Your Tolerance is Self-Serving – The Orlando Shooting

News of the Orlando shooting went around the office today. The usual canard was tossed out there by a typical SWPL: “It has nothing to do with religion. Some people are just homophobic assholes.”


Now, I work in a liberal city, at a liberal tech company. I came into the job on the assumption that this was hostile, SJW or SWPL territory, and that I’d keep every opinion to myself. I said nothing, but in my mind I had to ask them: “Just who are you trying to impress with that statement?”


Truly, to all the progressive, tolerant liberals out there, just who are you trying to impress with your reactionary defense of Islam? You know that Islam had a hand in this, just as it did in Paris, and San Bernardino. You’re saying such a statement to save face, but who are you saving face to? Our workplace has no Muslims. You’ve not made any of them feel better; they don’t exist. You’re not trying to defend any individual person that you personally know, perhaps a family member or friend. Truly, the only Muslims these people know are in the abstract, not actual flesh and blood people they have actually met. So why are you defending Islam when you have no stake in it?


Because being tolerant of Islam is fashionable at the moment and this person wants to remain fashionable, with the trends, in vogue. Truthfully, I like this person a lot, as a person, but you can’t have a more deluded and dangerous outlook when dealing with a threatening, foreign ideology. This whole self-serving piety that is Political Correctness is only going to excuse attacks like this in the future, and you will always overlook the warning signs because you don’t want to be racist.


I don’t have a personal axe to grind with this tragedy since gays and Muslims are not part of my pet projects. The fifty that died weren’t people I know, and so I have no personal stake in this, and you can call that callous but I call it honest. Nevertheless, I don’t want a society stewing in fear and violence. I want to be able to live peacefully and happily, and it just so happens that mass shootings have a way of ruining that. Even from a purely selfish perspective, these shootings are undesirable. No one wants this to happen.


But it will keep happening if tolerance gets in the way of security. The SWPL and SJW’s need to realize that tolerance isn’t a universal thing. It’s a conditional thing. You are tolerant when it is reciprocal – when they are tolerant to you. You are tolerant to a point – when it is reasonable to do so. You don’t make it a universal commandment that everyone must follow all the time because opening your arms to everyone means you’re going to get stabbed in the back by people who want to do you harm.

New Post on Social Matter: The Left, the Collapsing Star

My first post to Social Matter: The Left, the Collapsing Star


“Since the left contains diverse demographics all in a race to the bottom of their own respective victim narratives, there is now an environment of near-zero loyalty as the different factions all fight against each other for power. You can see this as #BlackLivesMatter derides white middle class feminists. It can be seen in how the T is trying to expel the G of the LGBT, because even white gay men have too much privilege. Blacks see whites as having white privilege, while women see men as having male privilege, and so Tyrone of BLM and Denise of feminism will eventually clash over which side gets the greater benefits.

For a long time, we have viewed the left as this all-expanding force, moving the Overton Window ever further to the left with each passing decade. I think we have all come to assume that accelerating leftism is inevitable. Their legions are too vast and their control of the cultural narrative is too tight.

I believe what we’re seeing now with the left is analogous to a dying star. More groups enter the left, it gains further power, until the day when it finally becomes unstable and collapses in on itself, though not through gravity, but from infighting.”


Read the rest at:

How Lifestyle and Persona Striving Explain SJW’s in Tech

In a previous post, I explained akinokure’s hypothesis on the 3 different variants of strivers:

Career Strivers focus on money as a display of status.

Lifestyle Strivers focus on their hobbies and trends as a display of status.

Persona Strivers focus on their personality, uniqueness, or “special snowflake”-isms as a display of status and individuality.


I believe that the three different types of strivers help expand on how SJW’s are entering and leeching off the tech fields.


When you look at tech, you’re looking at career strivers. Most of these strivers became programmers and developers to make money, instead of going to school for “marketing” or some other bullshit degree which would have resulted in a lot more tail. There isn’t much glamor to being a programmer or a network engineer compared to say a musician or photographer.


They figure they’ll gain status by landing a good job with six figures, and getting the girl by providing the giant house that comes with that salary. When it comes to competing with others, the careerist programmer does so by their work, either the product of that work or their paycheck from it. They generally know they’re on the lower rungs on the social ladder, so they don’t bother with competing against others in the arena of fads or social trends. It’s always down to brass tacks with them.


They generally are the Myers-Briggs types to not really care about the privilege or oppression narratives that SJW’s preach. If the topic doesn’t involve getting the project done faster and better, then a career striver is going to consider it a waste of time and money.


Actually, the careerists are more likely to be reactionaries, or just generally too smart for Social Justice. These guys are pragmatic and logical – since you have to be in that line of work. Because Social Justice doesn’t offer them anything and comes with heaps of inconsistencies, they’re going to generally avoid, or even outright hate it.


The Codes of Conduct, and privilege lessons, and sexual harassment stuff don’t come from them, but this is where the Social Justice Warriors enters the stage.


