Sound and Fury; But No Reaction

Merry Christmas Everyone!  My prayers go out to all my comrades in dangerous places and far away from their families.  I’ll see you all on the high ground.


For the Holiday, it seems as though the Media-Political Complex has delivered another provocative and stimulating human-sacrifice conversation topic as a gift to every gathering family and just in time for Christmas.  Everybody loves to have a new viral reason to feel superior (upworthier?) to their extended family members, which enables a common cultural context by which to explain to one’s friends exactly why one’s family members are so embarrassing.  Discourse In A Time Of Generation-Buzzfeed, “You won’t believe these 4 craziest, bigoted/ignorant things my Uncle said over ham and eggnog that will make you cry with rage.”

I’m very tempted by the convenient timing and the duration of the intense internet-churn to believe that the whole affair was concocted months ago by chummy agreement, and that everyone involved in this ‘dispute’ knows there’s no such thing as bad press as they laugh all the way to the bank.  In the future, the ‘news’ will be nothing but a stream of elaborately coordinated pseudo-scandals precisely designed to get as many people as possible excited (bot not too excited) over next-to-nothing (but never too trivial).

Maybe we’re already in the future and we mutilate the old word and call it ‘politics’.  You probably don’t even have to conspire in advance to get everyone to play their parts perfectly and predictably, but in this case we’ll never really know.  So I’ll assume it’s ‘real’ and liberally deploy the scare quotes accordingly.  Anyway, for every potentially fake public purging, there are dozens of real ones, and countless heads kept down, so we can profitably treat it as real to extract any lessons.

I’m speaking, of course, of the decision by the cable television channel A&E (owned jointly by companies bearing the names of Hearst and Disney) on 19-DEC-2013 to ‘suspend’ a Mr. Phil Robertson from his role on the extremely popular and lucrative ‘reality’ show, ‘Duck Dynasty‘.  This was purportedly for some ‘anti-gay’ remarks he gave during an interview with Drew Magary of GQ magazine, which is owned by Condé Nast, which is owned by Advance Publications, which is owned by the Newhouse family, which owns the Discovery Communications company (just down the road in Silver Spring) and which in turn coincidentally owns a lot of rival cable television channels.  You might say there’s a good amount of concentration in the industry.

Now, I know this has been covered over, and over, and over again, all across the internet, but I think it’s important – just to highlight how utterly absurd this has all become – to repeatedly emphasize the utterly harmless banality of the text so intolerable such that we are instructed to believe it constitutes a casus-belli which all right-thinking people should know never to say in public ever again, or else. Let’s excerpt the smoking gun from the GQ article:

… There are seat belts in this ATV, but it doesn’t look like they’ve ever been used. Phil is not wearing one. I am not wearing one, because I don’t want Phil to think I’m a pussy. (Too late!)

… But there are more things Phil would like to say — “controversial” things, as he puts it to me — that don’t make the cut. …

Out here in these woods, without any cameras around, Phil is free to say what he wants. Maybe a little too free. [emphasis added because wow] He’s got lots of thoughts on modern immorality [nothing ‘modern’ about it, but whatever], and there’s no stopping them from rushing out. Like this one:

“It seems like, to me, a vagina—as a man—would be more desirable than a man’s anus. That’s just me. I’m just thinking: There’s more there! She’s got more to offer. I mean, come on, dudes! You know what I’m saying? But hey, sin: It’s not logical, my man. It’s just not logical.”

Perhaps we’ll be needing that seat belt after all.

Oh my!  Quick, where’s my heart medication?  Hold on to your hats, pajama-boys!  It’s about to get bumpy.  And Drew, if he thinks you’re a pussy, then at least he thinks you have ‘more to offer’ than an a**hole, so there’s always that.

… “Everything is blurred on what’s right and what’s wrong,” he says. “Sin becomes fine.”

What, in your mind, is sinful?

“Start with homosexual behavior and just morph out from there. Bestiality, sleeping around with this woman and that woman and that woman and those men,” he says. Then he paraphrases Corinthians: “Don’t be deceived. Neither the adulterers, the idolaters, the male prostitutes, the homosexual offenders, the greedy, the drunkards, the slanderers, the swindlers—they won’t inherit the kingdom of God. Don’t deceive yourself. It’s not right.”

And what does Paul actually write in his first epistle to the Corinthians 6:9 (which, fittingly, also contains the famous line, ‘for now we see through a glass, darkly’)

Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.  And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.

One of the very few instances where good old King James lets us down with euphemism, (Warning: these are NSFW because Wikipedia likes graphical graphics) because the Greek word that Paul used, ‘translated as ‘effeminate’ actually means ‘bottoms‘ and the next one he is said to have coined, ‘arsenokoitai‘ that was translated into ‘abusers of themselves with mankind’ just means ‘tops‘. You ever hear the phrase, “1,000 malakoi looking for an arsenokoi“?  Picasso certainly did, and he knew how to give the art critics exactly what they wanted.

So Paul says pretty clearly to the Greeks of Corinth, in terminology they certainly understood, that the Bottoms and Tops don’t inherit the Kingdom of God, and don’t let anyone (like Puerto Rican GLAAD spokesperson Wilson Cruz –  advocate-especial for gay youth of color) try to deceive you that Christianity means something different.  Nevertheless, the attempts at deception come steady and brazen, because why not?:

Phil and his family claim to be Christian, but Phil’s lies about an entire community fly in the face of what true Christians believe

Chutzpah!  ‘Sin became fine’, indeed.  ‘True Christians’ these days, apparently, just aren’t that keen on the New Testament.  At least not those embarrassing, archaic bits.  If you write the miraculous out of the Bible like Jefferson did, and then you also write out those inconvenient ‘Morals of Jesus of Nazareth’, then what’s left?

A thin and utterly inconsequential biography of some guy who said something vague about Love (which apparently justifies everything) and got himself executed for it because the agitated local bigots had the nerve to disagree.  If that’s going to be the official modern interpretation, then it makes one want to side with Nietzsche in Der Antichrist where he identifies poor Pontius Pilate as the real tragic hero of the story.  After all, if we can try to twist Jesus into whatever knots we want, then we might still be forced to pause to contemplate Pilate’s philosophical question which rings down to every age and scolds us, “What is, ‘Truth’?”

So, let’s be clear.  In contemporary America, Phil Robertson was ‘a little too free’ by expressing his honest and accurate sentiments regarding his understanding of his religion to some columnist – a position completely typical among Americans – and was fired for being a Christian.  You know how the anthem goes, “… o’er the land of the not. too. freeeeee …” As old Abbadabba might say, “Nothing personal, it’s just business.”

Well, what else is new?  How can this be ‘news’?  Shouldn’t this be boring and ordinary by now?  I guess the witch-hunts spectacles are always exciting festivals to the witch-hunters, but it’s a bit strange when then witches themselves keep expressing shock or surprise every time someone who watches MMNBC (Malleus Maleficarum, that is) decides not to suffer one of their kind.

Or maybe they always thought that it would only ever happen to those ‘far-dark’ witches by not this coven of the respectable-dark, which has mostly managed to avoid the wrath of witch-hunters so far by always being so compliant and careful in immediately condemning and delivering up those other witches when commanded to do so by the local wielders of the witch-hammers.  ‘First they came for the warlocks, but I was not a warlock, so I said nothing, but I was personally a little uneasy …’

I mean, come on people, this kind of thing has been going on regularly for decades, and it seems to be to be accelerating as of late with some kind of famously public excommunication ritual over some trivial ‘offense’ popping up every month or so.  You could write a whole book about it; I nominate Ann Coulter who already makes a good living doing that kind of thing.  I tried to start making a chronicle of all of them for this post and got exhausted before escaping 2013, so I’ll defer it to the comments section.(UPDATE: Go here for a list.)

