Monthly Archives: November 2016

Social Justice: How To Brainwash Your Kids Into Insurgency

Hush little baby, don’t you cry,
Just throw a rock at a passer-by;
Take that Batman hat off your head,
Here’s a balaclava to wear instead;
And when you’re bored with that toy gun,
Momma’s gonna buy you a real one;
A few Molotovs are always tops,
You can just fling them back at cops,
And if your great plans happen to fail,
A Swiss knife to dig yourself out of jail.

 

No, this commentary is not based on a documentary about Chairman Mao’s young supporters or the Leninist period. It is based on enthusiastic advice given to parents of white children by people who live in a democratic, developed country, namely the USA, in our current year.

Forget the “racially unaware uncle” at the Thanksgiving table (though fears of this particular type have generated so much material over the last few days, with feminists handing out emotional methods of coping with opinionated relatives). Move straight to your children; after all, indoctrinating them about “privilege” and “oppression” will be so much easier.

You can start by enthusiastically presenting violent, quasi-terrorist groups as role models.

That advice involves, among other things, listing Black Lives Matter as an inspirational movement, which can be a great source of education for them. Yes, the people who lute and vandalise their own cities, calling for the death of police officers (even while provided security by them in real-time) and carrying out racially motivated assaults on random strangers. Apparently, these are the people youth should admire and actively support. Or even emulate, as I understand it.

And remember: if your child is not interested in this type of activism, just insist some more. It’s not like this would ever be classed as indoctrination and setting them up to join the ranks of rioters, before they can properly tie their shoelaces.

It’s not like that’s what ISIS types do to their young generations, drumming ideological justifications for indiscriminate violence against strangers into their heads since they start understanding spoken language.

Even if conversations don’t go quite as you planned, make sure to keep talking to your kids.

They may not understand everything right now, but as they get older, they will slowly get it.

Also, you can convince your children that their president is a monster and the responsibility is theirs to change the country in the future.

In this article titled “How to talk to your kids about Donald Trump’s win“, the author envisages a grim picture of frightened, disenfranchised children with no hope for tomorrow.

And that’s the thing: Kids will be sad. And scared. And confused. And rightly so. (…)We can let them share their fears, and soothe them, but we also need to understand that this should not be theirs alone to carry. They should not have to bear the burden of this day as adults do.

Aside from the fact that this is dramatically presented as a natural disaster or war situation, one can’t help but wonder why those kids would be so scared in the first place; surely they didn’t wake up like that the morning after the election.

If this fear is real, it must have come after a long time of incessant fear-mongering from the adults around them, presenting this neutral situation (a change in political leadership), which kids otherwise might not have cared about at all, as the end of the world.

Of course, then come the words of encouragement and comfort. Not consisting of, let’s say, reassurance that life is very unlikely to change substantially and it will follow its course. Although mentions of that possibility are made, the author writes this below:

We can explain that we will continue to write and create. We will continue to advocate for what we believe in. We will march and protest and rally.

We can tell them we know that so much of what we are up against is systemic, and that we’re not going to be able to just usher in a hopeful new way of being unless we proactively tear down these systems we’re up against. (…)

And once we do this, then we can begin to rebuild.

Nothing to see here; just the planning of a socialist revolution in which kids are invited to partake, at least psychologically. Comforting indeed! Oh wait…

We can liberate our children with our vision for the next generation. “I wanted it to be my generation,” we can tell them. “But now, I can work towards making sure it is yours who makes this change.”

This of course does not take into account the possibility that said generation could have a completely different vision for the future. I don’t suppose that idea can ever penetrate a progressive skull – that once they are able to think for themselves, their kids might actually not share that political persuasion. They’re already working towards making sure that never happens.

This is a dark, dark time. But we need to hold our children close. We need to let them be children. We need to empower them. And we need to take a deep breath, regroup, and show them with our actions that we are continuing the crucial activism work that has never been more important than it is right now.

It’s almost as if kids had these expectations of activism, as opposed to the adults around them. As if they couldn’t just be left alone to enjoy life.

So there you have it. Off with the baseball cap, kid; on with the balaclava. You were born a revolutionary.

 

Male Privilege: Non-oppressive Urination Techniques. Seriously!

This is for real.

I’ve never witnessed a man have a mental breakdown before, but I imagine it starts with overpowering confusion; he might, for instance, feel the need to ask a feminist how many times he should shake before zipping up, when going to the bathroom. Because he’s aware feminism can’t leave anyone alone – not even in there.

You see, urinating is part of power dynamics between genders. I bet you thought these matters would be more sophisticated and more on the philosophical side, but hey – the toilet bowl is equally relevant. That’s how we have evolved as a species – by focusing on what really matters.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m not advocating stinking bathrooms here – but mixing this base issue with pompous feminist language truly sounds like a parody of everything the social justice movement has become.

It should be framed and preserved for posterity, as a symbol of the times when feminism declined so much it ended up regulating piss and farts. Literally.

Though many people have penises and/or stand up to pee, for this article I want to focus on ways that cis men can be better allies to the other folks with whom we share a bathroom.

