Tag: SJW

SJWs ruin Watership Down

This sort of cultural and creative degradation is why I will never show even a modicum of mercy to SJWs. This is why there is no place for them in any civilized society. They are pure hraka. They are pollution. They infest every organization they are permitted to enter and they infect everything they touch.

It was the film that traumatised a generation of children, with its much-loved rabbit characters slain on screen in graphic and memorable scenes. But the story of Watership Down is to be remade for a new era, as programme-makers promise to tone down its most brutal images.

The BBC has teamed up with Netflix for one of the most expensive mini-series ever made for the small screen, and the first animated four-part drama of its kind.The show’s executive producer told the Telegraph the 2017 version will not just tone down the levels of on-screen violence to make it more appropriate for children, but give a boost to its female characters.

Female rabbits including Clover, played by Gemma Arterton, Strawberry, played by Olivia Colman, and Hyzenthlay, played by Anne-Marie Duff, will get a dose of doe power, as it were, to allow them to display their own heroics alongside their male co-stars.

This is why we need our own institutions. This is why we need to keep every single SJW out. They destroy everything in the interests of convergence. That is their sole objective and their primary activity.

This is also why I will never sell the movie rights to my books. I won’t risk putting them in SJW hands. In time, we will build our own studios. Castalia is just the start.

The demand for social dominance

John C. Wright sees through the SJWs and their little speech-policing tactics:

A reader with the euphonious name of Ecreegan hold forth an opinion on the courtesy owed to transvestites, transgendered, and transrationals.

Sometimes there’s no polite option. Tell me, what pronoun do I use for a pre-operative male-to-female transexual? “She” is a lie. “He” is considered highly offensive, and “it” is considered beyond the pale. (I try to use names. The new name is not a lie, even if it doesn’t make any sense.)

I very strongly disagree, so much so that I cannot tell if you are making a joke.

When you say the words “considered highly offensive” I cannot imagine anyone having any right to be offended at such a thing, nor any honest man taking such offense seriously.

Highly? Really?

To the contrary, it is highly offensive even to assert that an honest man should lie like a dog, a lie no one believes and no one can believe, merely to please the arbitrary whims of some petty tyrant trying to demean your soul and rob you of dignity.

The rule in English is that males and male objects are “he”, and persons whose sex is unknown or undetermined is also “he.” One says “he or she” only in a legal document where that degree of precision overwhelms the need for good grammar. Otherwise is it an error. “They” used in a singular merits horsewhipping.

A man who cuts off his penis and has false breasts implanted is not changing his sex, that is, his biological reality, but is attempting to change his social role: he is a man who wants to be treated with the honors and titles of a wife and mother. He also suffers from profound mental illness, so much so that he cuts off parts of his body.

But since the pronoun deals with the sex and not with social roles, he has no right to be offended if he is a “he”.

It is like being offended that A is A or being offended that twice two is four. If twice two were four, then there would be four lights. There are five lights!

More to the point, it is like being offended if a prole says Oceania was allied with Eastasia last year. Oceania is at war with Eastasia. Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia!

Saying a he is a “he” is not what offends.

The political correction officer is playing a social dominance game with you. He is making himself to be offended with you so that you will obey him.

Precisely. The correct pronoun for both a man and an individual of indeterminate sex is “he”. This is a long-established grammatical rule and also happens to be in line with science. One no more need call an amputated man wearing a dress “a woman” than one need call a costumed man wearing a furry lupine outfit “a wolf”.

One can, of course, quite reasonably elect to indulge one’s friends if one sees fit. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with addressing a friend as “Emperor” if he happens to sincerely believe he is Napoleon. But etiquette does not demand that we automatically defer to the delusions of others.

SJWAL Spanish edition

Thanks to Emilio and Toni, two longtime readers who also speak Spanish, Los Guerreros de la Justicia Social Siempre Mienten: Derrotando a la Policía del Pensamiento is now available for the Spanish-speaking world. I am told there is a real need for it, as SJWs have been pulling their usual tricks in Spain, Mexico, and in the USA as well.

There is also a Spanish version of the SJW Attack Survival Guide which is available now on the right sidebar. A Portuguese version is available too, and a Portuguese translation of the entire book is in the works.

This blog is now an international community, and it’s good to see that nationalists from around the world can work together in thwarting the globalists and multiculturalists who would erase our differences, and even our nations, under the banner of la justicia social.

If you’re a Spanish speaker, I’d encourage you to review the Spanish edition, particularly on Amazon.es.

Fighting fire with fire

And doing so in a legitimate manner. Allen Davis considers blockbots and blacklists at Lew Rockwell:

“Are you, or have you ever been, a supporter of Gamergate, NotYourShield, Sad Puppies, Rabid Puppies, Men’s Rights Activists, Ron Paul, Donald Trump, White Supremacists, etc, etc etc?”

Blacklists have come a long way since the bygone days of McCarthy…. In a blog post, Vox Day suggested creating a list of confirmed SJWs, and his blog readers set about to create it.  Within a few hours, SJWList.com was being populated by a staff of volunteers.

Being added to SJWList has very specific criteria; the person in question needs to be “…on the record supporting censorship of some kind (no platforming, government censorship, or disemploying people).”  SJWList is structured as a Wiki, so each individual listed has their own page, linked to their statements and actions and thereby justifying their inclusion.

Criticism of SJWList has been vocal, as might be expected. Reddit suspended @TheRalph’s account for simply posting a link to SJWList.com.  Accusations have ranged from “building a list of people to harass” to “”sinking to their level” to “becoming SJW by adopting their own tactics.” 

The crew and supporters of SJWList, however, view it as more of a response to SJW tactics, an entirely acceptable escalation in the “arms race” that is the ongoing culture war.  As Brandon Eich, Tim Hunt, and many others can all attest, the social justice warriors have declared “track what they say or do and get them fired for it” a valid tactic. 

If one side in a war uses poison gas, while the other side refuses to “stoop to that level,” then they will cheerfully be the moral, upright, and dead, losers of the war.  The only way to convince the first side to stop using poison gas is to retaliate in kind.

He’s absolutely right. As Tom Kratman has pointed out, reprisals have usually been considered a legitimate and justified response to both escalations and even war crimes.

Frits Kalshoven writes about reprisals: When a belligerent party is hurt by conduct on the part of its adversary that it regards as a grave breach or systematic encroachment of the laws of armed conflict, one possibility is to retaliate by means of an action that itself violates the same body of law. While recourse to such retaliatory action can be arbitrary and in total disregard of any constraints, rules of customary law have developed in the past that provide the limits within which retaliation could be regarded as a legitimate reprisal. The main elements of this customary “right of reprisal” are: subsidiarity (failure of all other available means), notice (formal warning of the planned action), proportionality (the damage and suffering inflicted on the adverse party not to exceed the level of damage and suffering resulting from its unlawful conduct), temporary character (termination of the reprisal when the adversary stops violating the law).

As can be seen in the Davis article, which notes the difference between the SJW-created blockbot and the SJW List, even if one considers the list to be an expose rather than a hiring guide, the SJW List still fits all four limits of a legitimate reprisal: subsidiarity, notice, proportionality, and temporary character.

I have repeatedly warned SJWs that every tactic they utilize will be utilized against them. And since they have not only declared people’s employment to be fair game, but repeatedly acted in attempts to disemploy everyone from police officers to programmers, from students to scientists, it is entirely legitimate to target their jobs and their careers.

Indeed, the mere fact of being openly sympathetic to any social justice cause should now be sufficient to give serious pause to anyone contemplating any form of a relationship, however fleeting, with an SJW.

When
a belligerent party is hurt by conduct on the part of its adversary
that it regards as a grave breach or systematic encroachment of the laws
of armed conflict, one possibility is to retaliate by means of an
action that itself violates the same body of law. While recourse to such
retaliatory action can be arbitrary and in total disregard of any
constraints, rules of customary law have developed in the past that
provide the limits within which retaliation could be regarded as a
legitimate reprisal. The main elements of this customary “right of
reprisal” are: subsidiarity (failure of all other available means),
notice (formal warning of the planned action), proportionality (the
damage and suffering inflicted on the adverse party not to exceed the
level of damage and suffering resulting from its unlawful conduct),
temporary character (termination of the reprisal when the adversary
stops violating the law). – See more at:
http://www.crimesofwar.org/a-z-guide/reprisal/#sthash.Hfd61ZIT.dpuf
When
a belligerent party is hurt by conduct on the part of its adversary
that it regards as a grave breach or systematic encroachment of the laws
of armed conflict, one possibility is to retaliate by means of an
action that itself violates the same body of law. While recourse to such
retaliatory action can be arbitrary and in total disregard of any
constraints, rules of customary law have developed in the past that
provide the limits within which retaliation could be regarded as a
legitimate reprisal. The main elements of this customary “right of
reprisal” are: subsidiarity (failure of all other available means),
notice (formal warning of the planned action), proportionality (the
damage and suffering inflicted on the adverse party not to exceed the
level of damage and suffering resulting from its unlawful conduct),
temporary character (termination of the reprisal when the adversary
stops violating the law). – See more at:
http://www.crimesofwar.org/a-z-guide/reprisal/#sthash.Hfd61ZIT.dpuf

Point-and-Shriek, or Why SJWs are SJWs

This is a guest post from a well-respected writer who must remain nameless for the time being.

This started out as an essay on fallacies believed by Social Justice Warriors. Somewhere along the lines, it split into two parts.

One of the problems with Vox Day’s recent, and highly recommended, book SJWs Always Lie, is that it doesn’t really define the average Social Justice Warrior. This is not, in fact, an easy task. Unlike fascists, communists or even radical Islamists, the SJWs are a collection of attitudes, rather than a genuine conspiracy.  The average SJW may appear to be a decent person – he or she may even be a decent person – yet sharing the SJW attitudes or fallacies, as I call them,  makes them a potential danger to human civilisation. These attitudes act as triggers. When pulled, they convert a decent person into an SJW, or, as I think of them, Social Justice Bully.

Some of my readers will say that the above statement is absurd.  Bear with me a little.

The sheer irrationality of the SJWs is hard to comprehend, which works in their favour; it’s hard to get a grip on an opponent who thinks so differently from yourself. Indeed, many people view SJW ‘point-and-shriek’ assaults as being unique, even though we have seen dozens in the past few years alone. They seem to be a brand of craziness that has no explanation.  But it does.

The average human being has what we may as well define as two minds, the rational and the emotional.  When one of these minds is strongly involved, the other goes out the window.  For example, a man might discover that one of his children is not actually his own – his wife cheated on him.  He will often attack the child even though the child is the sole innocent in the affair.  Or, upon discovering that her husband had a previous relationship, a wife will often go mad with rage, even though the relationship started and ended before she and her husband ever met and her husband is guilty of nothing more than keeping the relationship from her.

These are both emotional reactions, governed by the emotional mind.  It matters not that a rational man is perfectly capable of adopting a child and treating him/her as his own child, it matters not that the wife is perfectly capable of understanding that her husband had no obligations towards her before they met.

As long as the emotional mind is engaged, rational thought is impossible.
This explains some of the odder political theories that still remain in the political mindset, even though they have failed spectacularly time and time again.  ‘Tax the rich’ sounds good, particularly to someone who isn’t rich or doesn’t consider themselves to be rich; it does not, however, account for the rich moving away, evading the taxes or simply not producing as much the following year because they have to pay taxes rather than reinvesting in their businesses.  Emotionally, socialism and communism sound good, so good that the emotional brain fails to grasp their flaws.  No politician has ever been elected by warning people that they would have to tighten their belts and do more with less.

We see this on a personal level too.  Everyone wants to be good – and be thought of as good – without giving much thought as to what ‘good’ actually is.  The charge of ‘racism,’ therefore, can be used to silence debate because no one wants to be thought of as a racist, as racists are evil.  Indeed, this is so pervasive in our society that the mere mention of the word ‘racist’ forces the accused to prove his innocence (and you can’t prove a negative) rather than the accusers his guilt.  People, therefore, will bend over backwards to avoid the charge, thus turning a blind eye to anything that remotely smacks of ‘racism’.

Or, on another level, let us suppose you are in line for a promotion.  You know you have all the qualifications for the post, but your pointy-haired idiot of a boss promotes one of your co-workers instead.  Rationally, you may realise that the co-worker had additional qualifications you didn’t have, but emotionally you’ll be looking for a reason the boss favoured your rival over you.  She’s a woman, he’s black, she’s a lesbian … you will cling to these feelings even though they have no basis in reality, because that’s easier than admitting you simply didn’t come up to scratch.

When a SJW is triggered, his/her emotional brain takes over.  Rational consideration and debate – even the ability to accept that someone may honestly disagree without being a bad person – becomes impossible.  Instead, the SJW horde – as Vox Day points out – attacks its victim relentlessly, seeking to completely obliterate the target and wipe him or her out of social existence.  Think of every school story you’ve ever read where someone is singled out as the sole target for the bullies and you get the idea.  No one wants to be associated with a target for fear the horde will turn on them next.

The weird thing about this is that it isn’t entirely an unjustified reaction.  Triggers that push the emotional brain to the fore can cause a wave of strongly negative emotions.  Trying to escape the cause isn’t actually a bad reaction, on the face of it.  But the reaction is so strong that it overwhelms any consideration one might have for the rights or feelings of others.  If someone happens to be so scared of dogs that they have panic attacks every time they see one, they may push for a complete ban on dogs even though hundreds of thousands of their fellows not only love dogs, they have dogs as pets.

However, there’s a nasty catch.  The average individual cannot sustain a blatant emotional reaction for very long.  At some point, the person will stop emoting in panic, which will allow the logical brain to take over once again.  If, however, more than one person is involved, the emotional reaction from one triggers an emotional reaction from the other, which in turn spurs the first person into a bigger reaction.  This leads, eventually, to mob thinking – “a person is smart,” as Tommy Lee Jones told us in Men in Black, “but people are dumb panicky dangerous animals and you know it.”

Imagine that something bad happens to you – you get fired, perhaps.  Your first reaction will be the ‘fight or flight’ response; you’ll want to tell your former boss what you think of him, you’ll want to get down on your knees and beg for mercy or you’ll want to put as much distance between yourself and your former co-workers as possible.  You may not be able to think straight for hours afterwards, but once you do start thinking straight you’ll realise that things are not as bad as they seem.  You are still alive and you can find a new job.

If, however, you go home before you calm down and tell your partner, or your parents, or your children, you’ll only prolong the emotional response because they will be emoting too.  It will take you much longer to calm down and start thinking rationally once again.

The SJW ‘point-and-shriek’ attack pattern is designed to keep that emotional reaction going as long as possible.  Ordinary people, as I noted above, cannot sustain an emotional reaction for long without outside prompting.  The more people who join the attack, the longer the attack lasts; the herd stampedes its victim into the ground before enough of its members manage to assess if the victim truly deserves it.

Vox Day’s three laws of SJWs – SJWs Always Lie, SJWs Always Double Down, SJWs Always Project – fit neatly into place.  SJWs lie – or, in some cases, build a mountain of untruth out of a kernel of truth – in order to galvanise the emotional reaction.  They double down because they cannot risk allowing the emotional reaction to abate before its target has been destroyed (i.e. pushed into resigning, which to them is an admission of guilt.)  And they project because they know, at some level, that they do not regard people as individuals … and fear their enemies feel the same way too.

The only way to handle such an assault is to remain calm, do nothing and understand that it will eventually come to an end.  However, as the target’s emotional brain is also being pushed into a ‘fight or flight’ reaction, this isn’t the easiest of tasks.

GJS Siempre Mienten

If you were a) the translator or b) the Spanish proofreader, please get in touch with me via email. I am on a different machine and I don’t have your email addresses.

Convergence at ESPN

It’s no secret that ESPN is fully SJW-converged. But now they’re not even bothering to hide it:

ESPN has fired Curt Schilling over his recent anti-transgender comments on social media.

Schilling, a baseball analyst for ESPN and former Boston Red Sox pitcher, shared a Facebook post this week that lampooned critics of recent laws passed in North Carolina and other states restricting transgender men and women from using the public restrooms that correspond with their gender preferences. Schilling added his own comment to the post, criticizing transgender people.

“A man is a man no matter what they call themselves,” Schilling wrote. “I don’t care what they are, who they sleep with, men’s room was designed for the penis, women’s not so much. Now you need laws telling us differently? Pathetic.”

The original post featured a man in a wig with his breasts exposed, captioned, “LET HIM IN! to the restroom with your daughter or else you’re a narrow-minded, judgmental, unloving racist bigot who needs to die.”

After first announcing Wednesday that it would review Schilling’s comments, ESPN announced later in the day that it had fired him. “ESPN is an inclusive company,” the network said in a statement. “Curt Schilling has been advised that his conduct was unacceptable and his employment with ESPN has been terminated.”

I quit reading ESPN years ago. But they are clearly an excellent demonstration of my Impossibility of SJW Convergence in action, which states: The more an institution converges towards the highest abstract standard of social and distributive justice, the less it is able to perform its primary function. 

ESPN can’t even employ an intelligent Hall-of-Fame commentator to discuss baseball if he doesn’t publicly submit to the SJW Narrative. That is full convergence. Sports is no longer ESPN’s primary function.

Target goes full-tranny

If you’re opposed to the latest SJW Narrative, take Target off your list:

The Target department store chain has jumped into the transgender bathroom debate by declaring that men who claim to be women may use whatever bathroom or changing room they choose.

“Inclusivity is a core belief at Target,” a new company statement reads. “It’s something we celebrate. We stand for equality and equity, and strive to make our guests and team members feel accepted, respected and welcomed in our stores and workplaces every day.”

The retailer added, “We welcome transgender team members and guests to use the restroom or fitting room facility that corresponds with their gender identity.”

“Everyone deserves to feel like they belong,” the statement concluded. “You’ll always be accepted, respected and welcomed at Target.”

Target spokeswoman Molly Snyder added that the policy statement is a public confirmation of its longstanding policy. “It’s just us being very overt in stating it,” she said.

Customers and potential customers almost immediately spoke out against Target’s decision to ignore the biological difference between men and women.

The thing is, there is nothing wrong with unisex bathrooms. In Japan, for example, many of the bathrooms are unisex because space is at a premium and there is only room for one bathroom in many establishments.

But we’re not seeing the elimination of sex-segregated bathrooms, we’re seeing the demonic “five lights” strategy, forcing people to submit to the Narrative and admit to something they know to be untrue.

The cost of convergence

Some people doubted the veracity of my claim that the purpose of the SJW list is to help SJWs find employment at SJW-converged companies. What they fail to understand is that there is no better way to legally ensure the segregation of those individuals from the sane elements of society as well as ensuring that the converged companies more quickly experience the full consequences of their embrace of social justice:

The University of Missouri will be shaggier and dirtier and faculty will be responsible for taking their own trash to dumpsters under the plan for cutting 50 jobs in campus operations detailed in an email memo sent Friday by Vice Chancellor Gary Ward.

Landscaping operations will be cut back so sidewalk edges are trimmed no more than twice a year and only in the most visible locations, Ward wrote. After Saturday football games, the debris left by tailgaters will not be picked up until Monday, he wrote.

Custodial staff no longer will clean or remove trash or recyclables from offices, Ward wrote. “This frees up custodians to assist with recycling, which, previously, has been a volunteer effort,” Ward wrote.

The plan to save $5.47 million in the MU Operations division that employs 842 people exempts the MU Police Department and MU Environmental Health and Safety. Ward warned it likely means slower response time for maintenance issues, less overtime and slower snow removal.

In the email, Ward warned that “we will be unable to sustain the level of service for which you have become accustomed. I do not anticipate that changes beginning July 1, 2016, will inhibit the academic mission at Mizzou, nor is it my intention for that to ever happen.”

Ward’s email is his response to a March 9 directive for a 5 percent cut to general fund budgets from interim Chancellor Hank Foley. The directive imposed a hiring freeze and warned there would be no salary increases.

The Columbia campus is trying to cover $22 million of an expected $32.5 million shortfall because of declining enrollment and new commitments such as the new Division of Inclusion, Diversity and Equity, spokesman Christian Basi said. The cuts do not take into account possible state budget reductions or increases.

Notice that this $32.5 million shortfall is not only the result of their target market’s negative reaction to SJW activity at the university, but also due to the fact that the SJWs running the institution would rather pay for the Inclusion, Diversity, and Equity than pay custodians to prevent them from living in filth.

Many people make the mistake of thinking that common sense aversion to negative consequences will suffice to prevent SJWs from pursuing total societal convergence. The decisions of the SJWs at the University of Missouri should suffice to disabuse them of that notion. It won’t, but it should.

Names are harassment now

It’s always amusing what contortions SJWs will twist themselves into in order to try to justify their actions beyond “me no likee”. Reddit is suspending accounts for linking to pages “posting the personal information (including the full names) of non-public people.”

As some of you may know, there is a list of “confirmed SJWs” being passed around on various sites.

Do not post or link to it on Reddit. It’s considered personal information, and you will likely have your accounts suspended for it.

We already had one user post it here, and it was removed earlier today by the admins, and the account suspended. Similar issue happened on /r/SJWsAtWork, as well.

This was the ruling given to us:

    Our rules aren’t just against connecting IRL names to reddit user names, they are also against posting the personal information (including the full names) of non-public people.

Just wanted to give y’all a heads-up as to what’s going on, so none of you lose your accounts or think that we’re censoring it.

The funny thing is that despite their attempts to justify banning anyone who links to a list of which they don’t approve, and thereby creating a rule that requires the banning of anyone who links to any page with just one individual’s full name on it, the rule doesn’t actually apply to The Complete List of SJW because it doesn’t feature full names.

It does, however, ban anyone from linking to Facebook, among other sites. Not that it will be applied that way by the moderators, of course, because SJW.

It seems the primitive magicians were right. There is dark power in the knowledge of true names!