A Vaccine for Rhetoric

Disclaimer: The following is not entirely clean speech, due to the nature of the topic involved. A clean TLDR is provided at the bottom.

There is a vaccine that actually works, and the side effects are not life-threatening! Of course, this vaccine does not involving injecting God-knows-what into your bloodstream. As the title suggests, this vaccine prevents any and all damage from rhetorical attacks. Here's how to get this vaccine.

Call yourself the term.

That's it. Just start using it on yourself, and use it often. It's a combination of exposure therapy and hyperinflation. Own the term and make it meaningless at the same time. Trump did this to great effect with "deplorable". But we can do it with every other term too.

For further evidence, one but needs to consider the term "queer". This used to be a playground insults for boys who acted weird. Now it is one of the Qs in LGBTQQKKKNSDAP. How did this happen? Easy: the freakshows just started using it on themselves. They got vaccinated against "queer". It's past time for you to vaccinate yourself against "racist". Much Love!

TLDR: Use the rhetorical device on yourself, and use it often. Just call yourself the "-ism" or "-phobia" du jour.

How to dress well with minimal effort/funds

Many of us never got into dressing up. And why would we? Our jobs require more practical clothing, and there are much better uses for surplus funds anyway. However, as Christian men, we have a moral obligation to be a role model to the young men in our congregation. When we were young, we looked to the adult men for role models, for someone to aspire to be like, especially when our Boomer parents did not provide much direction.

But now we are the adult men. Now the young men and boys look up to us. Let us all strive to never disappoint them. Let us, among many other things, present ourselves properly in church. Let us make our 'Sunday best' be pretty good.

This guide will work from the bottom up, starting with the cheapest/simplest setups, and building from there. This will allow every man to commit as far as is appropriate for his situation.

Stage 1: the absolute basics

Get a light blue or white dress shirt and navy blue chinos. If you get both colours of dress shirt, this should still be around $100. Definitely buy these in person. Make sure that they fit properly. It is a better use of your money to get the cheapest stuff altered than to buy the slightly nicer ones and have them not fit well. What does a good fit look like? It looks like the dudes on the pictures displayed in the store. They were all fitted perfectly for the photoshoot. If needed, work on your posture. Good posture saves money in the long run, and it makes almost every outfit look substantially better.

Stage 2:

Get a charcoal-grey sports jacket and a tie. Stay away from fancy patterns. With alterations, this may set you back up to $300, but then you are covered for every occasion.

Stage 3: 

Get a pair of khakis and a white polo shirt. This is essential for warmer climates, since the polos have short sleeves. Do NOT get a dress shirt with short sleeves/Hawaiian shirts. Leave those for the celibate vocations and the Boomer filth.

Stage 4: further reading.

A lot of men dress a lot better than I do, and some of them have written about it. Below is a list of links for your perusal. Note that I do not vouch for their adherence to clean speech rules.

https://pushingrubberdownhill.com/2015/12/28/a-non-idiots-guide-to-idiot-advice-on-getting-dressed/

"Critical Race Theory" might be bait

I do not believe in online privacy. I spend my entire digital life under the assumption that someone is at least taping it, and that they can access it as needed. If I want something kept a secret, it stays on pen and paper.

Therefore, Google knows what I read, whom I follow, et cetera. Anything that Google recommends for me, it must be aimed at an at least right-of-centre, if not far-right audience. And boy have they been pushing the "critical race theory debunked by [jogger]" headlines! They show up on my Google News about as much as a certain injection. This is getting pushed hard.

As you know, anything that makes any media headlines is automatically suspicious. Why is it being pushed? I initially thought that 'muh critical race theory' was just the usual mix of fear, division, and incitement-to-cortisol that makes up every news feed, whether it leans left, right, up, down, front, or back. But something that gets pushed this hard is definitely worse. The usual suspects must really be up to something serious. But what are they up to?

This morning, a SocialGalactic post containing the following image solved the query:

It should be noted I was unable to locate this tweet. It might be fake or just deleted already. Either way, I will assume that the information presented is somewhat factually accurate. If parents have indeed been letting their school boards know how they feel about critical race theory, then the whole push makes sense. Here's why:

This theory was insane to begin with. It debunks about as quickly as the wage gap, since it posits that white supremacy somehow makes it easier for blaqs to get into college and makes asians richer than whites. It's a complete joke. Real propaganda is subtle, such as pushing self-destructive lifestyles as 'freedom' and 'cool' and whatever else the Boomers called it.

I posit that the real goal of this 'debunking of critical race theory' is to make the right trust the schools again. You see, we got them libs! They couldn't push critical race theory into the schools! Nevermind all the other propaganda about sex-ed, climate change, and socialism that is still very much in the curricula! Disregard entirely the absolute torture that a 103-IQ teacher excersising their petty tyranny on a 140-IQ student inflicts! Really avoid paying any attention to the pathologisation of masculinity, where every insufficiently castrated boy gets put on amphetamine compounds to suppress the entirely natural and healthy impulse to move around and be physically active! We can trust the government schools now!

