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.

 

The Balance of Psychopathy and Empathy

Psychopathy, sociopathy, antisocial personality disorder, they all label the same thing: individuals who lack a moral compass and exercise their will on others without consideration to their personal feelings or well-being. They act by whatever means to accomplish their goals, taking what they want usually without a second thought. Sometimes they’re with you; sometimes they’re against you, but they are always for themselves.

 

You’ve probably heard of sociopaths as holding onto one of the three dark triad traits which can favor seduction. There is a lot to be said in favor of a man acting of his own accord without fear of blowback. Psychopathy is an off-color kind of confidence/dominance that is attractive, for a while, until one is reduced to psychological rubble or left in a dumpster. The dangers of psychopathy are well understood common knowledge, so I won’t go into depth about it here.

 

On the other side of the spectrum is empathy. We tend to regard empathy as a good thing., so what could possibly go wrong with helping others, or considering their feelings before acting?

 

Here’s how: at the extremes, you can see individuals with such a degree of concern for others that they cause harm by being a pathological altruist. Animal hoarders are a good example of this. Some people are so obsessed over the welfare of every animal that crosses their path that they will sacrifice their own well-being, and the well-being of others, and even the well-being of their targets by trying to inject assistance where it isn’t warranted. In the case of the animal hoarders, they will shelter animals until their house contains more than the individual could possibly handle. Sure, feeding and housing a handful of cats may be beneficial in the short term, but increasing the scale brings negative consequences like disease and dependency. While this is more common in dealings with the aforementioned animals, humans can also be targets of pathological altruism. Children, the elderly, or any vulnerable person makes a perfect potential victim for the pathological altruist to feed off of.

 

I’ve explained before that Narcissism comes from a broken ego that seeks to put up walls of image and false personality to cover the hole in the soul. Pathological altruism works in similar ways, originating from an ego that is unable to cope with reality. The pathological altruist attempts to fill that void from the validation of helping others. The deeper the void, the more they pursue altruism as a source of validation. But nothing will fill that void.

 

The sociopath and the pathological altruist are damaged people at the two extremes of a spectrum. Damaged in different capacities, for different reasons.

 

No one can function normally at the two extremes. At both ends lies destruction for one’s self and others. In order for us to be healthy people, we must understand our place somewhere in the middle. There is a line that we must draw which says: everyone in this circle will be cared about to this degree, while people outside the circle will be regarded to that degree. This is called the monkeysphere, and it is a natural function of the human psyche.

 

Ideally, immediate kin would be our inner circle, and we’d take care of them far longer than we would our best friend(s), who would be taken care of far better than your average anonymous stranger, which would be taken care of more than a foreigner in another land with a different language. Not only do we determine who will be in the circle, but we also decide how deep we’ll go within the circle. Despite kin being the closest, no one should pathologically and habitually assist a toxic family member without end. At some point, we need to choose the strategy of the sociopath and turn our back on them. The same goes with everyone else.

 

As with most things in life, the hard part is not attempting to live on the extremes but finding a balance between the two. If our monkeysphere is too small, we become the sociopath. If our monkeysphere is too large, we become the pathological altruist. We cannot realistically treat everyone as our family, while it would be foolish to have no kin at all. Most people unconsciously understand this in our day-to-day lives, or at least act in accordance with this principal. Things change, however, in the realm of politics, in the mental state of abstractions…

Rethinking Alpha

The manosphere is full of guides to attain the mantle of “alpha”, but each one I pass conjures skepticism within me, not because I think it’s false, but because I ask: what’s the catch? It seems too good to be true.

 

Have you ever rejected a way of life or ideology for another, only to realize that your newfound environment has very similar machinations and traps as the old one? This is no coincidence. Our psychologies don’t change overnight, and a lot of times we go into a new environment for the same unconscious reasons as the old.

 

There is a tendency to believe that we’re leaving a system when we’re really merely walking into a different system (at a superficial level) with different shackles. Off one hamster wheel and onto another. Or, to put it more aptly, getting off one pill and onto another. That’s because we’ve brought our baggage and sensibilities with us, and, despite taking the red pills, we’re still in a matrix, maybe not the matrix, but something else.

 

Few in the manosphere ask an important question, one of motivation, of psychology: Why did you swallow the blue pill in the first place?

 

Really think about that one, then ask why you are here.

 

So you have rejected feminism and political correctness. That is one matrix. But there is another that encompasses literally everything. It has been in your mind since you were born.

 

Consumerism.

