by Chan Walrus | Sep 18, 2021 | Essays
I hate you, because of the colour of your skin, because of your political beliefs, sexual identity, height, weight, and because you are reading this essay. You disgust me for all of these reasons and you should be ashamed of yourself.
None of that statement was fair, and yet every day, people are judged not for who they are as individuals, but for labels that are placed upon them. It is horrible when people do that. We are all, each our own individual selves. Not the colour of our skin, our gender, our sexual orientation or food preferences.
It’s very easy to label people, I myself do it all the time, and it is likely that you too do it, even if you do not really recognise it within your normal day to day life. I have been labelled as many things, and oftentimes, I do not fit the blanket statement that covers those things. This is without doubt infuriatingly annoying.
Are You How You Appear?
An example of my being labelled and despised for it would be my political ideology. I see myself as a conservative. I do not support the conservative party of the UK. Because of the things I have said being maligned, sometimes purposefully and wilfully by others for their own political means, this has been used as a weapon to turn people who do not like the conservative party against me. Because I am conservative, I like the conservatives, they say. Well, no, I like to have a conservative ideology, but I might well think the entire party are a bunch of corrupt weasels. Something these people most likely believe themselves.
So where do I line up politically? I am right wing in that I believe in the inevitabilities of social hierarchies, and what’s more I think they are necessary. We can see this in governments, the idea of democracy, the fact that most people would rather happily work for an employer who will pay them less than they themselves earn.
I started my own business, and so do many others, but it is a rare thing where people are paid the same as their boss… If you run a business, do you take home equal wages to those who work for you? It is unlikely. I think it is nice we have a right wing structure that helps pay benefits in this country and supports the unemployed, the disabled and the people others refuse to help. A left wing society would instead state that it is society’s job as a whole to look after these people, but society doesn’t care enough to ensure that this would happen. As much as we would like to say we as human beings care, we do not. Otherwise these problems would not exist. It is only under a right wing hierarchy that these people can be looked after and protected.
Are these reasons to hate me? Of course! Because I am right wing, I am a fascist, socialist, racist, far right nazi with the urge to destroy society and everyone within it. All I yearn for is to watch the world burn… – Or so people would have others believe. This, of course, is not true. I can be a belligerent asshole at times though.
The left wing, according to every definition I have read, supports social equality and the idea that people are all equal morally and in terms of worth. It is in competition with the ideas of natural hierarchy, and I see it as being incredibly dangerous. This is because I see no evidence that anyone aspires for true social equality, because most that claim to engage in conflict with those that value social hierarchy, and you can bet your last dollar safely that they sure as hell won’t respect the opinions of others who have a different world view. Social equality also means social responsibility and most of those who claim to be left wing in their posts and arguments do little to support the needy, graciously relying on the right wing societal structures that help them so they don’t have to, whilst attacking them consistently. It is disappointing more than anything to see through the facade of these people who claim to care, yet do nothing to help their fellow man, attacking the very structures in place to protect them.
The issue is the muddiness of the water in the way both doctrines are perceived by the majority of people that espouse them. The majority of people on the vocal left will demean the right, for example, and claim moral superiority to them. This is an act of social hierarchy and would more typically fit the right wing ideology, which means that doing this is very hypocritical and not the kind of action one should generally expect of the left wing, at least according to its definition. I could comfortably say that most of the people who vocally assume their identity is left wing, or use the terminology to preach social justice are on the political right. Usually much further along than me to the point where I classify the, as far right extremists. The ones who want to change the world and alter the thought patterns of others and dominate through authoritarian means are the far right they fear so much. It would be hilarious if it wasn’t so sad.
But what about the social justice we fight for? You might say… I shall quote the great Thomas Sowell: “Since this is an era when many people are concerned about ‘fairness’ and ‘social justice,’ what is your ‘fair share’ of what someone else has worked for.
Let the left work that out, as the right have already found the solution.
Let’s work out a mathematical equation:
Take the amount of money you give to charity per month, supporting anything from friends to organizations.
Then take the amount you spend on yourself for luxuries, new shoes, socks, holidays, wine, meals out, takeaways, tattoos, hair dye, hair gel, caramel lattes, or sweets and treats from the shops. Things you don’t need to survive.