It is for this reason that so many of us around these parts and in vulnerable economic circumstances (i.e. not independently wealthy and without guaranteed jobs for life), myself definitely included, are intimidated and deterred and have to use pseudonyms because we know full well what will happen to us if we publish our own thoughts under our legal names.

We will be crushed.  No, not Gulags and Gas Chambers crushed, but our employers will be bullied into firing us (or ‘suspending’ us, or mothballing us as ‘radioactive’, etc.) and we’ll ‘never work in this town again’, to use a familiar and perfectly apt phrase. There is an effective chilling effect, and in fact, that effect is the whole point, because no one really cares about these specific cases on an individual level.

Sure, go ahead and call me a coward if it makes you feel better.  The line between bravery and stupidity is drawn at the point of utter futility.  I don’t see anyone rushing forward to volunteer to establish a foundation to grant lifetime tenure to anyone who gets themselves fired for expressing unpopular or taboo ideas.  Anyway, the very existence of such a thing would create some very perverse incentives, so it’s obviously impossible.

But anyway, for some reason, this particular purification episode has gotten more than its fair share of internet traction.  If only they all did!  But in the infinite amplifying echo-chamber that is the blogosphere, much has been written, some of it excellent (e.g. Mark Steyn), but most of it awful.  Again, too much to chronicle here, so I’ll put a bunch of links in the comments if you’re interested.

But all of these complaints are, in the final analysis, meaningless.  Now here’s the Macbeth:

It is a tale, told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, Signifying Nothing.

Why ‘meaningless’?  Because in the midst of all this outraged complaining, I find almost no expectation that this situation will improve on its own – which is completely accurate – but furthermore I cannot find one single good idea for a plan on how to reverse this foul course and improve this intolerable situation.  So far it is not a firing offense to merely lament this state of affairs, so there is plenty of lamentation going on, but how shall we best react?

A neoreactionary understands that actual ‘power’ in a society is something very much other than what is formally written down in legal charters and codes of regulations.  It includes all the levers of mass influence, intimidation, deterrence, chilling and Ken White’s infamous ‘social consequences’. (As an aside, Linda Gottfredson has a series of papers on ‘social consequences’ of a different sort)

Social power is like water or electricity; whatever blocks you place in front of it are mere diversions for it eventually finds whatever available paths of least resistance remain to be exploited.  The people who have managed to find a successful way of controlling those ‘social consequences’ outside the formal state have accumulated significant amounts of informal power over the years, enough to easily oppose majoritarian preferences, and it’s no use complaining about it, because there’s no one to complain to.  Only power trumps power; so if you’re ideologically sympathetic with the targets of these hunts and want change, you had better get some.

You don’t need an actual, official thought police if the volunteer auxiliary thought police in their boycott-bully-brigades can get the job done well enough – which they do.   It’s nothing more than a modern form of the power of a lynch mob.  If the state won’t stop the mob, or looks the other way, or says ‘I don’t have the authority, my hands are tied’ then the trees will bear strange fruit.  The lynch mob hears that message just as loudly and clearly as their targets.  Since uncontested, their might makes them right; and every triumphant victory just whets the appetite for the next feast.  Call it, ‘Mob Privilege’.

White followed that post up recently with another relevant hit, “Ten Points About Speech, Ducks, And Flights To Africa.”  I agree with him 100%.  The first amendment has nothing to do with any of this and people who appeal to it are fools.  A ‘right to free speech’ protects you (sometimes, barely) from official, formal government retaliation, but nothing else.  Yes, it’s nice that, in the US, so far, state power is somewhat tamed.  Though, try being a government employee and falsely accused by some mendacious and resentful ogre of saying something that made them feel ‘uncomfortable’.  I was fortunate enough to witness such a thing when very young, and I learned the lesson well!  Though at another poor chap’s expense.

To illustrate the point, here’s a quick quiz.  If you had to choose between a week in prison, but returning unencumbered to one’s normal life, protected from the mob – or – getting publicly smeared and bullied out of your current job and all future jobs by the thought police commissars; which would you choose?  I’d pick the week without hesitation.

Sure, Roman ‘state’ power crucified Jesus.  But the mob made them do it, and would have likely done it themselves in a riot that would have been even worse had the Romans refused them.  Pilate, like some ancient ‘Commander of Coalition Forces – Afghanistan’, condemned to administer some fanatical backwater of the empire with a mandate to do what was necessary to keep the peace, might as well have asked, “What is ‘Power’?  Who really has it?”  Eventually, Rome decided that the answer should be clearly ‘Rome’ and not ‘the local mob’.  The consequences were not pretty, but they were quite significant historically.

And the question today is, “If you don’t like the current regime of social consequences, then what are you going to do about it besides cry in your Bierstein and bemoan your unjust woes?”

You need power to fight power – it’s as simple as that and you can’t escape that reality and no one in History ever has.  And, if you don’t create a balance of power and implement a system of social consequence countermeasures and reprisals at least as potent and terrifying as the one under which we currently suffer, then the incentives remain exactly as they are, and the progressives will continue to revel in their endless excommunication crusades.  Which, to the extent you may disagree with them, will absolutely get you and the things you care about too one day; it’s only a matter of time.

If you want something to never happen again, then strategic logic is exactly the same as with military deterrence in the nuclear age with mutual assured destruction.  Credibly threaten to retaliate with everything you have against any single step over your red-lines.  If the other side sees the evidence that you have built the capacity and have the will to fight fire with overwhelming fire, then, “the strategy is a form of Nash equilibrium in which neither side, once armed, has any incentive to initiate a conflict or to disarm.”

So let’s brainstorm a bit on how to get ‘armed’ in the non-violent ways of our opponents, shall we?

There are two general ways for any social subgroup to defeat an adversary terrorist mob.  They both necessarily involve out-terrorizing them, which is something that does not include annoying them to death with mere whining:

  1. Get the government to punish the mobsters for you.  Call this ‘Plan CBB’ for ‘Call Big Brother’.
  2. Organize an even stronger counter-mob.

Plan CBB is straightforward and we already have a perfectly satisfactory racial-discrimination model for it – The Civil Rights Act of 1964 and subsequent ‘enabling legislation’ and constitutional case law such as Heart of Atlanta Motel and Katzenbach

The essence of this half century of American law is that by means of the infamous ‘commerce clause’  the federal government can pretty much do anything it wants to any entity which participates in the economy – which is pretty much everything and everybody – in the name of anti-discrimination and bolstering constitutional rights.  Or even just in an effort to place floors on agricultural prices.  The states are no less constrained in their anti-discrimination authorities, as recently illustrated by the Colorado compulsory gay-cake case.

Now, I’m actually not a huge fan of these laws today, which in my opinion have definitely outlived their justifying circumstances and have all kinds of perverse consequences, (see also Foseti) but it seems the ship of hope of easing the regulations sailed long ago and there’s not much sense in letting the other side pick up the sword while leaving your own lying on the group out of some naive ‘principle’ that will only get you fired.

There’s no reason one couldn’t at least try to be creative with some free-speech versions of these anti-employment-discrimination laws.  The owners of some Alabama country BBQ in 1964, whatever their other personal motives, probably had perfectly rational economic and business reasons, given their customer base, not to serve or hire blacks, but the law never cared about that rationale.  That economic reason, the prejudices of ones customers, is irrelevant.  ‘It’s only business’ needs another rationale.

So, just as a quick example, you could craft a law that imposed the same government non-discriminatory obligations on private employers and presumes that any firing due to the offensive content of an individual’s speech was wrongfully discriminatory and actionable and that an employer would have to successfully rebut that presumption by clear and convincing evidence that they weren’t engaging in mere view-point discrimination, etc., etc.   Ask a lawyer and he’ll give you the run down on how all this works.  Like Steyn says, in the modern Kafka-esque judicial system, the process is the punishment, and the A&E’s of the world will have to think twice (or pay a handsome settlement) before they fire anyone for quoting the apostles approvingly.

