Featured Post

Blog Status Update 5pm 9/17/17

Followers of this blog might be aware of recent events that led to me shutting down The Hirsch Files for a week . Well, it seems that my pla...

Tuesday, May 31, 2016

Blogging Anonymity: It's A Good Thing

The totally unanonymous David L. Gray has come out to put down all you mean evil anonymous bloggers out there.  He's telling all you people out there to either come out, or shut up!  His reasoning?  He'll argue "I'm out in the open, I can't get a job because of what I say. I'm a hero. You're anonymous, so you're a coward."

I couldn't disagree more.  But before I state my reasons, let's read a little more of what he has to tell us:
"You know what it costs me?  To have a blog and a website with my name on it?  A Facebook page with my name on it?  A Youtube channel with my name on it?  A Twitter account with my name on it?  And I'm not really all that radical.  At least not as radical as I was a few years ago.  Right?  But you know what it costs me?  
It means that when someone doesn't like what I said on my website, or they didn't like a video that I posted on Youtube, they call my pastor.  They call the parish.  They call the rectory.  Talk to a priest.  True story.  That's what it means.  It means that, of all the jobs that I've ever interviewed for, that have in any way been associated with the Catholic Church--in all of them, in either the first interview or the second, or somewhere down the line, early on, in the process of working there (I'm speaking of one job in particular, called The Academy)--it wasn't mentioned in the first interview, but it came up later after one of the other teachers  told the administrator of what I wrote, and I was called into a meeting.
But in every interview, either my blog or my Youtube channel has come up.  That's what it means to not be anonymous.  It also means I don't get those jobs, either.  In every one of those jobs, in which my blog or my Youtube videos came up in the interview process.  I'm never getting those jobs.  RCIA director, RCIA coordinator, high school theology teacher--hell, if I apply to be a janitor in a Catholic church, I'm assured my blog will come up in the interview.  I mean, if they're dumb enough not to google me before they set up the interview, right? 
How brave.  How fantastic for you.  Clearly, you are at peace with the decisions that you are making, in spite of the various temporal penalties that you are willing to unnecessarily endure.

Pure malarkey, all of it.  Steve Skojec chimes in for the second half of this audio hour, but Gray messed up Skojec's audio portion.  So it's likely we'll never know what, exactly, Skojec had to say.  But I am aware that Skojec was in agreement with Gray.  

We are in a culture war.  And if it's one thing our side is really really great at, it's throwing ourselves on our own swords, taking unnecessary blows, shooting each other in the back of the head.  Team Red is really great at losing, and I'm amazed we haven't been thrown in camps yet, we are so ignorant.

War, I said.  Culture war.

I'm not buying anything that David L. Gray has said.  If you feel compelled to rush out there with your bayonet and stab as many of the enemy as you can, wearing no armor whatsoever, you go right ahead.  I'll do my best to snipe the bastards that come at you up until your last gasp.

In the meantime, since we're in a war, how about we read a professional.  Ever hear of Sun Tzu?
-The clever combatant imposes his will on the enemy, but does not allow the enemy’s will to be imposed on him. 
-Hence that general is skillful in attack whose opponent does not know what to defend; and he is skillful in defense whose opponent does not know what to attack.  
-In all fighting, the direct method may be used for joining battle, but indirect methods will be needed in order to secure victory. In battle, there are not more than two methods of attack – the direct and the indirect; yet these two in combination give rise to an endless series of maneuvers. The direct and the indirect lead on to each other in turn. It is like moving in a circle – you never come to an end. Who can exhaust the possibilities of their combination?
Our enemies are numerous, and we are a small force.  If we have some shock troops who wanna go barreling into the fray naked, armed with only a spear, that's fine by me.  It'll unnerve the opposition.  But when you are a small force in war, it is your job to appear as a bigger force than you actually are.  Sort of like how the Mongols would burn many campfires, so that their enemies thought that there were actually more of them than there actually were.