Which of these numbers is ultimately greater? In most cases, it will be the second one. I have several vices myself. I am an avid lover of Coca Cola and Dr. Pepper. Now if I take the amount I drink per month, I’m looking at about £80.00 – £90.00 which I’m not spending on helping other people. I don’t really have many other vices. Overall they equate to around £125.00 per month according to my workings out.
This is less than I give to helping others and supporting charities. I work on average around 60-70 hours a week, sometimes doing as many as 80 hours. I support organizations like Greenpeace, the PDSA and similar charities. Outside of this, I provide free services for small businesses, and spend hours supporting them and helping them grow for no financial gain. I write music for people’s films and ask nothing in return, not because my music is without value, but because I want people to be able to use it for anything they like. I have worked on taking down the websites of white supremacists who incited violence against people of colour and who doxed them. Some of the money that I get in ad revenue on this site will be going to charity, so by reading this, and enduring the ads, I would like to thank you for helping me help people.
Does this mean I’m a good person? Not really. These are just some of the actions that I take that most would associate with the left wing. I support charities because it is the right thing to do and help businesses and film makers because I know how hard it is to start out in these areas. I help fight racism where it exists because I believe that we as a species should not fight each other based around petty differences.
Morality… Let’s Pretend.
Let’s look at things morally. I’ll start with a horrifying statement: “I do not care about the homeless.” Do I give money to the homeless? Absolutely! I also give recommendations for them to contact Emmaus, or advice if they want it. But do I actually care? No. I’ve never asked a homeless person to stay with me or tried to directly help them or try to personally fix anything in their life. That would be the action of someone who truly cared. So, with this in mind, I cannot pretend I truly care. Making a big racket about how I care all over social media would be pretty ridiculous if it is simply not the case. But I see this every day. “I’ve given a homeless person this! Look at me, I’m a good person.” Is it really you who has helped the person or has the homeless person helped you gain social favour. You have used your ‘charity’ to make yourself look good, ergo it’s not charity at all. That person has helped you look good and you have exploited them for public acclaim.
Every day, I see people who screamed Black Lives Matter when George Floyd died, yet not only did they not care about the death of David Dorn, but they were quick to drop Floyd the moment it was discovered he had a criminal past. He no longer fit the role that was needed, and quickly more names were brought forth that people could believe in and have something to be outraged about. I am still upset that George Floyd was murdered, regardless of who he was before it happened. He was still a human being, and it angers me how quickly people swept him under the rug. Even now, just a few months later as I write this, people have already forgotten.
When George Floyd was murdered, I was upset to learn a police officer had taken the life of someone. It didn’t make a difference to me what colour his skin was, nor, as I later found out, that he had been a criminal. What upset me was the unjust killing of someone at the hands of someone who should have been there as a protector.
The people who were quick to abandon George Floyd and cheer for the riots in the United States showed not a shred of care for David Dorn who lost his life in them, or the others who died. They endorsed the riots and supported them on social media, caring not a hoot for the lives the riots destroyed. Businesses of people of many different nationalities and skin colours utterly destroyed in sheer acts of incomprehensible hatred. So many people were part of it. So many people died because of it. So many people kept cheering through the bloodshed and had the gall to claim that these riots were peaceful protests. These people are idiots. Human beings lost their lives, businesses, friends and family, it’s not something to celebrate. Nothing good came out of it at all, other than more hate. The N word was trending higher than normal had on Google trends racial attacks and hatred were up. This situation did more damage than good and drove people apart.
What does this mean when insofar as social media is concerned?
It’s simple. George Floyd’s life was something to post about, something to get angry about, a reason to scream and argue and shout. Learning more about him, people no longer considered him a martyr, that would be unsafe. So they didn’t really care about him, his family, the situation or anything else. They looked for more “black” people who had been killed by police. They found Breonna Taylor. They used her for their own self grandeurization on social media as they had with George Floyd. They don’t care about her either.
Hate is Easy, Love is Hard
It’s very easy to be angry and it’s very easy to hate. To hate me for being a conservative, to hate the policeman that killed George Floyd for what he did, to hate George Floyd for being a criminal. For hating him because of his colour or his gender, for anything.
