by Vox Day
New Canon Law
New Catechism
New Educational System
Relaxation of Rules
Elimination of Discipline
Focus on Unity at the Expense of Truth
Shift in Emphasis from Truth to Feelings
Reliance on Lay 'Experts'
Conformity to the World
Sounds familiar, doesn't it? Upon reviewing the list, it is readily apparent that the SJWs successfully attacked the Catholic Church long before they got around to science fiction, let alone video games. Which makes sense; a Pope is far more dangerous than a mere writer or video game designer. So, the example of the Catholic Church provides the obvious lesson that those who target an organization's traditions, want to modify or otherwise bring them up to date, and appeal to outside standards to justify their calls for change are the very SJWs who need to be purged from the organization at the earliest opportunity.
While the U.S. military in general, and the U.S. Army Rangers in particular, have been targeted by feminists for decades, the so-called “point of the spear” remains remarkably unadulterated by social justice, in part because few SJWs are inclined to put themselves in physical danger, and in part because the military still requires highly skilled soldiers who are capable of killing people and breaking things without being troubled by concerns about Equality and Diversity. Tolerance is not a battlefield virtue.
The interesting thing is that despite the best efforts of SJWs in the military to push women into combat and the special forces, their efforts have largely failed due to the high level of physical standards involved. For example, not until 2012, when the standards for the Ranger Assessment and Selection Program were relaxed and 91 out of 114 soldiers graduated (an 80 percent pass rate that considerably exceeded the historical 30 percent rate), was it feasible to even think about female Rangers. Three years after the standards were relaxed, two women made U.S. Army Ranger history by passing the once-notoriously difficult Ranger School on their third try. And while the Rangers remain a formidable fighting force for the time being, we know, from the Impossibility of Social Justice Convergence, that it is only a matter of time before its ability to perform its primary function is degraded.
But the example of the Rangers makes clear that the combination of unpleasant tasks and high objective standards is also an effective means of keeping SJWs out of an organization. And, as before, it is apparent that SJWs inside the organization can be easily identified as those who insisted on the need to relax those standards by appealing to social justice ideals.
In light of the observed experience of the Roman Catholic Church, the Rangers, and other institutions such as the universities, foundations, and Protestant churches that have been considerably less successful in resisting infiltration and cooption, SJW-proofing your organization should be built around the following concepts:
A strong written constitution or statement of purpose focused on specific material objectives.
Difficult objective standards for membership and leadership.
A structured, scripted, and recorded interview process designed to unmask infiltrators.
Strict procedural rules making rapid or extensive change as difficult as possible.
Challenging and unpleasant tasks that the membership must regularly perform in order to maintain active membership that permits them a voice in the organization.
Strict discipline combined with specified penalties up to and including expulsion.
A regular ritual of renewal of loyalty to the organization and its objectives, on pain of expulsion.
A requirement for all leaders and board members to have been members for at least 20 years.
An internal affairs group responsible for ideologically policing the general membership but not the board or leadership. (This group is both the most useful and the most dangerous, as it is the best way to keep SJWs out as well as the first group that will be targeted by SJW entryists.) Only retired leaders and board members should be given this level of responsibility.
A set of rules reserved to the leadership permitting and encouraging them to expel members who advocate substantive changes to the organization's primary objectives, bylaws, membership requirements, or disciplinary actions.
These are general principles and no doubt you can think of other, more specific structural measures that will reduce the likelihood and effectiveness of SJW entryists which are more relevant to your specific type of organization. But the single most important principle to adopt is a ruthless intolerance for anyone expressing even a modicum of sympathy for social justice ideals. While this may sound too paranoid or detail-oriented for you, rest assured that if you do not go to the trouble of aggressively keeping out the SJWs, they will invade your organization and they will do their best to take it over.
One pastor of a Southern Baptist church told me of an attempt on the church we attended prior to our arrival there. Over the course of several years, a number of families joined the church and became very active in it. Thanks to their enthusiastic support, one or two were soon invited to join the board of elders, which they gradually packed with their co-conspirators. They then tried to modify the church bylaws to place the pastor, who had started the church, under the direction of the board. The pastor managed to rally enough support to defeat their efforts and force them to resign from the board, but when the defeated infiltrators left the church, they took nearly a third of the membership with them.
Later, he learned that the same group of individuals had previously tried to pull the same stunt at two other churches, and were actively engaged in their fourth attempt.
