הר הבית: הרב דניאל סטבסקי שליט”א בהסכמה לספרו של הרב אלישע וולפסון

דעת הרב דניאל סטבסקי שליט”א בנושא העלייה להר הבית בימינו

Sep 1, 2020

מאתר יוטיוב, כאן.

הר סיני והר המוריה

מתן תורה – היה על ‘הר סיני’ או על ‘הר הבית’?

ט”ו שבט תשע”ח

“וַיֵּרֶד ה’ עַל הַר סִינַי אֶל רֹאשׁ הָהָר” (שמות י”ט, כ’)

בגמ’ תענית (טז.): “מאי הר המוריה פליגי בה רבי לוי בר חמא ורבי חנינא, חד אמר הר שיצא ממנו הוראה לישראל, וחד אמר הר שיצא ממנו מורא לעובדי כוכבים”.

ורש”י (ד”ה מורא) פי’ שיצא מורא לעכו”ם, ששומעים גדולות ישראל וירושלים ומתפחדים מהם”. וכ’ לישנא אחרינא ש’הר המוריה’ – הוא הר סיני, ויצא ממנו מורא לאומות העולם במתן תורה, דכתיב: “ארץ יראה ושקטה”.

ובתוס’ רי”ד הקשה, שאי אפשר לומר שהר המוריה הוא הר סיני, שהרי נאמר בדברי הימים (ב’, ג’, א’): “ויחל שלמה לבנות את בית ה’ בירושלים בהר המוריה”, וא”כ ודאי אינו הר סיני, שלא היה בירושלים וגם לא בנו עליו את בית המקדש [וכה”ק המהרש”א].

ובשו”ת ‘דברי יציב’ (חו”מ סי’ צ”ב ד”ה ונקדים) מיישב, ע”פ מש”כ זקנו ה’ישמח משה’ (פר’ וירא דף מו.), שבמתן תורה נעקר הר המוריה ממקומו, ובא למדבר סיני וניתנה עליו התורה.

ומצאתי כן במדרש תהלים (פרק סח אות ט ד”ה בפרש שדי) וז”ל:  “וסיני מהיכן בא, אמר ר’ יוסי מהר המוריה נתלש, כחלה מעיסה, ממקום שנעקד יצחק אבינו. אמר הקב”ה: הואיל ויצחק אביהם נעקד עליו, נאה לבניו לקבל עליו את התורה”.

ולפ”ז כ’ ששפיר נקרא הר סיני ‘הר המוריה’, ומשם יצא מורא לעכו”ם, משום שבזמן מתן תורה, באמת היה זה על הר המוריה מקום המקדש.

ובאבן עזרא (תהילים ס”ח, י”ח) כ’ שבהר סיני בזמן מתן תורה הייתה קדושת ארץ ישראל [ועי’ חזו”א (או”ח סי’ קכה סקי”א) ומש”כ ע”ז בס’ “יחלק שלל” עה”ת כאן, ובשו”ת חת”ס יו”ד סי’ רלה].

מאתר דרשו, כאן.

HOPPE: Mass Death (War) Is Even Worse Than Taxes

Hoppe: “My Dream Is of a Europe Which Consists of 1,000 Liechtensteins.”

04/16/2022
[Editor’s note: Earlier this month Dr. Hans-Hermann Hoppe appeared on SERVUS TV for a discussion “On State, War, Europe, Decentralization and Neutrality.” An English translation of the transcript was prepared by Leonhard Paul, a law student from Germany.]

Interviewer: I would like to welcome our second guest in the studio. It is the philosopher and economist with an international range Hans-Hermann Hoppe. Nice to meet you, Mr. Hoppe.

The dream of a united Europe, the eternal longing of the empire. Do you also dream this dream?

Hans-Hermann Hoppe: No. I don’t dream of this dream at all. My dream is the dream of a Europe, which consists of 1,000 Liechtensteins. I will also try to explain this. First of all, you have to realize that there is a difference between states and private companies. States are organizations that do not earn their money by producing something that people want to buy voluntarily or by offering services that people want voluntarily. States live from compulsory levies, taxes and from printing their own money. For this reason, states are institutions of exploitation. Economists have called them stationary bandits for this reason.

I.: Stationary bandits?