When someone says: This person is a “Label” it’s easy to think of the label as being the only thing that person can be. There are people I dislike because of the labels they have marred themselves with. As a father I am very opposed to pedophilia, as I think most sane people are. But in the normal context of day to day life, if you learn someone has a specific label, it doesn’t mean they fit the mould. Often people,not assume they understand the labels as we often see when it comes to left and right.
If someone has a belief, they can also be wrong and learn later on in life that they were wrong. I used to be a communist, believe it or not. Many might have hated me for that, but hatred only creates a bad reaction which can further spur someone down a dark path. It’s only by showing compassion to people and trying to show a different way of life that we can ever really find out what lies beneath a label. Now I would never say that communism is a good thing and I have had several hard arguments with friends about it. When we learn and study, we grow up and I’m glad I’m not the person I was 10 to 15 years ago.
In care work, we are taught to see the person first. This is part of dementia training and I think it is a very valuable lesson to teach. You see a person, they might be your friend, someone you’ve known for years, and they have a different thought – maybe something you might be opposed to. It doesn’t change who they are, and it is something that should be discussed with them. The next time you see someone with a different world view, try to understand where they are coming from. It’s only by trying to understand and being on the level with people that we can ever teach them and build a better world.
by Chan Walrus | Aug 21, 2021 | Essays
I originally had an interest in going on Gab because I wanted to write an article about the “Far Right platform.” I had head it was a white supremacist website populated by Christians, with a very different ideology to my own. Being involved in fighting racism on several occasions, I wanted to check it out and see if it was as terrible as I had heard. The site itself is represented as being populated by racists and radical far right people so I made an account and checked it out.
I was rather shocked to find out how truly liberal the platform was. Gab is no more Far Right than it is Left and centre. It is full of people who fit into just about every category imaginable. To say it is far right is a great disservice to the people who run and communicate on the platform. The person who runs Gab, Andrew Torba is what I would refer to as a zealous man. He has a very strong minded approach to free speech and whilst he differs from me in many opinions, he generally comes across as reasonable, likeable and he has been very welcoming to everyone using his platform as far as I have seen.
Gab is about freedom of speech, and it is probably for that reason other social media giants dislike the platform intently and it is maligned by the media. On other social media, terrorist attacks have been organised, as have rapes and murders. People have been bullied into suicide and yet the platforms still have their apps and are treated as though there is no issue anywhere. All social media platforms are full of alt/far left and alt/far right sociopaths and no one bats an eye, however the second a free speech platform sprouts up that challenges what has become known as Big Tech, it must be destroyed, abused and maligned.
It is nothing more than antitrust on a global scale and the deplatforming and attacks against Gab are vile, inaccurate and are frankly sinister. I have seen no reason in being on the platform over several years on and off that it is in any way more dangerous than Twitter or Facebook, and because of the welcoming side and the fact I have seen less bullying there, I believe it is a safer place to be. I’ve seen people fight on Gab and it’s different. It’s a lot more mature and features a lot less bullying in my experience than other platforms allow.
You must, as with everything I write, accept this as anecdotal evidence. What I am writing comes strictly from my own personal experience with social media and with platforms like Gab. I would always recommend looking into a platform like Gab before condemning it, even if there is significant evidence that there is a problem. I went in looking for a dust up with some white supremacists and found none on the platform. I have had several mature and adult arguments on Gab and they have been refreshing, compared to the childish alliances that sprout up on Facebook.
Gab has been horribly maligned as a far right platform when it is not actually so. What it is in truth is a place that allows the liberty of discussion. Gab features truths you cannot find anywhere else, conspiracy theorists, patriotism, a huge Christian following. Due to its accepting nature and freedoms allowed, I would say it is the most progressive and above all left wing platform out there at this time.
What I like from the majority of people I have interacted with on Gab, is that they are mostly friendly, which comes into stark contrast with the bloodthirsty hordes of far right and far left sociopaths on other networks. I had joined on my most recent account during the end of Donald Trump’s presidency, and tensions were high.
I communicated with a lot of people and occasionally noticed posts that other platforms might regard as Islamophobic made by some prominent Christian Gabbers. “Here we go.” I thought and decided to start a debate. I commented as a Sufi and raised some opinions, and rather than being met with ferocity, I was treated well by the majority of people who interacted with me. Others were just respectful and didn’t attack me or my beliefs. I finally joined the Christian group and thanked everyone for their welcome as someone outside the faith. This was met with a lot of support and positivity from the people of Gab. I was shocked at the friendliness of everyone I had expected to attack me.
