Thursday, May 1, 2014

Using Verbal Judo on the Multiculturalists

It's a cliché to say it, but the left never argues any more — It threatens, insults, emotes, and parrots slogans. That's because it really has no arguments, any more than the cockroaches under the sink have any arguments. They're just cockroaches, who want what all vermin want, to devour all that you produce, and destroy what they can't devour.

When discussing leftist, or multiculturalists, or cultural Marxists, or whatever you'd like to call them, it's good to remember that there are two kinds of them. The majority are just naive dupes, while for the most part, their leaders are cynical, hypocritical, lying swine. The latter know just what they are, and they're happy about it. They deliberately use the threats, insults, etc., because they know very well that they don't have any real arguments.

The followers, the naive dupes, mostly think that they are presenting arguments when they call you names and threaten to destroy you one way or another. As I've said before, the left thinks that asserting an opinion constitutes debate, and that memorizing slogans constitutes education.

So how do you argue with these special little snowflakes? Do you resort to using their own tactics? That's a tricky thing to do, because it can lead you into bad habits in other ways. And, of course, actual reasoned argument seldom works, because the dupes don't know what it is. It's like discussing algebra with farm animals. So what you do is use the simplest possible logic on them, something even they can understand, and respond to their foolishness with a question very easy to understand, but very hard for people with no substance to their thinking to answer. Gregory Hood explains, from Counter-Currents:

Waking Up From the American Dream
The Question


Consider it your secret weapon. Simply ask, “What are you basing that on?”
Even the most backwards, ignorant person that is stereotyped as being “on our side” has some kind of reason for being a white activist. No one “hates people because of the color of their skin.” The most “ignorant” racist may rant that immigrants destroyed his neighborhood, or Jews run the media, or blacks commit most of the crime, but this doesn’t mean he has no reason for his beliefs. Indeed, even if crudely expressed, these kinds of statements tend to be objectively true.
“Racist” beliefs can be challenged – but at least there is something to debate about. If someone asks a “racist” what he is basing his beliefs on, he’ll at least have something to say.
In contrast, sometimes the most educated, refined, and highly trained spokesmen for multiculturalism and diversity will say things that quite literally have nothing to support them. And you can hear yourself raging in your own head at the blatant absurdity.
“Diversity is our strength.”
(What does that even mean? How does the mere fact of difference make a group’s efforts better?)
“We need diversity to compete in the global economy.”
(Compared to whom? The Rising Tigers of South Korea, Japan, and China, none of whom believe in multiculturalism?)
“Multiculturalism defines us as a community”
(How does the lack of a community somehow define a community?)
The System is developing an ever more elaborate system of repression for dissenting against the state ideology of multiculturalism, but the actual rationalizations are growing ever weaker. College campuses are dominated by discussions of “microaggressions” and “trigger warnings” so abstract, complicated, and minute that they make the theological debates of medieval scholasticism seem like Blue’s Clues. Few people who aren’t paid for it can give a real definition of “white privilege,” let alone defend it.
At the same time, every day brings another example of a Two Minutes Hate directed at someone who dissented against the official ideology either consciously or accidentally. Whether it be Paula Deen confessing a racial slur against someone who had a gun in her face decades ago, the owner of the LA Clippers complaining to his non-white girlfriend about her constantly hanging around with blacks, or a politician who had the gall to quote Charles Murray, the search for heretics is never ending and the definition of thoughtcrime ever expanding.
And each case is treated at the Most Important News Story in the World, breathlessly debated and promoted to the exclusion of petty concerns like military conflict in Europe, financial crisis, or even the never ending crime that is victimizing the nonwhites that media claims to care so much about.
Most normal white people don’t want their lives destroyed by social justice crusaders who have nothing better to do than look for reasons to be offended and attack people’s lives and careers. Therefore, whether ostensibly liberal or conservative, they seize on multicultural slogans and clichés as a protective talisman. When confronted, they frantically repeat the slogans in the impotent hope that it will ward away whatever doom in encroaching.
Both the rote recitations of multicultural faith and the denunciations of dissenters have become increasingly ritualistic. You can actually feel your eyes glazing over when someone starts babbling about “diversity as a strength” or a hysterical egalitarian shrieking about “toxic spewing of hate.” They have become empty words, unable to be defined even by the people uttering them.
Unfortunately, even empty posturing has political consequences. Our immigration policy is governed by “huddled clichés” (to use the late Lawrence Auster’s phrase) to the exclusion of serious discussion of the economic, social, or political impact of mass immigration. You are not allowed to “notice,” as John Derbyshire points out. As inNineteen Eighty-Four, ignorance quite literally has become a strength, as if you mention an inconvenient truth, your political career and your personal life can be destroyed instantly.
More importantly, the ritualized PC cringe and the mouthing of the magic slogans of diversity sets the limits for permissible debate even with in the political parties. Nowhere is this sad truth more evident than in the contemporary Republican Party, which cultivates and even treasures a culture of aggressive stupidity when it comes to racial issues. At any conservative gathering, even the “far right” meetings of a typical “Tea Party” chapter, the monochromatic white crowd will fantasize about whoever is the next conservative Great Black Hope, accuse leftists of being Nazis and racists, and come up with new strategies about preaching Constitutional values in Spanish.
A perfect example occurred recently when the irreplaceable Jared Taylor questioned a group of Republican congressional candidates about immigration. Taylor wanted to know if whites should be worried about becoming a minority. The result was quite literally spellbinding – the Republicans acted as if they were extras in White Zombie with their wills enslaved to some dark voodoo masterThey woodenly recited phrases about why color doesn’t matter and why immigration strengthens the country.
The moderator felt the need to give an impromptu speech on the family values of Hispanics, promoting one audience member to shout in frustration that they voted overwhelmingly for the Democrats. The moderator’s response was a shrieking cackle of fearful laughter that would not be out of place from an Italian horror movie of the 1970s. It wasn’t amusement – it was hysterical, unreasoning terror akin to that of a person who just saw his mirror reflection blink.
This is an instructive reaction. It wouldn’t take much to deflate all of this. On the rare occasion someone is allowed to challenge a worshiper muttering prayers to the gods of diversity, the question is simple – “What are you basing that on?”
Perhaps the best example for Republicans is “Hispanics are natural Republicans with strong family values.” What do they base this on? Is it abortion rates? Well, no – Hispanics have higher abortion rates than whites. Illegitimacy rates? Nope – those are higher too. Support for “limited government?” Hispanics explicitly support big government. The only response left is the kind of denial of reality found that sad little Republican’s mad cackle of existential despair.
The System is increasingly revealing the hard fist beneath the velvet glove of multiculturalism. And the arguments of the System’s opponents are increasingly relying on blunt intimidation about destroying people’s financial well-being or simply attacking them.
That is a problem in and of itself. But we have it in our power to chip away at the multicultural ideology without veering into the forbidden territory that will cause an audience’s mind to snap shut in fear. Like Socrates, put the burden of proof on your opponent.
This is best used in response to a completely faith-based statement or a pleasing lie. The average person won’t be able to defend something like “America is dominated by white privilege,” but a professor might. But even a professor can’t really defend something like “All groups contributed equally to America.” And even (or especially) a Republican Congressman can’t really assemble evidence to defend a statement like, “Most Hispanics support limited government.”
No one likes hard questions, like the father in the story who is asked by his child if he is lost. “‘Shut up,’ he explained.” When people are angry or emotional, they make mistakes.
Never again should anyone be allowed in any climate allowed to simply recite multicultural slogans in lieu of an argument without being challenged. Having been protected from dissenting thought either through repressive legislation (as in Europe), blatant intimidation (as on college campuses), or simple cultural rot, my guess is you will find few will even know how to respond.
If you are discussing these issues with a colleague, you can use the friendlier, “Why do you say that?” And it’s amazing what you can get away with if you couple something with a shit eating grin. But in this culture, we need the confrontations that can be captured on video.
Go to those public meetings with your Congressman. Attend those speeches by your liberal professors. Check out what those leftists are protesting. Then just wait for an empty recitation of multicultural faith, select your opportunity, and ask The Question.
“You said all cultures are equal. What are you basing that on?”
And in the silence that follows, know that everyone in the audience is wondering, perhaps for the first time, the exact same thing.


-------------

Quibcag: Sera Masumi (世良 真純) represses dissent from Mouri Ran (毛利 蘭). Both are from Detective Conan, AKA Meitantei Conan (名探偵コナン).

3 comments:

  1. Here is something you might find of interest:

    http://thoughtcatalog.com/jim-goad/

    ReplyDelete
  2. @ex-army

    Thank you for this site. You constantly link to the best articles on the web as well as post your wonderful insights. It's greatly appreciated. I hope you don't stop any time soon.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Any article that quotes a race-mixer (John Derbyshire) is one offering seriously flawed advice as to how to combat the Browning of America. To begin with, you fight the BOA by not fathering mongrel children — as Derbyshire has. Secondly, you don't praise articles quoting race-mixers like Derbyshire — as Gregory Hood has. Thirdly, you don't listen to such advice as offered by Hood — as too many foolishly foolhardy fools have.

    Ward Kendall — author of "Hold Back This Day" & "The Towers of Eden" (amazon.com)

    ReplyDelete