And not just the A&E’s, but perhaps even the National Reviews of the world too.  Because a company that doesn’t really want to fire somebody like Derbyshire, but is under a lot of social pressure to do so, would just love to have the cover of being able to say, ‘Sorry, but we can’t lawfully retaliate against him for that offensive thing he wrote in another publication, our hands are tied!’

Sure, they may suffer the loss of some subscribers, but remember, some customers may never come back to the integrated BBQ either and the courts have no problem whatsoever telling the business owners they have to shut up and deal with it.  Of course, they may gain some business too.  Some customers won’t go to a racist BBQ joint, and some readers won’t subscribe to the publication that purged Derbyshire.

Of course, this is all idle fantasizing, because one would fully expect all these laws to be struck down by the courts posthaste.  Any clerk could write the judge’s opinion blindfolded, “Speech is not an immutable characteristic like race or gender or the official state position on sexual orientation.”

But then again, lots of human characteristics in this world of human biodiversity are the products of heritable gene expression and are both very much immutable and economically relevant to an employer.  These features form the valid basis of the mass of employment discrimination we call ‘hiring in a competitive labor market’.  So the clerk would go further and talk about those special ‘suspect’ immutables that have been subjected historically to irrationally prejudiced, counter-economic discrimination designed to try and keep a particular group suppressed.

And, try as you might, you are never going to get that clerk to agree that, sometimes, some groups with some ideas, face the same kind of suppression and need the same kind of special protections to survive.   But then again, there is this strange twilight zone of employment protection called, ‘religion‘ which is extremely mutable, around which (unlike race and gender) it is difficult to draw bright lines of distinction, but which under Title VII still gets a very hefty degree of anti-discrimination special solicitude.

So maybe, just maybe, the Republicans, if they were interested, could mount an effort to try and get expressions of non-progressivism a similar degree of employment protection as religion.  If you are an American and not a progressive, you may have realized that there is no organized effort whatsoever on the part of the Republican Party or Conservative Establishment to support anything like this whatsoever – not even, as Hanson might say, a cynical display just to show they care.  Because they don’t.

Similarly, it’s almost certainly hopeless to try and have the state criminalize boycotting like with Israel’s law on the subject which, anyway, only applies to the state itself as the target.  Not only hopeless, but definitely undesirable and dangerous, because it’s only a matter of time before the one-party state uses such a law to further neuter the opposition to the benefit of the one-party.

The point is, if you want to actually do anything about this issue and actually empower individuals to speak their minds without fear from their governments or their local activists, then you can’t rely on democracy or the political system because the game is rigged, the deck is stacked against you, and the modern structure has been utterly irredeemable for a long time.  Never place your faith in politics or the State.

So while you may win ‘the battle of ideas’ or even merely ‘the battle to express your ideas’ in the long run, in the short-term, that leaves you only with the counter-mob.  Sorry, I know how ugly that sounds and how, as an appreciator of social order you may recoil at the notion.  But as unpalatable as it may seem, there is no evidence of any feasible alternative besides ‘surrender, complain, and bring me my crying-stein’.

Any victory in this matter can not be won on the fields of battle, in the halls of congress, or in the courts of law. Sure, what you actually want to do is regulate behavior in your society which is equivalent to a change in the ‘law’, and ‘mob-law’ is how you get it done.  After all, non-criminal mob-law is just another name for ‘social consequences’, isn’t it?  So, to borrow Luttwak’s language, the right, having been disarmed by the enemy of the ability to resort to conventional political weaponry, must now play the game ‘socio-economically’, in the markets of commerce.  A Cold Cash Civil War.

And since the state is mostly against you as a practical mater, the counter-mob needs to be civil, non-violent, and immaculately lawful.  Which is tricky!  Because any form of pressure strong enough to work is likely to be already contrary to law or easily criminalized as some exotic and felonious form of tortious interference.  So that doesn’t leave one much room for maneuver besides what is already being used by the opposing side.

Now, I concede, it’s usually a mistake to try and fight with the enemy’s weapons, but though they dominate in the media, they don’t own the markets or the internet, and they have not yet found a way to dictate the flows of consumer purchases suggested by social media websites.  One must rely on one’s remaining repositories of strategic strength, whatever they happen to be.

And anyway, don’t forget the purpose of our counter-mob.  In the short term, we actually want actual freedom of expression (that is, a form of freedom from fear of being fired for it) in our society.  We aren’t trying to get people fired; we’re just trying to stop other people from trying to get people fired – the one form of speech which does deserve to be targeted and suppressed.  We never initiate, but we always react.

At the very least, if you don’t have a problem with ‘social consequences’ then you shouldn’t have a problem with counter-social-consequences aimed at building stable norms against organized public calls for termination.

And finally, it’s actually a fool’s errand to try and go against the offense-industry lobby groups directly.  Crying wolf is what they exist to do, and it is also how they pay the rent.  One just wants them to change their behavior and the easiest way to do that is to shape the facts on the ground that makes them conclude this particular tactic is now pointless.

What you really want to do is neutralize their efforts and make their kind of pressure ineffective by means of credibly threatening to apply countervailing pressure not on them, but on their targets.  I don’t want to go after GLAAD or the SPLC or the NAACP, but I definitely want to see any individual or company that submits to these bullies – National Review, Heritage, TAC, whatever – be irreversibly pulverized into liquidation bankruptcy by its own side, because that’s exactly what they’re doing to the people they are being pressured to purge and stab in the back.  In a word; justice.  

Do you see any other way to reliably stiffen the backs of these milquetoasts?  Please, by all means, share your ideas.  But I don’t.

As an example, consider what happened recently with the Cracker Barrel restaurant chain.

Cracker Barrel, having been targeted and pressured by pro-gay lobbies and various litigious government organizations for years, finally eking out a fragile state of ‘rehabilitation’ by means of modern forms of indulgences, overreacted to news of the Robertson fiasco and even more lobby pressure and immediately announced they would stop carrying Duck Dynasty merchandize in their tacky restaurant ‘country stores’.

Their customers (who you would think the Cracker Barrel people would know and, more importantly, care more about than some distant lobby) tend to be ‘pro-Duck’, and predictably went berserk, forcing Cracker Barrel to quickly recant, ‘apologize’ snarkily on its Facebook page, and train their workers to dissemble ‘apologize’ in person.

Should anyone accept this apology?  No and never.  Learn from your enemy’s successes with their ‘pour encourager les autres‘ tactics!  If a company was encouraged by them, then it’s up to you to discourage the rest.

If you would prefer to live in a society where a bible-belt company will not rip a man’s wares off its shelves for quoting the bible, then you have to be adamantly firm the first time it ever happens, so that it will be the last time.  Say to yourself, “It’s too late for Cracker Barrel, it doesn’t matter what they do now, I won’t ever go there again, and they need to pay the price and disappear.” It’s not hypocrisy – it’s called ‘reality’, it’s the only chance we’ve got to stop the madness before it’s too late.

So, Gentlemen, what I propose is a counter-intimidation mission, OPERATION BACKSLAP.

It’s a website to help people commit and coordinate to bring an end to this nonsense.  There are plenty of clever e-commerce ways to get it done, combining elements of Mint and Stickk perhaps, but at a minimum BACKSLAP has to satisfy the following conditions.

