The Revolving Door of Ideologies

In my last piece, I explained that ideologies can die with the individuals that subscribe to them, if these ideologies happen to cause a genetic dead end or cultural collapse. However, ideologies are not genes which can be completely wiped out in biological terms. Ideologies can be passed on by a generational revolving door of believers. It is more accurate to view ideologies as viruses that ride our bodies, or in this case psychologies, to future generations.


In microbiology, there are two extremes a pathogen can take in order to survive. It can be infectious but not deadly, in which case the virus, bacteria, parasite, etc. rides within the host for the rest of the host’s life, like chicken pox or herpes. Some go down this path because if the microbe kills its host then it also dies. That is why we don’t see thousands of smallpox-level viruses cleansing the planet of all life, for if they did then the viruses would become extinct. It is beneficial for the microbe to be infectious, but not deadly, and, over time, this is what they tend to do.


On the other extreme there are pathogens that are extremely deadly on top of being highly infectious. These tend to be ones that a population has never seen before. AIDS and Ebola, for example, come from other animals and didn’t originate with us. If a virus has developed in such a way as to be extremely deadly to its host, then it’s not banking on the host’s longevity to sustain it, but rather the virus is looking to be spread as far and fast as possible, killing along the way. As long as the momentary host has access to other hosts, the infection can etch out its existence until everyone is dead. This works for a short time, but the microbe risks running out of other hosts, for they’re all dead.


We can conceptualize ideologies in similar fashion. Some ideologies infect us, giving us benefit, while many are benign, a few are harmful but not necessarily deadly, and the remainder are things you must look out for. It is my belief that the leftist/feminist ideology has edged toward the latter extreme, where hosts are “killed off” as genetic dead ends. In this sense, there is no difference in a belief that one shouldn’t reproduce and a microbe that makes reproduction biologically impossible. Because the ideology of leftism isn’t viable on its own in reproductive terms, it must instead become highly-contagious strain, and that is what leftism has evolved to do – appeal to the highest number of people through the easiest way possible.


Rats and their fleas were the vector for the plague. Malaria is caused by a protozoan parasite deposited by mosquitoes. Many pathogens are spread by a bridge of some sort. So what spreads the leftist infection?


The Universities. That is the revolving door which takes young people, easily influenced with little to no immunity from the ideological virus because of their inexperience, converts them, and sends many a lineage down the path of a genetic cul-de-sac. Remember two things: first, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure; and second, that in order to stop the spread of any pathogen, whether it be microbial or ideological, you must focus on the source. If you want to end leftism and replace it with a more sustainable ideology, then the Universities must change.

Gnon Hates Feminism

I’m not going to debate which side of the political spectrum has the facts on their side, which group is more educated, or which is morally superior. I could care less about human rights or equality, or which ideology has the most “good intentions”. I don’t care about individualism or communism. None of that matters to me because what truly matters are results. The results show that Gnon’s cosmic judgment will lay its crushing blow on feminism and leftism because they are not designed to be sustainable ideologies. (If you’re a little late to the party and don’t know who Gnon is, read my previous post.)


You see, discussions about economic and social policy are like navigating a ship. They explain where we are currently headed, where we truly want to go, how we should go about getting there. But always remember that if the ship sinks then any questions about navigation are moot, and a ship will either sink or float. There are no other options.


All the same, our species will either live or die. There are no other options. Moral, political, economic, social, and even spiritual debates are moot if we’re all dead. Given these considerations, we should ask whether an ideology will make us sink into extinction before we entertain their ideas further. It doesn’t matter if said ideology makes us feel good or that we like it, because much of what keeps us alive isn’t pleasant. Candy will kill you. Vegetables suck but they make you strong.


Aside from all the criticism and rants I’ve made about the left, or the social just warriors, or feminism and all the other head-cases in the same basket, what ultimately condemns the ideology is that, if left unabated, leftism/feminism et al will end the human species. I call that immoral, because that is the ultimate sin against Gnon’s only Law: survival.


From my experience walking around the city of Boulder, a haven of SWPL liberals, I’ve noticed the men and women on thousand-dollar mountain bikes. I see the parking lots filled with new Prius’ and Subaru’s. Everyone has the money to finance their extraordinary educations and organic living blogs while residing in some of the highest cost of living areas in the state. I get to go into their houses and marvel at the new counter tops and flooring, their expensive televisions and furniture. But you know what I don’t see a lot of? Children.


The typical size of the SWPL family is host to usually one child, created by a less-fertile mother later in her life, after she’s “settled down”, and her beta husband who might do cross-fit but can’t use a weapon to save their lives. When that single child follows their parent’s teachings and goes to college to become another disciple, they meet their spouse and have their one child. From four people, go to two, go to one. And if that child meets their spouse and builds a family in typical SWPL fashion, then the eight great grandparents’ bloodline drops to one child. It’s not so much of a family tree as a family pyramid.


Now, I’m not saying that this one family’s trend equates to their ultimate destiny, for some later generations of children could change the course of their bloodline, as many generations have in the past, but that just emphasizes my point: the SWPL lineage will either die or convert to another ideology. Sink or float. There are no other options. And while some could say that the left doesn’t intend for this to happen, for there is nothing in the ideology that explicitly states you can only have one child, the fact remains that such is the result. You’d be hard pressed to find a left-leaning family, or left leaning country for that matter, that has more than replacement-level population growth.


I think there are two main reasons for this: economy and feminism.


We in the west live in an economic climate of relative abundance. The amount of toys that our money can buy for short-term gain vastly eclipses our other options, like starting a family. People would rather remodel their kitchen than raise another child. In short, we’re too distracted with the mindset of the here and now, rather than thinking about our future and the legacies we leave behind which will last (hopefully) thousands of years.


But I believe the main culprit is feminism. I mean, there’s so much to cover that many of my readers will know what I’ll say before they even read it:


  • The life plan of a girl spending their 20’s to 30’s on the cock carrousel only then to settle down with a beta means they’re wasting their most fertile years while using the last of their womb credit at the event horizon. Increased rates of autism aren’t the only results of a child birthed from their mother’s waning fertility.
  • Feminism encourages sexual independence and a high N count. However women aren’t psychologically adapted to handle multiple lovers like men are, leading to alpha widowhood and regret in marriage. The result: divorce. While the genetic component above doesn’t stand in their children’s favor, this environmental one doesn’t either. Broken homes make broken people.
  • Fat acceptance. No need to say more.
  • Feminism encourages female empowerment – the Catch-22 is that when women get more power, more education, more independence, the opportunity cost for having children grows too. If you’re working in retail or customer service, then you miss nothing by leaving the workforce to have a child. If you’re a CEO then taking even a few weeks off could have disastrous consequences. Not only that, but stress is linked with infertility in females. Hence why high-powered women either have no children, or just one (after spending tens of thousands of dollars at fertility clinics).


There’s more, but the individual specifics don’t really matter. What matters is that, when taken as a whole, this ideology turns people with great potential, along with their potential legacies that could be created, and erases them from existence. The ideas expressed by feminism lead to a degradation in both the quality and quantity of the human race in favor of giving a select few women the brief image of happiness (I doubt they’re truly happy, or will be once they reach the retirement home with no one to visit them and no one to mourn them after their deaths). I don’t doubt that the iconic Single Female Lawyer is intelligent and empowered, but none of those qualities will be passed on to the countless daughters down her line because the lawyer decided to pursue her own interests and not have children. All of her talent will be thrown into Gnon’s genetic trash to join with the two-hundred thousand years’ worth of genetic deformities that never were. Meanwhile, the trailer trash treasure will fill the seats of the workforce twenty years down the road.


My girlfriend’s peers are a perfect example of what I mean. All these women are great people and I respect them all highly, albeit in different capacities. One has a master’s degree in biology (specialization? I don’t know). One is finishing their master’s in marine biology. One is a state safety inspector, with all the degrees and qualifications it entails. Out of all her friends, the one most likely to have more than replacement-level children is a retired MP from the Army, though at 27 there is still no first child yet.


All of these women are strong and independent by feminist standards (and are truly good people), yet despite achieving great things the almighty Gnon will punish them as genetic dead-ends. Is that fair? Well, that depends on who’s terms we’re using. I can put myself into the shoes of any of these women and imagine the feeling of accomplishment I get from serving my country or getting that master’s degree. But, often times, what’s good for the individual isn’t good for the whole. By Gnon’s terms these women are failures, despite the fact that many of us individuals, such as myself, don’t see it that way.


This is an area where our morals and Gnon’s morals do not coincide. Unfortunately, Gnon is the keeper of the physical universe, and his morals will supersede our own, eventually. The only thing that Gnon wants is a strong species that can survive anything thrown at it. Survival, in whatever capacity the environment may call for, is the ultimate measurement of success. Things that make us happy are immaterial to the grand scale of the species.


Feminism as an ideology is against Gnon’s morality in almost every way, for it enables weakness and dysgenics. The “good” news is: that which is not sustainable will inevitably end, thus feminism will eventually end. The downside is that many good women, who would otherwise send their abilities down the line to a hundred daughters, will also go down with the ship.


And Gnon won’t weep for them.

Privilege or Oppression?


From a single action comes evil and good entwined. In every thing there is some darkness and some light. There is never any perfect good and evil. Maybe they those concepts exist purely in the spiritual metaphysics of another dimension, but not here in the real world. When you clear your mind of bias you can then identify the good and evil in all things with just a little shift in perspective.


With this in mind, let’s play a game. I’m going to give you a fact of life and your job is to tell me whether that is considered privilege or oppression.


Men are physically stronger than women. Privilege or Oppression?


Privilege, right? Considering that with greater physical strength means that, in relativistic terms, the world itself and all the objects upon it are lighter and more easily moved, granting men more agency to navigate the world. One would be mostly correct in saying men’s greater strength is a privilege. But you would be only mostly correct.


Because of that greater strength, men are now elected and directed as society’s protectors, warriors, and hunters – careers which come with a greater risk of death. Men make up the greatest numbers of workplace fatalities, to say nothing of causalities in war either. Is that true privilege?


Here we have a scenario of innate, biological privilege being met with the socially imposed and non-voluntary duty to use it in service of the whole, which some might consider oppression. Just like everything has some darkness and some light, with every privilege comes some sort of balance, whether that be fewer rights, freedoms, or, in this case, forced conscription. So the question for you, reader, do the costs of the oppression balance out the benefits of the privilege?


Let’s look at it from the other side. Women are physically weaker than men. Is this oppression of privilege?


It’s oppression in the sense that nature itself has left women disadvantaged to a great degree, in defending themselves, in ability, in agency. The feminist would conclude that nature is sexist and that women are oppressed. But just as biological privilege in men is met with social oppression in the form of a duty to protect, women’s biological oppression is met with social privilege. Women are not conscripted to fight in war. The disparity in strength means she has people to fight for her rather than she fight for herself. If a 200 pound man punches another 200 pound man then it is nothing more than a fistfight, whereas if a 200 pound man punches a 130 pound woman, it is a call to arms in her defense.


Let’s take another example. Using the words of the feminists themselves, women are the only sex that can “create life”. Privilege or Oppression?


Per the female supremacists of the world, the ability to “create life” is a privilege that women hold that men do not. But with that biological privilege (no different than men’s innate strength) comes the social oppression of limiting women’s sexual behavior. In time’s past, societies recognized this power of female sexuality and reproduction, and also realized that some women didn’t know how to control this power from their impulses, creating numerous bastard children, which would then contribute to the breakdown of their little society. In response to this privilege, societies the world over forced women into arranged marriages and controlled their sexuality, thus instituting what feminists would rightly call oppression. However this oppression was a merely balancing act against the power of women’s privilege, just as men were oppressed with conscription for their strength.


Similarly, because women had the privilege of knowing knew who their children were, but men did not, society imposed another balancing act against women, requiring them to be chastise. And since men could not bear children, society elected them the privilege of (relative) sexual freedom.


When there is an innate, biological privilege that one sex has over the other, society will impose social oppression on that sex. When one sex is innately disadvantaged, or in other words oppressed, society will enact artificial privileges for that sex. Example: men are strong, but they must fight; women are weak, but they are protected. Everything is a trade-off.


Looking at how these rights and responsibilities come together, it’s hard to see systematic oppression on one side and/or total privilege on the other. Being born a man or women came with advantages and disadvantages, and as long as there are corresponding benefits to smooth over one’s limitations then the system should work properly. Unfortunately, one has to be intellectually honest to avoid seeing the world as black and white, and the current crop of social science academics has no inclination to see past their biases.


This is what feminists, egalitarians and cultural Marxists get so wrong. They don’t understand the other side of the coin because they would rather believe a narrative with a clear hero and clear villain. When looking at society, Feminists see only women’s oppression and men’s privilege, but not women’s privilege or men’s oppression. Their worldview is so black and white that many can’t even entertain the idea that there was once harmony between the sexes. No, women’s sexual freedom was repressed for no reason and without any corresponding benefit. No, men’s strength and ability was encouraged without any responsibility to go along with it.


This, of course, is madness. Truly enlightened people do not only see in absolutes, but rather in costs and benefits. That is why, for the feminists and egalitarians, equality in their eyes translates to injustice in the real world, for the real world in ages past might not have been “equal”, as both sexes having the exact same privileges and responsibilities, but it was more fair than this one.


Now we’re in an age of imbalance because of this feminist, egalitarian view. Women hold on to their ancient privilege while simultaneously being unburdened from having any and all duty or obligation. Men, however, get to keep all their responsibilities without the corresponding privilege to keep them invested in society. Hence why men are beginning to go their own way and check out of the system.


I say more power to them. Until we can recognize the importance of balance over equality, there is no reason to contribute to a teetering, unsustainable system.

Hate in the Era of Social Justice

Something to keep in mind about the human race is that despite the advances in technology, we are still very much cavemen at heart and technology likely won’t change that for a long time. Granted, there are things about the modern age which cross our psychological wires and produce deformities in us cavemen, like facebook contributing to attention whoring and the easy, modern world contributing to narcissism, but these defects are defects for a reason. Most of the time, we humans function with the same wiring as we have for the last several thousand years, wiring that governs love, sex, and, in this case, hate.


Hate is a strong emotion that can be appropriate or inappropriate depending on context. Hating something after studying it in depth and coming to the conclusion that it is evil is one thing. Hating something because of the exact opposite, because you don’t understand it, or because you were simply told to hate it, is another thing entirely.


We humans are wired for both kinds of hate, and we have hated as such for thousands upon thousands of years. The sudden advent of the modern world, John Lennon’s Imagine and the hippies et al to the contrary have done nothing to stop the emotion from erupting from our deepest, most primitive lobes. The only difference is where the hate is directed.


In every era, the establishment has deemed a scapegoat for hate in order to turn the masses in service to the establishment. Whether this hate is justified or not makes no difference.


In the past, the establishment, the church, cultivated hate toward pagans and witches. The establishment of the Catholic Church generated hate against the Lutherans, and the Lutherans designed their own hate against the Catholics. Blacks, Irish, Italians, Polaks, Chinese, Jews, etc. were all designated as hate targets at one time or another so the political establishment at the time could benefit by the outrage. The masses took the bait, as they always have, and always will, and proceeded to incite their own witch-hunts, lynching’s, mobs and genocides.


We’re fortunate that we live in a world that has grown up and left that hate behind. Or do we truly live in that world? Has the world changed? Have we changed? Unfortunately not.


We do not see less hate today because it is an emotion locked away within our most primitive hindbrain. Like sex and hunger, and the fight or flight mechanism, it simply won’t go away even after a few tokes and a kumbaya. We are, after all, still cavemen.


One could say that we are more intelligent and educated, thus inoculating us from hate. Problem is, plenty of intelligent people were witch hunters who sent plenty of other people to the stake. If anything, more intelligent people are more adept at justifying their prejudices than people who understand that they know so little.


The psychology of the human animal doesn’t change much in a thousand years, only the establishment does. The only reason why we don’t hate Polaks like before isn’t because we’ve become more tolerant of them, but because the establishment has changed and Polaks, Chinese, Italians, etc. are no longer a threat to the Powers That Be. Instead, that level of hate has been redirected once again by the current establishment for its own purpose.


That current establishment can be described many ways – liberalism, progressivism, egalitarianism – but no matter what name you use, it is still some form of Cultural Marxism – the belief of human equality, of class oppression, and of racial/gender privilege. In contrast to its predecessors, this establishment wants to put on the guise of tolerance and acceptance to “diversity”, but like all establishments that came before it cannot exist without the masses hating a designated group. However in this era, they cannot hate any particular national, religious or racial group like the belief systems of before.


In order to sidestep this hypocrisy, the establishment has elected a new hate target that simultaneously allows the masses to hate in its service while also seeming righteous and tolerant. These targets are now racists, sexists, and the privileged. In other words, white males are the new pagans while the new masses of torch-bearers are Social Justice Warriors.


If you read the blogs of tumblr, or wander the social justice twitter feed, or even just talk to one of these people, you will likely notice a psychology of intense hatred. Replace what they say about whites with the word black, or replace man with the word woman, and you’ll see how strong their hate is. And that is being charitable. The way they mobilize a mob to burn down people’s careers and lynch their reputations shows how closely they follow the ancient script. If born in a different era, the Social Justice Warriors would have wielded the torch that set witches on fire, or the bombs that destroyed churches. It’s not as if Social Justice Warriors truly like black people (for example), for they can be just as racist as anyone else, instead they just hate racists and privileged so much more. They don’t like women, they hate men. They don’t like Islam, they hate Christianity. They don’t want to work hard to build something of their own, they just want to tear something down. Their hate is so pure and strong, like their forerunners, and is justified all the same by the establishment’s mouthpieces, whether they be priests or professors.


But just as there are witch hunters in every era who follow the commands of the establishment, there are skeptics in every era who are not without reason. These men and women were the ones to reject and question the ideology of their day. They were enlightened enough to balance their feelings with reason, and likely walked away from the mob, or took a stance against to. Today, ironically, these people are so called bigots, and are labeled as misogynists and racists for the crime of seeing reality. They are red pillers who stand against, not with, the Social Justice Warriors and their mob, though the Social Justice Warriors themselves would die before they admit this.


It’s sad to see how history repeats itself. The lessons of tolerance were never learned, but instead repackaged and rebranded into another form of bigotry. The Social Justice Warriors don’t realize that they are the useful idiots of another era, the people who absorbed the ideology of their times and are all too happy with dispensing it.


Remember. People don’t change. Institutions do.


My advice to current and converting red-pillers is to not be like the useful idiots of this or any other time. Don’t let hate guide your life because it’s a fleeting emotion liable to make you a pawn, but don’t try the futile attempt to eradicate hate because it will never happen. Instead, balance your emotions with your reason. Do not focus on tearing something down; instead focus on building something up.

The Meaningless Distraction of Social Justice

[Reminder: if you like my stuff then follow me on twitter, leave a comment, or like a post on stumble. I’d appreciate it.]


Wages are stagnating, our dollar is inflating, the economic prospect of the west isn’t looking good. Most of us are growing up in a time where opportunities to have even a modest living are shrinking away while the cost of living gets higher by the year.


And yet I’m told we need to have discussions about things, as if these things are going to shorten our work weeks and get us better pay. Apparently, we need to talk about transgender issues and gay characters in science fiction. We need to do away with the “gender binary,” said some hack writer from the Guardian. I’m told that misogyny and harassment and trolling exists on the internet, yes, the internet of all places, and it needs to be addressed because it’s hurting women’s feelings and taking away their opportunities to be engineers. We need to have this discussion about cisprivilege and thatprivilege, because our world would be better if we just accepted people, all people, including weirdos and their fetishes.


However, I doubt this world would pay me more so I can support a future family, or protect that family from an economic collapse or a frivorce (same thing really).


I think it’s quite strange how all these trenches are being dug on battlefields that have no significance to our lives outside the internet where we have to live and work in continually declining economic conditions. It seems pointless whether or not the “guy” next to you identifies as a femme-showing transsexual when you and zir are homeless and eating out of the trash.


I’d be willing to bet that gay/trans/race/women’s issues are only being pushed as hard as they are because they represent a safe release value for the legions of overeducated and underemployed college grads who make their homes on the internet. The progressives in media highlight an elusive boogeyman which doesn’t threaten the economic powers that be, the liberal economic powers that be, but is nonetheless an issue which allows all the useful idiots to get their rage on. These battle lines are purposefully drawn in a virtual playpen so that absolutely nothing changes in the real world even if the Social Justice Warriors win. In the era of mass media, these things exist precisely because they’re a meaningless distraction. If they were anything else, there would be radio silence.


Meanwhile, the media profits by presenting the college-educated proles with clickbait and the politicians benefit by having legions of news-fed useful idiots. The elites know they’ve screwed the pooch economically thanks to globalism, crony capitalism, debt, you name it, but they don’t want to take the blame. So they engineer other issues on the deck of a sinking Titanic. No, it’s not globalism that’s making our lives worse; it’s institutional sexism. No, it’s not an issue that we can actually solve; it’s this illusive and invisible mythos of privilege that can only be fought with a hashtag campaign on twitter.


And here I sit as a young man and blue collar worker with a useless and unused Bachelor’s Degree, trying to figure out my own opportunities in life, but finding few. I wonder, who the hell is actually advocating for labor these days? It’s not the feminists, Social Justice Warriors, or the tri-gender otherkin on tumblr. All the true blue Marxists who would be tearing down the banking system were bounced out of the protest for having inadequately pale skin pigmentation and a dangler between their legs.


Hmmm. I wonder who orchestrated that…

Why Social Justice Warriors Suck Part 4: The Social Justice Singularity of Insanity

Another toxic component of the Social Justice Warrior psychology is not just attacking perceived oppression and injustice through witch hunts, or about finding a purpose through contrived oppression, but about gaining status among other Social Justice Warriors for extra validation.


If everyone is a special snowflake then no one is special. If you’re a Social Justice Warrior trying to find validation for your meaningless life, and all the other Social Justice Warriors are trying to do the same, then the real threat to your metal state isn’t the racist, neo-nazi skinhead, but your fellow warriors beating you at your own game. In order to succeed as a Social Justice Warrior, you need to find a way to distance yourself from them. No, actually, you should find a way to out-social justice them. That means one-upping the social justice warriors around you. Not only are you Holy, but you are Holier than all the others.


For example: let’s say you’re not racist and treat people as individuals. That’s fine, but everyone else in your clique does that too. So, to get over on them, you also must like the oppressed, and not just like the oppressed, but prefer the company of the oppressed, and not just prefer the company of the oppressed, but hate everyone that isn’t the oppressed, and not just hate everyone that isn’t the oppressed, but you must identify as a member of the oppressed, and not just identify as a member of the oppressed, but believe that you are a member of the oppressed born into the wrong body. Yes, that’s a thing. The tumblrists call it Transethnic.


This presents a problem: because every Social Justice Warrior tries to out-justice the other Social Justice Warriors, their beliefs can only become more extreme. There is no other choice; the social justice warriors can’t beat the others in a status competition if they go against the holy doctrine progressive narrative.


Every school of leftist thought does this against itself. Feminists of old, for example, might be confused by the recent development of body acceptance and anti-fat shaming. If the old guard made up of aging hippies, yuppies and healthfood nuts believes that obesity is harmful, then, according to fourth wave feminism, they are bigots, sexists, and patriarchal allies, or worse: conservatives (never mind that the old guard was burning bras before the millennials were born). White, liberal, anti-racists do this too. They not only seek social justice justice for other oppressed people, but they flog themselves over the privileges they have. The more they hate their race, the holier they appear. And if you were wondering, trying to stick out from the social justice crowd also explains why white, middle class, tumblrists constantly invent new sexualities and identities that are literally insane by our current-day standards. But you just wait a few decades…


This zealous push for increasing purity and status gives rise to more radical ideologies, which generates even more radical ideologies, which spirals downward into greater radicalism. Given enough time, and assuming it doesn’t stop, the ideology of the liberals/leftists/social justice warriors (whatever you prefer to call them) will accelerate to increasing irrationality until the bayonets turn toward everyone, then, when everyone is either in line or dead, they will turn to each other for not being holy enough. It is the memetic equivalent of a malignant tumor.


I’m not sure who you are. You might be a moderate, tolerant liberal in this day and age. However, you would’ve been considered a radical leftist 50 years ago, and you will be considered a radical conservative 50 years from now. If you haven’t been labeled on oppressor yet by today’s Social Justice Warriors then, trust me, you will be. Time just hasn’t caught up with you yet. The steamroller of progress is coming for you, and it will get to you.


That is, unless we can stop the psychology behind it.

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

In my previous posts on the subject, I explained that social justice warriors are weaklings with no sense of purpose except for the fictional crusades they manufacture, and how they inject those crusades into every discourse and media, whether it belongs there or not.


Both these things together make social justice warriors into the worst kind of people: pussies looking for a fight. They want to spread their ideology for validation’s sake against the oppressors of the land, but, because they’ve been sheltered all their lives, they wear psychic armor of glass, crumpling at the nearest hint of actual oppression.


The perfect example of this was tumblr’s hilariously bad attempt at attacking 4chan on July 4th. They fought the only way Social Justice Warriors can truly fight; they mobbed the boards and shamed people. 4chan, being 4chan, fought back with a much more potent weapon: their worst nightmares triggers. In the end, the tumblrists retreated to have their existential meltdowns without adversely harming 4chan whatsoever. At least the trolls got to bring their guns to tumblr’s knife-fight.


You know who acts like this in real life? The bullies with no backbone, who feign toughness and swagger until they receive the lightest tap on the nose. The Social Justice Warriors, like the schoolyard bully, are simply a bunch of narcissistic cowards (but with social messiah complexes), who’ve never been in a real fight. They will light up twitter against the latest perceived sexism and racism in the industry (from the safety of their computer screens), get people fired and blacklisted, get games shut down and edited to suit their image, but the moment their tactics are used on them, attacking their reputations and their livelihoods, then suddenly mobbing your opponents is a no good very bad thing, and we need to sit down and have a discussion, we need to stop the harassment.


Sorry, but I don’t buy it at all. If the social justice warriors truly knew the meaning of justice and fairness then they would have stopped themselves from posting hit piece after hit piece against gamers for the last few years. They wouldn’t have wrote off criticism as bigotry or used minorities as human shields. If they understood true justice then they would have gracefully backed down from the conflict, maybe even admitting that they overstepped some bounds.


But they haven’t, and they won’t. They keep falling back and doubling-down because they’re cowards with egos on the line.


Personally, I feel no pity for them. You poke a hornet’s nest, you’ll get stung, and no one but the least self-aware should be surprised at that. This reaction has been a long time coming, and it needs to happen. A lesson must be learned.



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

My novel.

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

A friend of mine is an assistant professor at a very liberal school in a very liberal town in a fairly liberal state. He teaches Marxism for fuck’s sake, and yet he is still my friend precisely because we have unspoken lines regarding certain discussions that we do not cross. Any political or religious debate between us would only harm our friendship, and so we mutually avoid those topics for the good of our relationship. Most sane people understand this and would prefer to never know their associates’ political or religious orientations, whether they be friends, family, or coworkers.


What you don’t want is to make politics, or religion for that matter, a primary focus for an organization that has no political or religious purpose. For example, people go to work not to have debates, but to actually work. Any injection of politics in that scenario would only divide the workers/management against each other, make them less productive, and harm the organization itself. Whether this is your business, your family, your fiction or even your video games, we’d all prefer to leave unnecessary, galvanizing topics out of the mix. Broaching those topics requires a specified time and place, and clear ground rules.


And this is precisely why Social Justice Warriors suck so much, and should be met with almost universal scorn, even from people of their own political orientation. Unlike everyone else who would rather keep these stances private, or left in the voting booth, the Social Justice Warriors want to inject their cocktail of politics into every medium and organization that doesn’t adequately stop them at the door. They are driven by self-righteousness moralizing, and so they see every parcel of media as a new opportunity to spread their ideology.


Folks like Larry Correa lament the intrusion of SJW’s into science fiction. In an ideal world, science fiction is meant to entertain, first and foremost, for if you have no story as part of your storytelling, then you are merely writing an awkwardly-constructed essay. Politics and religion are only means to an end – to give the story character. To make politics or religion the focal point in fiction and force the story into the backseat is to undermine the ends for the means. However, the SJW sees this as an opportunity to spread their gospel, and so they write politically-correct fables set in space yet can’t conceive why their sales plummet. Must be the internet or video games or something taking peoples’ attention.


Speaking of video games, have you heard of Zoe Quinn? Right. Enough said. Moving on…


It won’t just end with Video Games. They are merely the latest casualty. Comics, movies, television are eroding bastions for social justice. Where once these things were treated apolitically so that more people could enjoy them, unified in a common attraction to those genres, titles, or forms of entertainment, they are now being divided by the politics of the Social Justice Warriors. Games must showcase not only a rainbow coalition, but must acquiesce to the Perpetually Offended. Heroes must be gender-bent, racial-bent, with ambiguous sexualities. It is no longer about the entertainment itself. All media must teach a code of Social Justice. And once the power of political correctness has made the region toxic, the Social Justice Warriors will move to the next opportunity to “educate” the masses.


They are the leftist equivalent of the church lady who brings up religion at every casual gathering, or the evangelical who is obsessed with proselytizing at every opportunity. Imagine if we were in a dimension where every comic hero had to reference Judeo-Christian values, and every video game had a Christian message. What if every science fiction story was a quasi-biblical tale where plot was sacrificed for message? What would we think of that world where such media not only merely existed but that most media was that way, and the crowd pushing those values wanted more without end, attacking anyone who stood in their way as a heretic?


We would clearly see the intrusion for what it was – a divisive measure used to propagate certain views. We would distance ourselves from it. We would react against the proselytizers.


That is why, in this world, we need to react against the Social Justice Warriors. In their quest for tolerance, they produce hatred. In their quest for inclusion, they produce separation.


This is not a right/left issue, but an issue of personality flaws. Honestly, there’s nothing inherently wrong with trying to solve problems of injustice, by whatever metric one tends to view them. What’s toxic is the psychopathology, the egotistical desire behind them which will ruin all institutions that harbor these people, whether they are the hipster indie game dev conning their way to produce the banal Social Justice Quest, or the bible-thumping preacher found smoking meth in the men’s bathroom. They are merely different manifestations of the same psychosis.


This obsession with trying to change the world in your image must be reversed. Until that happens, there’s no point in getting mad or being surprised that the infection has spread.



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

My novel.

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

Take a man born to a mother and father who struggled through the depression. Give him a rifle and send him to war to see the faces of his comrades go pale as they succumb to their mortal wounds on some no-name pacific island. Take a girl raised in the dust bowl and give her a job in the munitions plant, so that at the end of the day she can buy some rations for her family. When the troops come home, the man and woman find each other in a postwar world of sudden abundance. They start a family, and the living is easy. They want to give their children a better life than what they faced.


Those children grow up without struggle and conflict. The streets are safe and their family is relatively well-off, thanks to America’s economic boom. However, their easy lives don’t give them true challenge, and thus no true meaning. They live without knowing who or what they are, until they are given a university education and are told of the oppression in the world. Up till that point, their lives are an uninteresting story with no upward arch, but with this narrative their lives could finally have validation. They define themselves by fighting oppression in the racial conflict, in the battle against the patriarchy, in the fight against poverty, in defense of the planet. They, the baby boomers, are the first activists, the first Social Justice Warriors. They assumed the roles of power in the universities, media, and government, but their greatest power would come from having their own children.


The children of the baby boomers live in a world with no major wars. The greatest threat to the west ends with the collapse of the Soviet Union. They too are born into a playpen without struggle and thus without definition in their stories. After incorporating the teachings of the elder activists, they then perpetuate the cycle further and push the policies of political correctness into new territory. They propagandize the media and sanitize the discourse, setting the stage for their descendants.


Now, their children live in a world without physical struggle. They have no great depression or a great war. Every convenience and entertainment is bestowed upon them without cost. They have ingested the politics stuffed into them by the two previous generations, and so their zeal outshines their parents, but so does the void in their heart. They live without struggle in America’s middle class, raised by parents who lived without struggle in America’s middle class, raised by parents who, also, lived without struggle in America’s middle class.


Their lives have no story. No one will talk about them after their deaths. They are average nobodies in a faceless crowd, and part of them knows this. They search for some meaning or some way to differentiate themselves from others. But in this world of abundance, the only supposed conflict is the narrative of oppression. In order to avoid looking at the emptiness in their lives, they’ve that cast themselves as the protagonist of their own movie, fighting the good fight against the evils of the world. That is why they fight so hard, with so much zeal and hatred and loathing against their make-believe villains. It is all an attempt to make themselves a hero and give themselves a story. It is the only thing keeping them from complete existential annihilation.


All Social Justice Warriors, from the hippies of the 1970’s to today’s Tumblr activists, are all searching for some reason to live. While their grandparents and great grandparents found meaning from overcoming the odds and antagonists against them, these children only have their role in the narrative.


The Social Justice Warriors believe the problem is the world, when, in reality, the problem is within them. The problem has always been within them. If only they realized that if they simply filled the void inside themselves then all would be made right. Their fears and hatred would dissipate. They would find happiness. And they would be truly defined, maybe even enlightened.


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

My novel.

Politics and Pathological Altruism

Pathological altruism occurs when a person’s sense of beneficence extends to such a radical degree that their actions inevitably cause harm and suffering for both themselves and the beings they’re trying to help.


The crazy cat lady who takes care of too many animals is easy to recognize. When the targets – the altruistic supply – are animals, we can see plainly that the “caregiver” hasn’t the mental faculty to allow something to survive on its own.


However when humans are in the equation, we never question the motives or psychology of the altruist. Could caring for our fellow man not signal some kind of psychological depression in the do-gooder just as it does with the animal hoarder? In fact, I would be more skeptical of the humanitarian than the animal hoarder because at least the animal hoarder is trying their best to care for real, actual beings that they can see and touch, while the humanitarian desires to help people they have never met, people who live in far-off lands, people that exist as an abstract character in the realm of the mind and outside the territory of the monkeysphere.


So if someone says they care for Africans while living in the first world then I can only conclude that the speaker is posturing and they don’t really, truly care (which indicates narcissism), or that they do indeed care for beings they’ve never met (which indicates hyperactive/pathological altruism).


While Anonymous Conservative has made his mark by studying the link between narcissism and leftist politics, I believe there is a similar link between pathological altruism and the left because both narcissism and pathological altruism originate in the same place – the deficient ego – but manifest differently.


The leftist pathological altruist, that is to say the human animal hoarder, is fueled between two main motivations: status signaling, and care-giving as a means to relieve emotional pain. In the former, the altruist wants to extend their care to all the animals (or humans) in the world in order to climb over the average pack of humans to become an exceptional (and transcendental) moral being. In the latter, the altruist feels a deep loathing, or deep sadness, or more likely guilt inside themselves that only the care for others could possibly relieve. Add to that the notion the left holds that people are all connected, that all humans are human, that we are all citizens of the Earth and that no one is an illegal alien, and the world suddenly opens up to become the altruist’s psychological supply (not all that different than the narcissist’s narcissistic supply). The targets of the altruist don’t even have to be real, living humans. The altruist only needs to believe these humans exist.


In truth, thousands of humans, even human children, die every day by disease and starvation. No sane person would weep for each individual the way they mourn their own parents, or siblings, or children. Thousands of lives are born and die and the vast majority of the world carries on with business as usual. It would be madness to do otherwise. The image of a child, dead on some foreign beach, is supposed to trigger the altruist, but it should not evoke anything from any normal person. Why? Because, relative to us, that child did not even exist the day before – none of us had even heard of him, let alone met him. These people are fictions, because they only exist in the realm of narrative. Unless you can talk to them, see them, touch them, then they might as well be characters in a movie.


I can’t treat every human being that crosses my path as my own family, unlike the cat lady who can treat every stray as her pet. I have a mental territory, my monkeysphere. It has boundaries.


The left will not draw these lines because it means people will die, and their altruism will not let that happen. Turning away people at the border means that some of them will die, just as turning away wild animals means they too may die. Cutting off the single mother once she’s had her Xth child, or cutting off the drug dealer, or criminals, means that some people will fall through the cracks and possibly die. The left doesn’t like this reality. They don’t want people to experience needless pain, so they make no barriers and they will never turn their back on others. In their view, everyone must be taken care of, no matter who or for how long. Their universalist, one-species-one-people ideology, however, turns the Earth into a glorified animal shelter, and like any overcrowded animal shelter, it will result in needless pain for those who run it as well as those who within.


When that lady on animal hoarders looks around at the walls painted with cat urine and reduced to splinters from the clawing of a hundred paws, she is told that the world she’s made for her pets is a living hell, both for them and herself. She is told that, had she never taken them in, they would have fought to survive on their own, that many would have died, but the far-reaching consequences for both them and her wouldn’t have been as dire as this. They would not have become dependent. They would not have lived in overcrowded squalor. They would have not gotten sick, and many wouldn’t have needed to suffer.



If the results are so painfully clear to us, then why stop at cats?


I believe the same is true in the artificial state of man’s civilization. What we need is a little dose of sociopathy for the human animal, while at the same time not losing our empathy for those we value.


The key as usual, is found in the wisdom and delicate balance of multiple concepts.