Tuesday, September 1, 2015

Badly Needed, and Long Overdue



On the one year anniversary of GamerGate, Vox Day released what may end up being the most important, practical and useful literary work to have been spawned by the reactionary fringes of our fever swamps out here on Teh Interwebz: SJWs Always lie: Taking Down the Thought Police. 

I say most important, not because it's a literary masterpiece of brilliant prose, but because it provides a relevant and comprehensive - but concise and easily digested - manual for weathering the media storms of the 21st century witch hunts for ThoughtCrimes and BadThink, that occur on a frequent basis in our Brave New World Order.

To date, the body count of casualties in the culture wars that have commenced since the Frankfurt School deployed it's entryist hordes to begin their long march through the West's institutions, is nearly impossible to fully enumerate.

For every person whose career or social standings and reputations have been ruined by a Social Justice Warrior swarm and media attack, the advice Vox doles out here could have undoubtedly helped them avoid their inevitable ruination and/or slandered reputations, had they been aware of the motivations, mindset and modus operandi of the SJW Thought Police, as Vox lays out and deconstructs brilliantly in this book.

Indeed, the advice Vox proffers to the reader on how to survive an SJW swarm attack is so important, you don't even have to spend the five fiat bucks or so it costs to buy the digital version of this book, as he offers a free .pdf survival guide compiled from excerpts in Chapter 7: What to Do When SJWs attack:

The eight stages of the SJW attack sequence are as follows:

1. Locate or Create a Violation of the Narrative.
2. Point and Shriek.
3. Isolate and Swarm.
4. Reject and Transform.
5. Press for Surrender.
6. Appeal to Amenable Authority.
7. Show Trial.
8. Victory Parade.


Much of the first half of the book deals with how Vox arrived at this identification of their predictable sequence, both from his own personal experience and from examples of other high profile cases like the  former CEO of Mozilla Brendan Eich and Nobel Laureate Dr. James Watson...men who resigned from high profile positions after being attacked by the SJW lynch mob. As he notes in the opening paragraph of Chapter Three: When SJWs Attack:

"SJWs have refined speech-policing to an extent seldom imagined outside the world of George Orwell's 1984, and in doing so they have created an Animal Farm-like world where some animals are definitely more equal than others."

Vox then follows up with a short list of high profile cases. While many of these cases he cites have occurred recently, making this book timely and current. But just off the top of my head, I can think of a number of cases of SJW swarm attacks that have damaged the careers and reputations of people going back decades:


* Former MLB pitcher John Rocker commenting on the vibrancy of the New York City subway passengers;

* Former Harvard President Larry Summers suggesting that Women don't go into STEM programs due to their own interests;

* Rush Limbaugh, the Godfather of Right-Wing talk radio, forced to resign from ESPN for stating that the media was hyping up Donovan McNabb because they were desirous of a black Quarterback succeeding in the NFL;

* Former Vice President Dan Quayle for criticizing the sitcom Murphy Brown for it's storyline normalizing bastardy and single motherhood by choice;

* MLB legend, Jimmy the Greek, for commenting that slavery bred better black athletes;

* Former PGA Golfer Fuzzy Zoeller lost millions in endorsements for making a sterotypical joke about Tiger Wood's  choice of cuisine for the tournament champions banquet;

* Sports media "shock jock" Don Imus referring to black women college Basketball players as "nappy-headed hos."

* Sitcom star Charlie Sheen, for "crossing the Jewbicon;"

* Mel Gibson cursing the dominance of Jews in Hollywood while being arrested for D.W.I.;

* Former Right Wing Talk Radio Personalities Dr. Laura Schlessinger and Michael Savage both eventually lost their lucrative talk radio careers for referring to homosexuality and homosexuals negatively;

* UFC Heavyweight Fighter Matt Mitrione was suspended (and had a bout cancelled) by the UFC for calling transgendered Women's MMA fighter Fallon Fox "...lying, sick, sociopathic, disgusting freak."

* Former Cooking show star Paula Dean was reported to have once used the N-Word in her youth.

In every one of these cases that I can recall, all of these personalities made a comment or stated their opinion that violated the SJW speechcode, and the resulting SJW swarm of manufactured outrage resulted in each particular ThoughtCriminal eventually losing their careers or millions of dollars in endorsements, and having their names permanently associated with the SJW brands of "racist," "sexist," "homophobe," or "transphobe."

And in every single instance I just recalled, the person under attack was forced to abase themselves before the merciless media and abjectly apologize and grovel in a bid to keep their jobs, careers and/or livelihoods after suffering from the swell of SJW manufactured outrage. If only they had followed  Vox's Survival Guide proscriptions, "2. Don't try to reason with them," and "3. Do not apologize." they may  have experienced a different outcome.