  1. Intimidate institutions and individuals from capitulating to progressive anti-expression intimidation.
  2. Let them know that, instead of silent-majority individualized quiet boycotts, that there is instead a large number of organized customers that have already pre-committed to drop their service if they step over a red line.  “Of our ten million members, 200 thousand subscribe to your publication, 80% of whom have authorized our system to automatically send a cancellation order if you give in to latest prominent intimidation incident X, with the remaining 9.8 million unlikely to ever subscribe in the future.”  This also has the advantage of giving a company a kind of ‘market signal’ of real costs and benefits and what their readers customers want.
  3. Have a means to stay abreast, track and monitor, or just chat and blog about pressure-purgings and witch-hunts.
  4. Let people look up institutions and individuals to see which have successfully resisted intimidation in the past or actively taken part in expression-purgings themselves- to reward the brave and punish the cowardly.  Have a way to steer people to alternatives, technological and otherwise, if they don’t know of other options.
  5. The BACKSLAP-BACKCHANNEL:  Let’s say you’re Bob Newhart and you’re, “… the beloved, decidedly non-political 84-year-old comedian who happens to be a practicing Catholic and a graduate of Catholic University…” and you want to do a show for a Catholic businessmen group that the gays don’t like, and they’re trying to get you to back out (which, alas, he did.)  It would be great if, when so pressured, you could communicate with BACKSLAP and plead, “They’re trying to get me to back out.” which would be followed by a home-page economic threat, “Don’t back down Newhart, or else!”  And Newhart can tell the gays, instead of Legatus, ‘I had no choice, the pressure was too great.”   Who knows, maybe Steyn will be next.

Some of you are internet development people.  If you care about these sorts of things, then I beg you.  Make!  Build!  Advise.  Pitch In.  Do this thing.

I’ll help if I can; just tell me how.  I would certainly pay an annual fee just to belong to it.  It’s that important.  Maybe it all crashes against the rocks one day, but wouldn’t it be worth it if the the plaque on the one trophy in your case was inscribed, ‘Broke Cracker Barrel’?

If you would have proposed any of this to me a decade ago, I would have thought it was crazy and exaggerated.  I would have believed naively in the inherited community norms of a once free and rugged people among whom I was raised.  I would have seen these instances as merely anecdotal and aberrational; I would have trusted in the political process and in the ‘wisdom of the people’ to remedy these transgressions without any need for this kind of moderate ugliness.

But those days are gone, gone.  Too many tipping points passed already.  This is a new era.  The ship will not right itself, and the ill winds blow its listing further and further into the darkening sea.

If you want to oppose their action, you can trust nothing but reaction.

*UPDATE:  Fake after all?  ‘Real’ but never with any intention of permanence, letting it just fester long enough to take it’s modern story-cycle course?  Anyway, the bully lobby claims to be disappointed and thwarted, which is mildly pleasing.

A&E “Backs Down“.  It doesn’t matter.  The point is that Phil makes A+E money, and the commercial incentives are stronger than the PC-inquisition-milieu.  And this is both how and why BACKSLAP works.  A+E thinks they’ve satisfied the witch-hunters and encourager les autres enough, and that it can back to business because the public attention span is low, inertia in the cartel of cable-TV subscriptions is high, and they expect all this to blow over.  But in the future, the PC-based suspension is a red-line, and they’ll know in advance that they won’t get a similar chance to recover after crossing it.

Finally, the station issued a typically revolting ‘public explanation’ with all the right ‘re-communication into tolerated society’ corporate buzzwords.  Forget about the rectification of names; even Orwell could hardly imagine the mutilation of the English language that has become our daily exposure to verbal manipulations.

… he and his family have publicly stated they regret the “coarse language” he used and the misinterpretation of his core beliefs based only on the article. He also made it clear he would “never incite or encourage hate.” We at A+E Networks expressed our disappointment with his statements in the article and reiterate that they are not views we hold.

Except, Phil’s language wasn’t coarse.  What’s the ‘coarse’ part full of vulgarities and obscenities?  That leaves us with the ideas being ‘coarse’.  The idea,, if I may paraphrase a bit to be less ‘coarse’ is, once again, ‘Homosexuality is sinful according to the Christian religion, of which I am a genuine adherent.’  Coarse!  And he doesn’t regret this non-existent coarseness or the ideas.  Maybe he regrets his suspension – though I doubt it.

His words and intentions were extremely clear to anyone above a 4th grade reading level – and he wasn’t ‘misinterpreted’ except by people who were specifically trying to twist his words to make him a persona non-grata.

Trying to ‘incite’ or ‘encourage’ ‘hate’ (versus ‘hatred’, or ‘violence’) has nothing to do with this.   ‘Incitement‘ is trying to provoke or urge someone to break the law.  Encouragement is a form of purposeful persuasive influence.  Phil was giving an interview with a columnist and expressing his honest sentiments concerning ideas which are still very much mainstream and, so far, not against the law.  It is against mob-law to continue to express beliefs as though they are normal when the mob wants them ‘denormalized’.  Getting in the way of ‘enlightened renormalization’ is pretty much the progressives’ definition of ‘sin’ though, and slowing down the socio-moral reformation might as well be ‘incitement’ to keep the lingering evil hate of the status-quo.

And then there’s the patronizing and condescending word of ‘disappointment’ that one uses in the direction of ones inferiors.  La Wik:

… the feeling of dissatisfaction that follows the failure of expectations or hopes to manifest.

If you’re crazy, you can hope for any crazy thing, I guess.  I can be disappointed that I didn’t win the lottery, and that would be very juvenile.  But what mature adult would have reasonably expected anything different from Phil?  He said exactly what anyone with a brain would expect him to say.

Finally, there’s the ‘we’. ‘We at A+E’.  Who is this ‘we’?  There is no ‘we’.  It’s a corporate decision, made by a single CEO, to disseminate a cynical public relations message, masquerading as if it represents the shared values of an entire community.  Corporations don’t have values or opinions besides profit, though management like to try and fool people into believing that they do.  And, again, according to Title VII or the CRA, the corporation isn’t theoretically allowed to act on that ‘value’ when it comes to hiring decisions (though I’m sure it does).  Who knows how many people who actually work for A+E believe that homosexuality is a Christian sin, but it doesn’t matter, because there is no ‘we’.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

43 Responses to Sound and Fury; But No Reaction

  1. Athrelon says:

    I also precommit to paying money for such a service, out of a desire to subsidize “doing hard things” within the reactosphere.

    I’d also recommend, however, carefully reading the literature on what sorts of boycotts tend to actually work, since the vast majority fail at their stated aims and all have a dual purpose directly changing the economic cost-benefit for a company, as well as gaining sympathetic press coverage and domino effects. Reactionary- or even anti-PC oriented boycotts will inevitably fail at the latter, for reasons that should be evident. Never forget that reactionaries are outnumbered by orders of magnitude and any effective activity will attract a popular backlash that far outweighs any brute force gains. It is possible, that clever, very targeted activities can change the incentives to be worth the awakening of the Cathedral immune system. But this will take wisdom, if it is possible at all.

    For those with more spare time than money it might be temporarily effective to pursue the strategy, mentioned elsewhere, of digging up and promoting searchability of anything objectionable written by the first person who called in the press, so as to make would-be volunteer thought police think twice before starting a witch hunt.

    Frankly this entire internet-mob business concerns me and I do not explicitly endorse engaging it from either left or right. This level of mob scalability is entirely novel and while the rate of these cases is relatively low (out of a country of hundreds of millions) I can foresee straightforward scenarios in which the same technologies and activities are scaled up orders of magnitude. In that case it would be well to be working on Exit as much Voice.

    • Handle says:

      These are all good points.
      1. I was thinking of what I’ve read about the causes of boycott failure, and I think a convenient website purely dedicated to counter-intimidation might mitigate some of those common issues. On the other hand, even uncoordinated market reactions sometime succeed, as the Cracker Barrel example demonstrates. Is that not effective activity without a backlash? It was quasi-spontaneous, but there was plenty of ‘organizing’ via viral facebooking marshaling the complaints as well. Is that not a success mode of the hypothetical process?
      2. Numbers and popularity matter greatly; those are components of ‘power’ of course.
      3. The ‘Cathedral Immune System’ threat is real, of course, but the options are a. complain or b. activate the immune system. On the other hand, the priority targets of counter-intimidation are often going to be neutral or right-leaning institutions. If we’re trying to stop National Review from purging Mark Steyn, I don’t think that triggers the usual Cathedral antibodies.
      4. I think doxing people has its place, but I don’t approve of it as general tactic. The whole hate-hoax and poverty-hoax reporting from Chris Ross at Gucci Little Piggy, for example, is excellent, and there are definitely certain cases when people are just asking to be investigated and outed and bring it on themselves. On the other hand, I can’t advocate without being a hypocrite since I wouldn’t want it to happen to me.
      5. I don’t like internet-mobbing either, but, again, see the options above in 3. If you want to do something to stop people getting fired for expressing the same ideas you believe, then what are the practical options?

