "Moral High Ground" and the moral level of war are very obviously different things. It's not even questionable. The miral level of war refers to those actions that affect the morale of your troops, encourage your supporters, and discourage your opponents.

No, that's called the mental level of war. https://infogalactic.com/info/Fourth-generation_warfare:

These are the physical (actual combat; it is considered the least important), mental (the will to fight, belief in victory, etc.,) and moral (the most important, this includes cultural norms, etc.) levels.
---
It's a bit confusing terminology, but morale belongs to the mental level, not moral.

Anonymous Anonymous March 05, 2018 9:52 PM  

Before we argue about whether we are for or against free speech, maybe we should stop and ask what "free speech" means. Two hundred years ago in this country, it meant that the government could not punish you for expressing opinions. It never meant that you wouldn't be tarred and feathered, and ridden out of town on a rail. It went without saying that you could say what you wanted, but you should be circumspect about who you said it to. I think that was a damn fine idea.

Today, "free speech" has been stretched to encompass pretty much any action that does not offend the left. Want to dip crucifixes in urine and call it art? Why sure. You'd better not put on black-face, play the banjo and sing negro spirituals though--that would be, at the very least, "cultural appropriation". So yes, I'm against free speech too, at least in the monstrous form that it has assumed today.

In the context of the culture war and the left's appropriation of free speech as a tactic, I can understand Vox Day's expressed negative opinion of this "right". However, I think that position is an overreaction if he truly wants to write laws that will send people to jail for saying things he disagrees with. I don't want to live in a country where I might be sent to jail for expressing, say, a theological opinion on the nature of Holy Communion.

I would also like to note that the left's war on right speech is self-defeating. The leftist social media are going to find that enforcing purity of speech is a lot more difficult than they thought--they are pissing in their own well. They are going to entangle themselves ever more tightly in policing their content until they find it very difficult to operate at all. The left's attempts to stifle speech will also make them look more ridiculous every day--even to those on the left. The correct reaction to that is to sit back and laugh while it burns.

For the same reasons, censoring left wing speech would be self-defeating. (How would we do it, anyway?) As the left loses credibility, its whinings will simply be ignored.

Blogger Azure Amaranthine March 05, 2018 10:06 PM  

Jack, I'm just going to put it simply. We don't give a flying flip about whether or not you -- or anyone else -- have what you and many others call "freedoms".

To expound, there is also no moral (by definition) reason whatsoever that we should care.

No one cares that you think, as an analogy, that all gifts should be wrapped with pink ribbons on top ("free speech"). The matter is not only not inextricable from morality, but it does not necessarily have anything whatsoever to do with morality either.

The only reason you can even believe that it does is because you have bought into lies about either the nature of the world or the nature of morality.

No one in the US has freedom to fornicate in the street, nor to lay claim to things they do not own. No one is legally allowed to commit suicide. "Hate" speech is banned and/or punished in many areas. Sedition has always been illegal, and it can be constituted purely by speech.

Freedom of speech observably does not, and has not ever existed. You're fighting to die on a hill you've never even stood on, and which would not even be beneficial to stand on.

You're literally arguing in favor of criminals who have managed to turn "don't punish me for my criminal actions!" into law. Convict. Convict. Convict. Punish. Imprison. Execute. Anything else is lawless, immoral, cucked lunacy.

Blogger Jack Burroughs March 05, 2018 10:08 PM  

Snidely: "Gammas. You always find them, Vox."

I've noticed that Vox's sycophants reliably call anyone who seriously questions Vox a "gamma."

What is this blind, bootlicking devotion called on Vox's socio-sexual hierarchy?

I'm sure he has a name for it.

Blogger SirHamster March 05, 2018 10:23 PM  

Jack Burroughs wrote:I've noticed that Vox's sycophants reliably call anyone who seriously questions Vox a "gamma."

What is this blind, bootlicking devotion called on Vox's socio-sexual hierarchy?


Deltas are loyal and tend not to care for the spotlight. Unlike the Gamma sniping at the leaders, they belong to the group.

That Free Speech extremist faction you are trying to speak for doesn't exist.

Even the gunowners accept all sorts of restrictions on their 2A rights. That you think people will risk more for speech of other people doesn't compute.

People would like to think so, and boast of it; but what matters is the actual political cost they will pay.

They didn't stick out their necks when "racist", "homophobe" and all sorts of shaming language was used to bully everyone into silence. Need some evidence to support the belief that that cowed set will find a spine to do anything when it's SJWs on the receiving end.

Complain? Sure. Do something? Let's see it.

Blogger Azure Amaranthine March 05, 2018 10:24 PM  

"Moral high ground means the PERCEPTION of which side is behaving morally, by the majority of the people involved. So, I agree with him that "moral high ground" and "moral side of war" refer to the same thing."

If it's determined solely by mass human perception and/or agreement, it does not necessarily have anything to do with morality, and the word morality -- as used to describe it -- is a lie. It is a lie even by the atheistic definitions of morality.

Propaganda and lies in general can -- and do -- manage to convince a majority of people that certain immoral things are moral and certain moral things immoral, and it does so on a daily basis. This is immorality by non-atheistic definition.

I think the phrase you're looking for is "ethical high ground", as ethics are arbitrary rules.

Blogger Azure Amaranthine March 05, 2018 10:26 PM  

Of course, Jack, everything is always about you and you're never wrong, stupid, or a knowing liar.

Self righteousness is definitely gamma.

Blogger Jack Burroughs March 05, 2018 10:27 PM  

James Dixon: "Really? Do I have to explain that fire is not water to you also? If you can't tell the difference once it's pointed out to you, I could spend the rest of this year trying to explain it and you still wouldn't understand."

James Dixon, everything I said above to the other James can be said of you here: if you are fluent in the distinction you're making, then you could easily clarify it two sentences. Stop pretending that it would take forever because your critics are stupid. Just explain what you mean. And if can't explain what you mean, then stop pretending that you know something that you obviously don't know.

"The fact that you can't understand something everyone else does doesn't mean anyone else is pretending. Warfare by definition has different rules than non-warfare situations."

There are different kinds of war. And even in war, means must be conformable to ends. We are not even close to an anything-goes wartime situation right now. Life is still basically stable and peaceful for most people, most of the time.

Those of you on the Right who advocate repressing free speech are pointlessly sacrificing one of the the most persuasive weapons you have against the Left, in the eyes of the public.

It's kind of a stupid weapon to use if it gets you the opposite result of the one you seek. But no one on here really seems to care all that much about results. These "arguments" for repressing speech seem more to be a pretext for doing something that you wanted to do, anyway. It isn't really about strategically fighting a "war" at all.

"The only morality in a war is winning. That's it. Nothing else matters. If you lose, you're dead, and your wife and children will likely follow you. There is far more truth to your obviously intended to be satirical comment than in anything else you've posted on this thread."

It's true that the morality of war is different from the morality of peace. But if winning is the only moral criterion of war, then why should any fighting force ever show any restraint at all? The US could easily win every war very quickly by indiscriminately obliterating entire cities and countries. We could defeat most enemies without losing a single man. We could even nuke many countries, preempting thereby any possible threat from them forever.

We could rape, torture, and demoralize everyone who might conceivably pose a problem for us. We could kill the male children of the enemy before they reach adolescence.

We could do many horrifying things that would make a narrow kind of "victory" far easier, and much more complete.

