On Harsh Language, Optics, And The Rules Of Engagement

Whose Rules Of Engagement Are You Adhering-To?

I have recently been engaging in several discussions about current-events and how we have come to this point in our society. At the root of these discussions we always come down to one thing: words & language.

“I wouldn’t have said it that way.” People who use this line often haven’t said anything at all. They are happy to critique their own side and stay silent in the face of the “other side” because they are cowards. Instead of leading by example, they think that because you say bad things, you make them look bad because they agree with you, even though they haven’t even gotten off the couch. Their phone is literally in their hand as they sit on the sidelines… they could be contributing to the conversation, but their only contributions are to be language-police to those on the side they think they’re on. They are agents of the “other side.”

“I agree with you but I don’t agree with how you’ve said it.” This argument is much like the one presented above, but it goes even further in appealing to you as “on your side” while subverting your position for the enemy. If they did agree with you, they would have no problem with how you said it. You need to recognize this kind of weakness and cut it out. Why is this person even allowed to interact with you? It’s a worthwhile question to ask yourself.

Both of the above examples fail to even consider why certain language is being used. People give themselves too much credit. They believe their equity in the conversation outweighs the merit which has been earned by someone who has been fighting this culture-war far longer than they have. I can say this confidently because I’ve been in it a while, and when you’re this far down the road you know there is only one course of action remaining.

“When you use the wrong language people can write you off as non-credible.” This particular statement is prevalent in “our side” of the conversation. “They can call you skitzo,” is a commonly presented point. People who say this still think the “other side” is open to discussion. They are not. They are in a position which they are in control and so they allow you to say whatever you want because at the end of the day they will carry on with accomplishing their goals. You think you have a voice, and that they will discuss things with you, but if they were to take your points into account, they would lose their position of power. It is “bad math” to think you have a voice at the table, when they haven’t even let you into the dining room. Meanwhile, people who believe in this point snivel and plead with their oppressors. It’s pretty pathetic when it comes down to it: how do you expect to win if you are playing by the rules the prison guards have set out for you? You’ll never be let out of your cage for long enough to make progress.

The question ultimately is:

By whose standards are we participating in the discussion?

Whose “Rules Of Engagement?”

It is obvious that there is no discussion left to be had with the “other side” in most arguments. This isn’t because discussion and discourse aren’t a good means of finding common ground on topics which we may have differing opinions on. It is because people aren’t even willing to discuss topics which different groups disagree-on without become enraged at the very fact the other side could even fathom holding that viewpoint. If you are lucky enough to find that “rare-unicorn” in the camp of the “other side,” ask yourself this: who in their own camp is going to listen to that person even if you make progress with them? That “unicorn-esque” person would likely have more luck coming over to your side, but they won’t. They will likely remain quiet and slowly ease back into thinking like their group. Their desire for in-group-preference outweighs reason. It always does. It is an old survival-mechanic build into us. “Fit in or starve.” Facing starvation, especially social starvation, takes courage. Courage is in short supply.

When you present an argument, the “other side” takes to the pages of their own playbook and write off anyone who poses a threat to their belief system. You will be called a nazi for doing something that productively demonstrates weakness in the argument of the person you are presenting points-to. This goes both ways; it isn’t just leftists calling right-wingers nazis: conservatives call far-leftists “the real nazis” all the time. Antifa calls Proud Boys nazis while Proud Boys are busy calling Patriot Front nazis, all the while Conservatives are calling Antifa “actually nazis.” The reality is: this is all nonsense. It is all divisional rhetoric placed across all of these groups by a higher organization which has placed it there by design to prevent any unification. Without any unification no one can address actual problems. This is good for business when you’re in the business of abusing people… Most of the people using the term “nazi” don’t even know the origins of the word or the value-system associated with the “bad name.” Most of the people using this word don’t even know what the NSDAP would be if you asked them. They instead use their perception of this word, which have been cultivated in their minds by years of media programming through video games, movies, tv shows, etc. to apply it to anyone who they disagree with because it is fashionable to use as an insult. This particular insult has been redefined to mean: this person is discredited.

If someone is a nazi, how could anyone listen to them! Right? So call everyone a nazi: problem solved. No one left to listen to, but the person who called everyone a nazi…

…this is modern social discourse… these are the people you are trying to appeal to…

Women are now having their identity removed by the removal of their spaces: women’s sports, women’s washrooms, woman-of-the-year was a man, etc. They are experiencing what masculine men in western societies have been living with for well over a couple decades. The humor of the situation, if you can find it; i think it’s quite humorless, is that most of these women participated in the removal of masculinity from spaces by policing the language of masculine men. They did this because they were psyopped into becoming advocates for the rules of engagement that their enemies have put upon our society. “You can’t use that word,” or, “that’s racist,” or, “that’s homophobic to say that,” or, “you can’t say that because [reasons].” They called masculine men toxic because it was fashionable. Now every 40 year old cat lady wants to settle down with a masculine man because they are the only actual defenders and caregivers in society. Unfortunately: masculine men are in short supply in Canada.