      • peppermint says:

        speaking of their immune system, did you hear about the empowered womyn Director of Corporate Communications who was just purged over a white privilege joke? if they have actual enemies to purge, we won’t be able to laugh as they purge their own.

        • Handle says:

          Again, too many examples of friendly-fire incidents to count. There is no mercy for transgression just because you’ve been a loyal ally to date. Juan Williams purged from decades at NPR because of one ambiguous comment on FOX is the first instance that comes to mind.

  2. peppermint says:

    Merry Christmas, Handle! Here’s a beautiful rendition of a traditional Christmas carol, by a woman with a sufficiently beautiful voice that she doesn’t need to pose naked or half-naked to get people to look at her.

    This is a strategy to form a racketeering group with the explicit goal of tortious interference in other people’s businesses. If the proggies don’t hack your email and get everyone blacklisted first, the courts will.

    But anyway. There’s a reason these things are happening more and more often recently. There’s a reason it’s now unacceptable to quote the Bible; any man claiming to be a woman with or without their dick removed will soon be able to enter any female safe space (this is seen in many other species, from salmon to mountain goats); laws against polygyny are stricken by advocates for “polyamory”; the word goes from sodomite to queer to homosexual to gay to GLBT to LGBTTIQQ2SA++.

    As the people are cowed faster and faster, more and more insane ideas fly out of not even the universities but Tumblr. Being able to truly believe in the laters PC fashion is supposed to provide an honest signal of your intelligence and thus desirability for employment and sex.

    In an age with an Internet, the ratcheting insanity can’t stay adaptive for much longer. I think you know this too. We all felt it, this year, last year, the year before. Moldbug may have felt it earlier than anyone.

    Ann Coulter talks about how after OJ Simpson got away with murder, for a few years, honest discussion of racial issues was acceptable. The icy gates slammed shut with The Bell Curve, tighter than they had ever been, and are defended with more and more zeal, sounding more and more panicked, every year. Are we approaching the end of PC, or just a breif interglacial?

    Moldbug has two things to say. One, that we should primarily concern ourselves with the best. Indoctrinated children and manchildren and womanchildren do not matter. A lot of good people honestly believed in a lot of this stuff from 50 to 100 years ago; my grandparents proudly talk about their and their parents’ roles. Today, who outside of the academia / media / governmental jobs, or irrelevant indoctrinated children, actually believes in every new PC trend? There’s a reason people inside academia whine about not being taken seriously when they pontificate with the latest on white male cishet privilege. Reddit has a new phrase, “social justice warrior”. If you want to see the forward base for the pushback from PC, check out .

    Two, that our *sole* job is simply to make the truth available to the best men of our age.

    The enlightenment believed that humans are rational, and thus because there is no Black or White or Asian or male or female or gay or straight or transfat reason, but only one reason, that therefore all humans are interchangable; save for oppressive social constructs, polyamorous marraiges would be as frequently two men and two women as one man and three women.

    The best men of past ages have more or less believed in the enlightenment view. Incentives matter, but if incentives were all that mattered, I would be a minor PC commissar. Ideas matter too.

    We believe that humans are mutant chimps. (Bruce Charlton disagrees, because he’s a moron)

    • Handle says:

      1. Enya’s always a delight to the ears.
      2. It’s not racketeering by any plausible stretch of the legal definition.
      3. The internet accelerates everything. Like Kaus’ Feiler Faster Thesis.
      4. Making truth available is a lot easier when people aren’t getting purged. You think the purging will stop before it gets to us, or before it memory-holes wherever we put our content? Counter-purging, while it’s possible, helps to widen the window of opportunity we enjoy.

      • peppermint says:

        Recently they laughed at some Fox News face for saying that Jesus and Santa Claus were White.

        So then this happened

        It was indeed a teachable moment.

        Will they convince the search engines to suppress stuff? Will they stuff the genie of human ethology back into the bottle? Perhaps.

        In an oligarchical regime, public opinion is always an effect rather than a cause. It still matters, but only in the sense that some effects cannot be caused. But the power of the machine is always increasing. Few in the Reagan era could have imagined that in the lives of their grown children, most Americans would come to regard gay marriage as an essential civil right. Why did this happen? Because the ruling class is sovereign not just politically, but also intellectually. What it believes, everyone comes to believe – and is horrified that previous generations somehow failed to believe.

        Will the NSA finally purge all the heretics and usher in a golden age without heresy?

        I would be genuinely worried if I thought Washington was capable of persecuting dissident intellectuals. One way to see where America is going is to look at where its satellites in Europe are, and Britain and other countries certainly treat jokes on the train and casual anti-Party tweets much the same way the Czech authorities in 1971 or the German authorities in 1937 treated unconstructive public comments about the Party or the Leader.

        But really, these fools are easy targets. Yo, don’t be an easy target. Don’t blow shit up and don’t try to found any tax-exempt organizations, and you ought to be fine. The Cheka ain’t in the building. And the process of turning our progressive bureaucrats into Chekisty would not involve making them more awful, but more energetic, manly and capable. I won’t hold my breath.

        Will cameras everywhere preclude crime, accidentally reopening the cities to human habitation? That would be pretty funny. It may enable Blacks to live, work, and go to school with Whites without violence. It would, of course, only heighten the contradictions in the outmoded orthodoxy of the ruling class

  3. jamesd127 says:

    So, just as a quick example, you could craft a law that imposed the same government non-discriminatory obligations on private employers and presumes that any firing due to the offensive content of an individual’s speech was wrongfully discriminatory and actionable

    That would be stupid. All judges are radical leftists bent on the destruction of America, Americans, the white race, capitalism, free markets, marriage, and everything else the left hates, and if any judge was not, he would be fired faster than Phil Robertson.

    If there is anything on the list of stuff the left hates that you want to preserve, any solution involves purging all federal employees, including, and especially, the judiciary.

    • Handle says:

      Mostly I was listing the possibility for completeness. Like I said, I wouldn’t expect such an effort to make it past the post, let alone be enforced fairly.

  4. Orthodox says:

    Americans behaved the same way before and during the Revolution. The targets were Loyalists and they sometimes had their homes looted. This behavior is as old as the nation. It is chilling also to think that the last time things were this bad was at or near wartime. Either this is the new Internet effect or…..

    On some issues, you can win with a physical presence if you pick the right issue, at the right time, with a good location. Look up the Tennessee tax protests around 2000. If there was a Duck Dynasty protest, my guess is the Duck Dynasty people would far outnumber the gay activists because while many liberals might not like his words, they aren’t motivated to protest it.

    Don’t underestimate the number of conservatives. Richwine and Derb are tough cases because of the issue and their obscurity with Joe Sixpack, but there are way more motivated conservatives than liberals. Liberals rely on paid protesters and college kids. Much of their base is lazy. Most conservatives get up for work, to raise their kids or at least used to if they are retired. If they’re mad enough to do something they only need an address.

    A. Read Swarmwise.
    1. Economic boycotts are a solid nuclear option when you target an organization that your demographic sustains.
    2. Economic boycotts can also work if you are a strong minority and very cohesive such that you can dent their revenues. This works best with businesses that have high contact business models with instant traffic feed back, such as websites, retail and restaurants.
    3. Positive economic support works. See Chik-Fil-A counter-boycott. The success of Fox News over MSNBC and CNN is a slow motion “boycott” thanks to having a positive choice.
    4. You must win if you go for a scalp. This is about street cred. You only fight big when you can achieve total victory. This might happen at most once a year, maybe once every couple of years.