The two groups espouse completely different live values. While one values both financial security and the work needed to accomplish it, the other group values status and moral superiority. Get it out of your mind that techies and SJW’s are playing the same game on the same ball-field. They’re not.


Social status is the goal-post of the SJW’s, not wealth. If they truly wanted wealth, then they would not have taken the easy class in Oppression Studies. Much to the contrary, they don’t want to be seen as the tech nerd who works 10 hours a day in the shade of their cubicle, but instead as a trendy, geeky hipster who’s “doing their part” to make the world a better place (but not by actually providing value through coding or development or engineering).


The tech industry is one of the only remaining productive outputs of the American economy, if you don’t count Hollywood. The SJW’s realize that tech is the last great business venture in the western world, and while they might not want wealth, the status of the tech industry calls to them. That ability for technology to touch everyone’s lives, and the way it can shift people’s minds, are what makes technology attractive to the SJW. They see tech as merely another way to spread social justice values; all the technical stuff is secondary to their crusade.


One problem: they can’t code, which means they’re basically useless in the eyes of career strivers. To get in, they need to blend in. They attend the basic classes and cons, or invent new labels for themselves like “Social Media Guru” or some other garbage term which seems techy enough not to raise some obvious flags. They can talk the talk, a little. They might be able to walk the walk, a little, but their main goal is any foothold of perceived authority.


Once they are welcomed into the community, their power is still in the wind, so they make themselves “useful” by using their social justice “expertise” to outline a problem that doesn’t exist, and oh-so humbly suggest solutions to the alleged problem, whilst also making themselves appear as the only one capable of solving it.


“Tech has a white male/diversity/sexism problem,” they claim, “I propose a code of conduct, that I have written (which gives me sole power of authority but really you should skip that part). It will make our community better [citation needed], welcome more diverse folks to coding [citation needed], and make better code because of that diversity [citation needed].”


They may try to appeal to the careerist’s sensibilities in upping the value of the product or promoting synergy of the workplace, but the actual intent is to wrestle control out of the hands of the careerists. The SJW’s want power over others, and because they can’t do that via skill they do so by moral authority. However, the justification for their actions is based on a lie. There actually was no diversity problem to begin with.


Those dreaded white cis nerds are careerists, and careerists would take literally anyone who has the chops to do the work right. It doesn’t matter if you’re a quadruple amputee who speaks by blowing a kazoo stuck in your nose so long as you don’t produce a broken product. In the end, money is still money. Careerists don’t care who or what you are so long as the careerist themselves can keep working and generating income. Everything else is superfluous, including being racist/sexist, and including Social Justice.


The SJW’s in tech are merely snake oil salesmen, looking for another mark. They want you to buy into the idea that they’re useful when they’re really parasites. The only thing they truly have to offer is the façade of social justice, the faux aura of expertise, and the fake conviction of their proclamations, all in an effort to forward their own personal pseudo-careers, and they’re banking on the hope that no one calls their bluff. The good news is that their supposed authority is indeed that: supposed.


If the careerists in tech were to see past their lies and empty assurances, then the SJW would be revealed as merely a useless entity at best, and a destructive distraction at worst. The sooner people realize this, the sooner SJW’s lose their power.

Even if the SJW’s Win, They’ll Lose

Yuri Bezmenov was a KGB informant and journalist who later defected to Canada during the cold war. In an interview, he was asked what would happen to all leftists, hippies, and other Marxist/Leninist types in United States and Canada if their utopian vision were to ever come true. He said:


“Simply because the psychological shock when they will see in future what the beautiful society of equality and social justice means in practice, obviously they will revolt. They will be very unhappy frustrated people, and Marxist-Leninist regime does not tolerate these people. Obviously, they will join the ranks of dissenters; dissidents. Unlike the present United States, there will be no place for dissent in future Marxist-Leninist America. You can get popular like Daniel Elsburg and filthy rich like Jane Fonda for being a dissident, for criticizing your Pentagon. In future these people will simply be squashed like cockroaches for criticizing the government. Nobody is going to pay them nothing for their beautiful, noble ideas of equality. This they don’t understand and it will be the greatest shock for them, of course.”


Social Justice Warriors don’t realize many things, but primarily what they don’t understand is the dynamics of power. Just because the system itself allows SJW’s to protest, and even occasionally bleats some SJW/Progressive tropes themselves, doesn’t mean that the system is for them. The attributes that SJW’s posses, like their disaffection of the current system, and their quickness to outrage are only mere tools to be manipulated by greater powers. If SJW’s exist, it is because they useful. Once that usefulness changes, they face the risk of annihilation. If history is any indication, then the SJW’s success will ultimately be their undoing, because when the war is over, the warrior becomes a liability.


The Establishment is a master of jujitsu. They have the power to turn a rival group’s energy around to serve the Establishment’s ends, like you saw with Occupy Wall Street and the Tea Party (both were co-opted by their masters, the PC progressives and the Republican establishment respectively). The SJW’s aren’t a threat to them right now, because the SJW’s are directed to attack the Establishment’s competition.