 

From the start of your life you were not only told what to want, but how to want. Your innate desire was ever-so gently cultivated into something profitable for someone else, starting with toys, to gadgets, to lifestyles. We were taught to seek status markers as a means to differentiate ourselves from everyone else because we didn’t have different, life-affirming experiences to do that for us. We were conditioned not to examine our internal selves and motivations, because if we were to introspect deep enough, we’d realize we didn’t need all the crap. So we’d then put the polka dotted, postmodern lampshade back on the shelf. For many, the desire for status hasn’t changed, neither has the void in the center.

 

The second big question of the post is: is attaining “alpha” characteristics driven by the same desire for consumption? It’s an important question, because if we’re still unconsciously focused on it, then we really haven’t left the blue pill world behind. Ask yourself: is “alpha” a lifestyle to you? Is it a persona? Is it a means to get girls? Is it a true transformation? What is your vision, the endgame? What’s the point of being an “alpha”?

 

But then that begs the question, for if we know that our mindset has just come out mainstream consumerism, with our biases still clinging on, what really, truly, constitutes “alpha”?

 

The impression one gets from the Game community is that alpha constitutes a set of traits which indicate high value. Most of the time, that definition is pretty accurate. However the main problem is that such a view focuses on the traits these men display rather than the core attributes which put them at the top. And yes, there’s a difference. Powerful men are confident, so be confident, say the guides, but what initially caused confidence in that man? It wasn’t the guide. That’s for sure.

 

To me, it appears as if the Game community has formed an image of alpha based entirely, without exception, on how the effects of these traits attract a woman’s desire. They took traits that women found attractive, called them alpha, and not only create a dichotomy of alpha/beta but crafted an image that one must assume. “Alpha” in this context means a persona one can put on to attract women, like a sports jersey. Master these traits and you’ll be member of the team.

 

How does this sound any different than consumerism’s drive to differentiate one’s self through outside appearance?

 

We call it the red pill, and you take it to get women to notice you, based on what women truly desire. However the blue pill, just as the red pill, was based on what women supposedly desired, and you took it too, probably for the same reasons. So have you really changed? This is what I mean by baggage. This is why the question of motivation is so important.

 

However, that’s just one way to define alpha, and, despite my criticism, Game’s study into female attraction I believe is right much more often than it is wrong. Unfortunately, they assume that female attraction defines “alpha”, when actual alphas were never defined in such a way.

 

Biologists refer to alphas and betas in nature as a hierarchy, particularly in social animals, for example: wolves. In that context, the alpha is merely the leader of the group, sometimes the strongest, sometimes the most ferocious, sometimes the oldest – whatever keeps them at the top. Every pack member below them is the beta, gamma, delta, and so on. It doesn’t make sense to refer to packs of alphas, or categorize a handful of alphas in a group, because in that context there can only be one alpha. The alpha is the apex, the leader, the boss. If you’re not the leader, you’re not the alpha.

 

This applies all the same with humans, and, unlike Game’s definition, it is more clear cut and unambiguous, except in one respect: the alpha is contextual.

 

Take a group of basement-dwelling, computer nerds. Among them, there will be one with the greatest skill whom everyone defers to for experience and knowledge. That person would be the alpha, a title not designated by female attraction, but by their subordinates. Take that nerd out of the basement and put them on a football team and there’s a good chance he won’t be the alpha anymore, but an omega. The star player would be the alpha in that context, but put the quarterback in a math course and his standing in the hierarchy likely shifts downward.

 

Consider a thought experiment: say we have a tribe with a hierarchy of men, alpha at the top. However, for whatever reason, the women of this tribe prefer an omega with what we would consider massive Game. The men revile this person. They do not trust him or respect him, and he is barred from the hierarchy of warriors/scouts/hunters/etc. Ultimate question: is that omega with game the alpha? Not in the least. He has no leadership position or commands authority. His mating strategy may succeed, but he is not an alpha.

 

This leads me to believe that true alphas are the leaders of men and not always the charming seducers of women, though they can overlap. In a tribe, everyone defers to a leader, an alpha, consciously or unconsciously. Females are attracted to the alpha because they are the best in the group, and the alpha, when given so much female attention, acts with certain behaviors which Gamers and PUA’s point to as a reference guide. They’re correct, to a degree, however, the framework of their worldview is several steps removed from the core. To once again use a cliche: they admire the smoke, not the fire.