H.: Stationary bandits. They stay in one place. There are also roving bandits who would be …

I.: … would be highwaymen. Institutionalized highwaymen, so to speak, that’s the state?

H.: Right. They’re institutionalized. And, of course, states as bandit organizations have an interest in increasing their loot. They, including the entire public service, live at the expense of productive people. But when this exploitation becomes too severe people tend to migrate to other regions.

Therefore, states have a tendency to expand their territory. One way they will try expand is by waging wars. After all they can pass on the costs of war to the populace, whereas a private person or a private organization would have to bear the costs of aggression themselves. So states are by nature more warlike than private law organizations.

I.: If I may, Mr. Hoppe. You are basically calling for a Europe of a thousand Liechtensteins. Switzerland is probably already too big for you.

H.: Too big.

I.: Too big of an organism. We are, so to speak, the imaginary superpower now in this paradigm. But isn’t this atomization of Europe just an invitation for the predator states, which also have predators in their coats of arms? Like Russia, for example, with a double-headed eagle with claws that can grab terrain on all sides. Isn’t this parcellation, this fissuring of Europe through the thousand Liechtenstein an invitation to the potentates who unfortunately have always existed in history?

H.: Then the answer would be that we can only defend ourselves against these big states by becoming a big state ourselves.

I.: Exactly.

H.: But then wars would become really big wars. Small states wage at most small, relatively harmless wars. Large states that have emerged from wars wage war the way we see them today.

I.: You have lived in the USA. You now live in Turkey. You know big states; you also know the logic of great powers. Be honest now: The great powers have always lied about a reason to conquer small countries. They have made metaphysical or ideological systems out of whole cloth. So isn’t it precisely this disintegration, this fragmentation of Europe, that is the most dangerous thing in the present situation?

H.: Even large states have to make sure that they have support within their own population for the wars they undertake. You have to be able to somehow explain the cause of the attack clearly to your own population. It has been emphasized not by chance that the biggest problem for Putin is probably not the immediate military events, but the fact that Russia is a country where there are few children. The mothers who are now losing their children in the war will ensure that support in their own country will continue to decline.

I.: And your point supports the argument that Putin can’t say anything or even must forbid calling this war a war, because he is afraid to lose support at home.

H.: Therefore, one must advise small states to pursue a strict policy of neutrality. Of course, they should arm themselves. It should not be without cost to attack them. Nevertheless, if you know there is no chance to win a war against a foreign power, you have to consider surrendering, because you see that only one corrupt gang is exchanged for another corrupt gang. For example, the Ukraine war: It is not the case that Ukraine has been an exemplary democratic Western state. On corruption indices they were worse than Russia. The economic productivity per person in Ukraine is lower than the economic productivity per person in Russia. The leaders in Ukraine are corrupt.

I.: Yes. I can follow you in the principle: power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. And the greater the power, the greater the corruption. There’s the principle of small is beautiful, so maybe a smaller country is easier to govern. But let’s stay with this willingness to defend at the moment. How are the small ones supposed to defend themselves when a big power-drunken ideology-drunken state suddenly has the feeling that it can roll over certain areas? How do they defend themselves?

H.: One answer would be that we also have to form a large state. But a large state exploits its domestic population particularly heavily. Do you want this as an answer to a possible attack by another big state? The other variant is that small states enter into a series of alliances with the possibility of acting together against an enemy. A right of veto would be necessary, because one sees the danger in NATO that small states—let’s say, the Baltic states—because they feel safe …

I.: … that they have become overconfident.

H.: … behave in a particularly brash way. And as a result they could drag the whole West into wars, so to speak.

I.: Now a completely different challenge: There is also the discussion about climate change and refugees. If I understand you correctly, you actually advocate for a cooperative intergovernmental model. One would then have to try to combat climate change, perhaps through an alliance of smaller states. How do you see the small-state model in the light of such other so-called global challenges?

H.: I’m not at all sure that this is a global challenge or whether it’s not an invented problem. Nobody has denied that there is such a thing as climate change. The question is: What is the human contribution to these problems? There is by no means only one answer. We are led to believe that there is scientific consensus on what exactly is causing this. That is untrue. The alternative is: If there are such challenges that the weather becomes warmer, different regions will naturally govern differently because the crisis presents itself differently in different areas. Greenland is affected differently by global warming than the Maldives. The idea that there should be a correct global temperature, so to speak, is completely absurd.

