Trolling done right

A telling incident, as witnessed on social media. Picture the usual woke-feminist post bemoaning the dearth of female speakers at a philosophy/physics (perhaps philosophy of physics?) conference. With all the usual solemn nodding along and suggestions (all in this spirit) on how to smash the quantum ceiling. Yet one enterprising fellow managed to rain on this virtue-signalling parade, with minimal effort. All he had to do was ask, “How can you assume that the participants were men? How do you know what they actually identify as?” The reaction was priceless. It was rather like the reaction of the hoity-toity north Tel-Aviv pool-goers to Ben-Ari’s stunt of bringing the Sudanese infiltrators they want to dump on their poorer south Tel Aviv neighbors right to their door. Livid with indignation, seething with rage, and yet lacking any coherent logical rebuttal. Predictably, they resorted to pointing and sputtering (the Hebrew version of) R-words, and this is exactly what happened on that social media post (only with S-words). It took the wind right out of their sails, since ignoring the point would amount to the erasure of penised women but they couldn’t very well just concede either. The powergrabbing discussion was successfully derailed, and the maverick reply actually received a surprising number of likes from faculty participants — thus achieving the additional (and likely, intended) goal of strengthening dissident voices.

Conclusion: Agree and amplify is trolling done right, folks.


Batshit “rabbis”

In his zeal to bring us the zaniest, most pungent “rabbis”, Sailer somehow missed this one. It’s all fine and good to point fingers at the morbid sideshow that reform lady “rabbis” usually are. But Sailer fumbles the butterknife when he tries to extrapolate a greater picture of modern Judeo-Christian theology from these woke ladies.

See, Steve, not to put too fine a point on it, but reform grrrl “rabbis” (grabbis?) are to real rabbis as Caitlyn Jenner is to real women. Or as Rachel Dolezal is to real blacks. Let’s just say they are… trans-ordained. (And some aren’t even Jewish!)

#MenToo and the Zuleikha project

Amidst the #metoo moral panic, you can count on PTT to provide a contrarian voice. This time, however, we’d like to try our hand at some real-life activism. The precise details will emerge in future posts, but for now we’re recruiting our multitudes of loyal readers for assistance. The #mentoo hashtag (apparently) documents the various instances of men being sexually harassed by women — a perfectly laudable objective (the documentation, not the harassing), but not exactly what we’re after. Zuleikha, according to Jewish tradition, was Potiphar’s wife — the latter most famous for falsely accusing Joseph of rape. In launching the Zuleikha project, PTT is seeking testimonies from men who found themselves in Joseph’s predicament. We are particularly interested in the academic setting: male students and especially faculty members falsely accused by students or other faculty. Anonymous submissions welcome, include as much or as little detail as you like.

Update. Thanks for the Instalanche, Glenn! To send reports anonymously, write to


PTT dissects leftist fallacies

Leftists come in two types: naive and cynical. The former drink the kool-aid while latter do not actually believe their own slogans — it’s all about the power. In this post, we put motivations aside and dissect the nature of leftist fallacies. These tend to be based on gross misconceptions about human nature and the world at large, and we divide them along into the flat Earth vs. the naked emperor dichotomy.

A naked emperor fallacy is a claim that is patently, obviously false; it is falsifiable from first principles, without the need for empirical data. The idea that the capitalist sharks on Wall Street are leaving money on the table by not hiring enough women and minorities is a naked emperor fallacy (you get lots of boilerplate leftist fallacies by failing the PTT diffusion gradient™ test). “Race is only skin deep” and “gender is a social construct” are also of the naked emperor type. I seriously doubt that intelligent people actually believe any of this nonsense. It’s either bleated unthinkingly by virtue-signaling SJWs, or cynically propagated as benign lies for the masses, or, more ominously, is used as a weapon of oppression, as per Theodore Dalrymple’s famous observation:

In my study of communist societies, I came to the conclusion that the purpose of communist propaganda was not to persuade or convince, not to inform, but to humiliate; and therefore, the less it corresponded to reality the better. When people are forced to remain silent when they are being told the most obvious lies, or even worse when they are forced to repeat the lies themselves, they lose once and for all their sense of probity. To assent to obvious lies is…in some small way to become evil oneself. One’s standing to resist anything is thus eroded, and even destroyed. A society of emasculated liars is easy to control. I think if you examine political correctness, it has the same effect and is intended to.

The second kind of fallacy is more insidious, since it appears to make sense on its face — just as the Earth appears, at first glance, to be flat. The idea that guns or poverty are direct causes of crime is such a fallacy. So is the notion that keeping families on welfare for generation after generation does them any good. So is the belief that affirmative action benefits minority students. For a recent example of flat-Earth thinking, see David Brooks attempt to argue that there being few immigrants in impoverished Appalachia implies that immigrants cause prosperity — and watch Sailer masterfully strike him down. It’s stuff like this that keeps me coming back to Sailer, and makes his butterknife fumbles seem all the more inept by comparison.


In which PTT sides with Sailer over Max Boot

So Max Boot got this email:

Hello, friend. We’d like to invite you to join the Open Borders for
Israel campaign.

In recent years, policies in Israel have taken a rather xenophobic turn. Israel has constructed a border wall. Furthermore, Israel has not only turned down refugees, but even has deported African migrants. David Sheen has reported that anti-immigration protestors in Israel were shouting, “N*ggers, go home. N*ggers to Africa.” This is horrible. This must end. We demand inclusivity in Israel.

