No Bad Publicity

As the ill-fated media shit-storm directed at Trump shows, trying to stifle right wing movements through mockery and slander is like using water to put out a grease fire. For reference, this is what happens when you try that:

What the media did not realize about Trump (and what the Left doesn’t realize about us) is that, just as water puts out most fires but does not work on grease fires, slander and mockery will silence most groups but not those which know how to harness other people’s anger. Given the enormous anger underlying much of modern politics (particularly on the right, including the mainstream right), slandering and mocking us just gives us free publicity. For example, a new alt-right subreddit popped up recently, and has engendered a number of angry threads on “anti-hate” subreddits with dozens of comments which – get this – obsessively scream that nobody is paying attention to the alt-right subreddit. I think the tranny doth protest too much!

This gives me an idea for a lovely new tactic: purposefully put alt-right content in places where neurotics (leftists) can see it! Go ahead. Let them mock, howl, shriek, and cover their ears while pointing at your content and yelling “La la la I can’t hear that.” It’s free publicity, why not? Even better; create content, and then link to that content in places frequented by neurotics, all while concern-trolling as a neurotic yourself. Let them accuse you of being a right wing plant; after all, anyone accusing you of being one is probably a right wing plant themselves, since that’s what we do. I wonder how much of my content gets posted on lefty sites by people sympathetic to it?

Of course, if they realize that they’re pouring water on a grease fire, then that just gives us free reign to spread our ideas unimpeded. That’s why our victory is inevitable. Just keep poking those sore spots, and we’ll spread like a grease fire.

Action/Reaction

Newton’s First Law states, roughly, that an object in a state of uniform motion tends to remain in that state until a force is applied to that object. Newton’s Third Law states that every action has an equal and opposite reaction. Obviously, these hard-and-fast statements apply only in the realm of Newtonian physics, at least, when taken in their strictest senses. However, there is an analogy (possibly with a philosophical point, which I won’t focus on here) between Newton’s First and Third Laws and group psychology. I shall refer to these as Fire’s First and Second Laws of Political Trolling (patent pending, except it’s not) :

  1. A group of people in a state of uniform ideology motion tends to remain in that state until acted upon by an outside influence.
  2. For every action with force exceeding a certain threshold, there is an equal and opposite reactionThis is called the Threshold of Backlash.

“Ideological motion” here means that a group of people is heading in a certain direction, and that their beliefs are changing at a certain rate, that is, with a certain “velocity” (to use another analogy from physics). For example, the Left tends to head in the direction of “progress” (read: entropy/degeneracy), with each new generation more radical than the last. They manage to drag the rest of society with them because the velocity of radicalization is just below the threshold where people notice it and react negatively, so we all get pulled along behind them.

This brings me to the second law, which is that movements in human society, whether artistic or political or whatever, tend to keep going in whatever direction they’re going until they either hit some kind of barrier (e.g. people getting bored with one artistic movement and going on to another) or are re-directed by an outside force. The reason that the velocity of radicalization must remain low is to avoid rising above the threshold where it engenders a backlash, per Forest Fire’s Second Law of Political Trolling.

The conservative strategy over the past ~400 years has been to dig our heels in and try to slow down the Left until they run out of energy. This, however, only incenses them more. One thing we have not attempted (for some reason) is pushing the Left’s radicalization velocity above the threshhold of backlash. If we can manage to do that, then we are certain to win.

The reason we are certain to win is that the Left is inherently passive. It is a fact that (non-revolutionary) Leftist movements work like passive aggressive individuals: constantly agitate to get what you want, but do so subtly enough to have plausible deniability so that you can play the victim when someone counterattacks. Digging our heels in doesn’t work here because the Left can always whine about how we’re being mean to them. But what if we could push the Left into full-on aggression through an increase in the radicalization velocity – enough to force a head-on confrontation? In that case, we win! It is a fact that, outside of a full-on Marxist revolution, the Left cannot win a head-on political confrontation when the option of being passive-aggressive has been removed. Remove the political correctness that hobbles us, and we’ll eat them alive in the media and at the debating table. There are three principle methods of doing this.