On other platforms I have been attacked relentlessly, but not on Gab, though there is the potential for that kind of behaviour, as it is a free speech platform. I would say that Gab is a decent platform, a little laggy at times, but full of good people. Yes, there may be one or two bad apples, however I am confident in saying that I see a lot less of them there than on other, more popular social media platforms. Facebook and Twitter are both highly authoritarian and right wing by comparison. So I’m really rather confused as to why Gab has received this kind of attack. Still, I rather enjoy Gab, and I think the people are pretty decent.
by Chan Walrus | Aug 21, 2021 | Essays
In this essay I will go through the Social Justice Warriors explaining their specialised caste within their warped ideologies and provide insight into how to confront and deal with certain types of SJW. The best advice in the world is to ignore their existence. In order to live a happy and healthy life, it’s always best to avoid any form of conflict with people. If that is your chosen path, then you are far more sensible than me. You can skip this essay, but it will always be there if one finds you, and if you have any feelings or opinions at all about anything, you never know when an SJW can strike.
Before we begin, there are genuinely good people in the world, who believe they are helping others by talking on social media. Many of them actively try and promote good ideas and genuinely try to help people. These are not SJWs. These are good human beings and will not get involved in aggressively victimising people. The people we are looking at in this chapter are vindictive, hateful and narcissistic people who use a shield of faux morality in order to attack others, to make themselves look good and cause psychological harm to a person.
So first of all: What is a Social Justice Warrior?
This is someone who promotes or expresses socially progressive views. Their main focus is equality of economic, political, social, sexual rights and opportunities, they also sometimes bring equity into their divisive politics. They take to social media, usually with a distinct lack of knowledge about the subjects they engage in more so to raise their own personal reputation than actually helping anyone, in a disgusting display of self aggrandizing and pseudo moral superiority. The majority of people who fit the term tend to be self-serving, narcissistic and with a general feeling of self importance that borders on the belligerent. Their stance is aggressively authoritarian and exceedingly vicious.
The Social Justice Warrior will generally share memes and articles in support of their chosen ideologies, attacking and attempting to eradicate anyone they see as being socially regressive. They are quick to use words like Racist, Nazi, Alt Right, Far Right, Misogynist, Homophobe and anything else that will quickly raise attention and armies against you. These blanket terminologies are great because they will draw in anyone who is politically aligned against these blanket ideologies and enable them to strike fast and incapacitate an inexperienced debater, often by unleashing a swarm of torrential hate against them. They can cost you friendships easily so they need to be shut down quickly and aggressively as possible.
The problem with SJWs is not what they believe in, if indeed they do genuinely believe it, but that they actively go out looking for a rumble, they are armed to the teeth and will generally attack anyone they can with little to no reason to do it other than self grandeurization, moral superiority and trying to ruin people’s lives. Their actions are malevolent, rather than helpful, as their focus is to use the ideologies they claim to support to attack, belittle and humiliate others.
Their goal is to find a Racist Homophobic Right Wing Nazi (that could be you, with no evidence, and at any point) and cut off their head publicly so they can wave it around and cheer: “Look, I slew a monster!” They are aggressive and use badly worded, poorly thought out strawmans and arguments – usually with little to no evidence – to try and harm anyone they don’t personally like much, or see as being moderately conservative. Sometimes, they even go for people who support their own ideologies, turning them into the enemy for little reason other than not liking or not understanding that person.
Basically the SJWs are the lowest form of scum looking to serve the heads of their old friends on silver platters so they can gain praise from peers that would happily turn on them in turn if it gave them greater social leverage.
The SJW is similar to a spider, though not quite as lethal. Their usual aim is to lure their prey into a battleground of their choice (so they have the advantage of being ‘informed’) rather than fighting their victims on their own turf, as challenging you where friends can help you, or in areas where you are informed is not good. If they draw you into their web, then it is easy for their friends to mob you and take you down. You will notice this when they tag in a tag team partner, usually because they can’t handle the argument alone.
You may have noticed people launching attacks on your ideology. “This ideology is bad.” “This is typical behaviour for people of this ideology.” “People who believe this do this reprehensible thing/are racist/want children to starve, etc.” If you are like me, this will not stand and you will find yourself in a massive online fracas.