 

These two definitions not only split the definition of “alpha” into two different concepts, but it can illustrate where our focus lies as men coming out of a consumerist, even narcissistic culture. The idea that alpha is an image or a brand name one puts fourth is consistent with the mainstream matrix we’ve tried so hard to escape from. Like I said, the patterns in our psychology don’t change overnight. At this point, we should probably focus on divorcing the concepts of Game and Alpha as two independent things. That all being said, there’s nothing wrong with studying seduction. Personally, I think Heartiste should be required reading for the manosphere, but let’s not make the practice of seduction a monument and call it alpha.

 

It’s still important to become a better man, for we’re all part of the Red Queen’s race – if we stand still we fall behind. However becoming a better man, particularly an alpha, isn’t as simple as learning the skills of seduction. It’s not enough to give women the ‘gina tingles. One must learn how to be a leader of men, to command their respect and loyalty with expertise, which is ultimately the more difficult challenge because it requires you to evolve and ascend from the inside out.

 

Want to know more?

The Left, Narcissism, and a Trojan Horse Named “Discussion”

For most people, discussion is an acceptable way to exchange ideas and evolve their personal worldview. Discussion is great when it comes to friends sitting down to booze and politics, or if it’s between politically polar opposites coming together in good faith. Even if there is a propensity to hold onto our pet ideologies, entering the ring of discussion (not necessarily debate) means you respect your opponent enough to listen and they respect you enough to do the same, to a degree, in theory. Even some liberals want to discuss things with impartiality. Conversely, some conservatives do not.

 

In my opinion, it has little to do with particular leaning, but psychological personality.

 

To someone with narcissism, there is no such thing as a political discussion in good faith. A narcissist chooses political affiliation as a matter of identifying with the right demographic and less about planning the structure of society. So, when they are thrown rebuttals or contrary opinions, it causes narcissistic injury followed by narcissistic rage. Liberals tend to feel this rage by an injury to their personal image as societal savior, while conservatives tend to feel this rage at the injury to a secondary source, their narcissistic supply, i.e. their national identity.

 

And while I just tried to appeal to the middle ground by bringing both liberals and conservatives into the battle, there is just no beating around the bush that today’s politically correct left (not necessarily the Marxist revolutionaries of the past) embody the concept of identity politics and narcissism more so than your average conservative. When these leftists plead for a nation-wide “discussion” after a crisis, they aren’t doing it in good faith for three main reasons:

 

1: Their views are driven by personal ego rather than any intellectual foundation. Advocating for social justice is less about actual fairness and more about how to appear more not racist then other leftists (yes, the awkward wording is intentional). The whole charade is a status display – political peacocking. Thus, they take any disagreement personally as an attack on their ego. Ask yourself this: would a leftist really go into an honest discussion knowing that they might have to undergo an existential crisis in the process? Newp.

 

2: Because of their university education, they have a hyper-inflated confidence that their worldview is the correct one. Every teacher told them so, and all their friends from the university agree. I mean, they wouldn’t teach it if it wasn’t rigorously studied, right? They believe that if your arguments aren’t supported by academia, then your views are part of the ignorant, unwashed masses. So what would the leftist with a degree in useless have to learn from you? Nothing. Their “discussion” can only be one-sided, with them thinking they hold the torch of knowledge.

 

3: They have access to your ejection seat. Say something they don’t like and they’ll terminate the conversation with ad hominems of racism/sexism/privilege. The “discussion” is entirely under their control; it is not two parties coming together in ideological synthesis and mutual respect, but someone coming to convert the unbelievers.

 

Taken together, these leftists don’t come into a discussion with the assumption that their worldviews will be changed. Every Elliot Rodger equivalent that goes on a shooting spree sparks another “discussion” about gun control, or misogyny, or masculinity, but it’s telling that leftists aren’t content with the discussion not going their way.

 

Looking at it from a psychological standpoint, the fortress of solitude that defends their ego is marvelously effective. The way their neurological programming forwards political and social causes, entwining them with a broken self’s twisted desires, is almost a work of art. A super villain could not have orchestrated a better mind-control scheme.

 

And yet, I don’t think it’s a problem with the left per se. In some alternate dimension, I’m sure the religious right’s narcissism could be just as destructive. The root of the social messiah complex is the inability for these people to find solace with their inner selves. They cannot be content with the world because they aren’t content with their person, and so the distorted ideologies conform to their broken psychologies. Take away the narcissism and the left reverts to old liberalism and the right to traditionalism, and, without psychopathology, the political spectrum would be far easier to work with.

 

For that to happen, however, people of all ages would need to grow up.