The first method is to use false flags and deception to apply subtle pressure to the Left to raise the radicalization rate. We can’t just bust in and start saying ridiculous stuff that sounds like a parody of what they’re actually saying, like alt-right Stephen Colberts, of course, but a little subtlety goes a long way.

The second method is to apply an extremely strong right-wing pressure to the Left, in order to cause a Leftist backlash that will cause them to radicalize more quickly; this faster radicalization should then push the Left’s radicalization velocity above the threshold of backlash, thus prompting a second backlash from the wider society. The situation should then escalate until a head-on political confrontation is reached, the politically correct gloves come off, and we crush them. However, there is a strong caveat: we must not agitate the Left in ways that agitate the wider society! This means that we must not use things like outright racism, slurs, wife-beating jokes, and so on, in public, since this will cause the rest of society to turn against and side with the liberals. Instead, we have to trigger them by mocking elements of the Left that are not held in high esteem by the rest of society, which will hopefully force a backlash from the Left which will be perceived by the wider society as an attack on everyone who isn’t a pink-haired cultural Marxist. We can always feign outright bigotry, of course, but not in places where it can be held up by our opponents as a justification for their behavior.

The third method is a synthesis where we use the first and second methods to pare away the more moderate elements of the Left in order to both increase the radicalization velocity of the movement as a whole and convert moderates to our side. Most people are okay being moderately liberal because it is socially popular. However, if we can force a confrontation within those individuals between Left and Right, we can force them to make a choice. They either become radical Leftists, or turn conservative.

 

Fruition

In my last few posts, I asserted two things. First, use subterfuge to increase the radicalization rate. Second, divide and conquer. These two can – and must – be combined. The strategy in a nutshell:

  1. Infiltrate.
  2. Radicalize/Divide
  3. Win.

The first step is infiltration of the Left. We want to get beyond the point of simple internet trolls saying dumb stuff on Reddit and get some long-term operations in place. I’m talking about infiltration of your local Democratic party activist groups and campus social justice activism clubs, long-standing websites and subreddits, and so on.

The second step is radicalization with simultaneous division. It breaks down into two substeps, which must both be pursued simultaneously. First, attack those on the moderate Left with accusations of crypt-fascism or whatever. Pile on the shame and guilt, making sure to target fence-sitting white males who may turn to the alt-right and anyone with a potential for becoming more extreme; ramp up this process as much as possible, insisting that your “compatriots” be open about their views. Second, at the same time as the first step, create divisions between leftists by exploiting existing rivalries and creating new ones modeled on those already extant.

This second step needs some clarification; in brief, leftists have a tenuous alliance with one another by means of a common enemy (us), which is rationalized with intersectionality theory and other such academic fluff. The key is not a theoretical debate, but a change from “Our enemy is the patriarchy” to “Our enemy is the white feminists,” or some such thing, subtly couched in an argument that appears ‘theoretical’ on its surface. The idea is to use whatever persuasive faux-reasoning necessary to incite leftists to infighting. The Left only unites because it has a common enemy. If you change the primary target of any group of leftists, you effectively rob the Left of the use of that group. One of our primary goals is to encourage in-fighting. What would happen if a black lives matter Twitter account told a recently-raped white feminist that she should shut up and let the POC speak? Imagine the shit-storm from that!

The third step, of course, is self-explanatory.

An Ancient Song

Music, thought Schopenhauer, is a direct manifestation of the Will. It’s the one thing accessible to our phenomenal consciousness that is closest to the inscrutable interiority that exists on both sides of the subject/object distinction. Music, the Will manifest. If you must think of yourself at your most fundamental, the best “picture” of what you are is a particular kind of music. The real “you” cannot ever fully understand itself, because nobody has 100% accurate self-awareness on all levels. But if you want the best picture possible, think of music.