I.: In principle, you would say that this whole climate issue is almost a kind of power-ideological presumption.

H.: They want to centralize and have chosen this topic. Each person adapts individually to such situations. Either one buys more refrigerators or one buys more air conditioners or something like that. But I can’t even agree with my wife on the temperature in the bedroom. I would like it to be colder. She would like it warmer. How megalomaniacal do you have to be that people, who are a little bit more on the kindergarten level in terms of their education, believe that they themselves know what the average global temperature has to be. They presume to know how we can bring that about by intervening in the economy in all areas. They say: you can’t eat that, you have to drink that. You are not allowed to go there. But you have to go there, and so on.

I.: Well, I think that many people (at least I) follow you in this criticism of power and the bureaucratic overarching. But nevertheless I must challenge you here also a little, Mr. Hoppe. Is it not a fact that the founding of states is a cultural achievement? The famous social and political scientist, the great liberal Dahrendorf said: the nation state, this somewhat larger entity, is still the only suitable framework for the rule of law and democracy—what do you have to say to Ralf Dahrendorf? You as a former Habermas student.

H.: Germany has been unified by wars. Italy was unified by wars. Even Switzerland emerged from a war.

I.: A very short war.

H.: But still from a very short war, the Sonderbund war, and one group was forced to obey the other group. You obey us now! Although in itself the demand was that there must be a unified agreement of all cantons, which in fact did not exist. So why should one agree to a statement that nation-states are a great invention, when a war was necessary to create such a thing in the first place?

I.: But you were in the U.S. and the U.S. is one of those rare examples where one could say that in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries the liberal nation-state functioned very well almost as a liberal national imperial entity.

H.: No.

I.: Would you also say the U.S. has to split up again?

H.: In America there has been a war, a tremendously brutal war, which in comparison to what Putin is doing in Ukraine now, was probably worse because they deliberately targeted the civilian population that they wanted to destroy. To this day, there are large parts of the American South that believe that this was the war of northern aggression. Before that, the opinion was similar to that in Switzerland: individual states could leave the union of the United States. That has been settled since then.

I.: Okay, I have also failed here to bring you somewhat out of balance. Last question in our conversation: Where do you see the future of the European Union? Where will we go now in the direction of Mrs. Guérot: European republic, larger entity, or do you believe that the Hoppean paradigm of a more chambered regionalist EU is the future?

H.: The states want to have what Mrs. Guérot said, of course.

I.: What will happen?

H.: I am sure that the basic idea of the European community is to reduce competition between countries. A common taxation policy is introduced, which takes away any reason for economic entities to move from one place to another. With the euro monetary competition has been abolished, which previously prevented countries from printing money at will. They were afraid of devaluing their currency. With the euro this fear is no longer necessary. The cohesion of the European community at present is essentially due to the fact that the bandit leaders of the leading states practically bribe the bandit leaders of the less solvent states. As soon as the economic power of Europe is going down by punishing the productive ones more and more these support payments are no longer possible. Then the European Union will break apart.

I.: A sobering conclusion. If I have understood you correctly, you do not believe in the functioning of these institutions of a European Union. We have already come to the end of our discussion and I thank you very much for your visit to the studio.

H.: Thank you very much.

From Mises.org, here.

Credible Reasons to Doubt the So-Called Bucha Massacre

Exposing Some Myths About the Ukraine War

All rational Americans agree that we shouldn’t get involved in the Russia-Ukraine War. The neocon warmongers with brain dead Biden as their figurehead want to destroy Russia, and they are willing to risk nuclear war to do it.  But this doesn’t negate what I’ve just said. These monsters are anything but rational. But speaking of monsters leads to another question. Everybody knows John Quincy Adams’s line: “America goes not abroad in search of monsters to destroy.” Is this the reason we should stay out of the Ukraine war? Is Putin a monster, bringing death and destruction to innocent people, but someone whose actions we have to ignore because it’s too dangerous to act against him? Some people who say this don’t get what’s happening, although others don’t view Putin as a monster, but think he made a mistake. I don’t agree, but this isn’t my target. Putin is a rational statesman, with legitimate security interests and the supposed hero Zelensky is a dubious character.