Misinformation is rife throughout the internet, and sometimes you feel the incontrovertible need to argue against something that is simply not true. These attacks feel personal because they are. They are a targeted attack on YOU – not to highlight areas of social justice a person supports, but they are the actions of a predator looking for prey. It is best to ignore this and save yourself grief. Sadly this chapter is for people like me who will strike back, even if fighting these people is a foolish act. I should really know better by now…
Another way they draw in victims is by sharing specialised media in a way that provokes conflict. The media is rarely completely accurate, with most things having a political spin. I have found articles from the Guardian and Another Angry Voice, (whom I suspect is secretly an alt right troll, milking gullible ‘lefties’ of their hard earned sheckles,) particularly enticing.
Opinionated media is generally pretty vile as usually it is a moralistic piece that basically goads potential victims, in much the same way as similar posts you may have seen have triggered something deep within your soul. Just because someone has the right to post an opinion on a website or in a newspaper does not mean that opinion is right. This falls dangerously into the category of the argument from authority and often appears, in theory, to have more power than a direct personal statement, as news and well known websites are respected by the majority of normal people. If authority is always right, then Stalin was right, Hitler was right and so was Charles Manson, and heaven forbid, CNN. It’s tempting to respond to inaccurate opinionated articles, especially if they attack your beliefs personally. Avoid it for a happier life. The people sharing them are sharing to attack you and to look good, not because they care about the issues. Virtue signalling for likes. It’s quite sad really… If the amount of people who wanted issues fixed worked together, they could fix the problems through unity, but as we see, they would rather fight their brothers and sisters, drive away friends and then blame a lack of universal action by social gaps they caused rather than trying to bridge…
You also have, what I like to call: Questing Knights, who are somewhat a different breed. They usually come from a small army or ‘clan’ of SJWs who work together to hunt their prey. These knights know only the chivalry of the backstab and lynch mob as they generally only attack friends or friends of friends. They will attack you at the core on issues you are talking about, twisting the narrative of something you say in a way that makes you look bad and they, in turn, look good.
The best way to deal with this is to explain that they are misinformed publicly and ask them not to jump to conclusions about things that they don’t understand. They misrepresent on purpose and it should be pointed out and deflected, because any response other than a deflection will unleash a hornet’s nest of abuse, comments and summoning of the clan. They are bullying, cowardly pack animals and generally cruel people, and their behaviour should be watched. If you are attacked like this often by certain friends, you’re better off not knowing them, as they clearly don’t know you.
Types of Social Justice Warrior
In this section I will go into the types of SJW I have had the extreme misfortune to encounter, along with ways of defeating them in arguments or dealing with their nonsense and propaganda. The names and classifications are as much a joke as a sad reflection of what they actually are. I believe inherently that labels are bad, but sometimes they can be accurate.
The Lemonbrain
Our incontrovertibly pickled Lemonbrain is typically bitter and set in their ways. The Lemonbrain likes to start arguments often associated with the things that they pretend to care about and champion most. They are often incapable of thinking outside the box, and they are generally so bitter and cynical that changing their mind falls just short of a miracle. They have a thick skin, but you can break through it with a little work.
Lemonbrains are hard opponents to fight because usually they will only stick to one area they know well. They have tough skin, like the lemon, and their thoughts are just as acidic. They often feel misplaced in an extremely oppressive world, and usually attack political ideologies to deal with personal life frustrations.
When arguing with the Lemonbrain, you will often find that they have a reasonable amount of arguments backed up by solid ‘facts’ from whatever political journals they read. They are generally not stupid and have experience in arguing their points. They are tenacious and will often attack ideologies using blanket statements to try and deflect any argument you present and will often be quick to associate you with evil to gain allies quickly.
It is unlikely you will be able to change the mind of the Lemonbrain, so confrontation is generally a waste of your time. The only problem is if the Lemonbrain is gathering Lemon Cultists around them and launching personal attacks against individuals, spreading their toxic lemony bitterness and creating problems within communities, damaging reputations and ganging up on people, bullying them into submission.
These groups of Lemon Cultists tend to grow quickly and massage each other’s egos, constantly supporting each other’s statements, making arguments very complicated and hard.