The Israeli Golan Heights could accommodate one million refugees. Why is the Israeli government refusing to take refugees? No refugees should be turned down. Israel accepting one million refugees could increase its GDP by at least 25% in addition to making it more diverse.

We need to make Israel more diverse. True, Israel is already 20% Arab, but Israel needs more diversity. It needs more Africans, and we need more black converts to Judaism. I invasion a beautiful future when the majority of Jews are in fact black Africans.

If you are a non-racist person and believe in diversity, then please join us at the Open Borders for Israel campaign. We are starting up chapters in the USA, Europe and the Middle East.

Let’s make Israel more diverse!

Boot’s response was to call it anti-Semitic. Famous for being an objective blog, we at PTT call’em as we see’em. No one can accuse us of being blind to anti-Semitism. Roissy is an (increasingly deranged) antisemite. Sailer is, well, Sailer. But we see nothing anti-Semitic in the content of that email (can’t say as much about its source, which a brief search indicates might well have unsavory origins).

The missive concerns a particular policy proposal: open borders for Israel. Now PTT has a long record of strongly opposing open borders — for Israel, the US, and any other country that cares to preserve its ethnic character; sending the email above to us would miss the mark. Someone else (say, George Soros, and lots of left-wing Israelis) might be strongly in favor of open borders world-wide and presumably would agree with every word of that proposal. Why does Max Boot react so strongly to a policy proposal? Because it exposes his hypocrisy?

To be fair, there may be a sliver of American Jews who favor open borders for thee but not for me. In line with PTT’s rough division of Jews into groups A and B, the A’s overwhelmingly oppose open borders for Israel and USA, while the B’s either don’t care or want open borders for all. We have no idea what Max Boot’s position is on US or Israeli immigration policy, but if he’s indeed a thee-but-not-me type, the email hit bullseye. His reaction indicates that this might be the case.

As a concluding remark, we have not seen any actual examples of prominent Jewish commentators explicitly advocating open borders for the US while opposing this policy for Israel. (We’ll be happy to publicize concrete examples.) Anti-Israel hypocrisy, on the other hand, hits you in the face everywhere you turn: the Wall, the occupation. Sailer, for some inexplicable reason, has never pointed this out — and so PTT will.


Bret Stephens and Shitholes

PTT’s off-handed remark that “Bret Stephens [is] not helping” drew the following comment:

What does it mean that some Jews, such as Bret Stephens, are not helping the situation, the situation being someone’s anti-Semitism? Do all Jews have to behave, so as not to give any help to anti-Semites? How would you react to this statement: I am given to occasional bouts of anti-gentilism, and Roissy is not helping the situation.

It made valid points and we delayed replying to it — until Bret Stephens himself came to the rescue:

I mention Moldova because it’s where my paternal grandfather was born in 1901. An anti-Semitic rampage in his hometown, Kishinev, soon forced his family to leave for New York, where my great-grandfather labored as a carpenter in the Brooklyn Navy Yard for eight dollars a week. Low skills, low wages, minimal English, lots of children and probably not the best hygiene — that’s half of my pedigree. The other half consisted of refugees.

There he is, playing the Jew card to argue for open-borders immigration. Insofar as any “Jewish cause” can be said to exist as a coherent entity — a big if! — Bret Stephens is only acting to its detriment. He is equating Jewish immigrants and refugees from Eastern Europe to modern-day migrants from Mexico and Africa; what an odious and offensive comparison, on so many levels! In some ways, Stephens is even more damaging than Chomsky and Soros, who proudly reject their Jewish roots. By cloaking his destructive rhetoric in his (ostensible but actually rather flimsy) Jewish identity, Stephens has managed to irritate even philosemites of such long-standing pedigree as John Derbyshire (though we wouldn’t go so far as to ascribe Bret’s broad class snobbery to the more narrow anti-gentilism; that’s what Sailer’s butterknife is for).

Finally, speaking of shitholes — Roissy has really gone off the rails lately. For example, I can’t even parse the opening sentence of this post: “Shithole Nationalism is basically White Nationalism minus the (((emotional))) baggage.” [Yes, I know what the (((echo))) parentheses mean. Still makes no sense.] It’s hard to say if Roissy is actually drinking his own kool-aid, or is merely pandering to his clientele. The blog has no advertisements on the sidebar, but does feature a prominent “donate” button. The posting is too regular and prolific for this to be a side-hobby; I’d guess it’s probably a regular source of income for the heartiste team. So one plausible explanation is that the zyklon fantasies were a simple business decision. Otherwise it just makes no sense. If a smart guy like Roissy actually cared about the survival of the white people, wouldn’t he want to fight the most proximal threats (feminism, cultural marxism, open borders) in the most direct fashion? Surely he must be aware of all the Jews who fight for the same things he (ostensibly) does — why make enemies out of these potentially quite useful allies? Whatever — there’s obviously no reasoning with such people, and the Jews do have other responses to zyklon besides rhetoric.


Food & sex

This post is not about George Costanza-esque crossed Freudian wires. Rather, it’s prompted by a link to a blog post we ran across on social media. The thrust of which is that while it’s of course a good thing that the patriarchy is being dismantled, we wouldn’t want to do it by reverting to sexual moralism. We stopped reading at:

There is no more a “right way” to have sex than there is a “right way” to eat food.

[Don’t read the whole thing™.]

What do you call a rhetorical failure whereby the author’s inept analogy ends up making precisely the opposite point of what she intended? I mean, where, outside of South Park, is it appropriate to insert food in any orifice other than the oral one?

Against this inanity, Homer Simpson shines as a beacon of wisdom. Because really, How Many Gazebos Do You Shemales Need?