Featured Post

The 2017 "Let Them Be For Signs" Series

I've decided to make this year's ongoing astronomical discussion an official series.  So, for your convenience, links to articles...

Friday, December 19, 2014

Cuba, Confrontations with Atheists



The Pope and Obama: Why Cuba? Why Now?


On the one hand, yes, something needed to be done about Cuba's situation long ago. Cuba's hanging status has been around for a long time, now.

However, this really does seem like low-hanging fruit, as Voxxpopulisuxx said [at the Te Deum Forum]. I suppose the Pope had more important things to do than to address that poor Christian Pakistani couple that directly asked Pope Francis for help. They were burned to death for their religion. Their legs were broken so that they couldn't escape, and the woman was wrapped in cotton so that she would burn faster.

Meanwhile, Pope Francis is one more step towards a Nobel Peace Prize for this thing with Cuba he is doing. Obama wins political points. And somehow, Che Guevara will become ever-more popular in trendy leftist circles.

Is it not possible that only the most corrupt people in Cuba will become enriched when we open the doors? Is it not possible, that though Cuba might become "capitalist," it will still remain an authoritarian regime for decades to come?

Almost all of the Christians in Iraq have been killed and driven away, yet our pope goes after...this?


Confronting Atheists with Rhetoric

For all of my life, I have seen the faithful and their leaders play coy with aggressive hostile faithless men. Most often, soft Christians are yelled down, and the Christian will just calmly say "I will pray for their soul."

Just what in the world is wrong with a robust masculine approach to the kinds of bullying tactics I am speaking about?

Illiterate morons will think I'm discussing using violence. But if you pay attention for a minute--if you read sentences--you will see that I am suggesting a strong reproach to aggressive atheist pressure in the public sphere.

This implies returning rhetoric with rhetoric.

You cannot battle rhetoric with dialectic. You already lose in a confrontation from the very beginning if you do that. The kinds of hostile atheists I am referring to are not interested in reasoning with you. They are interested in shouting you down and disqualifying you.

And now, I ask you to consider the advice a favorite blogger of mine (in his instance, he discusses Gamergate):

...[The Social Justice Warrior] side is not reasonable and is never going to be convinced by sweet reason. They have no interest in it and little capacity for it.

This is the same divide between dialectic and rhetoric that I keep pointing out to everyone. You do NOT fight a rhetorical battle with dialectic; in a rhetorical battle the only use for dialectic is in a rhetorical manner; it can be used to explode pseudo-dialectic poses, but that is the extent of its effectiveness. It is an intrinsically defensive weapon on the rhetorical level. This means you cannot win with it. 
The primary difference between the Left and the Right is that the Left instinctively defends its extremists and the Right instinctively runs from them and leaves them out to dry. The latter is an appeasement strategy, and it works about as well as the infamous failures of appeasement we all know from history. 
All appeasement does is signal to the SJW what buttons he needs to push in order to force an opponent to retreat. When you dutifully point out that "you don't agree with everything X says" or "don’t include the sexists, the woman haters and those who argue in bad faith", what you are accomplishing is not the inoculation of your argument from their extremist taint, you are telling the SJW exactly how he can rhetorically defeat you by painting you as the very sort of extremist you disavow. And remember, rhetorical victory is the entirety of their objective! 
Embrace the extremists. Defend them. Refuse to permit them to be cut off and isolated. Allow them to play their role as the intellectual shock troops they are. That is how you win. Because if they're not taking the incoming fire, you are. And the shock troops are much better equipped psychologically to take it and survive than the average self-styled moderate.
The above seems like sound advice. And in my opinion, if Christians had aggressively met hostile godless subversives in the public sphere years ago, we would not have statues of Lucifer being built for state capitals today.

As Vox Day says, distancing ourselves from more distasteful examples in our movement only serves to break us apart in front of our enemies. We should defend the so-called "extremists," and further, we should verbally pour out our rhetoric--our contempt--towards the opponent and argue that our cause is completely righteous and nothing to be embarrassed over.

Again, I am not arguing for the use of violence. Everyone who suggests that is what I am saying is guilty of calumny.

Rather, I endorse standing up to the hostile faithless quite more often than we have been. You might not win over the godless person you are publicly confronting, but I assure you that many many people will be watching you put up the good fight. It is the spectators who you are truly talking to. Not the bitter social justice warrior.

No comments:

Post a Comment