It doesn't take much change for SJWs to enter en masse through the newly opened gates. Consider the SJW takeover of the Science Fiction Writers Association. Its transformation from a professional writers association defending the interests of science fiction writers to an SJW ancillary of Tor Books handing out awards to romance novels that may or may not take place in space was made possible by two changes. The size and makeup of the association was changed considerably after Anne McCaffrey threatened to quit unless her fantasy writer friends were permitted to join as well. And professional roots of the association were severed when the requalification requirement to publish one novel every five years in order to remain an active, voting member was dropped. This allowed hundreds of amateur writers who had somehow managed to get one novel or three short stories published in the various qualifying small presses and magazines to stay active in the association, which they came to dominate over time. Rather like the old joke about the Holy Roman Empire being neither holy, nor Roman, nor an empire, SFWA now mostly consists of people who don't write for a living and are not particularly interested in science or science fiction.
Strategy 7: Stay inside their OODA loops
Col. John Boyd was a fighter pilot who transformed a dogfighting concept into a general principle of war that is well-known throughout the U.S. military. One of the most influential military strategists of the 20th century, he never wrote a book, but his Discourse on Winning and Losing presentation became famous in military circles, in particular his concept of the OODA loop, which is the continuous cycle of engagement with one's environment. This cycle consists of four elements:
Observation: the collection of data by means of the senses
Orientation: the analysis and synthesis of data to form one's current mental perspective
Decision: the determination of a course of action based on one's current mental perspective
Action: the physical playing-out of decisions
Boyd's insight was that the speed with which one pilot could run through the cycle was the most important factor in separating victory from defeat. He also believed, as do many of his students, that this principle can be applied to a wide range of fields of competitive human endeavor, including business, sports, and politics. It makes sense, of course, that if you are acting while your opponent is still deciding on his course of action, or better yet, still t
rying to get himself oriented, you have both the initiative and the advantage, and therefore your chances of winning are better than his.
The idea, therefore, is to operate faster than your opponent, or “stay inside his OODA loop”. This means that by the time he has observed and reoriented himself to your previous action and is deciding what to do about it, you are hitting him again and resetting his cycle. This is a powerful conceptual tool, because not only does it increase your chances of victory, but it tends to paralyze and demoralize your opponent. When your enemy is occupied with wondering when and where you are going to hit him next, he is not engaged in effective action of his own.
In practice, this means that not every attack needs to be well-planned or effective. The mere fact that you are hitting him elsewhere while he is still responding to your previous attack is likely to discombobulate and demoralize him. For example, the Tor boycott declared by Peter Grant has not, to the best of my knowledge, been materially effective in damaging Tor Books; they have not yet fired either Irene Gallo or Patrick Nielsen Hayden, at any rate. But the psychological effect it had on the SJWs of science fiction, coming as it did while they were still reeling from the shock of the Rabid Puppies near-sweep of the Hugo nominations, was out of proportion to its material effects. And, as the quote from Charles Stross at the front of the book indicates, the SJWs are now in a jumpy, paranoid state, wondering if our next attack will be on the Nebula Awards, the employment of an SJW editor, or somewhere else that they have not yet imagined.
As it happens, we already have multiple targets selected, and you can probably figure out what they were next year by listening for the shrieks of outraged science fiction SJWs. Since Rabid Puppies is, like GamerGate, decentralized, even I don't know what all of them are, but I'm looking forward to finding out.
Although there are some military strategists, such as my Riding the Red Horse co-editor, LtCol Tom Kratman, ret. a former U.S. Army Ranger who has is more than a little dubious about the legitimacy of applying an Air Force doctrine to ground combat, there is no question that speed of decision-making and action have tended to go hand-in-hand with victory since Julius Caesar was commanding legions in Gaul. From Alexander the Great and Hannibal to Napoleon, Erwin Rommel, and George Patton, the most successful generals have tended to be more or less synonymous with speed.
So don't hesitate, seize the initiative, and always combine speed with audacity. Audacity alone is not enough, after all, Georges Danton, the man famous for saying “audace, audace, et toujours de l'audace”, ended up losing his head to the guillotine.
Strategy 7: Punch back twice as hard
This was the motto of the late Andrew Breitbart, and in his memory it has been adopted as a slogan by some of the more effective and combative individuals on the social media right, most notably Glenn Reynolds of Instapundit. It is a more succinct version of the Chicago Way advocated by Sean Connery in The Untouchables: “They pull a knife, you pull a gun. He sends one of yours to the hospital, you send one of his to the morgue.”
SJWs are winning the cultural war because no one has been fighting them. No one has been resisting them. But now you know why you need to resist them. Now you know why you need to defeat them. And, most importantly, now you know how to do it.