Allies. What a degree of solemnity in wiping up urine stains. Everything in these people’s lives is so overblown, it sometimes seems like they’re having a maniacal episode.

While the constructs of the gender binary continue to evolve and dissolve, male privilege does not. We know that patriarchy and male privilege appear in all aspects of society, and the bathroom is no different.

Of course! Male privilege must start in your bladder! How come no one’s ever thought about this before?

I feel lucky that I even have regular access to gender neutral bathrooms in my own life – so, in these spaces, I want to make sure I’m respecting the space that many people fought so hard to create.

Lucky…? Are these spaces sacred now? As for fighting to create them, I’m pretty sure most of those toilet stalls were there before; they just have a different sign on the door now. And I’m pretty sure those using them have used toilets before that; it’s 2016. Isn’t the level of reverence a bit queasy?

You are a cis man. And to some degree (especially if you are a white cis man), society promotes an idea that we are entitled to absolute freedom of movement. You deserve, among so many other things, to pee freely and have no one tell you about the consequences of your poor aim.

Reality check: This is patriarchal logic, if not completely representative of the world in which we live. There are consequences.

Fuck’s sake… all I can say. I’m lost for words.

This should go without saying, but never, ever – and I really mean never – attempt the dangerous feat of peeing without lifting the seat up. For some of you adventurous people who want to prove yourself to the world, I understand how tempting this might be. (…)

Newsflash: This is a cis male-entitled delusion. No one, least of all you, has aim that perfect.

If that’s the standard of proving yourself to the world… This is not a joke, by the way. It’s on a feminist website. Toilet training for adults.

Similarly, a study found that peeing while sitting down may be easier on your prostate and allows for your pelvic and hip muscles to relax in a more neutral positions.

…So you can feel the unseen hand of feminism fingering you. Because let’s face it, it has already fucked you in any other imaginable way.

So in the bathroom, don’t be afraid of the sounds of people of different genders. It’s normal.

I wonder if they teach that in gender studies. No, honestly, imagine someone who claims to be an intellectual, in an intellectual space, talking about bathroom noises.

Don’t be another guy who doesn’t wash their hands. And don’t just wash your hands because someone else is there in the bathroom with you.

Do it when no one is looking. Do it because you care about gender politics in the bathroom and beyond.

I’m not sure why, but I’m quite confident handwashing was invented way before gender politics.

Don’t make folks feel unsafe or trapped by hitting on folks, following them in and out of the bathroom, or asking folks lots of personal questions.

Does that happen often? Do you even need to tell someone not to do that?

On the flip side, don’t run in and out of a gender neutral bathroom because it makes you uncomfortable or you’re afraid to find someone of a different gender inside.

No; by all means, just read a book in there. It’s not like public toilets are made for running in and out of. It seems now it’s an experience you have to think about and be nervous about.

As a cis man, people may not want to interact with you because of safety concerns or harm they may have experienced in a bathroom setting previously, so it’s important to have an awareness of this.

OK; so now you’re perceived as a potential threat as well. You don’t have the right to feel uncomfortable around them, but they are justified in feeling that way around you – even if it was them, not you, who insisted on that arrangement in the first place. Congratulations, cis man! You are now a pariah even in the lavatory. Looks like you’ve pissed away too much of your cis male privilege.

The bathroom can be a place of liberation. It can be a place of cleanliness and peaceful relief if we all do our part to create that.

And with that melodramatic statement we reach the end of yet another article on male privilege – which, sadly, can’t even be recycled into toilet paper for a supermarket cubicle.

 

 

 

 

“You’re In My Space” – The Moral Power Trip

Is it even possible to watch a recording from a liberal protest without hearing these words directed at those who do not form part of the protesting group?

  • You’re taking up our space by being here.
  • This is not your space; if we ask, you should leave immediately.
  • You’re a guest in our space, even if you consider yourself an ally, so step back etc.
  • Be quiet and don’t pretend you’re one of us; this event is not intended for you.

As demonstrations usually take place on public property, often outdoors, and one cannot legally be barred from attending (or not easily anyway), why are social justice activists behaving as if they temporarily took ownership of any area they gather in and could expel any unwanted presence at will?

The thing is, when holding public events, a group is apparently trying to engage the community; it’s unproductive for no one aside from its members (and among them, only those with stamped opinions) to be allowed to actively participate, either as an interviewer, a dissenter or an “ally”.

Whereas it makes sense – regardless of the petulance – for them to try to silence opposing views, their attitude towards their allies is quite surprising and can only be explained through the arrogance of feeling in command of a group, movement, event etc, micromanaging everyone else’s involvement, down to which subjects can be approached and by whom.

Being an ally to these types looks more like community service, served by repentant, apologetic second-class people who can’t sit at the same table with the rest and must always be on their toes, awaiting education, directions and the permission to speak from group leaders. They are reformed offenders, oppressors by birth; they can never be fully trusted, let alone form brotherly bonds with the group. They are looked upon with a queasy coldness, sometimes a hint of pity, in the knowledge that they are trying to be less flawed but will never, ever get there.

Here are a few examples.

Although the quotes refer to a single type of event – in this case a positive one – the same rhetoric can be read and heard regarding a vast number of similar ones, whether celebratory or anger-fuelled.