By your moral standard, why shouldn't we do these things?



Blogger Markku March 05, 2018 10:34 PM  

Azure Amaranthine wrote:"Moral high ground means the PERCEPTION of which side is behaving morally, by the majority of the people involved. So, I agree with him that "moral high ground" and "moral side of war" refer to the same thing."

If it's determined solely by mass human perception and/or agreement, it does not necessarily have anything to do with morality, and the word morality -- as used to describe it -- is a lie. It is a lie even by the atheistic definitions of morality.

Propaganda and lies in general can -- and do -- manage to convince a majority of people that certain immoral things are moral and certain moral things immoral, and it does so on a daily basis. This is immorality by non-atheistic definition.

I think the phrase you're looking for is "ethical high ground", as ethics are arbitrary rules.


I'm telling you what the expression DOES mean. What anyone thinks it should mean, is entirely irrelevant. Moral high ground is an analogy to holding actual high ground when possessing territory, such that the enemy needs to perform a very difficult uphill battle to take it. Similarly, moral high ground is the advantages one side receives, when the civilians think that side fights for good, and the other side for evil.

Blogger Azure Amaranthine March 05, 2018 10:42 PM  

"Stop pretending that it would take forever because your critics are stupid."

You're a giant, flaming ignoramus at best.

"Life is still basically stable and peaceful for most people, most of the time."

Leftists are happily censoring people, most of the time. We're already well past that level of warfare, Jack. You sticking your head in the sand and screaming "THIS ISN'T HAPPENING" at the top of your lungs does not, in reality, mean it isn't happening.

"Those of you on the Right who advocate repressing free speech are pointlessly sacrificing one of the the most persuasive weapons you have against the Left, in the eyes of the public."

Most people observably do not care about free speech, and never have. I realized this as a ten year-old child the very first time I heard the words "hate crime" and "hate speech" on TV in reference to the Columbine massacre, and no one else in the room even so much as twitched, let alone objected. How have you not figured this out, Jack? It's the media pushing "free speech" and "freedom of the press" as it always has, and the vast majority of people completely ignoring it, just as they always have

"It's kind of a stupid weapon to use if it gets you the opposite result of the one you seek."

You are not an authority on the results of any action, Jack. Even the wisest man alive couldn't, with absolute certainty, predict the outcome of any action, and you're not even slightly wise.

"But if winning is the only moral criterion of war, then why should any fighting force ever show any restraint at all?"

If their cause is just and they pursue it justly, why on earth ought they? Keep cucking, cucky.

"We could rape, torture, and demoralize everyone who might conceivably pose a problem for us. We could kill the male children of the enemy before they reach adolescence."

Slaughtering an entire nation, to the last man, woman, and child, and even the animals, has been commanded by God in the past. Suck it up, buttercup.

"We could do many horrifying things that would make a narrow kind of "victory" far easier, and much more complete."

That something is "horrifying" or "fearful" has nothing whatsoever to do with whether it is good or evil. God himself is usually described as "Awesome", in the old sense that means "terrifying". The actual mechanics of butchering animals are horrifying to many, many people, and yet most of them still eat meat, and no religion or even polity that I am aware of considers the eating of meat in general to be evil.

Blogger Jack Burroughs March 05, 2018 10:44 PM  

SirHamster: "Deltas are loyal and tend not to care for the spotlight. Unlike the Gamma sniping at the leaders, they belong to the group."

I'm not that fluent in Vox's system, but surely disagreement with "the leaders" is not the chief criterion of "gamma"? If it is, then that is a suspiciously circular justification for meek obedience. But I doubt that's what a gamma essentially is.

Having said that, there are of course situations in which one *should* follow the leader. But Vox is not my leader. I'm just commenting on his blog.

"They didn't stick out their necks when "racist", "homophobe" and all sorts of shaming language was used to bully everyone into silence. Need some evidence to support the belief that that cowed set will find a spine to do anything when it's SJWs on the receiving end.:"

"Complain? Sure. Do something? Let's see it."

They already did do something: they voted for Trump. All it took was someone to give them a fighting alternative.

And I'm not arguing that they are going to rise up en masse and fight in the streets for the free speech rights of SJWs. I'm arguing that, given the choice, they will support a movement that takes a principled stand in favor of free speech over one that says "free speech for us, but not for them."

I'm also arguing that they WILL be given a choice, because Vox is setting the stage for a disempowering bifurcation of the Right into anti-free speech and pro free speech factions.

If he keeps this up, then someone, or several people, will certainly emerge to lead the pro free speech faction of the Right.

Blogger Azure Amaranthine March 05, 2018 10:47 PM  

"I'm telling you what the expression DOES mean. What anyone thinks it should mean, is entirely irrelevant. Moral high ground is an analogy to holding actual high ground when possessing territory, such that the enemy needs to perform a very difficult uphill battle to take it. Similarly, moral high ground is the advantages one side receives, when the civilians think that side fights for good, and the other side for evil."

"Moral" is still the wrong word by any definition, Markku. I agree totally with the "high ground" part of the analogy.

"What anyone thinks it should mean, is entirely irrelevant.""

^ This is you defeating your own point. Consensus does not dictate either truth or reality. That the term is commonly used in that fashion does not mean that it is correctly or truly used in that fashion.

Blogger Markku March 05, 2018 10:48 PM  

This is you defeating your own point. Consensus does not dictate either truth or reality.

Consensus dictates the default way you should understand someone using a particular term, unless he explicitly gives a definition that deviates from the consensus.

Blogger Jack Burroughs March 05, 2018 10:51 PM  

Azure: "We're already well past that level of warfare, Jack. You sticking your head in the sand and screaming "THIS ISN'T HAPPENING" at the top of your lungs does not, in reality, mean it isn't happening."

Really? How many people have you killed in that last year, warrior? Give me the exact number. No cheating.

Blogger Azure Amaranthine March 05, 2018 10:56 PM  

"Consensus dictates the default way you should understand someone using a particular term, unless he explicitly gives a definition that deviates from the consensus."

I reject any terms used in obviously subversive ways out of hand. Accepting subversive definitions will soon leave you without even the language to express the concepts necessary to righteousness.

In "moral high ground", "moral" is the more fundamental term, and all, even consensus definitions, of the term "moral" defy your usage.

I am not even certain that the most common usage of "moral high ground" is as you say.

Blogger Azure Amaranthine March 05, 2018 10:57 PM  

"Really? How many people have you killed in that last year, warrior? Give me the exact number. No cheating."

If you were mentally coherent or even honest you'd realize I was referring to free speech and censorship.

Blogger Jon Mollison March 05, 2018 11:01 PM  

Freedom of speech, like freedom of religion, can be viewed as an uneasy truce. A luxury enjoyed by high-trust neighbors. When one of those neighbors consistently demonstrates a willingness to betray the terms of that truce, repeatedly, then only a fool would refuse to return the favor.

Blogger SirHamster March 05, 2018 11:02 PM  

Jack Burroughs wrote:SirHamster: "Deltas are loyal and tend not to care for the spotlight. Unlike the Gamma sniping at the leaders, they belong to the group."

I'm not that fluent in Vox's system, but surely disagreement with "the leaders" is not the chief criterion of "gamma"? If it is, then that is a suspiciously circular justification for meek obedience. But I doubt that's what a gamma essentially is.


Disagreement is not sniping. You just called those disagreeing with you bootlicking sycophants. That's not disagreement, that's sniping.