Resonance – when a bunch of things begin acting in a concerted manner, the effect of each individual is amplified. Like ten people singing the same note at once amplifying it into a chorus, or the atoms of a chunk of uranium splitting to produce a nuclear explosion from the enormous release of energy. The cells of a seed, acting in concert to grow from an acorn to an oak. The electrons around the nuclei of the atoms of a magnet, aligned to produce a magnetic field.

Now, think of resonance through the metaphor of sound. When you get together with a group of like-minded people, you all are “singing the same song,” so-to-speak. You are “making beautiful music.” And what song drives us?

There is an old song in you somewhere. It’s the voice of passion, of conviction, of an enthusiastic YES to life. This is the song that we on the alt-right are singing, the song that we are. It’s the song of victory, pride, nobility, and everything worthwhile in life that can only be had with great effort. It is virility.

Many substances have a “shattering frequency,” or a frequency that causes the object to break apart. If you can sing the right frequency loudly enough, you really can break glass with your voice. Other substances, when struck at the right frequency, will produce sound, like when you blow into a bottle at the right angle and make it sing.

The old music in you is the “frequency” that makes good men sing and bad ones shatter. Sing it loudly enough, and we will unite. Then the ancient song will well up from within, and you will see your foes shatter like glass.

Imperative: Learn Deception

If you’ve ever witnessed a right-winger arguing with a Leftist rodent, you may have noticed some frustration on the right-winger’s part as he vainly tries to induce a blind rat to see past its own nose. This is because many on the right are pathologically honest and cannot grasp the fact that willful stupidity is impervious to reasoned argument. This means that we need to take a different tack; the purpose of a debate is to convince onlookers, of course, but you will never convince a determined pest to stop being a pest. So, if we cannot convince these shrinking, self-terminating little egos-with-legs to stop with their nonsense, then how can we neutralize them? Recall what I said a few sentences ago: many on the right are pathologically honest. We must learn deception!

  1. In an earlier post, I asserted that infiltrating the Left was a viable tactic. I want to push this point further. We all know the old saw about boiling the frog, which I am told doesn’t work in real life, but it’s still a good illustrative example; if you slowly raise the temperature of a vessel of water containing a frog, the frog will boil to death, since it doesn’t notice the water becoming hotter.

    The reason that the Left has gotten so far is that the radicalization process is slow enough that most people don’t notice until decades have passed and it’s already too late. The solution is not to argue against Leftists, since only reasonable people can understand reason. The solution is to send the radicalization process into overdrive. The Left has already done this with themselves through a particular process: “When a non-Leftist voice is critical, they unite to deny, sabotage and subvert it… When there are no external threats, they manufacture an internal one in the form of the perpetual loyalty test. Someone inside the Left-camp will be found not disloyal, but not loyal enough. This radicalizes the others by forcing them to act out the ideology more severely.”

    Notice the backlash against the social justice movement, for example. It became acceptable to mock SJWs when they began radicalizing too quickly. Rather than argue against them, we need to infiltrate the Left and ramp up the radicalization to fever pitch, which will, in turn, engender a backlash that works in our favor. When the backlash happens, we need to use our false flags and right-wing plants to sustain the radicalization in the face of the backlash. This can work in our favor, because, if we convince the Left to be stubborn, they will be unable to respond to the backlash by tempering their rhetoric, thus ensuring a strong, long-lasting backlash rather than a weak one that dissipates as soon as the Left (temporarily!) backs off.

  2. Radicalization acceleration is a strong tactic, but don’t forget to impart faulty arguments. You want to make an argument that sounds persuasive on the surface, but contains a fallacy immediately visible to people one or two sigma above average in terms of intelligence. You will propagate this idea through your false-flag Left operations, as well as in everyday situations where you can pretend to be a real Leftist.

    The idea here is to get Leftists to go around using arguments that sound persuasive to idiots, but will be quickly panned by the “smart guy” in the room, whom everyone respects and will defer to. It’s a bit like ant traps that poison individual ants with a slow-acting toxin that does not kill the individual ants before they return to the colony, where it spreads. Another way of putting it is that we want to make the Leftists use dumb arguments that make them a target for ridicule.

