Social Justice Warfare

This past week I came across the following comment.  The source was declared to be unknown, or I would credit the author.  However, it encapsulates every stray thought I have ever had on the subject...putting them together in a way that seems remarkably powerful.  As I said, I would honor the writer if I knew who he or she was...and if I should ever get that information, I will edit this to provide the proper honor.  I hope you appreciate this as much as I did:

“We are fighting to end hate, to unite as one and love each other. We are fighting to be treated right without discrimination and for everyone to have equal opportunities.”

Nonsense. You have no quantifiable metrics for injustice, so you have no victory conditions (for a very simplified example, when blacks hold X% of all engineering jobs and are only Y% of all prisoners, racism is ended). That would be fine by itself, but you believe in fighting injustice with injustice (gays have historically been denied gay marriage? let’s get random CEOs fired for opinions they held six years ago). You don’t seek converts, you seek to punish and bully – straight white males who disagree with you must be purged and publicly humiliated. Even the jihadists will spare you if you convert; no apology or future correction will satisfy a SJW.

I could forgive that too if you weren’t all hypocrites and liars. Your treatment of women and minority dissenters is appalling; if they don’t want you acting on their behalf, that’s their choice, not “internalized patriarchy” or whatever. You rob them of moral agency. When called out for these behaviors (as you always insist on calling out others), you lie. You strawman your opponents (criticized a woman? misogynist!), you group them with the worst (you’re a gamer? you’re as bad as the anonymous rape threateners!) and when confronted with your own flaws, you restate them less threateningly (motte and bailey argument). You phrase all arguments as Kafka traps (disagreeing with your assertion that we are evil is taken as proof that we’re evil). You publish manipulated and misleading statistics, and then lambast anyone who questions them.

You insist on vigilante justice against random acts of the week for your two-minute hate. Why is it the NFL’s business to punish domestic violence? And, if it is their business, why isn’t Hope Solo receiving the same attention from your side?

Then you claim to be arguing for equality, but you’ve taken the idea of racism (hatred based on skin color is bad) and replaced it with a new concept where only one race can be guilty of racism. You excuse racial prejudice and hatred based on what I’ve already explained are arbitrary, unmeasured states of being. Your solution for the unequal treatment of whites and blacks is to hold whites to a higher standard. Your side lobbied the FBI to redefine rape so more women victims would be counted, but also so that “made to penetrate” does not count, leaving male victims in the cold. Because of male privilege, apparently.

Historically ignorant SJWs think whites hold collective guilt for the awful things our ancestors have done. But they don’t care about the unspeakable atrocities by other races. The only difference between whites and others was that whites had the social and technological prowess to do evil efficiently; Africans, Asians, Indians, and everyone else practiced genocide and slavery, they were just less adept at doing it right. Given the means, they would have done the same. But nope, only whites are guilty; Arab oppression of blacks and Caucasians never happened, not to us, nope.

I’ve been lucky enough to grow up in America, so this shit is new to me. But I’m descended from puritans, and I know my history; I know how they treated dissent. I also know how commies treated dissent; I grew up next door to a grizzled old Russian who barely avoided the gulag by smuggling himself out of the country. I know what you petty tyrants have turned into every time you gained enough power.

Worst of all, you turn the very principles of freedom against us. We tolerate you because we believe in free speech and civil discourse, not bullying and violence. But that means we have to watch you advocate against that very freedom. We don’t believe in ruining a stranger’s professional life over an opinion, but that means that we can’t punish your actions.

We believe that the rightness of our actions should speak for itself. You believe in bullying, even as you claim to love the oppressed.

Funny how the evil and all-powerful patriarchy has seen fit to act according to SJW whims for all of recent memory, punishing those they hate and protecting those they love. Funny how the evil oppressor males have to speak anonymously, while the SJWs fighting the power can use their real names and get mainstream media coverage for fun and profit. How when a million straight white male nerds get bullied, no one cares, but the minute one gay person hangs himself, suddenly bullying matters – and the solution, of course, is more bullying, but by the “right” people.

That’s the arrogant core of it. You do the same evil, in the same pattern, as so many before you, because mob justice, punishing dissent, and repression of others is just fine and dandy so long as the “right” people are doing it to the “wrong” people.

All I ever asked was to be left alone.

                                                                                                      "Anonymous"

I woke up in a sweat last night...

not because of a cold, or a malfunction in the heating system.  No, it was what started out as a ghostly appearance of understanding that, as I moved toward consciousness, grew larger and more disturbing with each moment.

As an individual who started life as a Rockefeller Republican and has slid to the right ever since...to the point where John Birchers look liberal and chaos theory makes sense as a political policy guide...what I suddenly was considering seemed like a threat to my very core beliefs.  And I believe, as I describe it to you, it threatens the very core beliefs of those on ALL sides of the Political Spectrum.

First, consider the reason for the Democrats recent loss of a majority in the House of Representatives.  They listened to those in opposition, then trivialized and marginalized those opposing points of view and finally treated them with a mocking, denigrating disdain.  And when they lost the election, claim confusion about why they lost.

They had applied Alinsky's Rules with dedication and precision.  What they did not realize is that if your defined enemy suddenly becomes more numerous than you, you have a problem...a very big problem.

The Republicans, in turn, have done the very same thing.  Granted, they treat those ideas with which they disagree with dismissal, rather than outright action.  They ignore, rather that voicing their disregard, but that is a matter of style, not substance.

Both sides practice this approach.  Many in the world also have done it.  The problem lies in choosing an opposition that ultimately can outnumber you.  When that happens, the best propaganda machine in the world loses to the numbers.

Only once in my lifetime has this approach ever worked.  And it worked because the practitioner realized that  an enemy had to be selected that could NEVER become the majority.  The National Socialists in Germany under Hitler selected the Jews as the enemy.  This ensured that application of the forerunners to Alinsky's Rules could never be trumped by numbers.  And the application had singular success.

This political application was shear genius.  Hitler's, and Germany's, demise was a result of bad war strategy, not political failures.

But my shock upon awakening was not caused by the fact of this application...it was that its continued practice here in America and in the world prevents us from taking care of our public existence properly.  The political spectrum is not really about political ideology as much as it is about acquiring power over others.  Most are subconsciously aware of this, but ignore it because of the very public discussions and arguments about the "ways" of acquiring it, as if the particular political point of view validates seizing the power to tell others what to do.

Disagree?  Consider:  I may have any number of political views which I think would make the country (any country) a better place to live for me, my children and my community...but I don't go out and demand that others live under that particular set of rules.  Who does?  Dictators.  Conquerors. Despots.

Anybody else?  Well, those who secretly would love to be a Dictator but sense the personal danger in acquiring and keeping the position as well as a desire to be seen as a more benevolent but superior person form a group acquire power.  In some cases this is an army.  In many others, it is a political party.  But I cannot see how anyone can argue that at its center is the desire for power over others that starts the trouble.

In the South Pacific Islands they had a practice (I do not know if it continues) of selecting as King that person who least wanted to be King.  And, if he grew to like the position, they would kill him, eat him, and select again.  Not many failed to appreciate that it was NOT good to want to be King.

I like that practice.  It serves to put power over others in perspective and surely helps minimize it.  Wish we could do it here.