Sniping is Gamma.


Jack Burroughs wrote:I'm arguing that, given the choice, they will support a movement that takes a principled stand in favor of free speech over one that says "free speech for us, but not for them."

You are arguing it, yes. There is scant evidence there exists a Free Speech loving polity that wants to protect SJW speech at all costs.

Lip service? Sure, virtue signaling is always in style. At actual cost to themselves ...? Doubtful.

Blogger Jack Burroughs March 05, 2018 11:05 PM  

Azure: "If you were mentally coherent or even honest you'd realize I was referring to free speech and censorship."

You were justifying censorship because we are supposedly "at war."

It could become a real war, but it isn't even close to a real war yet. You are talking a blustery, tough game on the internet to avoid making a serious argument.

But, hey, you did advocate "slaughtering an entire nation, to the last man, woman, and child, and even the animals," because "it has been commanded by God in the past."

So you do have that going for you.

Blogger Azure Amaranthine March 05, 2018 11:05 PM  

As for your argument against Jack, Markku, if you accept "moral high ground" as being synonymous with "ethical high ground", he's going to instantaneously lie, claiming that most people agree with his conception of ethics. He does it every single time.

Don't let him have that ground to retreat onto.

Blogger tuberman March 05, 2018 11:06 PM  

Jack, Here you go again:

"We are not even close to an anything-goes wartime situation right now."

Yes, we are in are in an 'anything goes wartime situation,' it's just the the other nature of warfare has changed to stealth for now, as it is necessary. Just because you do not connect dots well, or do thorough checking, does not mean there is not a stealth hot war going on under the covers. In spite of the stealth, this is for everything, losing this war, loses it all for good. All the other wars since the French Revolution were orchestrated by these people, for their profit.


"Those of you on the Right who advocate repressing free speech are pointlessly sacrificing one of the the most persuasive weapons you have against the Left, in the eyes of the public."

This is the most important reality you do not get... "the eyes of the public" changes, and will change with complete information.

Just how bad do you consider the crimes of the Left/NWO? Mere Treason and Sedition? Not even close. Please describe what their intention were/are for Us and our children? For Religion? For Civilization? Do you even believe in real EVIL? They do, even if you do not, and they embrace it, with multiple symbols to flaunt their glee in being so vile that people believe anyone stating what they actually do is crazy. This has been their prime protection, as no on will believe how hideously evil their real acts have been.

If even 50-60% gets out, their freedom of speech will be no worry.People will not even want to give them an easy death.

Their useful idiots and pawns who are duped, one can project that many will change and turn on them even harsher than the Alt-Right. I've seen examples of Bernie Bros turning already.

So tell me about what you understand about the insiders of the NWO?

Blogger Markku March 05, 2018 11:08 PM  

If the Right-leaning public still held the same loser values it did for all those decades, Cruz or Jeb would have won the primaries. Trump was a complete 180 degree turn in strategy. Trump is all rhetoric, never dialectic. Just five years ago the Right would have said that this is dishonest, and beneath us.

But now, that's why we're winning.

Blogger Azure Amaranthine March 05, 2018 11:09 PM  

"You were justifying censorship because we are supposedly "at war.""

You yourself claimed that war has multiple levels, and that outright violence is not the only one.

I am stating that we are already at war on the level of censorship, which is quite obviously true.

"It could become a real war, but it isn't even close to a real war yet."

Liar.

"You are talking a blustery, tough game on the internet to avoid making a serious argument."

I had made, and have made again, a serious argument. You're trying oh so hard to avoid even attempting to refute it.

"But, hey, you did advocate "slaughtering an entire nation, to the last man, woman, and child, and even the animals," because "it has been commanded by God in the past.""

I did no such thing, you lying, solipsistic stain.

Blogger Jack Burroughs March 05, 2018 11:10 PM  

Sirhamster: "Disagreement is not sniping. You just called those disagreeing with you bootlicking sycophants. That's not disagreement, that's sniping."

That would be a fair point if I were not responding to being called names myself. Remember, I was replying to Snidely Whiplash's plainly sniping, one-off comment about "Gammas."

I don't think I've ever called anyone on this blog an unprovoked name even once. Retaliatory name-calling is a different matter.

"Sniping is Gamma."

In that case, Snidely Whiplash and Azure Amaranthine are both definitely gammas.


Blogger Azure Amaranthine March 05, 2018 11:11 PM  

Jack, direct question:

Do you, or do you not concede that God is the ultimate moral authority?

Blogger Azure Amaranthine March 05, 2018 11:13 PM  

""Sniping is Gamma."

In that case, Snidely Whiplash and Azure Amaranthine are both definitely gammas."


Sniping is lying, or at the very least attacking without merit. Our characterizations of you have been entirely accurate, and thus entirely merited.

Blogger Zeroh Tollrants March 05, 2018 11:17 PM  

This is why you never put Cuckservatives, Churchians, or women in charge of any thing.
A prime example can be found here, regarding the Broward school shooting:

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2018/03/broward-sheriffs-captain-told-deputies-wait-outside-nikolas-cruz-slaughtered-students-teachers/

REMINDER-I'M A WOMAN.

Blogger Jack Burroughs March 05, 2018 11:20 PM  

Azure: "I am stating that we are already at war on the level of censorship, which is quite obviously true."

Ok, that is a substantive point. You can take that view. It isn't crazy. But neither is my argument that you are going to lose political appeal to the broad public at precisely the moment when the Right could become very attractive to many new people. And you are going to lose them for *moral* reasons, because people are longing for a freedom-affirming alternative to the waxing madness of the Left. Fighting censorship with censorship is basically going to empower some version of the Alt Light, and marginalize what calls itself the Alt Right.

""But, hey, you did advocate "slaughtering an entire nation, to the last man, woman, and child, and even the animals," because "it has been commanded by God in the past.""

Azure: "I did no such thing, you lying, solipsistic stain."

I cut and pasted those words directly from your own comment. Oh wait, I did leave out part of your statement. Here's the whole thing: "

"Slaughtering an entire nation, to the last man, woman, and child, and even the animals, has been commanded by God in the past. Suck it up, buttercup."

My apologies for the missing context, Azure. You weren't advocating mass, indiscriminate slaughter at all. "Suck it up, buttercup" obviously changes everything.


Blogger Markku March 05, 2018 11:22 PM  

My apologies for the missing context, Azure.

He said that it's on the table, considering the totality of all imaginable wars. This is not "advocating" it. Advocating it would be saying that we must do it in this war.

Blogger Patrick Kelly March 05, 2018 11:22 PM  

"Conservatives reliably win -at least half of the time."

Conservatives haven't won anything other than terms for their comfortable retreat or surrender.

Blogger Jack Burroughs March 05, 2018 11:23 PM  

Azure: "Jack, direct question: Do you, or do you not concede that God is the ultimate moral authority?"

Yes. But my vision of God is probably different from yours, and I do not believe that God's authority is best known through rigorous fidelity to Biblical scripture.

Blogger Markku March 05, 2018 11:25 PM  

We conservatives are, for some reason, naturally suspicious of any strategy that is fun to execute. Only unpleasant strategies for us, thank you, we're conservatives! I've been the same.

But it turns out that fun strategies have one yuuuge advantage: They are contagious. People start doing it on their own, without having to prod or cajole them into it. This causes an avalanche effect.