Even if you’re the ally of the year, you’re entering Pride with a lot of privilege. Using that privilege thoughtfully is crucial — especially at a time when the threats of homophobia and transphobia are so apparent.

“The most important thing a straight ally can do is make sure they aren’t taking up space for LGBT people — especially in talking about and dealing with the tragedy in Orlando,” Fallarino says. (…) It’s a time when allies need to account for their unearned privilege, especially when entering our space. (…) If you can muster the bravery, call out hecklers so your LGBTQ friends and peers don’t have to.(…)Bottom line: Never be off of your ally grind — especially in a space where you are a guest.”

“Evaluate your behavior before deciding to attend Pride. Recognize that this space is the most comfort and celebration most LGBTQ people get all year. And we want you there — but only if you deserve to be.”

“We want you, as a thoughtful ally, to celebrate with us. But we also need you to accept that this celebration was not intended for you. This is a moment for the LGBTQ community, and by entering this space, it’s important to accept that your good time is secondary.”

“After all, that’s the main role of a straight ally at Pride and beyond — to lift up a community in celebration and solidarity, while helping clear space for us to be ourselves.”

(source)

The same attitude can be found here relating to anti-racist activism.

The single most important thing we can do to be better allies is to listen across difference. (…) The other side of the coin of listening is that we can always do a better job of stepping back, asserting ourselves less into spaces, and, in doing so, allowing those to whom we ally to speak their truths. (…)

Though being a better ally can mean that we must talk less, that doesn’t mean that we ought to be in total silence.

We surely need to defer to those with whom we are acting in solidarity, but we also want to make sure that we are not leaving those to whom we want to ally ourselves to be the only ones speaking. Thus, there are times we should be speaking up, times where we can amplify the voices of others with our collective perspectives. It’s just important to be sure we’re amplifying, not overshadowing.

This is unadulterated cult mentality, which applies to socialism. Allies, comrades, cult members all act as amplifiers of a collective perspective and are not permitted original ideas, as they detract from the “common work” and “overshadow” the knowledge of those who are supposed to hold the one true knowledge. They are only permitted to shut up, listen, learn and intervene when needed (when numbers are needed) as backing vocalists.

One thing that I constantly find is the SJW obsession with these “allies” joining them in order to obtain some form of notoriety; it comes up so often and rephrased in many ways. Citing from the same source:

One of the ways that we can step up more regularly is to fill in supportive roles. (…) Sometimes supportive roles are the most important ones for allies to fill, and while you definitely aren’t going to get credit for them, you shouldn’t expect credit for your work as an ally. (…) Allies should rarely be the center of attention in work for justice.

I’m not saying they should – but the tone is just unnecessary. It’s just nastiness after nastiness meant to ensure these people don’t step one inch out of place. Instead, as mentioned in the same article, they are supposed to put their lives or freedom in danger by participating in dodgy demonstrations which border on (or turn into) illegal behaviour.

The attitude is so estranged from normal human interaction, which entails connecting emotionally and intellectually, or some kind of warmth at least, between people who work together for a common cause. Or at least an ounce of niceness would do.

We at Another Round get TONS of questions from white people asking us how they can be better allies, and while we appreciate the drive to be better—people of color can’t be expected to be everyone’s diversity counselors. It’s an unfair burden. (source)

I have read quite a few opinion pieces written in an angry tone, on how POC don’t have to educate anyone, don’t owe anyone their time etc. In what context is it acceptable to demand support from others, to the point of claiming it is their duty to work with you, while treating them like smudges of dirt on your shoe?

Don’t get me wrong; I’m not saying there’s any value in the white guilt indoctrination; its value can be seen from the attitude and violence it produces. I’m not saying anyone is better off delving into this radicalism. However, the bad attitude, which would put off even the most open of people, has to be pointed out.

Let me put it this way: you do not start a successful collaboration from a high horse, preemptively warning your would-be collaborators of any errors you think they might commit based on their presumed flaws of character. If somebody wants to work with you, it’s useful to show civility and at least not throw invented accusations at them. How would you like to be greeted by a new acquaintance in this manner?

Welcome; I’m glad you came. I’m sure we’ll enjoy our time together. But first off, I have to warn you not to shit on my carpet. This is your chair; if you sit anywhere else you’ll be out of here in two seconds. Also, DO NOT put your purse on this table. Now, would you like a cup of tea?

The proof that social justice activists see themselves as a pseudo-army resides not only in their aggressiveness but in this obsession for hierarchy, for lining up their little soldiers in orderly fashion, according to their “right” to speak and the value of their opinions.

And the little soldiers would do just about anything to become accepted by this crowd. There is a video on YouTube of Lauren Southern attempting to interview an “ally” of the transgender community, attending a demonstration. The ally would not give her own opinion in her own words, lest she overshadowed those who had a genuine right to speak. By this she was basically saying she was there to inflate the number of participants. Moments later, Lauren Southern was reprimanded for interviewing so many white males on this issue. Forget about being a person around these types – you are your gender, your skin colour, your social status etc.