Why do people think otherwise? One reason is the charges of Russian atrocities in Bucha.  These charges are just that “charges”. Fake atrocity claims have often been a way to inflame people to support war, and the Bucha accusations are the latest example. Christopher Roche, who isn’t pro-Putin, explains why we shouldn’t fall for it: “The reports and photographs showing an apparent massacre in Bucha, Ukraine, are truly terrible. They are reminiscent of the atrocities used to galvanize Western opinion during Yugoslav Wars of the 1990s, when the Srebrenica Massacre and the Siege of Sarajevo were seared into Western consciousness.

Of course, pictures do not always tell the whole story. For example, to determine whether a war crime took place we must know who did the killing, why, and how. After all, the United States killed many thousands of Iraqis and Afghans, frequently by accident, in the course of those wars. Few in the United States or Europe would call those actions war crimes. This all became apparent after the United States exonerated itself for the annihilation of an Afghan family via a missile strike during the withdrawal of U.S. forces last summer. Oops.

Like any crime, a war crime must involve intent or at least recklessness. Killing civilians or POWs without trial, or humiliating them as an act of revenge, are each undoubtedly war crimes. The documented abuse of prisoners by Donetsk People’s Republic commander Givi was the basis for a Ukrainian war crimes investigation against him, before he was assassinated in 2017.

If civilians were shot and purposefully killed in Bucha, it undoubtedly would be a war crime and a terrible thing. But there are credible reasons to believe the so-called Bucha Massacre was not the doing of the Russian Forces, but rather of the Ukrainians—either local militia or SBU or some combination of thereof—as part of brutal reprisals against ‘saboteurs’ and ‘Russian collaborators.’

First, this fits with a pattern of Ukrainian forces violating the rules of war, as evidenced by numerous videos showing the shooting of prisonerstorturing civilians, and the like. Unlike the still photos in Bucha, these videos show the actions themselves, as well as the perpetrators, which even the New York Times recently acknowledged.

Second, Ukrainian President Voldomyr Zelenskyy has given numerous speeches calling for the punishment of ‘saboteurs’ and ‘traitors,’ saying the war will ultimately end with the ‘de-Russification’ of Ukraine. These are tough words, which clearly would tend to inflame and encourage the more extremist elements.

Three, the atmosphere in Ukraine is ripe for war crimes. While U.S. Second Amendment supporters were understandably heartened by the Ukrainian government’s weapons giveaway, some of those weapons ended up in the hands of criminals and undisciplined characters. This was not a mere oversight; Ukraine deliberately freed prisoners with combat experience in order to allow them to fight. One would not expect this group to be scrupulous adherents to the laws of war.

There are also many documented accounts of Ukrainians killing one another out of paranoia about spies and saboteurs. It is easy enough to see why. There is a hair’s breadth of difference between Ukrainians and Russians, and many in the East only speak Russian, have supported Russia, or at least have a less-than-enthusiastic attitude about the Ukraine regime. This fuels the possibility of internecine violence, which will be rationalized after the fact as the clearing out of traitors and fifth columnists.

Four, the timeline of reports creates real doubts about whether Russia perpetrated the Bucha Massacre. It is widely acknowledged that Russian forces left Bucha on March 30. Then, Bucha’s mayor happily announced their withdrawal on March 31 without any mention of massacres, bodies in the streets, or other war crimes. Finally, the Ukrainian SBU said it was moving into Bucha on April 2 to conduct a ‘cleansing’ operation against saboteurs and traitors.

The photos of the dead only appeared on April 2, and Zelenskyy soon appeared in order to give international journalists a tour. Reuters and the New York Times have also posted Maxar satellite images apparently showing bodies in the streets earlier on March 19. This is not as compelling as it might otherwise be; bodies left outside for two weeks would not be in the condition seen in the April 2 photos, but instead would be significantly decomposed. If there were bodies on the street earlier in March—whether combatants or civilians—they had to be different people than the dead civilians on display from April 2.

Rather, it’s a question of whether atrocity stories will lead to U.S. involvement in another war that does not advance America’s national interests. Whether it was the Rape of Belgium alleged in World War I, genocide in Kosovo, or Iraqi troops ‘removing babies from incubators’ in Kuwait, lurid and false atrocity stories have been used before to encourage Western involvement in unnecessary wars. As with ordinary criminal investigations, it is always worth asking if the source has a motive to lie about culpability.