You cannot appease the perpetually offended (as all SJWs are), and they will never offer you the grace of redemption nor forgiveness for your apparent transgression. Apologies and reasoning only serve as confirmation of your guilt as a ThoughtCriminal.

As Vox notes: "Normal people seek apologies because they want to know that you feel bad about what you have done and that you will at least attempt to avoid doing it again in the future. When SJWs push you for an apology after pointing-and-shrieking at you, what they are seeking is a confession to bolster their indictment."

Indeed, normal people need to realize that SJWs are the frontline keyboard warriors of the culture war to destroy Western Civilization, and that they are not looking to "help you see the error of your ways" and "rehabilitate" your thoughts and attitudes so that you can then become "acceptable" to the "mainstream" as defined by SJW programming.

No, they are looking to make an example of you to keep all the rest of the sheeple in line. SJW attack swarms are the 21st version of the Reign of Terror.

For the thought criminal, their is never a chance for redemption. So if you ever do find yourself in the cross hairs of the SJWs shrieking hordes, your ONLY shot at survival is to follow Vox's advice, which really does echo a classic sentiment embodied by the following quote: "Better that we should die on our feet rather than live on our knees" - François-Noël Gracchus Babeufe


 http://www.blogblog.com/scribe/divider.gif


There is far more to this book than simply surviving a modern day SJW manufactured, media-driven witch hunt. The most important part for the "normal person" to grok is in Chapter 10: How to Talk to SJWs. This chapter explains to the average normal person who may have never studied classic philosophy, the important difference between dialectic and rhetoric. Vox writes: "Dialectic and rhetoric are two different languages, and the number of people who can speak both of them fluently is relatively small."

This chapter belabors to help the reader understand the difference, since most "normal" folks are not even familiar with the term "dialectic" but still consider themselves intellectually honest and objectively-minded when discussing any topics considered controversial. I myself only became familiar with the difference in discourse because I'm a regular reader of Vox's blog. I certainly didn't learn about it at during my own University Credentialed Indoctrination classes on philosophy in my Liberal Arts curriculum. But I digress.

His first example in differentiating between the two forms of persuasive argumentation, deals with the title of the book itself:

"Let me give you a practical example of how this works. If I say “SJWs occasionally lie” in response to an SJW's false statement, this is proper dialectic but poor rhetoric, as it is likely to fail to persuade a rhetoric-speaker of the actual truth, namely, that the SJW is lying in the present circumstance. The better rhetorical statement is “SJWs always lie”, which is not dialectically sound, (or if you prefer, untrue), but despite its lack of soundness it is more likely to persuade the rhetoric-speaker to believe the relevant truth, which is that the SJW is lying.

Hence the importance of knowing your audience and understanding which language of discourse they speak. When you speak in rhetoric to a dialectic-speaker, you will tend to sound very dishonest even when you are utilizing effective rhetoric that is perfectly in line with the truth. But you can’t speak dialectic to a rhetoric-speaker for the obvious reason that they cannot be informed or persuaded by it. They simply don’t have the capacity."

The reason why this is so, is that the dialectically incapable were made that way by their lifetime of indoctrination by our SJW-subverted establishment. SJWs are the product of a system that was intentionally designed to dumb down the masses and make them subservient to their emotional whimsy, base natures and arrested development. This deliberate enstupidation was effected so as to render the sheeple much more easily controlled, pacified and enslaved by materialism, consumerism and fiat financing. The SJWs don't even know that their highly credentialed educations were nothing more than socially engineered programming telling them WHAT to think, while denying them the training on HOW to think.

While I have eschewed voting in any election in the grand theatre of American Democracy for quite some time, I do still vote with my fiat dollars in the only true Democracy that exists today - the global marketplace. I bought SJWs Always Lie, because I wanted to do my small part in making this book rise up in the Amazon rankings. I want this book to break through the mass media indoctrinated mainstream, and spread it's tactical knowledge to the masses of people that nominally stand in opposition to the SJW thought policing and progressive culture wars that are fundamentally transforming our culture and society for the worse. I bought this book, because I ascribe to a high-minded ideal of ---

---oh who am I kidding?

I bought this book because I wanted to indulge in schadenfraude! I wanted to help the Dark Lord of the Evil Legion of Evil punch back twice as hard at the snivelling hordes of brainwashed lickspittles and useful idiots that march under the banner of the SJW. No War but Culture War! This book is a badly needed, long overdue counterattack against the long march. For that, I consider it money and time well spent. 