And finally, everyone’s favourite acid trip, which is Everyday Feminism, explains why.

Know Your (Lack of a) Role: Honoring Healing Spaces as an Ally

You arrive at an awesome conference brimming with solidarity. Scanning through the program book, you spot the perfect workshop title, and you’re pumped for the conversation! Someone finally gets me!

Then! The italics below: “Closed to trans identified participants only.”POC only.” “For those who identify as women.”

Oof. The deep, gut-punch realization that even though you come with golden intentions and this potential conversation sounds safer than any you’ve encountered, this space isn’t for you.

Why can’t I join? Oppression also hurts me as an ally. Can’t we join together?

It sounds like you’ve come across a healing space.

I love the phrasing; it reminds me of nature programs. It sounds like you’ve come across a strange, rare animal you’ve never seen before.

It also reminds me of places of worship, submerged in religious dogma, where there are strict rules about who can enter, where to sit, what to wear and what to say.

It’s in these moments that we need to remember that being committed to a cause does not make us immune to perpetuating the problem. An ally taking up airtime in a healing space not only silences the voices of those directly experiencing oppression, but replicates the exact oppression we’re trying to address.

Which means an ally is also an oppressor, regardless of the good intentions.

Wait, are you advocating for segregation?

Segregation isn’t a choice. It’s forced removal. Segregation doesn’t challenge oppression – it strengthens it.

Actually, the definition of the word does not include state policies or any mention of force, merely describing it as the separation of one group from another.

Unlike healing spaces, safe spaces don’t require that someone share a particular identity. Safe spaces simply require members to be accountable for the influence of the power and privilege they carry. So healing spaces may also be safe spaces under those agreements. Or they may not. (…)

Asian Employee Group is a healing space marker because it indicates a choice on behalf of Asian employees to create community free from white supremacy. (…)Thus, the existence of this group challenges that status quo.

I’m sure referring to your employers and coworkers as “white supremacy” is conducive to a very relaxed, respectful working environment. And very realistic as well.

      (…)I sat and watched as they leaned in and their eyes lit up at meeting someone who shared their story – who not just knew of it, but felt it.

Inside, my mind swirled: Why aren’t they including me? Neither of them has even looked at me in 30 minutes. I want to participate in the conversation, too!

And yet: I don’t have anything to share. I don’t actually have this kind of ancestral understanding of my gender. In fact, my ancestors probably colonized their land.

I sat in silence and mourned the distance I felt given my lack of a shared identity.

But what would it have meant for me to step in and ask my friends to take care of my feelings? What might it have done to their stories?

The celebration and solidarity they had built might have been muddied or shifted focus.

Sorry to say, but ignoring someone for half an hour straight, after having set up a meeting with them, is dead rude. However high the intensity of the conversation, two people don’t just forget that a third one is sitting right beside them. But that’s OK apparently, because her ancestors must have colonised their ancestors’ land. Which pretty much excuses any level of rudeness today.

 I was privileged to witness this healing conversation between two new friends, a place free from the impact of the dominant group. To insert myself into the conversation would be to centralize my whiteness in a space that was reveling in its absence. Instead, my role was to step back.True solidarity means knowing that though we may experience oppression ourselves, we also can act in the role of the oppressor.

Reveling in its absence? So the conversation was not about gender, but about the absence of whiteness? All I see here is self-loathing, self-deprecation, to the point of accepting other people being uncivil and thinking that asking to be treated like a human being and not an accessory, to be used when needed, is “oppressive”.

The world has few healing spaces for marginalized identities.Systems of oppression set the context in which marginalized groups are kicked to the curb in favor of privileged or dominant groups.

The pinnacle of  irony is when a group voluntarily segregates itself, rejecting any intent of deeper interaction from the majority, and after that still calls itself marginalised by said majority.

As an ally, I know that my experiences with oppression do not give me access to all experiences of oppression or relieve me from responsibility for my privileged or dominant identities.

I’m interested in finding out how this plays out in one’s daily life. It seems that the same person who is otherwise a friend to those needing healing spaces, once they are in those spaces, is suddenly reduced to a “white person” and thus deserves less respect than in different environments. That is one odd way of approaching friendship.

And I honor that sometimes I can’t contribute shared experiences to the healing spaces of others because my own privileged or dominant identities contribute to their need for them.

Yes, yes, whites are nuclear waste. You’re personally responsible for any negative experience of the people you befriend and treat with consideration.

A queer women’s group has opened up at the LGBTQIA+ center. You’re new to town and want to find community. You identify as a trans man, but didn’t feel safe when you attended the queer men’s group. You wonder if maybe you could check it out.

Here’s a new one: apparently there are those who don’t feel safe even in safe spaces. A trans man who doesn’t feel safe around men, although he identifies as one. Because they have, you know, penises. And the trans man is well aware of possessing a vagina. And as we all know, a person with a vagina is meant to be afraid of a person with a penis, even if said penis has no reaction to vaginas whatsoever. And, you know, these safe spaces where people go to whine into a tissue are meant to be all about rape. Nice scenario.

What do you do?

Check in with yourself and the space. Is this space exclusive to those who identify as women? Or is it for those who somehow identify with a female gendered experience?