The solution to fighting a group of these vile creatures is to pick out a weak Cultist who lacks the ability to think for themself, call them out by name and respond only to them. You make the weakest member of the Lemon Cult their mouthpiece. The others will try and help, so just ignore them. Pluck the squealing lemon from it’s herd and ask it for evidence, usually it will be supplied by others, but you can ignore them.
Make them fight and don’t let them leave. This sounds cruel and it is, but these Cultists make their fun out of hunting prey, and mass bully people into leaving social media, and potentially even into suicide as we have seen on many occasions. They are remorseless individuals who don’t care about the people they hurt and live only for self grandeurization and the fickle respect of their cult leader and friends.
On their own the Lemonbrain is generally toxic, though well practiced in their chosen field. Usually it is not worth an argument, but if you have to, the key is to find a common ground on a moral level. Look at the ideology they support, and show how your ideology supports it. Most of the time this will be ignored and you will be called a troll, however there is usually a way to prove that their opinion is wrong pretty easily in the arguments they provide. If they link articles, give them a little time and read them, then ask how the article is relevant or address things within the article showing how they reflect your views, if possible. You can also point out that the article is propaganda, misinformation or incorrect if it is. This will usually result in a win. That is, if that’s the intended goal.
Overall I wouldn’t recommend arguing with the Lemonbrain as it is a titanic waste of time. Only engage if they are actively bullying others. Point out that they are bullying people and say they are being unfair or misrepresenting someone and disregard their evidence as being insubstantial. Lemonbrains hate being the bad guy as it pickles their ideology and makes them question themselves.
Glorytrolls
Glorytrolls are aggressive and barbaric sociopaths that invade people’s posts on social media in the hope of showing the world how fantastic they are as people. Vain, narcissistic and petty, they use a variety of cruel devices to achieve their goals. The Glorytroll looks to wound their opponent’s ideology and uses a variety of different techniques to make their opponent look bad and them look morally superior.
These people use a very sinister cocktail of attacks to achieve their goals, demonising the poster’s ideology and attacking them personally, using blanket statements, lying and gaslighting in order to make a person seem horrible. They often accuse people of things that aren’t true, followed by the reason it makes a person immoral as an opener to their arguments. This is used to turn friends against each other and make out that the Glorytroll is a force for good, and the poster is evil.
They are narcissistic, hateful people who use their warped vision of morality to justify their actions. These are the same kinds of people that victim blame, and they attack remorselessly, changing topics if they are proven wrong on any subject, ignoring any evidence as fake, or politically biased. They like to take photos of their arguments to share with friends and gain allies against their enemies.
As with all SJWs, it’s pointless arguing against a Glorytroll. Usually any evidence they have is under-researched, misinformed, or opinion posts. They are well practised in changing the topic of conversation to attack in every way possible distracting you from being able to hold one argument. The best method of dealing with these people is a good old fashioned block. Friends and people who know you will know what you really stand for. People who don’t are just toxic, and will wound your relationships with those people who know you for their own sick pleasure.
Tag Team Textwarriors
Every once in a while you will find yourself arguing against a particularly curdled Lemonbrain that is sadly unable to think or fight for itself, terrified, it squawks to the void for assistance using the @ key and a friend’s name to summon their ally to the battle. The Tag Team Textwarrior is a seasoned pro at fighting for all things Justice online but most likely has never actually done anything to help anyone in the physical world. These people are dangerous and usually use dirty tricks like abusing moral concepts to argue with you.
There is one rule to follow when dealing with this kind of e-vermin. Ignore them! Block them or ignore the things they say, nothing saddens the Textwarrior like being ignored. Continue to respond to anyone else in the discussion and completely ignore anything being said by a summoned ally. It’s effective and leads to extreme outbursts of rage in most cases. By never responding to anything they personally say, you remove their power by not acknowledging them. Don’t respect an opponent that doesn’t respect or know you.
Silent Supports
The Silent Support is a particularly nasty version of the Social Justice Warrior. These are people who cannot be reasoned with because they don’t directly engage in the battle. Their role is simple: Sit on the sidelines like brain dead gargoyles firing likes at the comments of anyone that they agree with. It is very easy to deal with the silent support. There are two options available that will lead to maximum effectiveness in your arguments.