Blogger Azure Amaranthine March 05, 2018 11:35 PM  

"And you are going to lose them for *moral* reasons, because people are longing for a freedom-affirming alternative to the waxing madness of the Left."

Not really. Those are convenient words people use to work around the fact of what they actually want: sufficient stability (safety, security, and opportunity) to accomplish their reasonable goals. Whatever means accomplish that stability will hold the "moral" level of war in their regard.

"Fighting censorship with censorship is basically going to empower some version of the Alt Light, and marginalize what calls itself the Alt Right."

I don't see any centrists screaming when the words "hate speech" are espoused. They may jolt a bit when censorship begins to flow from the opposite side, but by and large they'll become used to, and even comfortable with it, so long as it is not itself insane. Stockholm syndrome is an excellent descriptor for many behaviors of humanity at large.

"I cut and pasted those words directly from your own comment."

Stating that God has ordered something in the past is not advocating the same thing in the present. This is exactly why I say you're mentally incoherent.

This was me pointing out that things that you considered horrifying, immoral, or undesirable were not in-and-of-themselves valid boundaries for moral/good/righteous conduct. That you had to jump to a strawman and assume that I advocated such conduct in current situation... pathetic.

Blogger tuberman March 05, 2018 11:36 PM  

Jack, The fact that you call them the Left and only the left says everything. The Bush Family are not dupes, and are equally as evil as the left people (yes, even as evil as the Clintons), and it's not just money. The NWO owns the Left, and they own the National Socialists (yes, even Hitler, at first). They are a set of interwoven cults all over the world, who sometimes compete, killing each other, and sometimes cooperate. Recently they have been cooperating with great success. There are about 7-10 million of these insiders world wide.

George Soros's real last name was Schwartzburg, a family branch of the Austria-Hungarian Hapsburgs. The Hapsburgs are still powerful and are members of a group that told Soros what to do and when to do it.

Blogger Jack Burroughs March 05, 2018 11:37 PM  

Markku: "He said that it's on the table, considering the totality of all imaginable wars."

I don't recall that qualifier, Markku. Let me go back and check... nope! Just reread it, and Azure does not carefully qualify his statement at all. He does say, "suck it up, buttercup," though, which has a somewhat less careful connotation.

Remember, Azure was answering my response to a guy who argued that the only moral value in war is winning. I said, basically, if that's so, then why restrain ourselves at all? Why not just kill the fuck out of everyone who poses any threat, so as to minimize our own casualties?

That's when Azure offered his helpful reply that "Slaughtering an entire nation, to the last man, woman, and child, and even the animals, has been commanded by God in the past," and so "suck it up, buttercup."

"This is not "advocating" it. Advocating it would be saying that we must do it in this war."

He's not specifically arguing that we should do it right now. But he is plainly advocating it in a general sense, as a divinely endorsed method of scorched earth warfare.

I don't want to hold the guy to some crazy shit he said in a blustery moment as if he signed a contract in blood.

But he did say it.

Blogger Azure Amaranthine March 05, 2018 11:38 PM  

"I do not believe that God's authority is best known through rigorous fidelity to Biblical scripture."

Then you are by definition a heretic. Make of that what you will.

Blogger Markku March 05, 2018 11:40 PM  

I don't recall that qualifier, Markku.

He didn't need to because it was obvious. As he already explained to you. It was a counterexample to show that what you are presenting as beyond the pale, is actually not.

Blogger Jack Burroughs March 05, 2018 11:41 PM  

tuberman: "Jack, The fact that you call them the Left and only the left says everything. The Bush Family are not dupes, and are equally as evil as the left people (yes, even as evil as the Clintons), and it's not just money. The NWO owns the Left, and they own the National Socialists (yes, even Hitler, at first). They are a set of interwoven cults all over the world, who sometimes compete, killing each other, and sometimes cooperate. Recently they have been cooperating with great success. There are about 7-10 million of these insiders world wide.

George Soros's real last name was Schwartzburg, a family branch of the Austria-Hungarian Hapsburgs. The Hapsburgs are still powerful and are members of a group that told Soros what to do and when to do it."

I basically agree with everything you say here. I am as anti-establishment as you are. Does that surprise you?

Blogger Azure Amaranthine March 05, 2018 11:41 PM  

"But he did say it."

Double double double double double double double double DOOOOWWN! DOOOOWWN!

Blogger Jack Burroughs March 05, 2018 11:42 PM  

Markku: "It was a counterexample to show that what you are presenting as beyond the pale, is actually not."

It IS beyond the pale, Markku. Killing every man, woman, and child in a country, along with all the animals, is beyond the moral pale in war.

Blogger Azure Amaranthine March 05, 2018 11:44 PM  

"Killing every man, woman, and child in a country, along with all the animals, is beyond the moral pale in war."

Tell it to God, heretic.

Blogger Markku March 05, 2018 11:44 PM  

For a Christian, it couldn't possibly beyond the pale as God has in fact commanded it several times. Only, that's not a decision you can make just because you happen to feel like it. But it is on the table.

Blogger Jack Burroughs March 05, 2018 11:44 PM  

"Then you are by definition a heretic."

Every now and then you say something true, Azure.

Blogger Markku March 05, 2018 11:45 PM  

Plus, at the end of Revelation, it's done again.

Blogger Jack Amok March 05, 2018 11:45 PM  

If the "Moral High Ground" could be counted on to win political debates, abortion would not be legal. You can't get much farther away from the Moral High Ground than killing babies, yet ending abortion is at the moment anyway, a political non-starter.

Blogger Jack Burroughs March 05, 2018 11:47 PM  

"Killing every man, woman, and child in a country, along with all the animals, is beyond the moral pale in war."

Azure: "Tell it to God, heretic."

Once again, Markku, Azure just doesn't sound all that careful and abstract in his language around this issue. It almost sounds... like... you know... eagerly advocating the thorough destruction of an enemy nation because God wills it.

Blogger tuberman March 05, 2018 11:49 PM  

Jack, Admit it. You do not even understand who the enemy is, period. You think that the idea that there are forces Left, and running the Left is just an Alex Jones Conspiracy Theory.

So, who are the Clowns(C_A)? They were always considered Right wing, but now they are both the major drug traffickers in the world, and they help the Left, so how did that happen?

Blogger Azure Amaranthine March 05, 2018 11:50 PM  

Jack> "It almost sounds... like... you know... eagerly advocating the thorough destruction of an enemy nation because God wills it."

Umn,

AA> "Jack, direct question: Do you, or do you not concede that God is the ultimate moral authority?"

Jack> "Yes. But my vision of God is probably different from yours".

DEUS VULT, LYING CUCKLET!

Blogger Markku March 05, 2018 11:51 PM  

I know exactly what he means because I would have used the same words, and in fact have. At the present moment, we have no reason to believe God wills it in this war. But we do know that He has willed it before, and wills it again (end of Revelation).

Blogger tuberman March 05, 2018 11:53 PM  

Jack Amok wrote:If the "Moral High Ground" could be counted on to win political debates, abortion would not be legal. You can't get much farther away from the Moral High Ground than killing babies, yet ending abortion is at the moment anyway, a political non-starter.

Yes, but if they are killed in thee 3rd trimester they are especially valued by the NWO, so why is that? Blood? Food? Flavoring for soft drinks, pepsi anyone?

Blogger Azure Amaranthine March 05, 2018 11:54 PM  

"anyone?"