    Network effects work in reverse. A “delinking” campaign against National Review can have an effect if bloggers stop citing or linking to it, or if they cite it, it is only to criticize it again.

    • Handle says:

      There were plenty of street demonstrations with large numbers of tea partiers and the final verdict was ‘pointless’. That’s definitely a leftist thing meant to display a capacity and willingness for physical violence. No, my counter-intimidation BACKSLAP mob, is purely an internet and commercial, civil phenomenon. That’s all one needs, and anyway, anything else would get crushed.

  5. Candide III says:

    Wait a moment, isn’t ‘social consequences’ itself tortious interference? I’m no lawyer, but looking at the list of the elements of tortious interference in Wikipedia, it sure sounds like Robertson, Derbyshire, Richwine &c. could sue for damages against the ‘journalists’ involved. Since all elements except 4. are not in any doubt — the ‘journalists’ willingly published their intent, often in so many words — at the very least, the court will uphold the journalists’ privilege to induce breach of contract. The alignment between formal and informal power will become closer, especially if the case then goes to the Supremes and they don’t strike it down. Heads we win, tails they lose. Hm?

    • Handle says:

      Already happened a few times, when the ‘speech’ is favored enough to be ‘free speech’. For example, see NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware Co. (1982) (also here)

      Then again, there are cases like Moore v Hoff.

      The reality is that there is a space of ‘social consequences’ that allows for non-criminal commerical-intimidation mob-law beyond the law, which the progressive lobbies have thoroughly mastered. There are only three possibilities. 1. The Big Mob (USG) shuts down that space – which isn’t going to happen, because it’s too useful to the left, 2. The conventional right complains and cries in their biersteins but without fighting back (likely), and 3. Other elements of the right also start to react in that space, giving people an actual practical outlet for their frustrations. I go with 3.

  6. spandrell says:

    Mobs are where it’s at. I like it.

    You’ll need to host it abroad though. And wouldn’t some leftist come up with some legal subterfuge to shut it down? Or at least send paid thugs to your doorstep.

    • Handle says:

      Using the same tactics that the progressive bullies need to remain legal helps to prevent legal challenge. They don’t want to undermine their own foundation.

      As far as hosting, security, etc. I rely on the expert geniuses of the technical development directorate of the reactionary hordes to advise. Non-attribution would be very nice. ‘Bitcoin and TOR that sh*t’

      • spandrell says:

        Moldbug should’ve worked on something like this instead of Urbit.

        • Handle says:

          No time like the present!

          The general idea is: ‘bypass’ – technologically enabled circumventions of the parts of the current social power structure where one is at a strategic disadvantage. Forget about democracy, politics, etc. and organize alternatives.

          Old Media controlled the distribution of information exclusively. The internet helps to disrupt that death-grip. Drudge and Breitbart exist because of it. So does our little sphere.

          Old Commerce was mostly physical, but now everything is on the internet, which creates new space for coordinated action. The progressives control the current main purge-bully mechanism, but we can build another one to route around them.

          As an ‘ulterior’ motive – such an counter-intimidation institution would also be an ideal platform (really a ‘fortress’ because of its ability to defend itself) to distribute content amongst the subscribers, but only after it has built up a robust defensive counter-attack capacity proven able to withstand and backslap the witch-hunters.

  7. Dan says:

    The right has been totally pussified about this. The left slandered and libeled the conservatives by saying they murdering gays, because gays often kill themselves at a high rate (no matter that they do so regardless of the acceptance they find). This is ironic because GAY MEN ARE GUILTY OF MURDERING HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE IN AMERICA. Typing in all caps is mostly not done and I won’t do it again. But I talk of gay mass murder in confidence because something is not slander or libel or defamation if it is true. Sue me.The above statement is unequivocally true and if it can become a meme, I would be delighted. It would change the whole conversation and help move the Overton window far back in the direction from whence it came.

    Let me elaborate:
    Gay Men continue to be the biggest disease vector for AIDS and other STDs in America, according to the CDC, and this is because of incredibly risky behaviors. Gay men, through their dangerous behavior, have caused an enormous share of the hundreds of thousands of deaths from AIDS that have occurred in America and are currently the leading cause of new disease, causing more new disease than all other groups combined.

    * 3.3% of men identify as gay, according to a huge Gallup poll, meaning about 1.65% of the whole population

    * 53% of new HIV infections are men who have sex with men (MSM)

    Click to access FastFacts-MSM-FINAL508COMP.pdf

    Therefore, MSM have a 3,212% (or 32x) higher risk of getting HIV than the population as a whole, and it is entirely due to the dangerous games they play.

    Why is this? The gay community’s own surveys give us the answer (better save those before they are hidden from the way they disappeared from

    Survey Posted by on July 20, 2006

    Survey included 2,304 gay men

    Question 9 (2294 gay men responded): Astonishing levels of promiscuity among gay men

    66% of gay men surveyed had > 10 same sex partners
    53% of gay men surveyed had > 20 same sex partners
    35% of gay men surveyed had > 50 same sex partners
    23% of gay men surveyed had > 100 same sex partners
    11% of gay men surveyed had > 300 same sex partners

    The gay advocacy group’s own survey shows gays men are far and away more promiscuous than the male population as a whole. For example the percentage of gay men who report more than 100 partners is higher than the percent of men overall that have had more than 15 partners.

    Click to access 12s0096.pdf

    Question 14 (2304 gay men responded): A strong majority of gay men have engaged in group sex

    61% of gay men surveyed have had sex in a group of 3 or more at the same time
    29% of gay men surveyed have had sex in a group of 4 or more at the same time

    Question 10

    A majority have also had sex with women, demonstrating that the whole population is put at risk.

    Even the liberal and gay friendly New York Times recognizes the PRESENTLY GROWING problem although they studiously avoid the promiscuity issue.

    Ignoring the mass murder that they have caused, gays attack mild comments from a duck hunter. The duck hunter’s comments were much milder than the relentless association of gay anal sex and fecal matter that marked their own concerted and heavily publicized attack on Senator Santorum as he was a major Presidential candidate. How about this: the duck hunter agrees to apologize for a poorly phrased comment and they agree to apologize for the mass murder of hundreds of thousands of people. Fair?

  8. Handle says:

    Relevant: Spencer Ackerman via Journo-List on the whole Rev. Wright cover-up:

    Part of me doesn’t like this shit either. But what I like less is being governed by racists and warmongers and criminals.
    I do not endorse a Popular Front, nor do I think you need to. It’s not necessary to jump to Wright-qua-Wright’s defense. What is necessary is to raise the cost on the right of going after the left. In other words, find a rightwinger’s [sic] and smash it through a plate-glass window. Take a snapshot of the bleeding mess and send it out in a Christmas card to let the right know that it needs to live in a state of constant fear. Obviously I mean this rhetorically. [obviously, no pressure]
    And I think this threads the needle. If the right forces us all to either defend Wright or tear him down, no matter what we choose, we lose the game they’ve put upon us. Instead, take one of them — Fred Barnes, Karl Rove, who cares — and call them racists. Ask: why do they have such a deep-seated problem with a black politician who unites the country? What lurks behind those problems? This makes *them* sputter with rage, which in turn leads to overreaction and self-destruction.
    We’ll know who doesn’t deserve this treatment — Ross Douthat, for instance — but the others need to get it.
    I previewed it a bit on my blog last week after Commentary wildly distorted a comment Joe Cirincione made to make him appear like (what else) an antisemite. So I said: why is it that so many on the right have such a problem with the first viable prospective African-American president?”

    Several members of the list disagreed with Ackerman – but only on strategic grounds.

    That’s the kind of force against which we are contending, and ‘Raising Costs’ is key.