Wednesday, July 29, 2015

There is No Sexual Double-Standard




From the SpearheadFiles

September 2, 2010

A female reader was apparently looking through the Spearhead archives, and came across my book review for The Garbage Generation. She e-mailed me the following: "I have read part of the book and a lot of the book I agreed with. I just want this question answered by another man. Why is there a double standard? No matter what it takes two to tango."

If you agreed with a lot of the book, you really shouldn’t be even asking this question, because one of the basic premises of Dr. Amneus’ seminal work, is based on defining what comprised the original marriage contract between men and women. What men bring to the table and what women bring to the table in what we now refer to as the institution of Marriage 1.0, were two different assets to be exchanged for the mutual benefit of the children created by their union.

Men’s primary marital asset was their resources and ability to labor to acquire more resources, to support the family. Men with lesser means or abilities to provide were (and usually still are) viewed as less desirable marriage material, regardless of his sexual history.

Women’s primary martial asset was their guarantee to their husbands that children born of their union where his. Women with an openly promiscuous past are viewed as less desirable marriage material because of the greater chances of cuckoldry and infidelity, regardless of her ability to be a provider.

It’s not that there is a double standard, it’s just that there is two different standards: one for men, one for women – and the standards for each are simply based on what they each brought to the table by virtue of the formerly accepted and widely understood division of labor, which was based on gender sex. This was the essential paradigm of the institution we now refer to as marriage 1.0.

There cannot be this so-called sexual double-standard, because a man’s contribution to the nuclear family unit was his capacity to be a provider, not his sexual purity. A woman could find a willing virgin who has no provider capacity to marry her…but her own hypergamous instincts would cause her to view him as less than adequate in terms of marriage material, his sexual purity notwithstanding.

Women complaining about this mythical double-standard, would be the equivalent to men complaining that more marriages should have the women be the providers while the men stay home, keep house and raise the kids.

Granted, such arrangements do occur nowadays…but for the most part, men & women both tend to look down on the men as somewhat less than masculine for doing so — hence the phrase “kitchen bitches” — just as women nowadays are free to be as promiscuous as the alpha males they wish to emulate…it’s just that most people will still regard them as sluts, no matter how bitterly they complain about this so-called “double-standard.” This “double-standard” really only exists in the brainwashed minds of feminists and manginas alike.

Women who are caught up in obsessing over this so-called sexual “double-standard” are simply falling for the lies and propaganda promoted by the feminist kultural kommisars of our Brave New World Order, and reinforcing the memes that have contributed to the travesty we now know of as marriage 2.0.

No, the real double-standard that actually exists today, is the entire family court/divorce industry that enforces a system for which women have the right to withdraw their reproductive capacity and their nurturing and care giving – but men are not allowed to withdraw their provider role. In fact, they are explicitly prevented from doing that by the power of the Government and threatened with fines, imprisonment, loss of passports, professional practice and driving licenses, a permanent criminal record, and other sanctions our feminist-run Government has put into place to legalize this very real double-standard.

In other words, the only real double-standard that is in effect today in our declining civilization, is the one in which Women have no obligation or social pressure to live up to their marital vows, while men are forced to, even when the marriage is over.

My inquiring e-mailer thought she was making some kind of irrefutable point with her quip, “No matter what, it takes two to tango.” She misses the real double-standard here: it takes two to get married, but only one — which is usually instigated by the woman – to get divorced.


http://www.blogblog.com/scribe/divider.gif

Notable Commentary from the Original Post

gwallan September 2, 2010 at 03:18

"A woman could find a willing virgin who has no provider capacity to marry herbut her own hypergamous instincts would cause her to view him as less than adequate in terms of marriage material, his sexual purity notwithstanding."
Interestingly virginity or “can’t get laid” are almost always among womens’ opening ad hominem salvos against any man they disagree with.


Travis September 2, 2010 at 03:49

Besides, my view on the so called “sexual double standard” is that it’s largely of women’s making. They’re the one’s who line up to sleep with the male versions of “sluts and whores”. They’re the one’s who have made those guys the envy of other men. All they would have to do to eliminate the “double standard” is to start rejecting those guys. To start looking at men the same way that men look at women. By seeing the most desireable mate as the one who is most likely to remain faithful. But that’s not in their nature. They want and desire the Alpha Male. And as long as they do, men are going to desire to BE the Alpha Male. So instead, they want us to change OUR nature, and start celebrating female promiscuity. To view women who have screwed half the guys in town as the most desireable mates. It’s just another female play to eschew any and all responsibility and moral behavior. And to try and get men to revere them for it….


