Tag: rhetoric

Spacebunny sent me this useful and amusing summary of the God-Emperor’s speech, composed by someone on Facebook.

I guess it’s that time again. He always makes these speeches so long. Anyway, here’s a summary of each paragraph of Trump’s 2018 UN speech

1. Listen up, bitches
2. I pretty much already covered all this shit last year, but I guess it bears repeating
3. Check it out, I’ve been on a roll
4. My administration is better than all the other presidential administrations the US has ever had. I’ve made these last two years my bitch
5. Why’s everybody laughing at me?
6. Not to brag or anything but I basically saved the entire economy. Even minorities have jobs now.
7. Taxation is theft and we’re building The Wall
8. You thought our military was fucking hardcore before? Sheeet, wait until you see them now that we’re actually paying them
9. Thanks to me, AMERICA, FUCK YEAH!
10. America First
11. Globalism is shit
12. Cultures are distinct, so act your culture
13. America likes to declare independence. We’re gonna declare independence from the rest of you globalist sons of bitches
14. Do you, boo
15. Let us do us
16. So I just got back from a world tour and everybody who matters likes me
17. I even got the Norks to chill the fuck out
18. No shit, there I was: Staring Rocket Man in the face
19. It’s alright though, I smoothed it out
20. Dude’s getting rid of his nukes and giving us back our dead bodies we’ve been wanting back
21. Not too shabby, Li’l Kim. (Don’t fuck this up)
22. Everybody who helped out with that is cool in my book. It was pretty much the greatest peace talk ever talked. Just sayin’
23. Shout out to Real Korea, Japan, and China