I defer to what Vox Day has to say on precisely this matter:
"But anonymity is an absolute necessity for every non-combatant who dares to stand in the way of the pinkshirts, which of course is why they are desperate to eliminate it in the belief that everyone will cower obediently before them once they are stripped naked and forced to choose between submission and being unable to make a living. They don't realize that there are millions who will embrace the ISIS model before submitting to them. Their triumphalism is not merely foolish, it is insanely suicidal."
I will let God judge me as to whether or not I've acted heroic in this life.  I am disinterested in winning the acclaim of David L. Gray for being a hero.  This is a war of attrition for both Team Red and Team Blue, and there are many roles for many different types of fighters.  If a handful of us choose to become cannon fodder, then great.  Diversion tactics always help.

As for the rest of us bloggers, combox denizens, and forum lurkers, we'll be just fine, thank you very much.  We remember how Old Hickory and his Dirty Shirts blew the formations of the Redcoats to living hell in the swamps of New Orleans in 1812.  Andrew Jackson and his men weren't standing there, waiting for their enemy in a neat set of boxed rows, guns pointed and ready.  No.  The Battle of New Orleans was won by a ragtag team of militia men, frontiersmen, slaves, Indians and pirates.

We are at the stage in our cultural decline that such battles are the brand of the day.  Our cultural "leaders" have sold out.  Our priests and bishops are silent.  The laity, the everyman--we are all that is left, now.  And we will not pretend that the Geneva Convention applies to us when it never did for the liberals who attack us.

Our ideas will stand for themselves.

-Laramie Hirsch
Toxic Trad, and Vile Faceless Minion


  1. As someone who writes an Islamophobic and traditionalist Catholic blog under my own name I think the question of whether or not to be anonymous or not is a personal choice. There are obviously things to be said for both approaches. But I think it's silly for one side to tell the other that they must do it their way.

    It's odd that Vox would say that one MUST be anonymous. After all, he isn't. Or perhaps I missed something.

  2. I agree with you mostly. Just one small correction.

    It's odd that Vox would say that one MUST be anonymous. After all, he isn't. Or perhaps I missed something.

    He doesn't argue that we must be anonymous. He says it's "an absolute necessity for every non-combatant who dares to stand in the way of the pinkshirts."

    He's speaking for the non-combatants. Those who aren't 100 percent engaged in the game. Anonymity protects them.

    However, I argue that anonymity is also a necessity for certain brands of people engaged in the culture war. A good army is comprised of different types of fighters with different functions.

  3. I'm very fond of David and Steve Skojec but they have chosen to be out there and their families are okay with it. Some of us are not in the position where we can shrug off our spouse's losing their jobs or getting fired from our own. Some of us are meant to be generals. Some of us are meant to foot soldiers and some of us are meant to be spies behind enemy lines.

  4. I agree completely with the writer. As I commented on David L. Gray's blog post back when he first wrote it:

    "Not everyone who blogs anonymously does so because of a lack of courage or a desire to harm others without the possibility of suffering reprisal, just as not everyone who uses his real name wants to turn his face into a brand and prostitute his personal piety for the generation of income. Every faithful Catholic blogger knows he is accountable to God for every word he writes. How many "brand-name" Catholic apologists have found it impossible to admit a wrong because his reputation as an "expert" was on the line? How many have been compromised due to their having staked their personal financial security on the success of an apostolate? Yes, anonymity can be and often is abused. But using your real name isn't a litmus test of personal integrity, either."

    Obviously, that comment wasn't worth a response.

    Nice blog, by the way!

  5. So, basically you're saying you're a ninja and for battles to be won, you need ninjas. I'll accept that. Ninjas don't inspire hope and courage though. You're fine with being a ninja. Blessings and Shalom. Btw nothing wrong with audio. It must have been your speakers.

    1. Howdy, Mr. Gray.

      Yes. Armies need their ninjas. An army whose ranks are filled with ninjas will not win in a war. But they have their place.

      Ninjas do inspire hope. Just look at how young men and boys celebrate them in their illustrations, stories, games, or toys. But I think we both agree that we tend to enjoy much more the Homeric, heavy-hitting, epic, Conan-styled warriors in this culture war. Mike Matt, Venarri, Skojec, E. Michael Jones, Verrecchio, Barnhardt--we all like them and think of them first, to be sure.

      I just checked your audio after reading your comment, and it's working now. So that's great! I'll give the second half another listen this evening. Take care, -LH