But let’s assume that through the Establishment wheeling’s and dealings, they eventually give the SJW’s the world they desire. Perhaps as payment, or perhaps as a ploy to pacify them, but nevertheless the SJW’s get what they want. They will get their revolution. The problem is that no matter what this world looks like after the change it will still be run by an Establishment, and although perhaps a different Establishment, an Establishment nonetheless.


The SJW foot soldiers who fought for the new world will see that, despite all their work, the new world will still have rulers, and that they themselves will not be those rulers. Class divisions will still exist because a progressive utopia doesn’t prevent the elites from amassing ridiculous amounts of wealth. Yes, the progressives say otherwise, but this has never, ever, in the history of the world, been the case.


Racism and sexism will still exist, because people will still make judgments and see patterns. There will still be some form on inequality between the abled and less abled because it is inherent to the natural order. And despite all the effort the SJW’s put forward the challenge the old rules, they will find the new rules not to their liking.


They will feel used. They will feel as if all their struggle had been for nothing. They will therefore become the most outspoken dissenters of the new regime, and thus the regime’s biggest threat.


The SJW’s will become like Al-Qaida. The terrorist group known as Al-Qaida was used by the United States as an proxy force to fight the Soviet Union invading Afghanistan. Because the US provided training and weapons, Al-Qaida completed their mission, pushed back the Soviets, but then turned on their former masters. They became enemy #1 to the United States only a few decades after being a secured ally in the region.


If you are the new Establishment, you cannot allow this to happen. After the revolution, the Establishment will see all the SJW’s who brought them to power as now liabilities to the new order, and they will be eliminated.


This has happened over and over throughout history when groups like Communists came to power. Stalin not only killed his enemies, but also the allies that might stab him in the back. When Mao gained power, he did the same. The infighting between Marxists in East Asia and Africa showed the exact trend. For revolutionaries, the revolution never ends. They live in a perpetual dimension of conflict, where just because you win, doesn’t mean you don’t get executed.


Let this be a warning to the SJW’s and activists with delusions of grandeur. The cis-hetero-white-supremacist-patriarchy may be the target in this conflict, but in the next one, the target will be you.


No More Guilt

Too many guys these days, especially younger ones, succumb to the fairytales of the left and end up breaking themselves down for supposed privileges they have, or alleged wrongdoings their ancestors made.


All it amounts to is another form of original sin to bludgeon you over the head with and make you in debt to others for no actual crime. Guys get chastised for being men, for being white, for being straight, for simply being. If you are a young man who is just developing a sense of self and self-esteem, and even some confidence, you’re going to be hit hard by these allegations. It’s difficult enough to form your own sense of self in the turbulent times of adolescence without the added pressure of every minority and advocate berating you for nothing you, yourself have ever done.


It’s no surprise that many young men crumble against these tactics. They supplicate and capitulate in order make amends for things they haven’t done, losing their confidence, their self-esteem, and their essence in the process.


In an ironic twist, slaves in ages past may have had chains around them, but many couldn’t be broken in spirit, while the descendants of the supposed slavers are broken psychologically so that they don’t even need chains. It is one thing to want freedom, but it’s another thing to stomp one’s will so far that it leaves them without the ability to conceptualize freedom. A slave can be set free, but one trapped in the mind is forever lost. That is what it’s important to never surrender in the first place.


Social Justice heaps criticisms on the White Straight Cisgender Male, accounting for privilege to an absurd degree that there is no way one can win even by playing by all their rules, because the rules themselves are contradictory.


In fact, those that craft the ideology don’t want you to follow the rules. They don’t want you to express any agency over your life whatsoever, because they know your individual submission won’t solve the world’s problems. Your personal sacrifice won’t make the typical tumblrina better as an individual. Instead, the makers of these ideologies simply want to control you the same way a conman controls you – by making it seem as if you owe them for something. That way, you’ll do whatever they ask.


But the one thing Social Justice Advocates don’t want you to know is that their entire shtick, like the con-artist, relies on your compliance.


There is nothing they can physically do to make you submit. They can yell and shame, and scream all they want, but they cannot force it on you. You have to take it upon yourself to accept the debt that they give you. It is entirely your choice. You don’t have to, and you shouldn’t. Keep your pride and wave away such things because you will ruin yourself otherwise.


If you are white, simply look at history. The crimes that your ancestors supposedly committed are not exclusive to your race or ancestry. Slavery, for example, was practiced throughout all of history, whether it be from primitive tribes in the jungle or for the purposes of building civilization. Whites were not the first slavers, or the worst, but they were the last. And is colonialism only exclusive to whites? All races and civilizations had empires, and some of those empires brutally oppressed their subjects; some did not. If they had the seafaring technology of the Europeans at the time, would China, India, or Persia not do the same thing? Of course they would, because every civilization did so in some capacity. Are their descendants culpable for what their ancestors did?


There’s nothing wrong with appreciating your ancestry and heritage. Anyone who says otherwise wants you under their control, and no one but yourself has the power to take away that pride. Let it give you peace and happiness, and allow you to continue to do great things.


If you are a man, simply look at your form and body, and what you’re capable of. It is not your fault that nature itself is unequal, and scattered high cards and low between both man and woman. Your strength does not make others weak. Your cunning does not make them slow. Your intellect does not make others stupid. Your advantages, whatever they might be, do not contribute to the disadvantages of others, and know that disadvantaging yourself does not make the disadvantages of others simply go away.



You don’t owe anyone for anything, except your parents and your ancestors for building your path up to this point. If the society that your ancestors built advantages you, then their work was not a failure, but a success. It was their gift to you and not something to be ashamed of. Just as the Chinese are advantaged and China, and Russians advantaged in Russia, and Brazilians advantaged in Brazil, there is nothing wrong for you to be advantaged in the home of your parents and family.


But let’s change gears for a second. What if the left is absolutely right about everything? Ask yourself this: So what?


Are their claims, even if true, enough justification to sacrifice your one and only current life to others, who may or may not even deserve it, and who may or may not take advantage of it themselves? If you are given these advantages in life, then isn’t the rational option to utilize them? If you do give up your potential, how is that going to help others? And finally: is there no other way to make change than to tear yourself down in the process?


Those are the questions are never asked, and they should be, because doing so highlights the absurdity of the privilege narrative. Yes, people are born with advantages, and some people are advantaged in the region of their birth. But so what? It does not follow that one ought to give up their advantages for simply possessing them.


The truth is, those experts in privilege studies don’t want your allegiance, or your contribution, and they don’t want you to be happy; they want you controlled, by your own guilt. It has gotten to the point where you essentially have two choices: appease those who hate you, or be your own man. What is it going to be?


“They do not want to own your fortune, they want you to lose it.

They do not want to succeed, they want you to fail.

They do not want to live, they want you to die.

They desire nothing, they hate existence, and they keep running, each trying not to learn that the object of his hatred is himself.”

– John Galt

Social Justice Warriors suck Pt 4: There is no Justice in Social Justice

For all their talk of “justice”, the people who call themselves Social Justice Warriors cannot dispense justice primarily because they lack the ability for moral/ethical calculations. These calculations, when used in the pursuit of justice, require one to look at the objective (or near objective) harm that an action causes based on those principles, then choose an appropriate, equivalent punishment. If the punishment is too harsh for the crime, as in we kill a child for stealing some candy, then justice is not served. If the punishment is too lenient, such as giving someone probation for out and out murder, then justice still isn’t served. Justice is about coming to balance between the harm caused in the crime and the harm inflicted by punishment.


The problem is, SJW’s don’t seem to appropriately weigh the harm in any crime or punishment. They overblow the perceived harm that others cause and ignore the harm they themselves inflict in return. This leads them to not only taking an eye for an eye, but taking an eye, a tooth, a finger and a kidney, for an eye.


This video is pretty old at this point, but it is a clear example of what I mean. This man’s indiscretion was using the word nigger and other racial slurs. Despite the fact that he was rude and incited a great deal of anger, ask yourself: What physical harm has he done?


First off, he didn’t cause any personal violence or property damage; all he said were words, words that hurt feelings, but that’s about it. Those words didn’t cast a magic spell, causing an avalanche or tidal wave or earthquake someone else in the world. Those words aren’t going to give someone cancer or cause a heart attack. Those words aren’t going to invoke the wrath of God to destroy the Earth, or, when broadcast into space, summon an alien invasion. Truly, the only thing those words cause are some hurt feelings.


Now, that doesn’t make saying these words acceptable, because manners, but at the end of the day there is little to no harm caused by these words. Life will go on. The Earth will still turn. The Sun will still burn.


In response, Social Justice Warriors sought out this man’s private information, informed his employer and got him fired, thereby causing him actual financial harm. The SJW’s then pursued the issue further and enacted a McCarthian-style interrogation against the employer on the grounds that “if there was one racist working there, who knows how many others still work there?”


On one hand, we have a few words spoken, causing harm to the degree of hurt feelings, while on the other we have a man who lost his job and a company that now faces the mob’s wrath. This isn’t justice, for justice would have been to inflict the equivalent punishment to the severity of the crime. Since his words did essentially nothing but break good etiquette, a scolding would have sufficed. Anything beyond that isn’t justice; it’s vengeance.


You can see this over and over when the SJW witch-hunt goes into full swing.


When two PUA’s were outed as coffee shop owners in in North Carolina, the crime they were accused of was having consensual sex with many women and talking anonymously about it. The harm they caused: none. The resulting punishment was publicly shaming them and causing them to lose their business, which would have been effectively no different than a mob boss extorting them for money.


When a Nobel Prize-winning scientist said an admittedly lame joke, the harm he caused was essentially nothing, but the punishment the SJW’s inflicted caused him to lose his job and reputation.


When a high-schooler criticized the University of Missouri and questioned the Michael Brown incident alongside an article offering a counter-opinion to his, the harm he caused was, again, essentially nothing, but now he has received death threats to such a degree that his family must hire an attorney.


For words, a man loses his job. For words, two men lose their business. For words, another man loses his scientific career. And for words, a young boy faces death threats and potential violence.


Over and over, example after example, we see Social “Justice” Warriors punishing people with such severity that it would make the Inquisition gag. Why is this?


Social “Justice” Warriors don’t know how to judge the severity of indiscretions because they have no moral, ethical, philosophical or religious principles to act as compass to guide them. I mean, you never hear SJW’s talk philosophy, only ideology: “Does preferring cishet women mean I’m transphobic?” Political Correctness is their ruling dogma, and PC treats social misdemeanors as cosmic felonies.


Second, SJW’s don’t have the self-awareness to critically look at their own actions to know whether their individual behavior is acceptable or not. Self-awareness requires some degree of reflection and even self-criticism, but SJW’s are more likely to blame everything else about the world for things going wrong rather than identifying their own flaws. If they didn’t, they wouldn’t be SJW’s.


Along with lacking an awareness of themselves, they also lack awareness of others. Yes, all their moralizing aside, they seem to be unable to genuinely put themselves in someone else’s shoes to try to understand them, and thus understand how their punishment is going to affect others. “Try to understand a racist? Yeah right, shitlord. I already know you’re a horrible person.” It’s hard to get justice right when you don’t understand how actions will affect victims and criminals alike.


The only things the Social Justice Warrior has to guide them are feelings, feelings which have turned ultra-sensitive thanks to their PC ideology. If they feel something is wrong then it is wrong. If something feels really wrong then it must be really wrong, whether or not it actually causes any harm in reality. Nevertheless, the SJW will always use their personal anger as sole justification to attack. Add more SJW’s to the mix and you dilute responsibility through mob mentality: “It wasn’t me. Everyone else was doing it too!”


They initially demand an apology and publicly shame the criminal, but, because SJW’s are driven by feelings, they won’t stop until they feel better. Unfortunately, apologies don’t make them feel better. They’re still mad, so the SJW keeps turning the knife. The criminal resigning from their job doesn’t make the SJW feel better, so they go after the person’s family and friends. They make death threats, rape threats, censor and dox until their feelings are finally satiated after another life is torn apart.


It is a child’s version of justice, in which: I get to hurt you until I feel better. If the whole world worked like this way then every person would try to punish and out-punish everyone else, upping the severity of each reaction. This is not how to settle disputes in an orderly society, but it is a great way to tear everything to rubble.


Would you like to know more:

Why Social Justice Warriors Suck Part 1: Characters Without a Story

Why Social Justice Warriors Suck Part 2: Ruining Dinner Parties… And Everything Else

Why Social Justice Warriors Suck Part 3: The Cowardice of Bullies


These days, every man needs legal protection. Here is an affordable way to get it.

My novel.

Are Poor Social Skills Contributing to Political Correctness?

Political correctness of today is designed outline offensive speech and behavior. But that begs the question: who would need such an outline? If people have manners and know correct etiquette then that should be enough to grease the social gears across almost any situation. I don’t need Political Correctness to know I shouldn’t offend anyone with a racial slur. I already know that if I want to close the deal I have to be persuasive and likeable. So why PC?


I have a friend in particular who is socially immature due to her not being neurotypical (not autism, but certainly different brain development). She can tend to make social gaffes and say offensive things involuntarily. Her intentions are always good, but her lack of social grace causes her to make mistakes. She corrects for this by preemptively stating to others that she might say some weird stuff sometimes, and that she doesn’t mean harm. That seems to work for her.


But let’s say you put her in a room with a handful of other people like her, and you remove the primer that she means no harm. Likely they are going to offend each other up and down until they get the bright idea to create a social code which outlines offensive things not to say, in order for them to get along with each other. Since they can’t navigate normal social communications, they instead need to have an outside and artificial source to tell them what is acceptable and not. I personally believe that Political Correctness is that code for SJW Millennials.


SJW’s are Millennials (though not every Millennial is a SJW), and Millennials more than any other generation are cursed with poor socialization. While the Gen X’ers had access to the movies and video games of their time, the lack of internet forced them to go into the outside world to see those movies with friends, and go to arcades for video games. Even the uber nerds who played Dungeons and Dragons in their basements were still engaging in social behavior long before the advent of online games.


Millennials have always had the internet and ubiquitous entertainment to keep them from going outside and thus learning typical social skills. The worst of these Millennials were likely ostracized from the main peer group for being too weird. They formed their own groups among the misfits, and misfits tended to become attracted to SJW ideals because it put a narrative to their low status. They (wrongly) believe the white-cis-hetero-normative-white-supremacist-patriarchy cast them out as the dregs of society for their lack of privilege, and not their lack of social skills.


If they do gain any social skills at all, then it is through the limited discourse found on the internet. It is no wonder they can’t pick up on verbal tone, facial expressions or body language when most of their communication is restricted to pure text. If body language makes up the bulk of human communication, then of course these SJW Millennials are going to be far, far behind the rest of the pack in terms of interacting with others.


They don’t see subtlety or the innuendo behind a joke or phrase. No matter how funny others find it, they don’t seem to “get it”, and instead only focus on definitions of the words. They also don’t seem to be able to grasp the deeper context within a conversation and thus the overall point. When a bad word is spoken, regardless of context, it “triggers” an emotional reaction that is immediate and primal rather than rational. You can find a whole host of examples on tumblr of a person becoming enraged at a word, phrase or behavior that, when looked at in context, is actually innocuous and actually means no harm.


Political Correctness is thus an attempt for the socially-stunted SJW to adapt to these circumstances. It tries make up for the SJW’s lack of socialization by forcing others to change their communication styles to suit the SJW’s limited understanding. What clinches the correlation for me are these four things:

  1. Years ago, Political Correctness gained its moniker because politicians carefully crafted their words as to not offend any potential voter-base. At the time, it was common knowledge that something being “Politically Correct” wasn’t actually correct. It was just political theatre, not originally intended to be a moral code that the populace at large had to adhere to. Only now, as the Millennials age, does it suddenly become a social imperative.
  2. The strongest push for politically correct speech comes from younger Millennials. None of the older generations of Boomers and Gen-Xs wanted PC to become more radical or applicable to our everyday speech. Even older liberals like Bill Maher hate Political Correctness just as much as their older, conservative counterparts. Only the young blood SJW’s are pushing so hard for it to become universal and radicalized.
  3. Colleges have the highest concentration of Political Correctness, and they are also the places that socially immature Millennials migrate toward after high school. A lot of people think that it is college corrupting the youth, and they’d be right to an extent, but the Millennials themselves have a hand in pushing the institution further left. Both reinforce the other in a death spiral.
  4. The proliferation of “safe spaces” isn’t just a fluke; it’s actually a signal that we have a generation of people who cannot interact socially with anyone but like individuals. To them, it is more comfortable to close yourself away then to have to learn to deal with people that, for all intents and purposes, are speaking an entirely different language.


The rule book of Political Correctness is going to get bigger, stricter, and more intricate as younger Millennials slip further behind in socialization. In my opinion, the worst part about all this is how unnecessary it is. If you have enough experience in social intercourse then you don’t need a code of conduct to know what is appropriate. That leaves PC as a poor substitute for normal development.


I’d like to believe that these things run in cycles. That the increase in Political Correctness and malformed social skills will create the conditions which eliminate it later on. Trees don’t grow to space, after all, because their height becomes their undoing. But that assumes a natural cycle. Who is to say what will happen as new technology is introduced?



These days, every man needs legal protection. Here is an affordable way to get it.

My novel.

My Twitter.

Elite Self-Destruction

When times are bad, you tend to ally yourself with a group of people to stay strong. For example, during war you band together with your fellow soldiers or militiamen or whatever to fight off a common enemy. During a storm, you might collectivize resources with your neighbor so that you both can wait out the danger together.


But when times are good, there is less of a motivation to ally yourself to any particular group or group identity. If you don’t need help in getting a reward (because everything is so plentiful) then why willingly share that reward with others? This is the psychological essence of laissez faire capitalism. Everyone is their own man, to go out and make something of themselves, by themselves.


While this sounds great for the Andrew Ryan’s of the world, the problem is that, in this environment of individuality, loyalty wanes due to the greater financial incentive of doing it alone. Loyalty is a virtue that applies to group dynamics. To be loyal is to put someone else’s needs or the group’s needs above your own. It means you follow the rules and don’t stab anyone in the back for the good of The Order, whatever Order that might be. Loyalty might require you to step aside and let someone else go before you, or that you step down entirely. You do this not for yourself, but for the benefit of the whole.


Without loyalty, the climate of radical individualism creates a psychological condition of hyper-competitiveness as each person vies for their slot at the top. The economy itself might not be a zero-sum game, but that promotion only has one open seat, and you deserve it. The greater the competition and the more everyone is out for themselves, the more passive aggressiveness becomes active aggressiveness, and covert fighting becomes overt fighting. This creates a crab pot scenario – everyone is climbing to the top whilst pulling down everyone else so that no one actually gets out.


The elites in the media, political, and academic spheres have engaged in this same individualist hyper-competition against each other for years. It isn’t a competition of wealth accumulation or career status per se, but of who can be the most Progressive, who can advocate the most for equality, diversity, and other people’s rights.


The negative consequences from some of these experiments have created a dangerous world that now incentivizes group-orientation to survive. If you want a perfect example of this, see the refugee crisis in Germany. The elites brought in Muslim refugees as a display of Diversity advocacy despite the populace wishing otherwise, which created a hostile environment for the natives, which facilitated the populace to band-together for safety, which now increases the ranks of the dissent. The more the elites push this agenda, the greater the retaliatory force grows, which, eventually, will overpower the elites themselves. However, the elites are not in-tune with the life of the common man to understand their defense mechanism; they just think people are racist.


The elites are going to be several decades behind the populous in becoming more group-centered because they are insulated from the problems that create group-collectiveness. They have the resources to construct little bubbles away from the storms and wars that unite the rest of mankind. They still live in a world of relative plenty, which incentivizes them to engage in hyper-competitiveness over politics, or social justice, or wealth accumulation even while orcs storm the gates. What recourse do the elites have against this scenario? None.


“A house divided cannot stand” is solid wisdom, but what of a house in which every member is divided against the other? There is no house, only a crater. Group collective action is always going to be more powerful than a loose collection of individualistic status-strivers precisely because the group is loyal enough not to stab each other in the back for personal gains. They not only have strength in numbers, but also strength in unity.


The competitive elite don’t just have an enemy in the Populi, which is stronger than them due to in-group loyalty, but they also have an enemy in every other elite that is working for their own, personal ends, who isn’t afraid to throw another under the bus to get ahead, or blowup the whole goddamn artifice if they don’t get their way. In short, they cannot collectivize an effective counter-attack. For as soon as one elite says, “just send in the army already”, another elite will slink away and ally with the populous to ensure their own safety.


Our job, as the populace, is to ensure that we don’t break ourselves apart due to moderates, entryists, saboteurs, and most importantly – ourselves. There are many divisions to mankind – racially, culturally, and ideologically – but so long as there’s a greater enemy then all those things are secondary. While it may seem like the elites have far more power in this day and age, the truth is that all their plans are coming together to cut off their own legs. Remember that the cycles of elitism and populism are cycles for a reason.


These days, every man needs legal protection. Here is an affordable way to get it.

My novel.

My Twitter.

Just Who Are Your Enemies? The Tolerance Paradox

South Park Death Camp of Tolerance“Welcome to Tolerance Camp. You are here because you would not accept other people’s differences. You refused to accept the life choices of your fellow man. Well those days are now over. Here, intolerance… will not be tolerated.” – Tolerance Camp Leader, South Park, The Death Camp of Tolerance.


Despite the relatively recent narrative shift away from equality and toward privilege, the Social Justice Warriors still, to this day, adhere to the ideal of “Tolerance”. However its form has definitely changed. Back in the day, tolerance was a positive thing advocated toward a mass populous who was assumed (by the elite) to be intolerant, ignorant, and just needed to be informed. Hence, the rainbow coalitions in media.


But these days, the advocates of tolerance are becoming ever more active, less toward positive unification, and more toward bashing and destroying anything they perceive as intolerant. Actually, most people who have interacted with today’s Social Justice crowd will find them to be some of the most hateful and intolerant people around. This is what is known as the Tolerance Paradox:


The tolerance paradox arises when a tolerant person holds antagonistic views toward intolerance, and hence is intolerant of it. The tolerant individual would be, by definition, intolerant of intolerance.


Or, in other words, hypocrisy.


This was perfectly exemplified in the classic South Park episode Death Camp of Tolerance, when the boys of South Park are sent to a Nazi-style “Tolerance Camp”, to be “reeducated” to accept their fellow man.


The Social Justice Warriors of today are no different than the parody Nazi warden from that prophetic episode over a decade ago. They are all too willing to take some nasty turns in the name of their crusade, but yet don’t stop to think that maybe they have become the people they hate with such a passion.


“Battle not with monsters, lest ye become a monster; and if you gaze into the abyss the abyss gazes into you.” – Friedrich Nietzsche


I have many friends across the political spectrum, from gun-toting Texan conspiracy theorists to radical libertarians, to socialists still behind Obama (even to this day), to teachers of Marxism and Critical Theory (purposeful capitalization). And frankly, I am more weary of my liberal friends than my conservative ones, because even though I am more than happy to break bread with any of them, I wonder if would they would be willing to break bread with me if they knew my political stance?


Consider this: a person who holds bigoted views, whether those views are racist, sexist, anti-Semitic, etc. knows they’re in a culture where such views are not tolerated. They know that every person on the street fundamentally disagrees with them, and that such people will likely form an angry mob if they knew of their secret. The Bigot, for lack of a better description, therefore has two choices:

  1. they can sequester themselves away from this world, living alone in solitude
  2. or they can go about their daily routine while simply getting along with everyone around him, knowing full well that they shouldn’t share their views or correct acquaintances that hold contrary ones


Most Bigots take strategy #2, because there’s no way to live even a fraction of a normal life otherwise. Therefore this Bigot, for all the shit he gets, is a more tolerant individual to the people around him, because he can and does live with others he fundamentally disagree with. But would those others pay the same tolerance in kind?


Many of us are in this position by virtue of being red pill, living unconventional lives or simply not accepting the egalitarian feminism of our time. You don’t have to go full fascist shitlord to empathize with our hypothetical Bigot or live the life he does. A wisecrack in the office is all you need to do to become him in the eyes of the Human Resources Manager.


Contrast this experience to the Social Justice Warrior, who posts Social Justice memes to facebook without fear of retaliation or losing their friends, and proudly pushes the virtues of social justice without anyone around them asking for it. They take for granted all the tolerance that others give to them, but would still be all too happy to do whatever they could to ruin someone else’s life if they perceive the most minor of infractions, with no punishment being off the table for sufficient offenses: ending their business, breaking apart their family, inciting a mob (internet or otherwise), or SWATting someone in the attempt to kill them.


The Bigot, who holds intolerant views in his mind, behaves in a tolerant manner to all those around them because they have no other choice but to go along to get along. While the Social Justice Warrior, who holds tolerance as an upmost virtue, behaves in a manner that would put a true bigot to shame.


That’s “tolerance” for you. And irony.



These days, every man needs legal protection. Here is an affordable way to get it.

My novel.

My Twitter.

Equality to Privilege: The Narrative Shift

Being raised in the 90’s, I remember watching shows like Captain Planet and Bill Nye the Science Guy, and even caught a glimpse of Star Trek, The Next Generation when my dad took control of the TV. Back then, the zeitgeist of the time was represented in the rainbow coalitions appearing in nearly every popular show, and it didn’t just end or begin with children’s programming. From the planteers to the crew of the starship Enterprise, the progressive ideal at the time was tolerance and diversity. Countless episodes in a variety of shows preached the benefits of accepting people of differing backgrounds, and advocating all coming together as one.


However, at some point there was a narrative shift away from the zeitgeist of equality to what we have today: “privilege”.


Back in the 80’s and 90’s, before the epoch of Social Justice and before the left’s full takeover of the media and politics, the concept of equality made sense for the left’s immediate goals. Like the commoner to the lord, people who have little power will appeal to those in power for tolerance, diversity, and brotherhood in order to be accepted. Attacking their “overlords” with hostility will usually be met with even greater hostility in return, crushing the soft-hearted rebels before they get the chance to show the world their egalitarian utopia.


But once the left gained a sufficient amount of power there was no need to appeal to equality, because not only did they have their foot in the door, and not only a seat at the table, but now had a command of the cultural narrative.


You can see this narrative shift in how the definitions of the words racism and sexism have changed over the years. Initially it was defined pejoratively as the hatred, bias or negative sentiments toward a particular group of people. It was neutral as far as the speaker or the target were concerned, for a black man throwing racial and misogynistic epithets at an Asian woman was still considered racism and sexism, and the same would be true in the reverse. It was a fairly easy definition to follow, and even the likes of Google and Webster still uphold this definition. However, once the PC left gained power the definition started backfiring on them.


(For example, it is unequal that women are under-represented in tech and science, but it is also unequal that women are over-represented in child custody decisions. If one is to advocate for equality as a moral imperative, then it requires pushing women into tech while simultaneously taking away their children. That’s the problem with equality: it cuts both ways, sometimes against the left.)


Of course, leftists can’t have concepts like equality chopping their own legs off. So, in recent years, leftist acedemics in charge of the definitions changed them in order to exempt leftists from the standards they once held to others. Feminists changed the definition of sexism so that they were no longer sexist. Anti-racists changed the definition of racism so that they were no longer racist. They did this by forwarding the idea of privilege, treating it as an axiom as they once did with equality.


Now, not only is racism and sexism about hatred and bigotry, but also includes the dubious qualifier of “institutional power” – a racist/sexist remark is performed when the speaker says something bigoted, just as before, but they must also hold institutional power over the oppressed. A woman can make bigoted remarks against men and it’s technically not sexist because she supposedly has no institutional power – that power is held by the patriarchy. If he makes a sexist joke then he is reprimanded, but if she makes a sexist joke then she is not. The man can only ever be the cause of offense and women can only be the target. It doesn’t just end at sex, but continues to race and any other marginalization – it all skews one way.


reverse racism

This is what the Universities teach now.


Reading between the lines, it’s clear to me that this exception only serves to (conveniently) protect the ones that conceived the definition from the same standards that they hold to others. Anything they say cannot be wrong, while they’re allowed to chastise others for the exact same behavior.


So why was “institutional power” added? Why not stick to the concept of equality in the first place if it seemed to work so well?


Tolerance, diversity, equality and unity were all useful when the left didn’t rule over public discourse. Such concepts were their foot in the door, to allow them access to more power and more followers because they are things the general public could believe in. Now that they are no longer useful to the left, those things have been discarded from the narrative. “Privilege” gives the Social Justice Warriors a justification for their hatred and vitriolic attacks, and also allows them to entrench their power by policing the dissenters without the double-edge being used on them. This is their main goal. It has always been their main goal. And it was something they could never accomplish under the guise of equality.



These days, every man needs legal protection. Here is an affordable way to get it.

My novel.

My Twitter.