Don't fall for it. Homeschool or die is still in full force and effect. Much Love!

Read Better Words [corrected]

Rare is the day that yours truly finds himself disagreeing with Vox Day, but today is one such day. Usually, Day discusses topics which he is interested in but I am not, so I just roll with what he says, because he is honest, intelligent, and wise. That being said, there is one publicly expressed opinion of his that I must offer a rejoinder to, since it is my belief that we are not in a post-literate age.

It is absolutely true that less books are being read. I've read exactly one book since Christmas, and that puts me above the average of my social circle in uni of all places. But I still read a lot, on a daily basis. I read social media feeds and blog posts and such things. Excluding vocation-related reading, I would estimate that I read some five thousand words a day, and that is in line with what I have observed among my 'post-literate' peers.

However, there is a readily apparent difference between reading books and reading social media feeds. Said difference is probably what the word 'post-literate' is used to get at. While 'post-biblio-[suffix]' would be more dialectically acccurate, the bibliophiles have a point. We should be reading more books. Reading five thousand words takes less than 20 minutes in your native tongue. I wonder how many books each of us would get through in a year if we took half our 'reading stuff on the internet' time and read books with it instead. It's the same activity. We are already literate. But the words are better.

Hence I ask you, dear reader, to read better words. There are many better words out there. If you have no idea where to start, I recommend the Bible for about five minutes a day. For the other fifteen, ask about any genre on SG and the bibliophiles will help you out, guaranteed. Much love!

###

Correction: I stand corrected by people wiser than myself. Post-literate is the correct term. Mea maxima culpa for getting into a semantics spit in my seecond language with a bunch of bibliophiles in their first language. I should know better. I should read better words.

All The Rhetoric That One Needs

Some Rorschach tests are easier to pass than others. Allow yours truly to describe one that I passed recently:

Leftist woman: "I'm so glad that the government is caring about the environment."
Holzkind: "It really sucks for low-income communities and small businesses, who can afford neither the raised gas prices nor flashy, new, high-efficiency cars."
LW: *crickets*
[ One week later ]
LW: "Hey Holzkind, can I get a ride to [ place well within walking distance ] ?"
HK: "No."

As everyone can imagine, 'Leftist woman' is somewhat upset at me. Even better, she understands that she cannot say anything, since I'm doing exactly what she wants. It is, of course, pure coincidence that she now has to walk a quarter mile through moderate rainfall. But she will be happy to do it for her beloved environment, I'm sure.

More importantly, what the above demonstrates, is that rhetoric is easy, even for the dialectically inclined. This should not come as a surprise, since it is usually the lower IQ bands that are limited to the rhetorical. Nobody is ever limited to the more difficult of two options. For example, everyone who can drive manual can also drive automatic, because automatic is easier.

Now that it is established that rhetoric is easier, here is your first rhetorical device. It is also the only one you will ever need, although you are welcome to experiment with others:

"No."

That's it. Just say 'no'. The reason 'no' works so extremely well is that we live in a fake cultural hegemony that demands compliance. The people who go around demanding compliance are actually a minority. And they know it, and they are afraid. Hence the reactions that you will draw with a simple 'no'. In one word, you activate their fear that not everyone agrees with their delusion, directly attacking the very root of their identity and confidence. The dialectically challenged erroneously think that consensus means correctness. Hence the manufactured consent of the fraudulent elections. Hence also the awesome power of 'no'.

Just say no.

Do American Blaqs really vote Democrat?

Ladies and Gentlemen, I have a conspiracy hypothesis for you perusal. Or some potential gravy, depending on how you prefer to phrase it. Here it is:

Do American Blaqs really vote overwhelmingly Democrat, and with such reliably high turnout?

Lately, a few US States, most notably Georgia, have looked at fortifying their electoral processes. Given the colossal and obvious fraud last November, this makes sense. But that is not what I find interesting. Does anyone know the knee-jerk sub-par rhetorical response to increasing electoral oversight and voter fraud prevention? I'll give you a minute.

"yOu'Re sUpPrEsSiNg tHe bLaCk vOtE! jIm cRoW!"

This accusation makes no dialectical sense whatsoever. Blaqs have papers, just like everyone else. They also have signatures. And Blaqs are also literate enough to fill out a ballot, despite the best efforts of Democrat-run school districts.

That being said, it is effective rhetoric, since pathetic conservatives fear nothing more than that the people who already want them dead might call them names. But I digress...

