A moderate reviews SJWAL:
In the most interesting section of the book, he moves from describing the tactics of the fight to advocating a strategy for winning the war. Personally, this is where things get most uncomfortable. While I can easily imagine myself falling foul of my companies HR department, or being hounded for being discovered holding an incorrect opinion – I have several – I struggle to imagine myself trying to get someone else fired in case they try to do the same to me. In fact, there is a section in the book devoted to the importance of keeping people like me on the margins.
Moderates… generally mean well, but they have a tendency to believe that goodwill, hand-holding, and being open minded will inspire even the most lunatic, hate-filled SJW to see sweet reason.
The thrust of the book is that the unvarnished truth is not worth speaking, because in the battle of ideas it will inevitably be defeated by persuasive lies. The only option for people who love the truth is to adopt a new way of speaking – a rhetoric – which crushes the lies that claim to be social justice, and at least allows a path for people to reach the truth, if they care to.
The rhetoric Vox Day advocates is cruel. It laughs at the mentally fragile, hurts by striking at weaknesses that opponents can’t do anything about, and offers little hope to those who want to live today in peace. Perhaps it is necessary for ensuring stability tomorrow. Reading the book is certainly necessary for anyone who wants to understand how our culture has changed.
What I find informative about this review is the resigned tone. I don’t think that would have been the case even one year ago. Moderates are finally capitulating, as they are beginning to understand that their paradigms are false, their enemies are relentless, and their jobs, their lifestyles, their families, and even their nations are endangered. They’re not ready to join the Alt-Right yet, but their eyes are now open, and it is only a matter of time before they realize that there are absolutely no other options available to them.
I received an email from someone with a similar perspective yesterday, who objected to the way I characterized (((Ben Shapiro)))’s statement about who he wants to have sex with his wife and what color the other gentleman should ideally be. I simply asked him to characterize (((Shapiro)))’s comments to which I was responding:
First he mischaracterizes the definition of cuck by going the sexual fetish route. He then used ineffective rhetoric in the quoted portion by saying if someone in the alt-right was actually cuckolded they wouldn’t care so long as the guy cuckolding them was white.
I understand meet rhetoric with rhetoric. What I don’t understand in this case is what truth the rhetoric was pointing towards.
What I fail to understand about “every tactic used against us is justified…” are the moral implications as I despise double standards in general. Your WWI mustard gas analogy makes sense but I still wrestle with the concept morally.
Actually, (((Ben))) lied, which was why his rhetoric was ineffective. What is the truth my rhetoric was pointed towards? The truth that (((Ben Shapiro))) is a shameless liar. (((Shapiro))) lied about the nature of racism, he lied about American history, he lied about the Constitution, he lied about the Declaration of Independence, he lied about Western civilization, he lied about what “cuckold” means, and he lied about the Alt-Right. And he did it all in a single interview. He very nearly managed to tell all those lies in a single paragraph!
You simply cannot trust that filthy little (((creature))) about anything at all. There is absolutely no truth in him. None whatsoever. That alone should suffice to indicate the intrinsically false nature of “America’s founding Judeo-Christian values” he has proclaimed.
I understand there are those who struggle with the morality of tactical equivalence, but it doesn’t bother me in the slightest. We are called to forgive and be merciful, which means that surrender is not inevitable and victory must be a possibility. And, I can’t help but notice that few of those moderates who profess moral struggles with rhetoric tend to restrain their own whenever they shoot at extremists on their own side.
If you want to better understand the difference between dialectic and rhetoric, and how to make effective use of them, you can either read Aristotle’s Rhetoric or my SJWs Always Lie. SJWAL is easier and has better examples. And it’s even got cartoons!