Identify what you are seeking from this space. Are you looking to discuss your experience being misgendered female? Or are you looking to socialize? These are different things that will differently impact the healing space.

Know thy self!

The last bit of advice is delightfully ironic, as there seems to be so much confusion not only regarding these spaces but in these people’s minds in general.Their identity and those of others seem to always get in the way of human interaction.

You’re with a group of straight friends, and they want to go dance at a gay bar. (…) Check in with yourself and your group: What are your intentions? Are you looking to dance or do some experiential learning? Is there any other way you could achieve those goals? If you do choose to go, minimize your impact on the space. Rolling 12-deep and loudly staking out the center of the dance floor is different from subtly participating in the existing culture of the bar.

Right. A bar of all places is where you go for an educational experience. It’s not like you can be around these people just to have a good time together; the only type of interaction you are permitted with them is one of quiet, respectful learning about how you oppress them. And if you do go to the bar, just sit awkwardly in a corner, because that makes others feel very comfortable around you. Feel and behave like the leper that you are.

And always remember – your personality doesn’t matter. All that matters is the little role the SJW hierarchy has put you in. Welcome to socialism; please leave your dignity at the door.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Leftist “Persuasion” Methods, From The Horse’s Mouth

Have you ever wondered how to reach a state of being able to live with yourself as a white or generally privileged person? It’s a tough one. But worry not; radical leftists have peppered the Internet with detailed instructions on what to think and feel, how to speak, how to behave and who you’re allowed to socialise with.

The articles quoted below give instructions on how to:

  • Cut family and friends out of your life for disagreements on social media;
  • Pester them until they cut you out of theirs, as an alternative;
  • Stop detractors from “harming” minorities by keeping their minds busy;
  • Pity them as fools and try to help them see the error in their ways;
  • Mob them in order to force them into acquiescence.

It’s very common these days to read articles which approach whiteness as some kind of degenerative disease which renders a person morally hopeless if not treated in good time.

Some of these articles are downright disturbing. They encourage – or even demand – that white people who aspire to be decent human beings should promote leftism to the point of cutting contact with all dissenting friends and family members over opinions on leftist activism.

There are guides on how to do it, which glorify this self-inflicted isolation as moral superiority. It is reminiscent of what Alan Watt often mentioned, regarding the Marxist push to completely isolate the individual by destroying bonds of loyalty and love, and only subordinating their mind to the state ideology.

To qualify for your contempt, your loved ones needn’t actually be racist; they only need to disagree with the methods militant organisations such as BLM employ and how they conduct themselves. Anyone who sees nuances in racial relations or disapproves of disruptive protesting is an intolerable bigot.The next phase might be advocating divorce over this stuff – seriously.

Let’s start with this article, which spells it out for us. It’s titled “The 7 stages of white people getting woke”. The most relevant paragraph is as follows:

Every woke white person eventually has to go through an exhaustive social media purge. (…) The random person from high school who’s always like, “Why doesn’t anyone care when a white person gets killed by the police?” Anyone who supports Donald Trump? Block. 

Ironically, whereas the psychological processes described in the list are internal and have no bearing on how society works, the only palpable result of this maniacal purge is alienation, resulting in a person only interacting with the echo chamber of like-minded radicals. The freshly groomed radical, much like a cult member, will now depend on an ideological group for all social needs, such as company, sharing thoughts and ideas etc. To be fair, the article only received criticism; however, this mentality is quite common.

A couple of comments are very relevant, pointing out the futility of the proposed method while simultaneously urging for action as opposed to mental wanking. Which means that one should not only support groups such as BLM by propagandising but actually participate in what they do. However obsessed the radical becomes with race relations, chances are they will encounter disdain from the very people they claim solidarity with, for still being a useless oppressor. Apparently, the only way to not be an oppressor is to join the front line (protesting, rioting etc). Otherwise, they oppress these people simply by existing, even if fanatically in accordance with their stance.

“Ally porn.
Misguided, misled and as miserably narcissistic as one could expect from a wp that uses the term “woke” to apply to the oppressor becoming comfortable with their privilege, and feeling validated as sociopathic cog in a murderous, antiBlack system.”

“If white people block racist white people instead of confronting them, they aren’t allies, they’re tourists. You want to make change,? Use your power as a white person to confront and try to change all those white people you want to block.” 

I would like to stress that even though this blocking caper seems effortless, it does entail cutting contact with actual people in your life, as opposed to simply erasing names from internet lists. This can lead to isolation.

Other militants for white guilt as a general concept (which should apply to every individual indiscriminately) argue an activist should manipulate reluctant relatives and friends into cutting contact instead, as to avoid appearing aggressive – by displaying such as obsession with the issue others will simply grow tired and cease the interaction.

Fill your social media posts with so much wise and unapologetic love and support for the struggles of people of color that your intractable white friends and family just can’t take it anymore.

They’ll either hide you from their feed or block you. Good riddance.

This is very twisted as it is phrased to give the impression that cutting contact is the actual purpose of the radical’s proselytism, as opposed to pursuing systemic changes. Which makes the whole endeavour look superficial and infantile.