Reality 2010 September 2, 2010 at 03:52

Well there’s also the ten thousand pound gorilla in the room.. that it takes tremendous effort and or a tremendous talent or a god-given gift to be a ‘stud’ while it takes absolutely zero effort to be a slut. All it takes for a woman to be a slut is to just lie on her back. Wow. What an achievement.

Tell her that it may take two to tango, but it only takes one to say ‘yes.’

Unless the female is a repellent beast chances are (sadly) that virtually any guy is going to want to have sex with virtually any female.

There’s also the fact that a woman’s vagina/body is her one and only asset – (as if you would actually want a woman based on her petty, lazy, confrontational and flaky personality or parasitical worthlessness in the workplace) so to mindlessly give away the one and only thing you have of any value has a much broader pathetic implication than that of gender & sex regardless of whatever it is.

Women themselves admire and are attracted to the man who is able to attract thousands of women who are willing to sleep with him- that is at the very core of female sexuality. Tell her if she wants an answer to also look in the mirror.


Ubermind September 2, 2010 at 04:26

The greatest double standard in human perception that started it all is the notion that women do not want sex all that much, but man want alot and have to work and pay for it.

True is women want sex just as much as men if not more. With a desirable partner of course. Desirable partner is the key here.

Also in marriage 1.0 both worked. Man’s duty was to work outside of home, but woman’s duty was to work inside home. Do not forget that!

Women were chosen not only by their beuty, but also by their “diligence to work” (your feminzied american language does not even have a clear opposite word for lazy, that says something)

Women pedastializaton started when rich man started to choose wifes solely for their beuty, because servants (now automation) did all the job.

If a women works she does not view sex as a manipulation tool, she views it as a reward for good work just like most men do.

Understanding that both parties need to work for mutual pleasure each in their own ways should eliminate all double standarts.

Elusive Wapiti September 2, 2010 at 05:02

Leveraging the Book of Zed here, there’s a reason why the so-called slut-stud double standard exists–it is easy for a woman, more or less, to become sexually experienced. She needs only to lay back and spread her legs and she will invariably find some would-be lothario willing to fill the void in her loins. The reverse is much harder, and the self-control necessary to produce a 26-yo virgin speaks to her value, her loyalty as a potential mate.

The calculus for men is different, or at least used to be. A man is valued for what he does, his skill, the energy he uses to produce. Thus a 26 yo virginal man, according to the conventional slut-stud calculus, has less value because it takes very little effort and skill to sit back and do nothing than one with experience with women. He is seen in conventional circles as a better potential partner because he has overcome obstacles, and knows what he is doing to lead her.

I suspect the benefit from being a stud has dwindled of late, because there are more sluts around, desperate to trade access to their holiest of holies for attention and validation. It’s not as hard to ‘score’, therefore being a ‘stud’ isn’t what it once was.

The value, however, from self-control in a woman has shot up in the last decades like a rocket.

Additional commentary after the jump 


Wednesday, July 22, 2015

The Coordinated Narrative


Click to Enlarge

"There is a deeper level to this. As you know the Mainstream Media (MSM) is primarily composed of six mega corporations. As the leaders of these organizations all belong to the same interconnected groups, they all take their marching orders from the same people if you go high enough.

The reason that an issue like the Confederate flag (actually, the flag of the Northern Virginia army) is suddenly everywhere is because it IS centrally coordinated. If things weren't centrally coordinated such things couldn't happen. Period. For all intents and purposes, MSM is one gigantic mega corporation. It only APPEARS to be different companies."

The preceding quote is a topic that is common knowledge amongst those of us who favor aluminum foil head gear as our fashion accessory of choice. Most normalized folks are dimly aware of this fact, but blithely carry on with nary a thought while they continuously consume the Big Six's infotainment aka YOUR  REGULARLY SCHEDULED PROGRAMMING.

Most folks simply cannot imagine living a life bereft of consuming the mass media's "infotainment." Watching the tell-a-vision, going to the movies, downloading the latest netflix release or renting a DVD are all staples of our Brave New World Order's zeitgeist of what we call "recreation."

These six Cosmodemonic Transnational Megacorporations are really nothing more than the Multimedia Arts and Entertainment aisle in the company store. It's really rather brilliant when you consider that while most of us have the majority of our waking lives devoted to working as human resources for the corporate borg, when we do get a little time off on the weekend, "fun" and "rest and relaxation"  is subconsciously defined by most as being idle consumers, paying for the privilege of sitting for hours in front of a screen, being brainwashed by digitized propaganda to socially engineer our attitudes and beliefs to conform with our increasingly blatant, controlled culture.