Russia has called for an independent investigation of these events through the U.N. Security Council, but the current chair, the United Kingdom, apparently refused to convene the council. Why? Wouldn’t an independent investigation be the best way to determine what happened? Of course, the truth here is secondary, and neither Ukraine nor the West would have any interest in uncovering the extent of Ukrainian war crimes. Rather, it is clear the United States and the EU are invested in prolonging the war in order to weaken and punish Russia, even though the next phase appears likely to be much worse for everyone involved, with the Kiev government calling for the mass evacuation of the East in its most recent communications.

For all the ink spilled in condemning what is being called the Bucha Massacre, one wonders if the calls for war crimes trials and claims that the responsible government is illegitimate would be withdrawn if it turns out not Vladimir Putin and Russia, but Voldomyr Zelenskyy and Ukraine, were responsible for whatever took place in Bucha. The question answers itself.

The real atrocities are being committed by Zelensky’s forces, which include neo-Nazis. Russians remember the horrors of the German invasion during World War II and don’t want them repeated. Hence Putin’s demand that the Ukrainian government purge the Nazi elements in its government, especially to be found in the Azov Regiment. As Joe Lauria says. “Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has been making a virtual world tour with video hookups to parliaments around the globe, as well as to the Grammy Awards and the U.N. Security Council, sometimes with troublesome results.

On Thursday a major row erupted when Zelensky brought along a Ukrainian soldier of Greek heritage from the city of Mariupol, who just happened to be a member of the neo-Nazi Azov Regiment. Greece was under Nazi occupation during World War II and fought a bitter partisan war against Nazism (later to be betrayed by Britain and the United States.)

With Zelensky in the screen, the man, who gave only his first name, told Parliament: ‘I speak to you as a man of Greek descent. My name is Michail. My grandfather fought against the Nazis in the Second World War. I am born in Mariupol and I am now also fighting to defend my city from the Russian Nazis.’

Ignoring Greece’s suffering under German Nazism was a slight made worse by bringing a Nazi along to address Greek lawmakers.

Zelensky has gotten into trouble before by referring to a nation’s history in his addresses to parliaments. He caused outrage in Israel for comparing what Ukraine is going through today to the Holocaust while completely ignoring the role Ukrainian fascists played in that Holocaust.

In his address to the U.N. Security Council on Tuesday Zelensky said Russia had committed the worst war crimes since World War II, ignoring the much bigger crime of aggression by the United States against Iraq built totally on lies.

Continue reading…

From LRC, here.

SJW Attack Survival Guide (This Could Use a Hebrew Translation!)

SJW Attack Survival Guide

This survival guide is intended for the use of the individual who finds himself under attack by Social Justice Warriors for standing up against them and their ever-mutating Narrative. It may be freely distributed so long as it is correctly credited to by Vox Day.

The eight stages of the SJW attack sequence are as follows:

  1. Locate or Create a Violation of the Narrative.
  2. Point and Shriek.
  3. Isolate and Swarm.
  4. Reject and Transform.
  5. Press for Surrender.
  6. Appeal to Amenable Authority.
  7. Show Trial.
  8. Victory Parade.

The rest of this guide consists of the correct way to respond to an SJW attack once it has been identified, ideally at the earliest stage possible. Please note that the eight stages of response do not correspond directly to the eight stages of the SJW attack sequence.

1. Rely on the Three Rs: RECOGNIZE it is happening. REMAIN calm. REALIZE no one cares.

The first thing to do when attacked by SJWs is to recognize that you are under SJW attack, remain calm, and realize that no one else cares. You need to understand that the attack is happening, accept that is happening, and refrain from the temptation to try to make it not be happening. Do not panic! Don’t go running to others for help or sympathy, don’t try to convince everyone around you how outrageous or unfair the accusation is, and don’t explain to anyone how little you deserve the way you are being treated. They don’t care. They really don’t. Think about how little you cared when someone else was previously being attacked by SJWs and how little you did to support them, let alone take action to stop the attack. That’s exactly how much your colleagues and acquaintances care about you being attacked, and exactly how much they are going to do to stop it.