Moreover, the article makes it clear that when attempting to change someone’s attitude, the activist should proceed with caution, witholding the automatically presumed disdain and masking it in an aura of compassion.

Imagine that within every oblivious white person is a racial justice ally waiting to come out. Invite in a little compassion for these white folks. 

You know they’re embarrassing themselves. You know they’re on the wrong side of history. It sucks to unknowingly say something ignorant or untrue or get stuck pigheadedly in a belief just because we’re afraid to entertain the truth.

The disdain becomes even more poignant further on.

Remember, every minute you spend engaging with a racially unaware white person is a minute they can’t spend antagonizing a person of color with their micro- and macro- aggressions.

By drawing hostile fire, you divert their energy away from expressing their frustrations in more harmful ways. And you exhaust them. And you might – slowly and imperceptibly – change their minds.

This somehow entails that antagonising minorities is the purpose of that person’s life, so that every minute of diverting their attention is an heroic act of stopping them from harming others. That’s what it comes down to in an SJW’s mind. 

No middle ground, no appreciation of that person’s character or an attempt to determine whether they are indeed racist or disagree on methods of activism, social policies etc. The person in front of the SJW is an aggressor, an inferior intellect who needs to be acted upon, diverted, manipulated and exhausted.

Another method of “persuasion” is silencing by mobbing.

Enlist Your Other Conscious White Friends

Have them engage with your commenters. Send them this article, tell them about your compassion strategy, privately message them, and ask them to step up for you on a trying comment thread.

Sometimes a second, third, or fourth voice can start to nudge a white person in the direction of greater logic and self-regulation.

There’s nothing like knowing other folks are paying attention and agreeing with the other side to elevate a conversation beyond name-calling.

Mobbing does not prove the validity of an argument; all it does is apply pressure by surrounding someone and bombarding them with an idea. It’s all about the number of like-minded people being mobilised at the same time into a discussion, to overwhelm a person or a smaller group. The direction of greater logic and self-regulation translates as backing off after being cornered, shamed or/and threatened.

There are numerous online resources to help conscious lefties deal with bigots in their families, as they take to the internet to seek guidance, unsure of how to behave. This is another example, involving someone who was agitated about his/her uncle making a supposedly racist comment online (referring to BLM, which means the comment could merely have been common sense), without inconveniencing him/ her on purpose. The advice given is predictable – to engage with the opinionated uncle and pester him with BLM propaganda.

A peace built on silence and censorship is a dumb peace – literally. And that peace is already broken as far as you are concerned, anyway, right? He broke it by saying something offensive and hurtful in public. That was his choice.

Now I have no idea what the guy actually wrote, it could have been bad indeed; the issue here is that he did not choose to break the peace with his niece or nephew, as the latter was not the recipient of said message. In fact, like every other person, he probably feels entitled to his opinion, which this article dismisses, suggesting that a leftie has every right to to try to dominate the speech and behaviour of everyone around them. They have to police, correct, persuade and even hassle, at all times. It’s fair enough to contradict someone if they make bigoted remarks in your presence, but hunting down their online activity as if it impacted you directly is a step too far.

The propagandist handbook is thick and intricate, and contains all the ingredients for fanaticism. When every person’s opinion becomes your business (or better yet, your crusade), the only one likely to end up being excluded is you.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Violence: The True Face Of “Social Justice”

To find a multitude of cases which could be listed as relevant examples of this reality, you needn’t look very far. In fact, new examples pop up every day, one more disheartening than the other, as the social justice zeal morphs into a feeling of omnipotence.

Among the most recent made public by the alternative media was the physical attack of a middle-aged homeless woman, who happened to be Black, in the street, in broad daylight, by a group of young thugs, the one attacking her being three times her size, as the rest – including women and quite a few Black people – cheered and mocked her. All this for being a Trump supporter, aka the supporter of a “privileged racist” who “spews hate”. The attacks escalated after Donald Trump was elected president of the US and riots have continued for days – racially motiated violence against whites, school kids assaulting each other and generalised mayhem.

It is my deduction that in these people’s minds, assaulting the homeless woman was a legitimate way of fighting the oppressive system.

Unfortunately, when it comes to this camp, justifying such attacks on strangers is not difficult. These seem to include the following:

  • Physical threats;
  • Death threats;
  • Threats of getting people fired or otherwise ruining their lives; getting people fired by swarming their workplaces with such demands;
  • Getting people arrested or fined, and if possible, jailed;
  • Physical assault;
  • Mobbing;
  • Rioting;
  • Psychotic behaviour (shouting, screaming, having fits) over political opinions;
  • Destruction of property, which ranges from setting cars on fire and smashing windows to destroying posters, signs, fliers and other materials belonging to their political opponents;
  • Doxxing and stalking;
  • Labelling with leftist buzzwords such as privileged, sexist, racist, homophobic, transphobic, xenophobic and recently, growing in popularity, white;
  • Berating one’s mental faculties or sanity over political choices;
  • Publicly described fantasies of their political “enemies” suffering terrible fates such as having deadly accidents or deadly illnesses;
  • Silencing others by disrupting their speeches and meetings;
  • Hijacking other people’s platform for their own purposes;
  • Protesting in ways which affect others signifficantly (such as stopping traffic);
  • Guilt-tripping others into joining their crusades, to the point of causing self-hatred over a presumed privilege.