Isn't it patently obvious that these BigSix are certainly unified and coordinated in producing our regularly scheduled programming themes? As the Natural News commenter I quoted notes, "...an issue like the Confederate flag (actually, the flag of the Northern Virginia army) is suddenly everywhere is because it IS centrally coordinated"

As the Corporate-Media-Government complex so aptly demonstrated, in a matter of hours the flag of the Northern Virginia Army became difficult to procure in our "free markets" and denounced as emblematic of all that is wrong with we the sheeple.

On the flip side, we were quickly offered the path to social justice salvation with the option of embracing the vibrant diversity flag to celebrate the Supreme Courts fiat legislation of homogamy as the law of the land.

The coordination in today's mass media and social media networks is nearly instantaneous, and any idea, meme or shibboleth that the social engineers in charge of the BigSix want to promote, they can now influence the public's consciousness in a matter of minutes via mass multimedia saturation.


While so-cons and trad-cons have always bewailed the cultural and moral decline of civilization due to the slippery slope agenda of the liberal progressive social justice Borg, the slide down that slope has certainly escalated exponentially in the past couple of years, now that mass media control has been vertically integrated into its current leviathan state.



THEY literally show us the truth the late night talk shows with a laughing studio audience, and most sheeple laugh along, then give the topic no further thought.

But those of us who proudly peacock our aluminum head gear know otherwise.
 http://www.blogblog.com/scribe/divider.gif

Most of my fellow conspirtards are familiar with the following:

One night, probably in 1880, John Swinton, then the preeminent New York journalist, was the guest of honour at a banquet given him by the leaders of his craft. Someone who knew neither the press nor Swinton offered a toast to the independent press. Swinton outraged his colleagues by replying:

"There is no such thing, at this date of the world's history, in America, as an independent press. You know it and I know it. There is not one of you who dares to write your honest opinions, and if you did, you know beforehand that it would never appear in print. I am paid weekly for keeping my honest opinion out of the paper I am connected with. Others of you are paid similar salaries for similar things, and any of you who would be so foolish as to write honest opinions would be out on the streets looking for another job. If I allowed my honest opinions to appear in one issue of my paper, before twenty_four hours my occupation would be gone. The business of the journalists is to destroy the truth, to lie outright, to pervert, to vilify, to fawn at the feet of mammon, and to sell his country and his race for his daily bread. You know it and I know it, and what folly is this toasting an independent press? We are the tools and vassals of rich men behind the scenes. We are the jumping jacks, they pull the strings and we dance. Our talents, our possibilities and our lives are all the property of other men. We are intellectual prostitutes." 

 - John Swinton (1829-1901) | managing editor, New York Times | 1880
 Source: Labor's Untold Story, by Richard O. Boyer and Herbert M. Morais, published by United Electrical, Radio & Machine Workers of America, NY, 1955/1979


That was then, this is now.

There IS such a thing, at this date of the world's history, as an independent press. Thanks to teh distributed network capabilities of teh Interwebz, the truth can actually be found...but it is almost more difficult now to find it than when we only had a few channels of media to consume. Now we have more channels than can be possibly counted, so that the truth can be plainly stated and most will never believe it, as we are bewildered and numbed to the overwhelming overload if mis- and dis- information of our BigSix controlled mass media.

You know it and I know it.

There are a few of you who dare to write your honest opinions without the cloak of anonymity on blogs, forums and social media accounts, but most people devoted to exposing the truth under the real world identities are either doxxed, censored, threatened, stripped of their livelihoods, or ridiculed into obscurity.

You have been warned, but most people ignore it.

The business of most journalists, mainstream bloggers, mass media whores, pundits, talking heads and other notable glitterati on teh Tell-A-Vision, on teh Interwebz and in print publications, is to shill the approved corporate party line, and to try and influence consumers anywhere unapproved thoughts are expressed, so as to engage in active measures to destroy the truth; to lie outright; to pervert; to vilify; to fawn at the feet of mammon, and to sell out their countries to the emerging globalist overlords. It's just good business!

You know it and I know it and what folly is this toasting an independent press, a free country, democracy, equality and fraternity? We are the expendable human resources and mindless consumers of rich men behind the scenes. We are the jumping jacks; they pull the string and we dance. Our talents, our possibilities and our lives are all the property of the managers of our sheeple farm who use the BigSix multi-media organs to tell us all what and how to think.

But just 'cause they're saying it, doesn't mean we have to listen.


UPDATE: Thanks to Anonymous for making me fact checking the source of the Quote attributed to John Swinton. It has been now been correctly attributed (I hope!).