Getting back to the point at hand, are we sure that Blaqs overwhelmingly vote Democrat? I for one am dubious. Here are a few reasons why:

First off, being under Democrat rule is the worst thing that can happen to a Blaq person. The taxes go up, the schools go to pot, and the crime increases. Whatever the race realists may be right about, everyone enjoys it when their kids actually learn stuff in class as opposed to getting shot in drive-bys. Even the Blaqs.

Second, there is the reverse great migration of Blaqs back to the American South. And who can blame them? Those States are much saner than the Democrat-maladministered cities and the Brothers are comfortable with the permanent and outrageous heat down there. Point being, Blaqs prefer being 'disenfranchised' by Republicans to being 'empowered' by Democrats, and those with sufficient funds are demonstrating it, one Penske truck at a time.

Third, Blaqs live in big cities, where the population density makes it easy to commit voter fraud. If DeWitt County, IL, suddenly discovered 20K Dem ballots to magically swing an election, everyone would call bovine excrement, since there are only 15K people in that neck of the cornfields, some of whom cannot vote. Cook County, on the other hand, has a whooping 5.15 million million people in it. Nobody would notice 20K extra ballots.

These three reasons are why I believe Blaqs may not actually be the Democrat monolith we are told they are. They suffer from Democrat rule to a point where they try to leave when they can, and they live in cities, where voter fraud is easy.

It would appear that the mainstream media are right in a roundabout way. Electoral fortification does "suppress the Black vote". However, it only suppresses the fraudulent vote of paid Black activists, not the actual vote of real Black people.

You will be a leader. Get ready for it.

Proverbs 5:13 reads:

"And have not heard the voice of them that taught me, and have not inclined my ear to masters?" [Douay-Rheims]

"And have not obeyed the voice of my teachers, nor inclined mine ear to them that instructed me!" [KJV]


"I did not listen to the voice of my teachers or incline my ear to my instructors." [ESV]

"Why did I not listen to the voice of my teachers, incline my ear to my instructors!" [NABRE]

Independent of which Bible translation you trust, the meaning is clear: trusting your teachers, masters, instructors et cetera is a good move. In the context of the full passage, the author regrets not listening to said people in authority about matters of adultery*. This implies that listening to leadership figures is usually a good move. But what does this mean for said leadership figures?

It is my opinion that all of you will end up in some leadership position at some point. Think about all the people who inspired you or whom you followed in your life thus far. Either they are formally in charge, or they have been in the job for a longer, or they generally give the impression that they know what they are doing. The odds that you will be one of these things will apply to you before too long. Even more so, if you become a parent, the children will look up to you for a long time. This applies to both men and women, as @ElaineAsh and other lovely ladies on SG confirmed for me.

Next, think about the times a leader or role model turned out to not be good at that job. That sucked, did it not? If basically everyone is going to end up in a leadership position, and bad leadership royally sucks, being a good leader is essential to follow the Greatest Commandment of loving thy neighbor as thyself.

As it happens, I personally end up in a lot of leadership positions, especially considering my age. And I could not tell you why this is. It could be for SSH reasons, or I just hang out with indecisive people, or something else. I truly have no idea why. Either way, thanks be to God, because I have screwed up a fair few leadership tasks. It is my hope and my prayer that my numerous leadership failures, explored below, can make you a better leader when the time comes.

One of the major times when I fail as a leader is in areas where I do not have my act together. The problem is that one leads not only explicitly by direction, but also implicitly by example. If I kind of skip the very necessary stretching before and after a workout, so do the people who look up to me. And then they injure themselves. Is it directly my fault? No. Could I have prevented it by being a better example? Yes. So have your act together.

Another huge thing is sleep deprivation, or anything else that messes with my discipline and self-mastery. The examples are obvious and plentiful. Leading by example goes wrong, because I mess up stuff that I would otherwise be really good at. Leading by direction goes wrong because I make really dumb decisions. I could write about the time I got caught going down the wrong way down a one-way with eight people in a seven-seater, but you get the idea. The solution is simple: get your sleep, your meals, and everything else you need in order, all the time.

Finally, major messes happen when I do not notice that people are looking up to me or looking at me for leadership. Sometimes I am just shooting the excrement because why not and who even cares. Well, people might care. And you might not notice that they are. The only solution is to be on my A-game most of the time.

All of the above sounds like an invitation to be self conscious and nervous about failure. Allow me to offer some consolation. If you mess up, you can clean up after yourself by admitting the failure and seriously resolving to do better, both to God the Father of Jesus Christ of Nazareth and to the people you were leading at the time. It is actually good for people to see their leaders mess up, provided said leaders admit it and fix it. 

In conclusion, you will lead some people at some point, whether you like it or not. Heck, you will lead people whether you notice it at the time or not. And it is very easy to lead well. All it takes is to have your house in order and to clean up after failures.

* TLDR for adultery: Cut it out. All of it. You will never regret not doing adultery things.