  9. anonymous says:

    The Duck Dynasty thing is definitely a setup. Everyone except GLAAD was in on it. My mom had never heard of Duck Dynasty, but she’s going to watch it now, to show those damn liberals!

    • Handle says:

      Like I said, ‘laughing all the way to the bank’, but who knows. As a general rule of thumb, presuming that every media phenomenon is faked is a good default position, but I’ll remain indifferent until someone hacks the emails.

      The broader point is that there is a kind of formulaic scripted-drama to all these things, real or fake. Narrative structures evolve over time to be precisely tailored to the preferences and match the psychological nature of the target audience. The mental instinct for witch-burning ceremonies manifests itself in these story-cycles in modern, sophisticated and subtle forms and cadenced rituals.

      It’s the dark flipside of the monomyth. Joseph Campbell showed the hero has 1,000 faces. Apparently, so does the Devil.

      This is all the more reason to believe that, without a counter-intimidation reaction, the phenomenon is likely to repeat itself, over and over, with the regular frequency of any public circus.

  10. jackcrassus says:

    Technical/software knowhow has never been more important in the war of political ideas. Who gets the geeks, gets the world.

  11. Legionnaire says:

    I’m not quite sure if the time is right for these sorts of overt gestures, but if not, it soon will be. Shows of force and strength are going to be necessary in the future, and even if this particular iteration suggested isn’t quite feasible, the underlying principle is correct.

    I’ve always had a preference for infiltration and subversion persoonally. Hide in their ranks and ply their rules against themselves, set different factions against each other…etc. It’s great fun.

    Using the two strategies in tandem in order to make the left look fractious and the right look strong and committed could have interesting results indeed…

    • Handle says:

      The likely latency to prototype implementation is long enough to make the time right to at least start thinking seriously about these things.

      I’ve seen plenty of ‘infiltration’ (or, at least, people who aren’t true-believer progressives who work in progressive-dominated institutions and keep their heads down about it). There’s also the James O’Keefe hidden-camera technique.

      But I’m not aware of any recent successful examples of meaningful ‘subversion’ or factionalization of leftist groups. Even the FBI, at the peak of Hoover’s overreaching, only ever enjoyed minor successes with it.

      Anyway, a network of agents and moles is both far too dangerous and far too beyond our means, capabilities, and numbers. Not to mention it would take far too long to establish. I’m starting to think we just don’t have that kind of time.

      The best revelations so far have been the exposures of the climate-gate emails and the journ-o-list posts. And you know what – it hardly mattered in the end. The left is ascendant and isn’t hiding anything anymore.

      So, I’m skeptical and disposed to reject it as a feasible strategy. Care to try to convince me otherwise?

      • Legionnaire says:

        As a full-on strategy we ought to pursue to the detriment of other approaches? Not what I’m thinking. Perhaps I misrepresent myself with the word “strategy”, and not “tactic”.

        Some with tendencies toward reactionary and pre-reactionary ideas might might be part of institutions that, even if not expressly progressive, have a progressive culture. If they can keep their head down, they have the opportunity mess things up from the inside. Push things just a bit too far left too quickly, or perhaps “black knight” a bit, hitting feminists with sexual harassment complaints and the like. Ferret out those open to reactionary ideas and bring them into the fold. The opportunities for a clever person to take advantage of are near-endless.

        It’s a way to get those who aren’t willing to be public yet into the game on a micro-level basis. It’s not meant to be a grand spearhead, but a side approach going on a decentralized basis by lone individuals while the bulk of the effort is focused on more important things.

        As time goes on of course, public shows of strength will become more and more important and scurrying around like this will reach the point of being counter-productive. In the present moment though, it’s an option that we have to exploit, one that gets us used to taking small actions so that we might prepare ourselves for bigger ones.

        • peppermint says:

          > hitting feminists with sexual harrassment complaints

          this serves to legitimize sexual harrassment complaints, while at the same time allowing feminsts to blame their obvious abuse, and the failures of feminism in general, on a right-wing conspiracy to subvert feminism.

          Great job.

          Are you a left-wing mole? Yes, you are. The tactics of the left are despicable and can only serve to drive the culture away from virtue and towards leftism.

          Every time you lie, you sacrifice a kitten to Satan. Satan rewards you for that sacrifice, but, the leftists have a giant abbatoir running. You can’t honestly expect to win Satan’s favor except by being more a leftist than the leftists.

          Remember Neoconservatism? It held that leftist social policies could be maintained better with a strong market economy. And so it is.

  12. VXXC says:

    “there is plenty of lamentation going on, but how shall we best react?” Like it.

    “If you want to oppose their action, you can trust nothing but reaction.” – Like. If backed up.

    The courts are closed to us, the government is closed to us. By us I mean the Americans who have been told it’s not our country anymore from every media outlet and intellectual perch. I don’t personally think the Brainiacs can count myself. Here’s America’s actual racial breakdown…79.6% are being told it’s not their country anymore…

    Look at what works and who did it. The result of all the conservative and Tea Party agitation was not “nil” outside of government and academia. Don’t overlook corruption either, it’s pandemic and indefensible. You can’t quite be the Tribune of Truth and Justice if you’re stone cold dirty. Except to your own ..who are outnumbered. See map above.

    Mark Levin did yeoman’s work on getting the IRS crushing the Tea Party for the 2012 election, the Left’s Stalinist tactics are in the street. Look at any MSM’s comment section when they step on the people. The Left is not the majority in this country, it’s between 6% [Progressive] and 19% Liberal. They can get 35% of the country behind them as long as the govt checks keep coming.

    Handle these people are COWARDS. They’re mostly bluff and aren’t used to anything but instant quavering submission. They won’t take steel well. That’s what’s needed. NO. MOLON LABE.

    MOLON LABE just stopped a major gun control initiative in it’s tracks.

    Tactics – try all, especially that which has worked for the Right.
    Strategy – for now just fight any way you can. Just stop backing down.
    Stop backing down. So this is good. How one fights is less important than the Will to fight.

    And one more very important strategic point: Stop looking down noses at conservatives, especially rank and file. Numbers are needed. Progs don’t look down their noses at any number of thugs, the less intelligent, less educated, all the way to flat out worst monsters of the 20th century. NUMBERS COUNT.

    And they’re quite angry and willing to make their displeasure known and felt. No one knows what NR is, they know about the Ducks [Phil Robertson].

    If you really want numbers let’s get Jim to start posting about the Second Amendment and assaults on it..and the character of who wants to disarm them.

    And this is where I somewhat disagree: No enemies to the Right except for Quislings. And understand your obligations if you destroy or throw down the Quislings – you must assume the leadership role. Not become them, but if you relieve the Commander you must take Command. You are proposing to relieve the Conservatives because they failed. They have miserably and serially.
    But it then becomes incumbent on you to then Lead.

    Leaders can’t hate their troops, may I suggest you discover the virtues of the ordinary American or Englishman, or wherever ye are…as we have seen with not just Theden but earlier hints with South Park and the rest the young are chafing under a bankrupt tyranny of pettiness. What is THEDEN but young whites fed up with being told they’re evil? What is Generation Identarie but the young French deciding not to humbly submit in their own genocide?

    There will be a price to pay. If the price to pay is a decline in the quality of the comments [HORRORS] that is not too high a price to pay for stopping the rapid dengeneracy of REAL LIFE into Lagos Nigeria.

    Embrace the People Reaction. They deserve better leadership than what they have [almost none]. If it’s a sacrifice to be around the hoi polloi then consider nothing worth fighting for doesn’t involve self-sacrifice. I actually expect you’ll be a tad surprised at their quality. Even Officers endure sweat, mud, hardship in War.

    No enemies to the Right except Quisling leaders. And when you throw them down be manfully prepared to assume the role they so miserably failed at.

    Very Happy 2014 to all.

    • peppermint says:

      liberal or conservative, of the ones that think in terms of ideas, they are almost all of them Enlightened. The Dark Enlightenment is spreading; it has not become a majority opinion.