The truth is that it doesn’t matter why SJWs are attacking you. The only thing that matters is understanding that you are under attack right now and no one else is going to do anything about it.

2. Don’t try to reason with them.

The second thing is to recognize that there is no way you are going to be able to reason your way out of the situation. Most people who come under SJW attack have the causality backwards. They think the attack is taking place due to whatever it is that they did or said. That’s not the case. The attack is taking place because of who you are and what you represent to the SJWs: a threat to their Narrative. In most cases, the SJWs attempting to discredit and disemploy you already wanted you out long ago, and they are simply using the nominal reason given as an excuse to get rid of you. And if the attack is more the result of SJW status-seeking rather than thought-policing, that’s arguably even worse, because if the motivation concerns them rather than you, there is absolutely nothing you can do about it.

The most important thing to accept here is the complete impossibility of compromise or even meaningful communication with your attackers. SJWs do not engage in rational debate because they are not rational and they do not engage in honest discourse because they do not believe in objective truth. They have no interest whatsoever in talking to you or trying to understand you, indeed, they will avoid you and do their best to minimize their communications with you while constantly talking about you and “explaining” the real meaning of your words and your nefarious true intentions to everyone else. They will also try to isolate you and cut you off from access to any relevant authority, to the media, and to neutral parties, the better to spin the Narrative without your interference. This is why it is vital that you do not agree to any confidentiality agreements or consent to keep your mouth shut while the SJW-driven “investigation” is proceeding.

3. Do not apologize.

The third thing to remember when undergoing an SJW-attack is to never apologize for anything you have done. I repeat: do not apologize. Do not say you are sorry if anyone’s feelings were hurt, do not express regret, remorse, or contrition, do not say anything that can be taken as an apology in any way. Just in case I am not being sufficiently clear, do not apologize!

Normal people seek apologies because they want to know that you feel bad about what you have done and that you will at least attempt to avoid doing it again in the future. When SJWs push you for an apology after pointing-and-shrieking at you, what they are seeking is a confession to bolster their indictment. They are like the police down at the station with a suspect in the interrogation room, badgering him to confess to the crime. And like all too many police these days, the SJWs don’t really care if you did it or not, they’re just looking for a confession that they can take to the prosecutor.

Be aware that once they have launched an attack on you, they will press you hard for an apology and repeatedly imply that if you will just apologize, all will be forgiven. Do not be fooled! I have seen people fall for it time and time again, and the result is always the same. The SJWs are simply looking for a public confession that will confirm their accusations, give them PR cover, and provide them with the ammunition required to discredit and disemploy you. Apologizing will accomplish nothing more than hand them the very weapons they require to destroy you.

4. Accept your fate.

It is psychologically much easier to survive an SJW attack if you accept early on in the process that you are probably going to lose your job or be purged from your church, your social group, or your professional organization. Remember, if the SJWs were not confident they could take you out, they would not have launched the attack in the first place. They prey upon those they believe, rightly or wrongly, to be vulnerable. Even if you survive the attack, it’s highly unlikely that your reputation will survive unscathed as there are simply too many people who are inclined to split the difference in any conflict between two parties, no matter how crazy or dishonest they know one of the parties to be.

Be prepared to be disappointed by the behavior of some of the people you believe to be your friends. But don’t be angry with them or allow the anger you feel for the SJWs to be displaced onto those who have disappointed you. While they may have disappointed you with their cowardice, they are not your problem, they did not put you in the position you find yourself, and they are not your enemy. Don’t take your pain and anger out on them. Reserve that for the SJWs.

5. Document their every word and action

Most of the time, SJW purges are committed at least partially outside the organization’s established rules and forms. You may not be an expert, but some of the people following along will be. Make sure every step in the process, and every piece of communication you receive from them, is documented, critiqued, and publicized. They will pull out all the stops to hide their actions in order to avoid public criticism, and in some of the more egregious cases, ridicule. By forcing them to show their hand in public, you allow others to see and understand what they are really up to. This may not be sufficient to save yourself from the ongoing attack, but it will almost certainly strengthen your negotiating position and will also help prevent the SJWs from blithely repeating the process against you or someone else in the future.

Whatever you do, do not agree to any gag orders or sign any confidentiality agreements that will handicap your ability to use the documentation you have acquired to prevent them from spinning a Narrative about what happened. SJWs rely on secrecy, and once they know you have their actions documented, they will try very hard to tie your hands in a manner that will prevent you from making that information public.

