Homosexuality, Lycanthropy, And Free Will Part 2: The Lycanthropes’ Friends

If you’re not following the developing Memories’ Pizza story, you should be. That having been said, here are the most recent developments of importance, captured from Twitter by Twitchy:

Take a moment to reflect on the sort of country we’ve become, where substantial numbers of people feel perfectly justified in making death threats to those of different views – and perfectly safe for having done so.

---

Dystopic was quite blunt about it:

Once you have dehumanized your enemy, stripped him of honor, you can justify any action toward him, including complete ideological annihilation. You have no reason to accept a negotiated truce, nor obey one should you decide to. When the media asks why the Right doesn’t support an increase in background check activity for firearms it is because of this. They know, deep down, that the truce will not be obeyed by the Left. Progressives will take that strong point, then demand the surrender of the next thing. If the Right thought the Left had honor, and that an agreement would be upheld, they might be willing to find compromise.

Indeed, compromise might even be possible on the Gay marriage issue, if the Left were interested in a negotiated settlement. Naturally, they are not. They are practicing Total Ideological Warfare. Understand this: they will not stop until Christianity has been eradicated. They will not rest until men are slaves or do not even exist. There will be no peace until Whites are extinct or second-class citizens. War will not end until Western civilization has not only been destroyed, but its entire history has been burned and forgotten, until it has been erased from memory. Don’t believe me? Look up #KillAllMen on Tumblr. Even the male Social Justice Warriors are in on this.

I could not have said it more clearly.

---

As I said a couple of days ago, you must not enter a negotiation unless you possess three things:

1. A clear knowledge of your interests in priority order;
2. A clear and complete knowledge of all the dealbreakers involved – yours and his;
3. A tenable, credible fallback position, in the event that no deal can be struck, that you’re willing to stand by.

All political engagement is a species of negotiation. Among the political problems with which we in the Right are afflicted, none is worse than this one: we lack a fallback position. We’re unwilling to say “that does it,” take the musket down from the mantel, and teach ‘em what happens when you push us too far. The Left keeps pushing for that very reason.

Time was, back when I was up to my eyelashes in strategic planning and conflict analysis, it became clear to me that von Clausewitz wasn’t kidding – and was entirely correct – when he wrote that “War is the continuation of diplomacy by other means.” Diplomacy has its limits; war is what kicks in when it has reached them. But he who is absolutely unwilling to go to war had better not let that fact be known. His adversary will extract concession after concession from him. The limit of that progression will be set by the ethical constraints internalized by the adversary...and as we can see in the case of the Third Reich and the theocrats that rule Iran, he might not have any.

The Left does have a fallback position: violence and the threat of violence. This includes the sort of ravaging of property that usually accompanies a Leftist “demonstration,” such as the “Occupy” nonsense. Actual violence that targets individuals is commonplace enough that, for any given threat like the ones Dana Loesch and Lawrence Jones have received, no one can be sure that “they don’t mean it.”

And we fear it. But why? We’re more numerous, generally better armed and provisioned, and more competent. More, we know we’re in the right. Which is it we refuse to trust: the justice of our convictions, or ourselves?

Don’t all answer at once, now.

---

We suffer the dictatorial tactics of the “social justice warriors” because we’re reluctant to stand up on our own feet, cock our fists, and shout “Bring it on, assholes.” We suffer the spinelessness of “our” representatives in the legislatures because we’re afraid of what would follow should we punish them with electoral defeats. We suffer the terrorist sympathizer in the Oval Office because we continue, incredibly, to expect the Republican Party to deal with him as we hoped they would once given command of both houses of Congress.

So what’s our real problem? No fallback position...or no will to act?

I’ve ceased to grant any credence to the former explanation.

---

I get a fair volume of hate mail. I respond to all of it with a form letter that contains my address. No hate-mailer has dared to approach me in many years. I assume that’s because they infer from my seemingly foolish brass that I shoot first and worry about the paperwork later...which I do.

Of course, it’s possible that they don’t really mean it. I keep a loaded shotgun handy at all times on the opposite assumption. If I’m to be wrong, I’d rather be wrong my way. And as the jumper said as he fell past the tenth floor of the Empire State Building, “So far, so good.”

I don’t recommend this course to everyone. You really do have to be willing to shoot first. Everything else depends on that degree of resolve. I’d like to think a lot of us do, but are held back by some inapplicable notion of “civility.” Sadly, the day when that was even a peripheral consideration is long past.

Our restraint has emboldened the werewolves. Worse, it’s made their side ever more attractive to those to whom the only thing that matters is being aligned with the eventual winners.

---

In modern strategic studies, the threat is deemed equivalent to its execution. When your enemy mobilizes on your border, you don’t dither over whether he “really means it;” you mobilize too. When your enemy threatens your extraterritorial personnel or possessions, you don’t wait to see whether he “really means it;” you send in the Marines, maybe all of them, with orders to shoot to kill. When your enemy starts brandishing weapons of mass destruction at you, you don’t try to calm him down; you order a Counterforce Strike: an all-out attack on his active military and strategic weapon systems, to eliminate his ability to threaten you or your allies credibly.

At least, that’s what the greatest strategic thinkers of the modern era have concluded. But they get little respect from those at the levers of power.

Shouldn’t we respect them, before the werewolves’ forces swell to a size that renders resistance impossible?