Satanic rituals/Moloch worship/Life extension treatments.

Blogger Markku March 05, 2018 11:54 PM  

Now, you may wonder why He would have willed it in some wars of ancient Israel but not others. The answer is a bit involved, and has to do with Rephaim bloodlines that needed to be completely annihilated. But it's beside the point. The point is, there have been both types of war.

Blogger Azure Amaranthine March 05, 2018 11:56 PM  

"The answer is a bit involved, and has to do with Rephaim bloodlines that needed to be completely annihilated."

Any good sources to read up on that? I definitely missed that subtext last time I read through.

Blogger Markku March 05, 2018 11:57 PM  

USA also did it to Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Now, you may protest that they didn't kill the women and children up-close-and-personal. Fine. We're ok with nukes.

Blogger Jack Burroughs March 05, 2018 11:58 PM  

"Stating that God has ordered something in the past is not advocating the same thing in the present. This is exactly why I say you're mentally incoherent."

Saying "suck it up, buttercup," and "tell it to God, heretic," after you quote those words sure sounds like you agree with those words, especially in the context in which you made the comment.

If you're not advocating the moral legitimacy such mass slaughter, then you should reconsider the misleading spirit in which say these things.

Blogger SirHamster March 05, 2018 11:59 PM  

Jack Burroughs wrote:That would be a fair point if I were not responding to being called names myself. Remember, I was replying to Snidely Whiplash's plainly sniping, one-off comment about "Gammas."

I don't think I've ever called anyone on this blog an unprovoked name even once. Retaliatory name-calling is a different matter.


On this blog, being called a Gamma is a hint to double check one's own words and behaviors. Your response calls everyone who thinks your behavior Gamma, a sycophant.

Alternatively, your behavior has been Gamma, and your blanket accusations of sycophancy is to silence others from pointing that out. That would be a very Gamma move to make, but it doesn't work on this blog, except to confirm Gamma-tude.


"Sniping is Gamma."

In that case, Snidely Whiplash and Azure Amaranthine are both definitely gammas.


No, and irrelevant to whether the Gamma label is accurate on you.

Blogger Markku March 05, 2018 11:59 PM  

Any good sources to read up on that? I definitely missed that subtext last time I read through.

Michael Heiser. Unfortunately I can't remember where exactly. But he has done the work of tracing the mentions of the nephilim bloodlines (which is confusing because several different words are used for the same thing. Nephilim, Rephaim, Gibborim, possibly more.) It matches exactly with the nations that were consecrated to destruction.

Blogger tuberman March 06, 2018 12:01 AM  

"Satanic rituals/Moloch worship/Life extension treatments."

All real, and not to mention the horrid acts they are pulling on the general population. Has any one noticed the huge increase in children e pulled away from parents in Western Civilization these days. Somehow the courts are always on the government institutions side in these cases, now matter how absurd. Was this planned to get far, far worse?

Blogger Azure Amaranthine March 06, 2018 12:02 AM  

Suddenly all the references to giants make a lot more sense.

"after you quote those words sure sounds like you agree with those words"

I literally didn't say that. Stop being an emotionally incontinent ass-ume.

"If you're not advocating the moral legitimacy such mass slaughter, then you should reconsider the misleading spirit in which say these things."

If God says mass slaughter is morally legitimate in certain conditions, it's 110% morally legitimate in those conditions. I would of course take due caution with the precise context in which He says so.

But after that? Deus Vult.

Blogger Azure Amaranthine March 06, 2018 12:04 AM  

I'm triggering you because you're triggerable, Jack. It's just like building an immune system, except I'm trying to train your emotional continence so you don't intellectually p*** yourself.

Blogger Jack Burroughs March 06, 2018 12:08 AM  

"On this blog, being called a Gamma is a hint to double check one's own words and behaviors. Your response calls everyone who thinks your behavior Gamma, a sycophant."

I was calling Snidely a sychopant because he made a sniping, Gamma-like charge of Gammaness about me because I had criticized Vox, and without even bothering to explain what he meant. And I was noticing a general pattern of sycophantic sniping on this blog around this theme of gamma.

But I wouldn't reject every charge of Gamma as being necessarily sycophantic. It would depend on the context. This was definitely was, though.

"Alternatively, your behavior has been Gamma, and your blanket accusations of sycophancy is to silence others from pointing that out. That would be a very Gamma move to make, but it doesn't work on this blog, except to confirm Gamma-tude."

I'm not trying to silence anyone. I invite you to speak freely: please give me a concrete example of my supposedly "gamma-like" behavior. I'll be surprised if you can do it, but I have an open mind.

That said, my reply to Snidely certainly doesn't count, because I was only responding to his sniping behavior toward me.





Blogger Jack Burroughs March 06, 2018 12:09 AM  

Azure: "I'm triggering you because you're triggerable, Jack."

Is it a gamma trait to imagine that people are upset and triggered when in fact they are perfectly calm and untroubled?

Blogger tuberman March 06, 2018 12:11 AM  

Markku wrote:USA also did it to Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Now, you may protest that they didn't kill the women and children up-close-and-personal. Fine. We're ok with nukes.

If that had not happened my dad would have been shipped to the pacific front and I would not have been born. He had already been shot twice, but still expected to go there. The USA loses in Europe would have been small compared to an attack on that island, and the results for Japan would have been far worse too.

Blogger Markku March 06, 2018 12:15 AM  

It's time to remind again that we are not advocating the wholesale censorship, let alone punishment, of all left-wing views. Only particularly egregious ones, like trying to break the second amendment. Now, you are claiming that it necessarily leads to a wholesale censorship of anything the censors don't like. Fine, that's at least a coherent position. But you can't treat it as if it were an established fact in the discussion. We are still advocating precisely what we are advocating, and no more: Censorship of a limited set of things to say.

Now you're going to say that it leads there because it breaks a principle, and after it is broken, anything goes. We are going to say that the principle is ALREADY broken by that standard. Sedition, you know. And, well, if it's broken, then anything goes. Including our position.

Blogger tuberman March 06, 2018 12:26 AM  

Jack, What I'm saying is that your view will not and cannot hold up for the future, and as more of the truth leaks out, the more the general public will want blood. The lines will change, and even some of the less insane SJW dupes will turn on the people they admire now. The hard-core enemy will be given no rights, and this will include many of the dupe fanatics that do not give up their worldviews, as they would need to be hospitalized to accept this new reality.

I have zero sympathy for any of the hard-core leaders, their middle people, or even the outright crazy true-believers.

Yes, I do believe you are anti-establishment, but do not believe you know how deep the rabbit holes go yet. Note: there have been no insults coming from me, and I understand your position, in terms of how things appear right now. I'm just projecting into a likely future view of the enemy (the insider enemy, and major fanatic followers).

The Alt-Right position here will be close to the reality in my future projections. Simple as that. They will be dealt with harshly, with no guilt.

Blogger Jack Burroughs March 06, 2018 12:38 AM  

tuberman: "Note: there have been no insults coming from me, and I understand your position, in terms of how things appear right now. I'm just projecting into a likely future view of the enemy (the insider enemy, and major fanatic followers). "

Yes, I have noticed that you haven't been spewing insults.

And I'm with you all the way when you're talking about the insider enemy, and their major fanatic followers.

Blogger tuberman March 06, 2018 12:47 AM  

OT. I need sleep. Goodnight!