Some activists go as far as rationalising violence, in ways which boggle the mind. Take this article for instance, and many others like it.

The people trying to get free cannot be perceived in the same light as the people trying to kill them.

Agreed – provided that the situation is correctly assessed and the people reacting to this perceived violence correctly identify those who pose actual danger to them, as opposed to engaging in generalised group disputes and attacking individuals indiscriminately, at any time, even when not in danger.

People who fight back against police are practicing resistance. If this resistance could be called violent, it pales in comparison to a centuries-old practice that systematically targets Indigenous and Black people. It’s like throwing a pebble at a brick wall.

The “wall” formed by police is composed of individuals who are not some homogenous, timeless entity but human beings performing a job. They are not a uniform just like other people are not their skin colour or ethnicity. Targeting them indiscriminately, regardless of any action they might have taken, or lack thereof, is never justified.

Laverne Cox said in 2014 that “when a trans woman is called a man, that is an act of violence.”

You can call it needless dismissal, rudeness or harshness, but violence is a nuance too far. After all it’s not a character attack; it’s not like a man is a vile creature or this categorisation has any moral implications.

Trans women die at the hands of people who believe this, who believe that they aren’t valid or real. That they’re pretenders, dangerous impostors.

Saying that someone is not who they claim to be does not imply that the person should be attacked as a result. If these crimes happened after non-consensual sex acts (by their refusal to disclose they were trans), the rage must have been primarily caused by the acts themselves, rather than the fact that trans women exist. After all, feminists place such an emphasis on consent and the trauma caused by violation through non-consensual acts, that it is hypocritical for them to claim this situation is any different. Which is why honesty in this case is the best way to avoid being in the middle of it.

Myth #3: Protesters Must Remain Non-Violent for Their Cause to Have Credibility

This argument is such utter bullshit that sometimes I just refuse to engage with people who spew this.

So many of the people alive right now just wouldn’t have been born if their ancestors didn’t kill their conquerors.

People from groups with power are allowed to be violent in so many ways while the disempowered are expected to be picture perfect.

Somebody shoot me. Not literally, I hope.

These people are devastating their own cities because it was right for their ancestors to take up arms in order to survive…? If only they could show one grain of proof that their needlessly destructive actions will actually help their own survival in any way.

I get headaches trying to comprehend how a Marxist, a statist by definition, revels in thoughts of anarchy. The loosening of state control is associated with ideologies such as libertarianism, which is the opposite of socialism.

There has been daily evidence of police officers killing people left and right, but people are still clamoring to humanize cops with #BlueLivesMatter and “what about the good ones?”

As much emotion as reading about these killings rightfully stirs, one must accept that in that milieu there are all sorts of people, as in any other, which includes one’s neighbourhood, one’s city, even one’s family at times.

Nobody’s “humanising them” because they are human to begin with. Progressives make a hobby out of accusing others of dehumanising certain categories of people (ethnic minorities, sex workers, illegal immigrants, you name it) – which is of course wrong to do to anybody. This principle is not arbitrary. And when it comes to carrying out physical attacks or murders based on this dehumanisation, it’s difficult to comprehend the cognitive dissonance.

There are ridiculous standards placed on people who are involved in resistance; they’re not given any room to express their rage and grief however they see fit.

Though rage is certainly natural, it is also very destructive and the cause of much suffering – that’s why civilised societies have developed sistems of mediation, discussion, conciliation, so people could meet each other halfway without extreme harm being caused (as opposed to solving their differences using guns or machetes, as they do in other places). Rage is therefore recognised as the most dangerous emotion, of which we are to be cautios, for fear of causing harm or others causing it to us. It’s amazing that someone even has to elaborate on an issue of common sense, which should be clear to everyone.

Adopting the stance that it is normal to express rage however and whenever you see fit is the same as declaring you disregard other people’s rights intentionally.

Rage is something every individual experiences at some point and many express inappropriately on occasion. Like everyone else, I am well acquainted with it. However, there is a difference between reaching your mental limits (whatever the cause), to later regret it, and embracing this way of expressing yourself as a normal part of everyday life. When most people notice they experience rage too often, they make changes in their lives or seek professional help, because they are aware that their behaviour not only affects others but keeps them in perpetual misery – a misery most want to escape by any means.

It is an unproductive emotion which darkens the mind and often leads to violence; the justice system recognises that by dealing with crimes of passion differently than those which are planned in cold blood.

That said, one cannot have a constructive discussion in a darkened, irrational state; it is nonsensical. The only thing they can do in this state is become obstinate, to the point of being impossible to reason with, or/and bully others. A shouting match is not a discussion.

Myth #5: We Have to Choose Between Violence and Non-Violence

There are situations where non-violence may work better than violence and vice versa.

Having to choose resolutely between one or the other is not a choice we have to make.

Organised violence, planned and embraced as normal, is always a choice. It is not a choice in genuine situations of self defence, when one’s life or physical integrity is threatened in real time. In other situations, if you make that choice, you should be prepared to deal with the consequences as well.