For every sly little remark, speak back twice as hard. For every attempt at speech-policing, silence back twice as hard. For every attempt at isolation, shun back twice as hard. For every attempt to discredit, expose back twice as hard. For every attempted disemployment, fire back twice as hard. And for every lie, speak the truth twice as hard, twice as loud, and twice as long.
Show them no mercy, because they do not believe in it and they do not deserve it.
The days of sitting on the fence and not opposing social justice warrior censorship because you don't agree with everything that (insert controversial figure) says are gone. It's shit or bust. It's free speech or no speech and it's time to pick a side.
—Paul Joseph Watson
CHAPTER TEN: HOW TO TALK TO SJWS
May I be allowed to finish? Sorry, I'm talking about men, darling.
—Milo Yiannopoulos
After reading the previous chapters, you might well ask yourself why anyone in his right mind would ever want to talk to SJWs. But the fact is that you're going to have to do so sooner or later, and if you're a normal individual, you're going to find it difficult to do so, not just because they lie so frequently, but because they genuinely cannot hear what you think you are telling them. Now, this chapter is going to be a little more difficult than the previous chapters, but I encourage you to bear down and stick with it, because the information it contains is the foundation upon which everything that preceded it was built. Nearly everything I have observed about SJWs can ultimately be traced back to a very important observation made by one of Man's greatest thinkers more than 2,337 years ago.
A few of the terms I am using here are esoteric and may be confusing, especially if you have encountered alternative uses of them before, but don't worry about the unfamiliar words, just concentrate on how the concepts being explained here apply to your interactions with SJWs today. And if you are familiar with other applications of these terms, remember that these are their original usages, these are the original meanings that were later twisted, and in some cases, redefined to mean something completely different. Also, I should mention for the sake of those who know the subject better than I do that I am cutting a few corners here in order to keep it simple.
In his book Rhetoric, which is said to be “the most important single work on persuasion ever written,” the Greek philosopher Aristotle divides the art of persuasion into two distinct forms, dialectic and rhetoric, concerning which he makes a very important observation. I can't stress enough how vital this observation is, or how helpful it is to make the effort to understand it and take it to heart:
“Before some audiences not even the possession of the exactest knowledge will make it easy for what we say to produce conviction. For argument based on knowledge implies instruction, and there are people whom one cannot instruct.”
“There are people whom one cannot instruct.” One of Man's greatest thinkers, a brilliant teacher who tutored one of history's greatest generals, Alexander the Great, knew that there were people even he could not teach. He didn't say it was difficult to get through to them, he didn't say it would take a long time to instruct them, he simply concluded that it could not be done, at least not with mere knowledge.
However, he went on to point out that it is possible to convince them to change their minds, only that one cannot do so by presenting them with knowledge. Instead, it is necessary to manipulate them, to play upon their emotions, in order to get them to change their minds. He even provided detailed instructions on how to go about communicating with these people who make decisions on the basis of their feelings rather than their logical capacities.
As you can probably guess, SJWs fall squarely into the category of people who cannot be instructed and cannot be convinced by knowledge. This is the key to understanding their astonishing ability to cling to their Narrative in the face of evidence that obliterates it as well as their insistence on clinging to it even as it shifts and contradicts itself. The reason SJWs can believe seven impossible and mutually contradictory things before breakfast is their inability to be instructed by knowledge; as long as each of those seven things happens to be in line with whatever their emotions happen to be at the moment, the SJW will not see the inherent contradictions that thinking people do.
Because they do not think using logic, they cannot speak, or understand, what Aristotle describes as dialectic. Dialectic is based on the construction of logical syllogisms, which therefore makes it very easy to anyone who is capable of following those syllogisms and ascertaining their validity to detect when one is lying. Rhetoric, on the other hand, is “the faculty of observing in any given case the available means of persuasion”. Rhetoric is much more forgiving of falsehood, and in fact, it’s not
even strictly possible to say that one a rhetorical statement is a lie. Rhetoric consists of the construction of what Aristotle describes as enthymemes, which are not proper logical syllogisms, but incomplete or invalid arguments that merely take the form of syllogisms, in which all that matters is that persuasion is achieved by the rhetorical “proof” provided, or more accurately, the apparent proof.
For the purposes of following this vital philosophical distinction, it might be easier to think in terms of “logically sound” and “not logically sound” rather than in simple terms of true and false. The point is that you can construct a logical syllogism that proves or a pseudo-logical enthymeme that apparently proves, but in either case, they can both be used to correctly point the person with whom you are speaking towards the relevant truth of the matter.
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.