Blogger Noah B The Savage Gardener March 06, 2018 12:52 AM  

Jack won't even agree that we should criminally prosecute seditious speech, but we're supposed to believe that he would actually use his Second Amendment rights to defend his or anyone else's liberty? No one believes it, Jack. Your guns, if you own any, are just another layer of posturing.

Blogger Dire Badger March 06, 2018 1:20 AM  

*Sigh*

It's actually very simple.

When someone wantonly abuses the constitution, or denies it to others, they become an enemy of the constitution.

The "Moral High Ground" is to defend the constitution against all enemies... Foreign AND domestic.

Domestic enemies of the constitution are, by definition, denied the privileges of the constitution. That means that by denying others free speech, they are no longer entitled to it.

When someone shoots you in the face, it is not 'the moral high ground' to turn your cheek so they can blow a hole through that, too.

Blogger Paul, Dammit! March 06, 2018 1:46 AM  

The city fathers of Carthage probably held the moral high ground too. Great. Without action and a defensive strategy that includes offensive activities, moral posturing is shameful.

Blogger Snidely Whiplash March 06, 2018 1:48 AM  

I've noticed that Vox's sycophants reliably call anyone who seriously questions Vox a "gamma."

Beautiful job of ignoring thecactual argument and distracting everyone by screeching like the little faggot you are abiut being called names.
I specifically referenced the reason I called you a gamna, it was your dishonest attempt to label Vox an SJW. But I suppose that doesn't count as name calling or sniping.

Face it, as I said before, your argument amounts to "everyone else is just like me", actually, strike that, your one argument is "everyone else is just like I pretend to myself I am."
Are you going to address that, or go back to squealing like a quean?

Blogger Azure Amaranthine March 06, 2018 2:20 AM  

" when in fact they are perfectly calm and untroubled?"

You keep making purely emotional declarations, decisions, and assumptions, Jack. If you're not upset (which you're lying about) you're easily one of the most emotional, unstable, and illogical persons I've ever met.

Anonymous Anonymous March 06, 2018 2:40 AM  

@171:

When someone shoots you in the face, it is not 'the moral high ground' to turn your cheek

And that is what people like Jack don't understand. The context of 'to turn the other cheek' is a response to an affront to one's dignity or honor, as opposed to something that is life-threatening.

The progressives are a bunch of religious fanatics on jihad demanding blood sacrifice. And as Vlad Tepes and the Knights of St. John (among others) demonstrated, there is only one proper way to respond to a jihad.

Blogger Jack Burroughs March 06, 2018 3:43 AM  

"Beautiful job of ignoring the actual argument and distracting everyone by screeching like the little faggot you are abiut being called names."

You didn't make an argument to ignore, Snidely. A brief two sentence comment is not an argument. Nor is calling me a faggot.

"I specifically referenced the reason I called you a gamma"

You didn't "specifically reference" anything. Here is what you said: "Gammas. You always find them, Vox."

That's it. Do you see any specific references to anything in there? I don't think you do. There might be some things you meant to imply by your comment, but you specifically referenced nothing.

"it was your dishonest attempt to label Vox an SJW. But I suppose that doesn't count as name calling or sniping."

If you found my comment dishonest, then you could have said so, and explained what was dishonest about it. That might have been an interesting and substantive point. As it was, though, you just sniped with the "gamma" charge--not to me, but *about* me to Vox. That's why I called you a bootlicking sycophant.

Anyway, I didn't label Vox an SJW. I don't think that about him, and he obviously isn't one.

I just said that his tendency to replace argument with name-calling (and he does have that tendency in the comments section of this blog) suggests that he might have something inwardly in common with them--an inner SJW, if you will--and that perhaps he gained an edge in describing their behavior from analyzing his own impulses under certain kinds of pressure.

Maybe I'm wrong about that, but it was a sincere thought when I wrote it.

Blogger Jack Burroughs March 06, 2018 4:07 AM  

"Face it, as I said before, your argument amounts to "everyone else is just like me", actually, strike that, your one argument is "everyone else is just like I pretend to myself I am."

I don't think many people are much like me at all, much less everyone. But when mainstream people are increasingly recoiling from the anti-free speech behavior of the Left, it should be obvious that it's going to be harder to attract their support if you oppose free speech yourself.

You're going to guarantee that the mass movement Rightward stops well short of joining you.

Having said that, I did concede that attempting specifically to shut down gun control speech might yield a tactical victory for the Right. And it's true that many people would enjoy seeing the Left meltdown under the weight of its own hypocrisy. I would enjoy seeing that myself.

But this will also sacrifice the considerable political strength the Right gains from supporting free speech as the Left repulses almost everyone with its hatred of it.

I also made an intrinsically moral argument in favor of free speech, not just a strategic argument about prevailing on the moral level of war.

"Are you going to address that, or go back to squealing like a quean?"

The subtext of your comment: "Boss! Boss! Look! Did you see that I called your mean old critic a squealing queen? I also called him a Gamma for you! I will always defend you against every attack, sir!"

Blogger Azure Amaranthine March 06, 2018 4:33 AM  

Jack B, you're a twisted, lying, perverse little gamma, and not having to see you around any more will be a pleasure.

That you are constitutionally incapable of either recognizing or responding to arguments that cleanly and clearly refute your gross hodgepodge of lying implications, straw men, appeals to nonexistent consensus-authority, and appeals to your own bizarre emotional delusions does not mean that those arguments have not been presented to you multiple times.

Blogger VD March 06, 2018 5:24 AM  

I don't think many people are much like me at all, much less everyone. But when mainstream people are increasingly recoiling from the anti-free speech behavior of the Left, it should be obvious that it's going to be harder to attract their support if you oppose free speech yourself.

You're wrong. They're not recoiling from the abstract principle involved, they're recoiling from what the Left is doing.

You're going to guarantee that the mass movement Rightward stops well short of joining you.

Mindlessly repeating the same mistake that you made previously is not going to convince anyone. You're just stupid and tedious, Jack. And, as I have repeatedly pointed out, you are completely wrong.

Blogger James Dixon March 06, 2018 5:39 AM  

> James Dixon, everything I said above to the other James can be said of you here: if you are fluent in the distinction you're making, then you could easily clarify it two sentences.

If I were fluent in whatever language you speak, possibly. But it's obviously not the English language the rest of us use. I've presented it as plainly as possible: These two things are not the same. We even use different terms to describe them.

I went into more detail as to why you demands cannot be satisfied with Markuu.

> There are different kinds of war.

Being pedantic, there are different modes of war. There is only one kind of war. Kill or be killed.

> ...in the eyes of the public.

Do I really need to point out that if you spoke for the public, none of Bush, Clinton, Bush, or Obama would have been elected?

> But if winning is the only moral criterion of war, then why should any fighting force ever show any restraint at all?

Because it's to there tactical or strategic advantage to do so. Otherwise, historically, they haven't.

> By your moral standard, why shouldn't we do these things?

Most of them we have. Against our own people. Review the history of the Civil War. Do you really think Lincoln wouldn't have used nukes if he'd had them?

> It IS beyond the pale, Markku. Killing every man, woman, and child in a country, along with all the animals, is beyond the moral pale in war.

While it's far more common to take the animals for your own use and sell the women and children into slavery, it's been known to be done. That's what war is. The sooner you lose you illusions that the people opposed to us won't do exactly that the better. To these people Stalin and Mao are role models. Killing is what they do.