Moreover, you cannot demand protection from a system you are trying to demolish. There was a case recently of a BLM demonstration during which activists chanted “pigs in blankets; fry them”, or something like that, while, ironically, being provided security by the very institution they were demonising. In that scenario, the “oppressed” were so oppressed they were able to instigate the death of those providing them a service, right in front of them.

Systems of oppression evolve over time and we need all the tools we can get. Everyone should be free to choose the tactics that they feel most comfortable with.

For someone who has PTSD, violence might be triggering. A lot of marginalized folks have enough instability in their lives; they can choose not to invite more chaos.

A physically disabled person, depending on their disability, might only be able to engage in militant resistance by acting as a home base for communication or by dispersing information, all of which is just as vital as being in the streets.

The way the author puts it, violence is a duty, from which some are exempt on the grounds of inability to carry it out, still remaining morally obligated to participate on some level.

The unnecessary binary of violence and non-violence creates a divide among people who might be on the same side. The divide between the two tactics can make it seem like one will work while the other will fail, when we really we could be using both.

I don’t intend to romanticize revolution and call for the kind of militancy that is photogenic enough to repost on social media. I’m unsure of what revolution could look like myself.

What I’m demanding here is our right to destroy what destroys us.

If they’re at war and the methods are a free for all – and they seem to think they are – they should not expect the other side to be sympathetic or even tolerant.

Let alone demand the right to destroy a society from the very society they’re trying to destroy. It’s a gigantic mindfuck. If everyone else is fair game, in any possible way (including deadly violence), they should expect the same (I’m referring to militants only, not the groups they claim to speak for).

“Tone Policing” is yet another made-up concept seeking to justify the beligerance progressives often display. Hiding behind a purity of intention and emotion, the author dismisses every natural instinct guiding people through their daily interactions, dismissing concepts such as hysteria, conversational aggressiveness, obtuseness etc.

The comic posted there bursts at the seams with uncompromising entitlement.

This is some of the text:

  • Tone policing is just another way to protect privilege.
  • Tone policing is a silencing tactic. That means it’s a part of a set of tools used by people holding privilege to prevent marginalised people or groups from sharing their experiences of oppression.
  • Tone policing works by derailing a discussion by critiquing the emotionality of a message rather than the message itself.
  • A key part of tone policing is that it allows privileged people to define the terms of a conversation about oppression in order for that discussion to continue.
  • Generally, this hinges on the idea that emotion and reason cannot coexist – that reasonable discussions cannot involve emotion.
  • …That the only productive conversation is calm conversation.
  • “Why do you get to decide what constitutes ‘calm’?”
  • But discussions can also be for exploring the extent and limits of a topic or situation, for letting off steam, for finding community, and for feeling less alone.
  • (Tone policing)…allows a person to regain control over a conversation that is going in a way that makes them uncomfortable by framing the speaker as overly emotional, and therefore unreasonable.
  • (Example given) “Your sadness about rape culture makes me sad.” “So you’ll help?” “Could you maybe just not make me sad, instead?”
  • Our emotions are valid. You don’t get to dictate the terms of our activism. You don’t get to dictate the ways we can talk about our experiences. It’s your turn to listen now.

I’m not sure where to start or if an analysis of someone’s demand for you to let them shriek at you in perpetuity as you shut up and listen needs an analysis in the first place. It kind of speaks for itself. But for the sake of argument, let’s start with the basics.

No one is obligated to listen to these people if they always conduct themselves in a beligerant manner. One is free to shut the door in their faces, walk away and not give them another fucking minute.

Heated moments happen; they happen in the home, in the street, at work or anywhere else. But they are just that – unplanned, unproductive moments of tension. If the general tone someone uses when addressing you is an aggressive one (even passive agressive), you can simply give them the finger back. You are (hopefully) not strapped to a chair in front of them.

If they decide to engage others in conversation and these others owe them nothing are are not resposible for their frustration, they should be aware that a dialogue is meant to ensure respect on both sides, as opposed to satisfying one side’s need of being heard. If they want to blow off steam, then by all means, they can do it in private,  in their echo chambers and safe spaces.

You do not gain allies by bullying them into compliance.

A request for civility is not an attempt to gain control over a conversation; that’s projection right there; they’re the only ones who are obsessed with complete control and not allowing nuances into a discussion. Another example of projection is their assumption that these conversations simply “make privileged people sad” or “guilty” or “defensive”. Not everyone is obsessed with remaining in their comfort zone, and not everyone runs to a safe space with bisquits and puppies to hug when presented with a different view.

Anyway. To my knowledge, many of these so-called discussions where shrieking is used are anything but dialogues, which entail both sides to speak. They are monologues – or unhinged rants, more like it; when the opposing view is being presented, they are the ones doing the silencing with their constant booing, chanting, setting off fire alarms and shouting over others. Reciprocity is not what they are interested in.

To conclude, the job they do at justifying their attitude is a very poor one.

And hopefully, with the political changes in the US (which many did not expect to ever see), the PC culture will start losing its hold on the west.