The people who participate in this language-police cancel-cultue have cultivated this environment and now we all have to live it. Unfortunately those men and women who did not participate in this policing of culture are now subject to living under the same madness.

Sort of… once you see how fake everything is and break-away you no longer participate in the nonsense world these wretches are trying to force on everyone. In reality, this is one of “our” rules-of-engagement: disconnect. If you want more information on how to do this: read my other posts. Become a system disrespector.

This same thing is happening with our broader culture. It is being destroyed with this mindless communist gobbledy-gook. It’s word spaghetti. It is rooted in nonsense. This isn’t a new tactic. This is at the basis of their system of infection and destruction. This is a tactic which has been employed over and over again and has been well documented in its usage. 

Maybe if we went back in time, and those people who were policing the language of those masculine males who called these people, “freaks,” “weirdos,” “disgusting,” etc. we wouldn’t be where we are today, but the cowardice which comes with the fear-of-offending somebody has become engrained in our current-day-society. No refunds.

Even when people oppose this system, they use these nonsense-words. Unfortunately, people who oppose this degradation of our culture are not careful to completely deny the manifestation of these nonsense words. Even when they use them to make fun of the other side for having created these words, they further them in the public lexicon. The only option is to completely destroy the lexicon of the enemy through refusal to use their language. Let it go to rust.

We refuse to use their words, we refuse to speak like they want us to with our own words, and we refuse to use the “redefined” words in our lexicon such as: racist, nazi, vaccine, toxic, privilege, etc. Part of beating back this psychological attack is to take those words, learn their real meanings, and use them appropriately. All of those words above mean something different in their nonsense-lexicon than they did when we were taught them as children. They changed the definitions of these words because of false credibility granted by unjust-authority. Part of reclaiming our own culture is destroying this cancer growing on it. We must accept that we speak a different language than they do. We must not speak their language or we will become a part of their culture.

As I see it: the only option is to stop presenting arguments to a side that will not discuss things with us.  Present them only with hostility. I am personally not here to speak with them. They have demonstrated they have no desire to do so with me. They only want to call me bad names. You can plead with them all the way to your mass grave, but I will not. 

You should hurt their feelings. When they claim you hurt their feelings, most of the time they are lying. If you hurt their feelings or not it doesn’t matter. You should try to. They use their feelings as a means to dominate you in a discussion. Their feelings are as worthless as their position. You have to make this known to them. You can move yourself into a vaulted position by simply refusing their rules of engagement, and instead implementing your own rules-of-engagement. Tell them to “shut up.” Tell them they are “wrong.” Laugh at them. Laugh at the nonsense they believe in. Stop giving value to people with a belief-system rooted in evil. Let them know they are a manifestation of the nonsense they spew, and by that very notion alone they are worthless in the conversation and ultimately worthless the world. Watch them decay in front of your very eyes.

Oh you don’t like that? Everyone has worth? Are you policing my behavior in your head while you read this? Maybe YOU aren’t, but someone reading this is. I guarantee it. The people I am speaking about disrespecting already think we are worthless. What are we going to do, spend all our time trying to convince them otherwise? They don’t care. They are happy to hold this “power” over you through their own self-importance.

They don’t deserve your respect, because they will not respect your points of argument. They do not respect your right to exist peacefully. They do not respect your right to be happy. They want you to believe what they believe and be miserable. You can admit defat, or: Laugh at them. Laugh at their existence. Disrespect them to the full extent of your ability.

The same mentality must be applied to “optics” in the conversation. Why are you even looking at the “optics rules” in a system that hates you and seeks to eradicate you? So that you may avoid eradication longer than someone else who holds the same beliefs as you, but less “tight optics?” I think this is foolish. Exist in a space where optics don’t matter. While you are busy obeying these optical rules of engagement, your enemy is walking all over your position. While you are busy hiding from the sunlight, you enemy walks around freely disrespecting the things you value. These people hate you and have that hatred on full display, yet you want to make sure they don’t call you a “bad name.” They are going to call you a bad name even if you sit at home and hide for the rest of your life. Stop being a coward.

Your “optics” are making you hide. Your “language rules” are making you lose the conversation. You are losing the overall battle because you haven’t even set your own rules of engagement for the enemy: you are playing by their rules and wondering why you aren’t getting more people on your side. People don’t respect weakness. People might not respect the degenerate nonsense going on, but they think your weakness is more repugnant, and that’s why they are siding with them.

Lead by example.

Lead through strength.

Laugh at them.

Disrespect their false-authority.

If you don’t change your position and completely disrespect them, you will continue to lose. The “other side” complete disrespects you. What say you?

• Arcade