6. Do not resign!

Do not resign! You must always keep in mind that their real goal is not to formally purge you, but to encourage you to quit on your own. That allows them to publicly wash their hands of the affair and claim that your decision to leave was not their fault. They will often enlist more reasonable allies to approach you and tell you that it’s not possible for you to continue any more, they will appeal to your desire to avoid conflict as well as to the good of the organization, and they will go on endlessly about the supreme importance of an amicable departure. Don’t fall for it. Don’t do their dirty work for them. Make them take the full responsibility for throwing you out, thereby ensuring they have to suffer the unpredictable long-term consequences of their actions.

No matter how deeply the deck is stacked against you, the outcome will always be in doubt unless you resign. You always have a chance to defeat them as long as you don’t quit, and perhaps more importantly, refusing to quit buys you an amount of time that you can use to find another job before they manage to disemploy you. Considering how long you can reasonably expect to draw out the process, which will usually take not weeks, but months, you will considerably enhance your chances of finding alternative employment if you do not resign. 

Do not resign! There is no advantage to you in doing so. As with apologizing, resigning is only going to make matters worse, not better, despite what the SJWs will promise you. They’ll assure you that it will be best for everyone if you just quietly resign and go away, that it will be better for the organization to which your past contributions are greatly appreciated, and that the one last thing you can do for it now is to avoid making an uncomfortable scene. They’ll promise that if you resign, you’ll be able to quickly and quietly put the controversy behind you—and the moment you resign, they will alert the media, send out a statement to the entire organization, and begin waving your scalp like a bloody flag. This is because one of their primary goals is to maintain the illusion of their irresistible power and inevitable victory, so they need to advertise their victories in order to intimidate other potential crimethinkers into falling into line.

So don’t believe them when they tell you that a resignation will make all the pain and humiliation go away, because SJWs always lie! And whatever you do, don’t resign!

7. Make the rubble bounce.

Whether you survive the attempted purge or whether you don’t, it’s very important to observe who has defined himself as an ally, an enemy, or a neutral party during the process. The choices people make will pleasantly surprise you about as often as they disappoint you. Once everyone’s choices have been made clear, your task is simple. Target the enemy at every opportunity. Hit them wherever they show themselves vulnerable. Play as dirty as your conscience will permit. Undermine them, sabotage them, and discredit them. Be ruthless and show them absolutely no mercy. This is not the time for [WORD DELETED] forgiveness because these are people who have not repented, these are people who are trying to destroy you and are quite willing to harm your family and your children in the process. Take them down and take them out without hesitation.

If you have any SJWs working under you, fire them. If you have an SJW relying upon you for something, play dumb and assure him that he’ll get it on time, then fail to deliver, all the while promising that it’s going to be done next week. Above all, understand that the normal rules of live and let live are no longer in effect. The more you disrupt their activities and their daily routine, the more difficult they will find it to purge you. Assume that you are on your way out—if you’ve followed the previous advice given, you should already have your landing zone prepared and are only waiting for the right moment to exit—and salt the earth. Leave devastation in your wake so that it will take weeks or even months for them to try to recover from the damage of your purging.

8. Start nothing, finish everything.

Even when the initial conflict is over, the SJWs are not going to leave you alone so long as they believe you to be a potentially vulnerable threat to them. This is why you have to be prepared to continue to up the ante until they finally reach the conclusion that they cannot possibly beat you and they are better off keeping their distance. Fortunately, SJWs are highly emotional, cowardly, and prone to depression, so demoralizing them tends to be considerably easier than you might imagine. They will still hate you, but after repeatedly meeting with staunch and confident opposition, they will usually decide to leave you alone and go in search of less difficult prey.

Reward enemies who leave you alone by leaving them in peace. Reward enemies who insist on continuing hostilities with disincentivizing responses that are disproportionate to their provocations. And never forget, no matter what they do, they cannot touch your mind, they cannot touch your heart, and they cannot touch your soul.

This guide consists of selections from “Chapter Seven: What to do when SJWs attack” 

SJWs Always Lie: Taking Down the Thought Police

Reprinted with the author’s permission.

From LRC, here.