      And what is this ‘America’ you refer to? The country, The United States of America, or the nation that used to inhabit that country, that collapsed at some point between 1965 and the present? ‘Americans’ in many cases have nothing in common save the same government; the Obama guys made a video that made this point. The last gasp for America-the-nation was probably Pat Buchanan’s campaign.

      I realize that hope is a virtue. So are prudence and temperance.

  13. VXXC says:

    For those who keep bemoaning how outnumbered we are ..uh…The Right in America outnumbers the Left 2:1. You’re outnumbered if you’re in Academia, you’re outgunned if you’re in government [and how much is belief, how much is fear…break their spell of omnipotence and it’s fatal to them].

    But we are not outnumbered.

    No enemies to the Right except Quislings. Further Reactionaries may be small in number, but Conservatives are not .

    A Conservative is a Reactionary who doesn’t know he’s a Reactionary yet. I believe this is the actual Truth, and they’re waiting to be asked. Game won’t work on Leftists, even if they admit any or all points after hours of being cornered it never changes their position. It’s a matter of self interest.

    No friends or converts to the Left, you are asking them to abandon self-interest.

    Conservatives on the other hand are in the streets because their interests are being mortally threatened. Now that’s an IN. Game that.

    You have Legions who see themselves slowly being destroyed, bereft of leadership or a plausible explanation of why and neo-reaction has it. Moldbug* provided the first light on this in 100 years, and we’ve got 100 years of dismal, hideous history to hold his lens up to and make it clear. It also helps to point out that now it’s at last our turn in the awful lines of the 20th century. It’s one thing for Carlye to see it coming, it’s another that all these horrible things happened.

    A final note – if you attack democracy with a suggestion of a King instead….don’t expect to be taken seriously. And seriously you don’t want them to take that one seriously…

    *may I suggest the condensed Moldbuggery, or a summary. These people have jobs.

    • Handle says:

      A Conservative is a Reactionary who doesn’t know he’s a Reactionary yet.

      Heh. If a neoconservative is a liberal who has been mugged by reality, then likewise a neoreactionary is a conservative/libertarian who has been mugged by the other half of reality.

      I call some these people ‘pre-reactionaries’. I think there are a lot of them out there, but there’s a lot of inertia and social pressure working against any effort trying to persuade them to bail on the respectable conservative establishment. You really have to work the agitprop and ‘heighten the contradictions’ and aggravate the frustrations with the existing institutions until they abandon them and just walk away in disgust and despair; looking for an alternative place to call home.

    • peppermint says:

      The essential idea of the Enlightenment was that humans are basically reasonable. Since there is not a Black reason and a White reason, or a male reason and a female reason, but just one reason, it follows that there are no essential differences between these groups other than oppressive accidents of social construction.

      What we need to do is let them know that it’s okay to believe that there’s more to human ethology than reason, and to recognize sanctimony as a deadly sin / mind-killing tendency.

      • anonymous says:

        What we need to do is let them know that it’s okay to believe that

        …It’s okay to believe what they believe. I can’t count the number of times I’ve heard someone, in private, say a hate fact or a hate opinion, and then they follow it up with something along the lines of “gosh, that’s so racist of me”. People are trapped. They’ve internalized cultural marxism. Just to convince the pre-reactionary people to stop accepting that frame would be an enormous victory. Don’t let them (the target can fill in their own “them”) make you feel bad about your own thoughts, you’re entitled to think and feel whatever you want. “They” aren’t right, they’re just in charge.

        • VXXC says:

          “They” aren’t right, they’re just in charge.”
          It’s mostly bluff or sanctions that aren’t that scary. Like socially unpopular.

          Our posterity is worth suffering high school pranks.

        • anonymous says:

          @ VXXC

          To you, maybe, but for most, baby steps. If people are ashamed to agree with us in private…

          • VXXC says:

            The narrative is about to change regardless of whether we existed or not. It’s quite already changing without NR. Reaction is…natural. These are people’s natural reaction to insanity and chaos. And daresay evil. The only alternatives were rambling old gents mumbling something about standing athwart history and yelling “stop”. Which didn’t work.
            There was no coherent critique or explanation of what was happening until neo-reaction and Moldbug. Now there is one.

            We do exist and things are changing. Now you may stand ready to offer a coherent explanation to your bewildered neighbors, or you may stand aside. Life and events will proceed either way. Again once you supplant the dominant/submissive failed narrative of conservatism you’re rather responsible for their flock.

            Who are so starved for leadership that…


            Now c’mon. “Dark Enlightenment” is a lot more seductive than “Quack-Jesus-Quack”.

  14. Pingback: Outside in - Involvements with reality » Blog Archive » Canary

  15. Pingback: The Last Couple Weeks in Reaction | The Reactivity Place

  16. Stirner says:

    This is a great discussion.

    A few potential strategies to add to the mix:

    1) Beef up the legal basis for countersuing for employment discrimination. You are right that religion is the angle to use, but Christianity isn’t going to cut it, just like the hate crimes laws can’t be applied to minorities. Perhaps reactionaries could found their own anti-gnostic religion. Moldbug of course named it already: The Sith! If the Jedi can be a census category, and Wiccans and Satanists can be chaplains in the military, there is plenty of precedent for fringe sects to get some legal protection. Setting up such a “church” and registering adherents could prove quite easy to achieve, and then all we need is some military reactionary with some balls to formally declare his religion and get it the official USG stamp of approval. With your new Sith victim card, you can perhaps at least give a sleazy employment attorney to file the lawsuit and generate a settlement. Alternatively, if the reactionary community keeps growing exponentially, there may be resources to crowdsource fund continuing litigation. If Sith employees get a reputation for going Nuclear with lawfare a few times, word will start getting out.

    2) Engage in Counter Harassment. The most effective example was publishing the addresses of newspaper staff, after the newspaper printed the addresses of locals with concealed weapons permits. O noes, the paper had to hire private security! “Doxing” attacks like this are relatively common when 4Chan gets their sights on some hapless victim. If the reason for these firings is “business” then make them very personal. Use resources like Intelius or private detectives to generate an instant dossier on the inquisitors,their families, and their children, and then publish that info to the internet (offshore, of course). Then push the site hard through social media in the Reactosphere, so word starts getting around. Crowdsource the funding of the hosting and the investigation fees and have a war-kitty standing by. It doesn’t cost much. Social consequences can be counterattacked with personal consequences: no spouse is going to be happy if she gets an email with all sorts of personal information about her life, her house, and her kids. Admittedly this is a sleazy and potentially dangerous tactic to use on a target, but that is sort of the point, right?

    They have chosen to make the personal into something political. Turning the tables to make the political very personal,exposes a very weak underbelly that few internet tough guys have any defenses for.

    3) Meme them. Look at what happened to poor Pajamaboy. Even Obama had to throw him under the bus when the laughter got too widespread.

    I would also agree that the left is terrified of losing control of the narrative. I think their entire freakout about the Tea Party was that is was a right wing grassroots organization/network that sprung up from seemingly nowhere. It was the REAL DEAL (thanks to social media). Every leftwing “grassroots” movement from civil rights, to environmentalism, to feminism, to political correctness, to now gay rights has always had shadowy backers and organizers working behind the scenes. They thought it was astroturf, because on the left it has always been astroturf all the way down. The right has immense *latent* cultural and political power, and the internet is beginning to unlock it. Less than six years from Moldbug’s first posting to the emergence of “The Dark Enlightenment” of red pill takers. They were very close to finally ejecting the badthink from the realm of respectability, only for it to rise from the dead in a much more horrible form that can’t be shamed, is proud of their heresy, and mocks their naive progressive faith.

    Besides, if you read the Game blogs, you can even get laid by hotter chicks? Is there any recruiting mechanism for the Dark Enlightenment better than that?

  17. Pingback: Lightning Round – 2014/01/08 | Free Northerner

Comment - You know you want to

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s