Blogger Dirk Manly March 06, 2018 6:23 AM  

@35 Laramie Hirsch

Look, dork, the ORIGINAL Protestant was the egotistical Bishop of Rome, who unilaterally decided to cease relations with the rest of the Church (centered in Constantinople) who followed that atrocity with a demand that everyone call him "Father," in direct contradiction to Jesus' instruction in Matthew 23:9.

Good Lord, you are lost...

Blogger Dirk Manly March 06, 2018 6:38 AM  

@ Jack Borroughs

Look, you asshat. The SJW's LITERALLY want to kill large swaths of people. The only long term solution is to impose on them not merely silence, but the silence of the grave.

They're itching for a civil war -- they've been talking about fomenting one since I was a toddler in the 1960's. The general public is getting sick of them, and soon, also, will support ANYTHING to get these people who are CONSTANTLY, PERPETUALLY sticking their noses into other people's business to go away. Even if it means executing every last one of them.

Free speech for the left is nothing by comparison. The general public (i.e. all of the normies) is beginning to have fear for their own lives when it comes to SJWs. When that finally galvanizes, they will back ANYONE and any movement who protects them and theirs from the left.

Blogger Blackblade65 March 06, 2018 6:50 AM  

Long time no comment ... but ...

This appears logically unsupportable to me.

The commentary here implies that you are proposing, in order to uphold the rights conveyed under the 2nd amendment amongst other objectives, to remove rights conveyed under the 1st amendment ?

How is that coherent ? Don't you either defend the constitution or not ? Otherwise you are exactly like that which you decry - picking and choosing which bits you like.

I suspect someone will point out that certain speech has always been constrained by other articles and laws - which is true - but given that the first amendment also specifically states that the government shall make no law regarding establishing a religion this therefore means that blasphemy, as defined in any religious code, has no weight under the constitution and therefore cannot be prohibited.

And, if it is seditious to state that the 2nd amendment should be changed is it also not seditious to state the same about the first, or any other ?

Blogger Dirk Manly March 06, 2018 6:52 AM  

@79

You Moron. The Hebrews insisted on having a king (because the neighboring tribes each have one!!!one!!eleventy!!!) in the face of God's objection to any such thing... and look what their disobedience got them. REPEATEDLY carried off into slavery. And then dispersed (like evaporating water) to the four winds.

Don't be like the disobedient Jews.

Oh, and quit praying to dead people and statues like the Roman pagans.

Blogger Dirk Manly March 06, 2018 6:54 AM  

@79



'...this era of Freemasonic Republics"

The Republic form of government predates the Freemasons by 2500 years, if not more.

Blogger Dirk Manly March 06, 2018 7:10 AM  


'Someone mentioned Ho Chi Min as a good example of successful moral posturing, which is highly debatable. Surely Gandhi is a better example."

Ho Chi Minh had numbers, firearms, complete infiltration of South Vietnam, and foreign financial and materiel backing. And was fighting against a South Vietnamese government which, while not Communist, was so corrupt that even the anti-Communist South Vietnamese despised the government sitting in Saigon.

Gandhi had vastly superior numbers... hundreds of millions, and no guns. And he was against the British, who are VERY VERY VERY VERY image-conscious ("he's not one of us, he's drinking his tea WITHOUT RAISING HIS PINKY!!!"), and so easily shamed into submission, despite being the onlly people in India with the rifles and machine guns. And after WW! (The Lost Generation) and WW2, and with the British Isles suffering from malnutrition as much as defeated Germany, they were hardly in any mood for a fight.
For Gandhi, the concept of "fleet in being" (a fleet sitting at anchor, which COULD be put to sea) was stronger than to put all of India into actual fights, which would have ended up like the 1930's Abyssinians and other Africans with spears and leather shields attempting to resist the Italians with their belt-fed machine guns.

To compare those situations to the present is

Blogger Dirk Manly March 06, 2018 7:11 AM  

dishonest

Blogger Laramie Hirsch March 06, 2018 7:46 AM  

@181 Dirk

Look, dork, the ORIGINAL Protestant was the egotistical Bishop of Rome, who unilaterally decided to cease relations with the rest of the Church (centered in Constantinople) who followed that atrocity with a demand that everyone call him "Father," in direct contradiction to Jesus' instruction in Matthew 23:9.

Good Lord, you are lost...


This was all straightened out during the Council of Florence in 1445. The dogma of papal supremacy was declared, and the Easterns were free to re-unite with the rest of the Church ever since. The Easterns decided to stay put and ignore Peter, and the Universal Church meanwhile spread (as commanded by Christ) to all corners of the globe, including the Far East, the Americas, and everywhere else.

Blogger phunktor March 06, 2018 9:07 AM  

What a bunch of ideological, self-righteous preening.

There is no free speech in Heaven. I'll just lay that down right now.


These two lines do not fit together well.

Blogger Laramie Hirsch March 06, 2018 9:31 AM  

@189 I can see how you'd think that.

I'm just stating a fact, though. God is not going to let us curse him if He allows us into Heaven.

In fact, if we are allowed into Heaven, it is positive that our natures will not be the same as they are now, having been purged of sin; so we will not even have any kind of disposition to curse God once in Heaven.

Blogger Jack Amok March 06, 2018 10:10 AM  

How is that coherent ? Don't you either defend the constitution or not ? Otherwise you are exactly like that which you decry - picking and choosing which bits you like.

As far as I'm concerned, I'm picking and choosing who has demonstrated they can't be trusted with rights, because they can't be trusted not to use them to enslave me. Someone who wants to use the 1st Amendment to remove nativity scenes from public view but also wants criticism of Islam to be prosecuted as a "hate crime" has forfeited their rights.

Blogger Jack Burroughs March 06, 2018 10:27 AM  

JB: "But when mainstream people are increasingly recoiling from the anti-free speech behavior of the Left, it should be obvious that it's going to be harder to attract their support if you oppose free speech yourself."

Vox: "You're wrong. They're not recoiling from the abstract principle involved, they're recoiling from what the Left is doing."

You posted the following twitter exchange on July 26th of last year:

Supreme Dark Lord‏ @voxday
It seems #AIPAC has forgotten with whom they are dealing. Americans will not give up their First Amendment for Israel's sake.

Isaac Hebestein‏ @isaachebestein
I mean, since Israel is America's only ally in the ME, why would anyone want to boycott them in the first place?

Supreme Dark Lord‏ @voxday
That's irrelevant. Obviously some Americans do. And that is absolutely their First Amendment right.

Isaac Hebestein‏ @isaachebestein
Boycotting Israel stems from deep-seated anti-Semitism, and therefore is religious discrimination. Would rather have terrorism over not being able to boycott an allied country. That makes sense.

Supreme Dark Lord @voxday
We don't give a damn. Try to fuck with the First Amendment and you go right to #1 on the enemy's list.

Isaac Hebestein‏ @isaachebestein
You sound ridiculous, wanting terrorism over the ability to boycott an ally. Just don't buy our stuff if you don't like us, no need4 boycott

Supreme Dark Lord‏ @voxday
We don't give a damn what you think. Americans killed their British brethren for those rights. Americans will kill Jews for them if need be.

That exchange suggests that you believed then that Americans care very much indeed about the First Amendment and the principle of free speech:

How do you reconcile what you were saying then with what you are saying now?