  3. Consider revealing the deception after a while. Imagine if a popular Leftist website suddenly turned around and said, “By the way, I’m not really a feminist. All the arguments I’ve been using are wrong. Here’s why.” This has a double virtue. First, it humiliates the Left, which fears social censure more than anything; since your average Leftist will shy away from anything that might make them unpopular, this acts as a conditioning tactic that causes them to associate Leftist activit with social ostracism. Only a determined SJW would keep on going, which means that the more moderate groups on the outskirts would drop out, leaving the movement to the radicals. The second virtue is that it will make the remaining people in the social justice movement (and the Left more generally) suspicious and wary, accusing one another of being false flags and right-wing plants, which fractures the movement and causes infighting.
  4. Spread the word! I have decided to begin harping on the deception bit over and over again in this blog, until the idea begins to propagate, because I perceive that the Right simply isn’t doing enough of it. I already run a faux-Left twitter, and will begin writing a blog soon. You must engage in deception, but also make sure that all other Right-wingers you know do so as well.

Remember that deception is the most powerful weapon that one human can use against another. We are physiologically weaker than other primates, in part because our brain consumes so much of the energy produced by our metabolisms. The “evolutionary bet,” so to speak, was placed on intelligence, and it paid off in terms of survival value. This means that the easiest way to neutralize an opponent is to do something that destroys their ability to plan or foresee your actions. Deception is key. We must learn deception.

Some Disjointed Thoughts

  1. Death, and the denial of death, are the root of much human folly. The ego deludes itself into believing in its own necessity; in order to maintain this delusion, the ego must constantly erect defenses; these defenses are constantly torn down and assaulted by their own inconsistency; more defenses are erected to protect the old ones; a spiral into entropy results. The true defense is the destruction of the ego, or at least, its acquiescence to dissolution.
  2. To deny the usefulness or healthiness of anger or hatred is to cordon off an entire region of human emotional space and declare it a no-man’s land, which, of course, makes people want to go there. One ought not to be controlled by hatred, but if something is evil, it ought to be destroyed, and hatred toward something, from my perspective, is just an inclination to destroy it. The seething, simmering impotent hatred – that’s the unhealthy kind.
  3. When someone is afraid of the meaning of something, they resolve to find it meaningless. Hence the pompous music critic’s assertion of the “egotism” of Romanticism (anything but!) or the “emotional shallowness” of metal music. One whose eyes cannot see to the end of a road may very well miss the road entirely.
  4. The bite of the “tarantula” effects only those parts of us that are akin to the tarantula. If there is no tarantula in you, their venom has no effect. Even the best among us have  a little tarantula in them, and many of our best are still enslaved to tarantula-thinking. The goal is to find those who are, despite being on the upward path, still suffering an internal battle between their higher nature and the venom of the tarantula, and give them good medicine. Appeal to their higher nature, and show it the correct move to defeat the venom. They will cure others in turn.
  5. Where do we place our confidence? On the best. But we live in an age of dissolution, so we are infected with plebeian modes of thinking. Whenever things seem hopeless for us, do not ask, “What is the error in my thinking?” but “Where is my thinking still making the assumptions of the Crowd?” One typically finds the solution in short order, and always finds it eventually. Somewhere, you’ve made a faulty assumption that you’ve been pressured into making. Get rid of those plebeian assumptions, and you will find that another piece of the puzzle clicks into place.
  6. You don’t care about other people’s opinions, but your vanity does. So tell your vanity this: “If you stop caring about what they think, they’ll love it. They will see through deception, so you have to actually stop caring.” Once your vanity is convinced – rightly, I might add – that the only way to be satisfied is to disappear, it will do so. This breaks another fetter.
  7. “Consider that men would do the same thing nonetheless, although thou shouldst burst.” – indeed! But keep in mind that this is only a problem when one has an attachment to results. Simply do what tends to produce good results, without any emotional attachment to whether or not such results obtain. Do what works, but have no sorrow if it doesn’t work in a particular instance. Just observe the consequences and learn dispassionately.