24. Oh, and I’m fixing the Middle East, too
25. I put most of the countries there to work fucking over Iran and ISIS
26. They’re spending money to help with Syria and Yemen, too. Ya hear that Iran? We can outspend your fucking Obama money
27. But, I don’t really want to get involved
28. Except when I do, so I’ve been delegating to the less fucked-up sand countries
29. I FUCKING KILLED ISIS!
30. Syria’s a damn shitshow. But so help me, if I see one more chemical weapon attack…
31. Glad to see Jordan is taking in refugees from Syria. Better you than me, Abdullah
32. But seriously, it’s a lot better than flying them all the way over here. RIGHT, EUROPE?
33. Iran’s trying to get away with its involvement? YOU THOUGHT!
34. Fuck you, Iran! I know what you’ve been up to, you garbage-ass regime! All you do is ruin everything else for everyone else, you miserable sons of bitches!
35. Seriously, even your own citizens are sick of your shit, Iran! Where’d all that Obama money go, eh Iran? Terrorism? Yeah, I’m sure your people are just THRILLED about that! 0/10 all around, Iran
36. The Iran Deal was shit, and everybody knows it
37. We basically funded their military dictatorship, nuclear weapons programs, and terrorism. Thanks, Obama
38. -But then I came to tooown- and let Iran know who’s boss. DEAL’S OFF, BITCHES!
39. Like, seriously, who the fuck thought letting Iran have nukes was a good idea?
40. Everybody point and laugh at Iran’s government. Their people are cool, though. #IranProtests
41. Jerusalem? More like Jew-rusalem, amirite?
42. Let’s clear some shit up about the Israel conflict, alright? Israel has a right to exist.
43. Fuck what you used to do, we’re being pragmatic, here.
44. You ain’t gonna take advantage of the US anymore, you freeloaders.
45. I’m sick of all this “made in China” crap
46. We buy all their shit and they don’t buy all of our stuff and they do all that skeezy, nerdy, accountant stuff to take advantage of us
47. No more, I say!
48. So I made some great deals with Mexico and Real Korea. Expect yuge discounts on taco bowls and Samsung phones
49. The WTO is a fucking joke.
50. China took all our manufacturing jobs
51. THAT SHIT ENDS NOW, CHINA!
52. Would you like some tariffs with your rice?
53. America First
54. The UN Human Rights Council is a fucking joke, too
55. Y’all wouldn’t listen to Nikki Haley when she told you that
56. So deuces, we out
57. Same with your International Criminal Court. It’s all bullshit
58. You have no power, here, G̶a̶n̶d̶a̶l̶f̶ ICC
59. Everyone should leave the EU. Run your own damn countries
60. America’s killin’ it in the energy industry
61. We have so much energy to sell
62. Those other oil-producing countries will rip you off and that makes me angry
63. Seriously, it’s a scam. They’re like the Comcast of countries. Stop falling for it.
64. Poland is way smarter than Germany
65. Men of the West! Protect yourselves from foreign influence!
66. The Monroe Doctrine is back and better than ever!
67. Now about those Mexican immigrants, they’re being trafficked. Lame
68. It’s all the street gangs and cartels. Getting rid of them, and building The Wall, are the only ways to fix things
69. Your country, your immigration rules. Our country, our immigration rules. Fuck that “global citizen” malarkey
70. Make Your Countries Great Again
71. SOCIALISM. DOESN’T. WORK.
72. Venezuela used to be great, but then along came socialism. Now it sucks.
73. Socialism and Communism have never worked, never will work, and only ever result in tragedy. It’s the Goddamn worst
74. We’re making Venezuela great again by hitting Maduro and his entourage in the pocket books. We were able to identify their pocketbooks because they’re THE ONLY ONES IN THE COUNTRY WHO HAVE THEM
75. The UN tries, we’ll give you that
76. But the US is still better at charity. Seriously, we give and give and nobody ever returns the favor. So we’re gonna be a lot more stingy with our wallets until the entire world stops taking us for a ride
77. So we’re only going to give money to the cool kids. And we’re not going to protect you guys, either. Time for you to buy your own militaries
78. The UN could be cool if it just changed everything about it
79. And we’re only going to pay for the stuff we like, now, too
80. Start pulling your own weight, you damned freeloaders
81. The UN is good in concept, terrible in execution
82. Every country has something to contribute
83. India’s doing great
84. Saudi Arabia’s shaping up
85. Israel’s still here, bitch!
86. Poland’s had enough of your shit, EU
87. All cool things, if I do say so myself
88. Distinct borders and cultures make the world a better place
89. Things just work out better with cultural homogeneity
90. America’s gotta America
91. America, FUCK YEAH!
92. Love your country like Americans love America
93. Patriotism: It’s what’s for dinner
94. Shhhh. Don’t fight it. Just let it happen
95. In order to make it work though, YOU NEED A BORDER AND SOVEREIGNTY
96. You’ll do better, the world will do better. Everybody wins
97. MOTHAFUCKIN’ FREEDOOOOM!!
98. Well, time to hit the ol’ dusty trail
99. You’ve been a great crowd. Thank you

It’s mildly annoying to see conservatives, libertarians, and cuckservatives gleefully pointing out the examples of left-wing anti-semitism that increasingly occur these days. First of all, it’s hardly news that the global Left is historically less than entirely keen on Jews; National Socialists and the Palestinian Liberation Organization were not exactly of the ideological Right that reveres God, King, and Country.

Second, you may recall that Workers Parties tend to oppose bankers. Which identity tends to stereotypically fall into which group?

And third, what is the point of trying to shame the Left? Yes, they’re hypocrites. So what? We know that. They know that. “Dems are the Real Anti-Sems” is not going to be any more effective than “Dems are the Real Racists” did.

As rhetoric goes, it’s toothless. Perhaps these right-wing virtue signalers should simply contemplate the radical idea of not reacting to charges of racism, anti-semitism, ethnonationalism, theocracy, and white supremacy like vampires to crucifixes carved from garlic.

A few days ago, despite my constant refrain of how to deal with the media, I received an email from someone asking if he should talk to the big media organization that wanted to ask him some questions, that wanted to let him give his side of the story. I can’t help but notice that in the entire written history of the mainstream media, no reporter has ever asked anyone to answer questions in order to publicly sacrifice his name and reputation to the reporter’s editor’s preconceived narrative.

My response to him was about what you’d expect: “What part of never talk to the media do you not understand?” There are no exceptions for special clever boys. There are no exceptions for narcissists, drama queens, or attention seekers. There are no exceptions.

However, in retrospect, I think I could have provided him with wiser and more effective counsel, which I shall share with all of you in case you find yourselves in similar circumstances someday. When an interview is requested by a mainstream journalist, or a reporter wants to talk to you in order to get your side of the story, just respond to him – or her – as follows:

“I don’t talk to enemies of the people.”

That’s it. Nothing more and nothing less. Don’t respond to the subsequent denials, protestations, assurances, accusations, and demands.

“I don’t talk to enemies of the people.” Drop the mic and walk away, mission accomplished.

John Scalzi laments that the Evil Legion of Evil has shown people across the Right that there is no information value in rhetoric and that SJWs exist solely for the skull-taking:

It’s really frustrating to me that more people don’t understand that racist/alt-right people have gamified their rhetoric; they’re not interested in discussion, they’re slapping down cards from a “Debate: The Gathering” stack, and the only goal is taking heads.

They gamify their rhetoric because essentially this shit is a low-stake game for them, whereas for other people it’s their actual lives. That’s an advantage they have. If they lose, they shuffle their cards and go on to the next thing. If others lose, their life takes a hit.

And because their rhetorical strategy is essentially card-based, actual knowledge of issues is unimportant and probably a hinderance. They don’t want or need to understand the issues that affect others, they just need you to play their game so they can win.

I don’t have time anymore to diddle about with children who think other people’s lives are some sort of turn-based game, especially when all they want is to hurt other people. And it bothers me more people, especially those with power, don’t understand this shit.

I’m not going to tell people not to engage with these chuckleheads. But don’t engage with them on their terms. Engage with them on your own. One, they hate that, and two, it exposes what they’re doing as a pointless, hateful exercise, and them as awful people.

In sum: Understand what these folks are doing. Refuse to play along. And if you choose, point out to others the hollowness of their game. Because their “game” is to hurt other people, and then go on to the next target. Their game is other people’s lives.

The amusing thing about this is the complete lack of awareness McRapey shows regarding why we have no stakes in their game. We’ve already been disqualified. We’ve already been counted out. We’ve already been expelled. So we don’t give a quantum of a damn for their opinion, their rules, their careers, or their lives any more. We are coming after them, relentlessly, and it costs us absolutely nothing to do so. Indeed, we will profit by it.

We aren’t interested in discussion. We aren’t interested in debate. And we know they aren’t either. They never were. So now we seek only to expose them, to ruin them, and to take their sad little skulls as trophies. Metaphorically, of course. (whistles innocently, kicks a suspiciously round object out of view of the webcam)

It doesn’t matter how they engage with us. It doesn’t matter if they engage with us. We are winning and we are going to continue to win until they are no more. We’re not locked in here with them, they are locked in here with us. And the VFM are hungry.

UPDATE: RIP Whatever:

So, I don’t know if you know this, but next month will mark the 20th anniversary of the existence of Whatever. This is a fact that among other things is causing me both practical and existential reflection on what this place is, and what it means to me, and what is the best way to keep doing it moving forward, particularly in an age where “blogs” are not the center of online gravity that they used to be…. I’m not calling it an official hiatus mostly because I have enough going on that it doesn’t make sense to go away completely, but I also don’t want y’all to worry if you don’t see me posting a lot here between now and September.

WE. ARE. AMUSED. Everyone who remembers the old school blogosphere knows what this post means.

I understand that the elite in Washington thinks Americans are stupid. But how dumb do you have to be to preen and posture about “self-determination” and “spreading democracy” for nearly 100 years, only to turn around and reject the overwhelming results of a free and fair referendum:

Secretary of State Mike Pompeo issued a statement Wednesday saying the US “rejects Russia’s attempted annexation of Crimea and pledges to maintain this policy until Ukraine’s territorial integrity is restored.”

“The United States calls on Russia to respect the principles to which it has long claimed to adhere and to end its occupation of Crimea,” the statement reads. Pompeo is also expected to state in congressional testimony Wednesday that the United States will never recognize Crimea as part of Russia, a European diplomat briefed by the State Department told CNN.

Pompeo’s declaration comes after President Donald Trump had appeared to cast doubt on his administration’s commitment to Ukraine’s claims over the peninsula. Asked by reporters on Air Force One at the end of June whether the United States would recognize Russia’s claim on Crimea, Trump ambiguously responded: “We’re going to have to see.”

Perhaps it’s just a negotiating point. Perhaps it’s just for show. Regardless, it’s stupid and totally unconvincing. Self-contradictory rhetoric is the worst and least effective kind of rhetoric.

The God-Emperor humiliates CNN on the world stage:

President Donald Trump found time to attack CNN, NBC and the British tabloid The Sun, and offer fashion advice to a fourth news organization, while talking to reporters Friday with British Prime Minister Theresa May.

The leaders faced sharp questions at a news conference following their talks, which came between a reportedly contentious meeting of NATO representatives and Trump’s upcoming summit with Russian President Vladimir Putin.

Frequent Trump foil Jim Acosta of CNN tried to ask a question at one point and was rebuffed by the president.

“CNN is fake news,” Trump said. “I don’t take questions from CNN.

“Let’s go to a real network,” Trump said, pointing to John Roberts of Fox News Channel. Roberts asked if there was any way that relations with Russia would improve as long as the country occupied Crimea.

Hilarious. I hope he never changes. If you must talk to the media, that’s the way to do so.

This report of an internal email at Business Insider is for all the rhetorically-challenged and pedantic spergs who have whined about calling SJWs social justice warriors and loftily declared things like “You shouldn’t call them WARRIORS, that’s a COMPLIMENT” and “I call them social justice CRYBULLIES” and otherwise demonstrated their complete inability to grasp that rhetoric does not concern a) their thoughts, b) their feelings, or c) accurate description.

Business Insider has established a new policy for opinion pieces covering “culturally sensitive topics, such as marginalized communities, race, or LGTBQ+ issues,” the result of a now-deleted column that defended the actress Scarlett Johannson for accepting a movie role as a transgender man.
The guidelines were outlined in a lengthy internal email, obtained by CNN, sent Monday from Business Insider’s global editor-in-chief Nicholas Carlson to other editors at the site. Going forward, Carlson said, “[c]ulturally sensitive columns, analysis, and opinion pieces” must be reviewed by both the writer’s editor and either one of the site’s executive editors or editors-in-chief.

“Ultimately, it is the first editor’s responsibility to flag culturally sensitive stories,” Carlson said in the email. “It may be hard to tell which are and which are not. The policy is to err on the safe side, even if it slows us down. We should be as careful about culturally sensitive pieces as we are legally sensitive pieces, and this policy reflects that.”

Reached for comment on Tuesday morning, Carlson referred CNN to Business Insider’s public relations department… In his memo on Monday, Carlson specifically addressed the term “social justice warriors,” an epithet wielded by conservatives against individuals they perceive to be too politically correct, saying it should not be used by columnists.

“There should be no partisan name-calling, e.g. ‘social justice warriors,’ ‘libtards,’ or ‘rednecks,’” Carlson said. “Opinion and arguments should feel reported and researched, and not like quick reactions.”

When SJWs in the media are actually trying to ban the use of the term that they themselves created, and declare it to exceed the bounds of permissible discourse, you know it stings them to the very core. So get over yourselves and use it.

White nationalists nearly as stubbornly stupid about their consistently failed strategies as conservatives. No wonder they’re unable to gain any substantial support even when the ideological trend is increasingly nationalist and genuine nationalists are beginning to gain power around the world.

what has been done to whites for decades fits in the united nations’ definition of genocide. policies were put in place to “in whole or in part” destroy the traditions, religion, nations and the peoples of white european and north american countries/nations. this has been pointed out to you probably a thousand (or ten) times by now. and the fact that you keep denying the current state of whites (and the policies implemented against them) is by u.n. definition genocide might be why you are, and will always be considered/called “controlled op” by some in the alt-right (and other white identitarians/wns).

at what point, vox, does vox start calling it genocide? is it only at the point of farm murders for land? does it require whites to drop to a specific number in population? or is it a matter in which the rate of the genocide can be implemented and completed over a specific number of years, decades, generations or tv series finales?

I don’t recognize the UN definition of anything. I’m not a globalist, so why would I accept their contorted, deceitful terminology?

Like every other educated, literate individual, when I require a definition, I utilize the dictionary. GENOCIDE: the deliberate and systematic extermination of a national, racial, political, or cultural group.

Whites are obviously not being exterminated, not when there are more whites now living on the planet than ever before in human history. This is why the “white genocide” rhetoric is such an abysmal failure even though people are increasingly angry about globalism, increasingly inclined to support nationalism, and increasingly disgusted by the way in which the media and the ad industry is constantly trying to push immigration, miscegenation, and other societal ills on everyone on the planet.

This is the sort of basic historical error that Jordan Peterson commits with a surprising degree of regularity. From Maps of Meaning:

Prior to the time of Descartes, Bacon and Newton, man lived in an animated, spiritual world, saturated with meaning, imbued with moral purpose. The nature of this purpose was revealed in the stories people told each other—stories about the structure of the cosmos and the place of man. But now we think empirically (at least we think we think empirically), and the spirits that once inhabited the universe have vanished. The forces released by the advent of the experiment have wreaked havoc within the mythic world. Jung states:

How totally different did the world appear to medieval man! For him the earth was eternally fixed and at rest in the center of the universe, encircled by the course of a sun that solicitously bestowed its warmth. Men were all children of God under the loving care of the Most High, who prepared them for eternal blessedness; and all knew exactly what they should do and how they should conduct themselves in order to rise from a corruptible world to an incorruptible and joyous existence. Such a life no longer seems real to us, even in our dreams. Natural science has long ago torn this lovely veil to shreds.

Even if the medieval individual was not in all cases tenderly and completely enraptured by his religious beliefs (he was a great believer in hell, for example), he was certainly not plagued by the plethora of rational doubts and moral uncertainties that beset his modern counterpart. Religion for the pre-experimental mind was not so much a matter of faith as a matter of fact—which means that the prevailing religious viewpoint was not merely one compelling theory among many….

Medieval people, unused to rhetorical speech, were easily seized emotionally or inspired to action by passionate words.

This is little more than a mystic’s poetic version of the false science-religion polarity put forth by historically ignorant atheists. Infogalactic:

After the breakup of the western Roman Empire, the study of rhetoric continued to be central to the study of the verbal arts; but the study of the verbal arts went into decline for several centuries, followed eventually by a gradual rise in formal education, culminating in the rise of medieval universities. But rhetoric transmuted during this period into the arts of letter writing (ars dictaminis) and sermon writing (ars praedicandi). As part of the trivium, rhetoric was secondary to the study of logic, and its study was highly scholastic: students were given repetitive exercises in the creation of discourses on historical subjects (suasoriae) or on classic legal questions (controversiae).

Although he is not commonly regarded as a rhetorician, St. Augustine (354-430) was trained in rhetoric and was at one time a professor of Latin rhetoric in Milan. After his conversion to Christianity, he became interested in using these “pagan” arts for spreading his religion. This new use of rhetoric is explored in the Fourth Book of his De Doctrina Christiana, which laid the foundation of what would become homiletics, the rhetoric of the sermon. Augustine begins the book by asking why “the power of eloquence, which is so efficacious in pleading either for the erroneous cause or the right”, should not be used for righteous purposes (IV.3).

One early concern of the medieval Christian church was its attitude to classical rhetoric itself. Jerome (d. 420) complained, “What has Horace to do with the Psalms, Virgil with the Gospels, Cicero with the Apostles?” Augustine is also remembered for arguing for the preservation of pagan works and fostering a church tradition that led to conservation of numerous pre-Christian rhetorical writings.

Rhetoric would not regain its classical heights until the renaissance, but new writings did advance rhetorical thought. Boethius, in his brief Overview of the Structure of Rhetoric, continues Aristotle’s taxonomy by placing rhetoric in subordination to philosophical argument or dialectic. The introduction of Arab scholarship from European relations with the Muslim empire renewed interest in Aristotle and Classical thought in general, leading to what some historians call the 12th century renaissance. A number of medieval grammars and studies of poetry and rhetoric appeared.

Late medieval rhetorical writings include those of St. Thomas Aquinas, Matthew of Vendome (Ars Versificatoria, 1175), and Geoffrey of Vinsauf (Poetria Nova, 1200–1216). Another interesting record of medieval rhetorical thought can be seen in the many animal debate poems popular in England and the continent during the Middle Ages, such as The Owl and the Nightingale (13th century) and Geoffrey Chaucer’s Parliament of Fowls (1382).

The historical truth is that the average medieval man was probably more cognizant of the distinction between rhetorical speech and dialectical speech than postmodern man is, and the average educated medieval man almost certainly had a far more sophisticated technical understanding of rhetoric than the average modern or postmodern academic. Including Dr. Jordan Peterson himself.

Moreover, note that while Jung’s erroneous assertion is limited to the medievals, Peterson’s is not, as he extends Jung’s false claim to includes all men prior to Descartes, Bacon and Newton. Anyone even remotely familiar with classical or Eastern philosophy will immediately recognize the absurdity of the statement. How could anyone who has read Outlines of Pyrrhonism possibly accept the idea that no one before Descartes thought empirically? Even if one hasn’t, the fact that the author’s name is Sextus Empiricus should provide at least a hint that something is seriously wrong with the notion.

Does Peterson genuinely believe people today do not respond emotionally to charges of racism, sexism, antisemitism, homophobia, and now transphobia? Does he truly believe they are not “easily seized emotionally or inspired to action by passionate words”? As for the idea that Man today thinks empirically, one has only to review a few of the furious responses of Jordan Peterson’s fans to the revelations concerning his genuine beliefs and philosophy to wholly disprove that notion.

The chief problem, as near as I can tell, is that Peterson seldom bothers reading much actual source material, preferring to rely instead on what academics have written about it. In the case of his absurd claim concerning the unfamiliarity of medieval people with rhetorical speech, he refers to a 1967 study by Huizenga, while his failure to cite Aristotle, Aquinas, Augustine or Cicero even once while discussing the subject strongly suggests that at the time he wrote Maps of Meaning, he had never read any of them.

From a review of Thomas Aquinas on Persuasion: Action, Ends, and Natural Rhetoric by Jeffrey J.Maciejewski.

Much has been written about the early Church Fathers and their efforts to adapt Classical rhetorical theory to Christian thought. The greatest focus here has been on the philosopher and theologian Augustine of Hippo (345-430), whose contributions to a uniquely Christian rhetoric have been described by George Kennedy and Calvin Troup to name but a few. The focus on Augustine has perhaps overshadowed another influential Christian thinker, Thomas Aquinas. He also adapted Classical precepts, namely, Aristotelianism – and his impact on the development of the (Catholic) Christian CHurch has been as formidable as Augustine’s, if not more so.

What sort of architecture of belief can any man hope to construct without Aristotle, let alone Augustine and Aquinas? And what sort of belief system can be expected to stand when constructed upon on a foundation of such shoddy intellectual sand?