Blogger Jack Burroughs March 06, 2018 11:48 AM  

Ominous Cowherd: "Burroughs, the only argument for or against using a tool in war is: is it working? We have reason to believe that if tried, curtailing freedom of speech will work fantastically well for the Right. After all, muzzling us a a favorite tool of the Left. In any event, we must try it, and see what happens."

Not only do I agree that one must consider whether a deploying a weapon of war will work, but that has been the core of my argument for this entire thread.

You are talking as if the Right controls the Establishment. But that obviously isn't true. Have you not considered that the online speech of the Right, including this blog, is allowed to exist because of the First Amendment?

Sure, Google could shut down Vox's blog at any moment, and at some point they probably will. But when that happens, he will be able to find another platform to host it. That's because the First Amendment prevents the government from shutting him down altogether. At the moment, if the government wants to silence speech, they have to do it via proxies in the private sector.

Since the government still respects, at least superficially, the legal constraints of the First Amendment, the First Amendment is the Right's greatest friend and protector against a hostile Establishment that would love shut all this down for good.

Vox says that the First Amendment is de facto dead, and so it can be safely ignored. But it isn't really dead if it's protecting Vox Day's widely reviled speech online, is it?

One self-defeating blindspot in Vox's "fuck free speech" strategy is that, if it succeeds, it will unleash the Establishment in its will to eliminate all of Vox's online platforms--as well as, perhaps, his books and comics.

The only reason the Alt Right is allowed to speak at all is because of the First Amendment.

If your repudiation of the First Amendment succeeds, it will only enable the Establishment to shut you up once and for all.

Be careful what you wish for, guys. There are many ways in which you have not thought this through.




Blogger SirHamster March 06, 2018 12:01 PM  

Jack Burroughs wrote:I was calling Snidely a sychopant because ...

That is a Gamma reframe of a past event. This is what you said:

Jack Burroughs wrote:I've noticed that Vox's sycophants reliably call anyone who seriously questions Vox a "gamma."

This is a statement against the entire comments, that there are sycophants who shut down serious questions of Vox with "Gamma".

It's self-aggrandizing, implying that you are a serious person with serious questions, while anyone who calls you Gamma is an unserious sycophant.

You try to reframe that as a personal comment against Snidely, but it is not. It is a group comment, and I would not have responded if it was only against Snidely. (Snidely is a big boy and can take care of himself)

The Gamma escalates the personal to the group to shut down opposition; but when challenged on it, pretends that he wasn't, as you are doing now.

That is Gamma behavior. All attempts to verbally jujitsu your way out of the label is Gamma. Every other SSH class doesn't do that.

Alpha/Beta: lol u dumb
Delta: okay, I'll improve myself
Gamma: How dare you, blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah ... (direct hit to ego)
Omega: ...
Lambda: I'm a bad kitty

Blogger SirHamster March 06, 2018 12:07 PM  

Jack Burroughs wrote:That exchange suggests that you believed then that Americans care very much indeed about the First Amendment and the principle of free speech:

How do you reconcile what you were saying then with what you are saying now?


Jews attempt to shut down 1A -> Americans will build ovens and kill them

SJW attempt to shut down 2A -> Americans will reject SJW 1A (and/or kill them)

It should be pretty obvious that limiting 1A of a person is less extreme than killing that person.

Americans were willing to kill their own brothers over the Civil War questions on rights. Limiting 1A to protect the 2A is small potatoes.

Blogger Jack Burroughs March 06, 2018 12:24 PM  

"This is a statement against the entire comments, that there are sycophants who shut down serious questions of Vox with "Gamma".

It's not a statement against the entire comments. I'm sure people sometimes make substantive charges of "gamma" on here. But it IS an observation of a general pattern. There absolutely are people on this blog who sycophantically use the charge of "gamma" to dismiss criticisms Vox. I've seen that happen many times, and Snidely's comment was an especially telling example of this behavior.

"It's self-aggrandizing, implying that you are a serious person with serious questions, while anyone who calls you Gamma is an unserious sycophant."

I would consider any accusation of Gamma (or any other kind of accusation) on the merits. In this case, though, Snidely was unmistakably sucking up to Vox, and the sniping way in which he did it meets your own stated criterion for Gamma-like behavior.

"You try to reframe that as a personal comment against Snidely, but it is not. It is a group comment, and I would not have responded if it was only against Snidely. (Snidely is a big boy and can take care of himself)"

I'm not reframing it at all. It absolutely was a comment about the group, and it was also a comment about Snidely. Is Snidely not a member of the group here? Both can be true. And I emphatically stand by both criticisms--of Snidely, and of the group.

My only caveat is that I was talking about a general tendency here; I wasn't talking about everyone, or every case.

"
"The Gamma escalates the personal to the group to shut down opposition; but when challenged on it, pretends that he wasn't, as you are doing now."

I wasn't "escalating to the personal." Snidely did that. I was only responding to his sniping escalation. That is fair game.

And you've made a conveniently circular argument here. How does one handle false accusations of trying to shut down opposition, when the very act of disagreeing with the accusation is treated by you as evidence of bad faith? You are obviously trying to rig the terms of discussion here so that your views cannot be falsified. Which of us, then, is really trying to shut down opposition?

In any case, not only am I not trying to shut anyone down, but in an earlier comment I invited you to please give me some specific examples of gamma-like behavior from me. I said that I would keep an open mind about it--but I also said that I would be surprised if you could do it.

I'm completely unsurprised now that you haven't even tried to do it.

Blogger Jack Burroughs March 06, 2018 12:34 PM  

"Alpha/Beta: lol u dumb
Delta: okay, I'll improve myself
Gamma: How dare you, blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah ... (direct hit to ego)
Omega: ...
Lambda: I'm a bad kitty"

I notice that your summary doesn't include a type that simply says, "I disagree, and here's why."

Blogger SirHamster March 06, 2018 12:56 PM  

Jack Burroughs wrote:It's not a statement against the entire comments.

It absolutely is. Now, when I too call your behavior Gamma, you have prepared the ground to label me a sycophant.

An Alpha would own it: "yeah, you sycophants". The Gamma retreats from his own words to avoid taking responsibility for them.

I wasn't "escalating to the personal."

Read what I actually said.

when the very act of disagreeing with the accusation is treated by you as evidence of bad faith?

I don't take issue with your disagreement. I take issue with your dishonesty. You speak against the comments here, but then you're only speaking against Snidely, but now you're also speaking about "a general tendency here".

You are trying to get the benefits of multiple frames, without accepting the cost of those same frames. When challenged on a particular frame, you immediately switch frames; thus, you get the benefit of a particular argument, but then pretend, "that isn't what I was saying" if someone challenges it.

This tactic for "winning" is dishonest and dishonorable. It is Gamma, and I am pointing it out to you.

I'm completely unsurprised now that you haven't even tried to do it.

Liar, I've pointed out multiple things. But it is the nature of the Gamma to Double Down, which makes you useful chew toys and object lessons for the rest of us.


Jack Burroughs wrote:I notice that your summary doesn't include a type that simply says, "I disagree, and here's why."

It's included in "blah blah blah blah".

The only class that cares about "here's why" is the Gamma. Everyone else does not think their personal Gamma-hood a worthwhile discussion. "nah (no explanation)", "yep (no explanation, commitment to change)"

1 – 200 of 247 Newer› Newest»

Post a Comment

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

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts