Pointless nastiness towards strangers is otherworldly for most people whose heads are properly screwed on. Whilst within relationships of some sort one might engage in it to settle scores, with no ax to grind it’s quite bizarre.

To give an example (which sounds like  a caricature but is real), years ago, when I was part of the cleaning team servicing the headquarters of an oil company, I had a very odd – almost amusing – experience with a social ladder climber; one of their executives. This woman, from her cosy position, high salary and what not, would take the time to complain almost daily, seeking to get us (minimum wage workers) into as much shit as possible. She would take note of every imperfection and even set traps for us to make mistakes. In one of their boardrooms, she drew attention to the fact that from a different angle, with the sunlight hitting the table differently, she could (barely) notice a stain on it. Another time – it amazes me she never damaged her spine – she contorted her back to look under the urn, which was attached to the wall, to notice a few minuscule coffee stains. This nasty piece of work didn’t even feel ridiculous being the only one in the building to constantly moan. This went on for months. She probably still does it now, if she still works there.

It didn’t matter to her that she could get someone fired over her petty grievances. Some financially secure people have that particularity of not understanding the effects of their actions on the lives of others. It’s me, me, me, all the way.


A simple look at the monotonous landscape of today’s most famous social justice warriors shows they generally have an economically privileged background. Not privileged in every sense, obviously – the best privilege in the world is having someone explain to you, as you grow up, how the world really works, so you don’t end up thinking you’re saving it by cross-dressing.  In fact, I’ve noticed a few other similarities:

  • They are mostly women;
  • They are mostly young;
  • They are attendants or former attendants of posh schools and universities, preferably with degrees in gender studies;
  • They suffer from some mutation of Marxism.

The typical modus operandi  of these packs groups  is going after someone’s reputation for a controversial statement, as inconsequential as it may be, preferably by descending en masse on their workplace – preferably online, as they don’t have to leave their comfort zone and everything remains impersonal enough; they can feel like victorious knights without ever leaving their armchairs. A lot of them  don’t even use their own words, but only “like” or “support” such actions. I click, therefore I am.

Listing the cases of them damaging careers (without remorse) would amount to an archive as thick as an old phone book. They target anyone, from students  with a different view to people who have taken unprecedented steps in science. Their callousness, accurately described on this blog with plenty despicable details, can hardly be associated with modern day principles and implicitly with human rights. It’s a tribunal held inside an asylum; it’s anti-bullying activists bullying people until they crack. The fact that they don’t realise the paradox means their intelligence is below sea level.

The luxury of mainly operating with abstractions in one’s everyday life means said everyday life is not too challenging in its basic aspects; one can become disconnected with reality in the raw form others experience it – particularly with online activism, which allows people to harm others from a distance, based on ideological disputes. If they were to consider the practical implications of their actions (people going on welfare, not finding new jobs, not making their mortgages and having to give up their homes, their families’ level of comfort decreasing overnight, their mental health declining etc) they might be more empathetic – or some might, anyway.

Yet being mind slaves to abstract concepts and labels, they seem all too detached, or at least confused. Here you can read an article about how acceptable it is to reveal people’s identities online as a bullying tactic, written for a feminist readership, presumably. It excuses doxxing… as an equitable answer to the horrible act of being doxxed. Or threatened (even when the threat is hardly plausible, as previous examples demonstrate). A few comments are somewhat out of this world in terms of not grasping the concept of a person’s life being severely affected by another’s ego and “principles”.

Compared to their ways, even Satanism is superior in terms of morality. No, seriously.

“11. When walking in open territory, bother no one. If someone bothers you, ask him to stop. If he does not stop, destroy him.”

Unlike satanists, who at least employ some prudence, these people go straight for the jugular; they move to the ”destroy” phase straight away. Even blatant, shameless lying is employed as a tactic to stand up for morality, for instance by falsely claiming copyright violations to get completely original videos taken down by YouTube because of political views.

When even the church of Satan shows more kindness to other human beings than social justice warriors, you know something is seriously wrong.