1: Contact the person directly in a private message, try to ascertain what their actual opinion is. Most of the time they don’t know what they are talking about and will flake if challenged. Explain that you are being misrepresented or that your opponent does not know what they are talking about and provide evidence… or you could take the easy route.
2: Block them. Blocking is a great way to reduce an enemy’s support count to zero, if they can’t see what you are writing they can’t realistically support the enemy or respond to anything you write, and liking mindless spam gets boring fast. Whilst it doesn’t always work, as they can still stick around, you will reduce a lot of your opponent’s support by blocking the crowd of trolls and making the person look like they’re screaming at thin air. Glorious.
Chaplains:
The Chaplain is well-meaning and usually tries to break up fights, rather than allowing them to go on. They usually end up being hated by both parties involved in the argument and any parties that happen to see the argument, not through any fault of their own but just through their yearning for peace. Very often the Chaplain is a Voice of Reason and the voice of sensibility and should really be listened to by both parties. They are usually ignored and attacked by everyone. They will usually end up alienating all of their friends and sadly become hated for trying to help out in a horrible situation.
You should never turn on a Chaplain or attack them; it only makes you look like a horrible person and that will be used against you. Moreover, you should openly support their ideas towards peace. Sending them a message agreeing that peace would be better, but that you need to fight for what is right can turn a Chaplain into a powerful ally in battle. If you are aiming for peace but your opponent is pushing for war, the Chaplain will often side with you and keep trying to de-escalate the situation.
The Arsenal of the SJW:
The SJW has a series of weapons it uses to harm others. These are some of the ones I have come across along with a few ways of handling them.
The Bait
I have discussed earlier some of the ways the SJW will try to lure you into their spider’s web. Usually they poke, prod and goad by calling out specific ideologies, or try to throw a twist into your conversation that purposefully misrepresents you. They may say: “You believe this, so you must believe that”, or they may try and gaslight the people around you by throwing purposeful misrepresentations of your character into the mix. An example was that someone called me a Trump supporter around the time of the 2020 elections to gain favour with the demographic of my friends who don’t like Trump. I however was much more so aligned with the Libertarian party which I had actively worked with overseas through one of the companies I work with.
This person used a previous statement I had made to try and prove their point, which whilst relatively meaningless got some negative reactions from friends who hadn’t kept up with me politically. This is very dangerous, and should be called out publicly as soon as possible. “Just because I made this statement does not mean that I have this other belief.” Is a great way to handle misrepresentation. “If you would like to discuss this further, please get your facts right.” Is a nice aggressive follow up. It reduces their power and makes you appear stronger, whilst making them seem ill informed. Above all else, you don’t ever want to be misrepresented by anyone.
Blanket Statements
I have mentioned these earlier as one of the goading tactics people use, and they are a really nasty weapon. “People of this ideology are all bad, or all believe this or all want that.” We can step back a little as well and say that they can accuse you of being right wing, homophobic, mysoginistic, a Nazi or a Trump supporter, as though that represents your argument. You can actually be all of these things, and they can still be wrong about your argument.
A blanket statement completely ignores any points you make within your argument, or ultimately labels it in such a way that it’s dismissible outright. It’s a lazy way to fight effortlessly as it avoids the responsibility of having to formulate a counter argument. The only way to argue against this is to ask them to directly address your points and call them out on being evasive, not responding to your argument, purposefully misrepresenting you, or not understanding your argument. It’s messy but it tends to work as people like to have the last word, especially the aggressive SJW variety. You can point out that people are using blanket statements and explain what they are and why they are being used to beat back opponents nicely. That is, if anyone has the brain cells to listen to you.
Projection of Aggression
Have you ever been baited into an argument with someone who has been talking in an aggressive and injurious way about a subject you feel close to heart? Often their opinions are maladjusted and lack any understanding and you just couldn’t let it go? Your retaliation may well be called out as aggressive.
Projection is especially sinister because it makes you seem like the bad guy when in fact you’re not. you are not the person who made the original statement. You are not the person who’s got the wrong opinion, and yes you actually have a right to be upset if somebody says something wrong about something you believe in, so projection of aggression is very very disturbing.
Let’s say someone says: “All conservatives are bad.” Or my favorite, “Never trust a Tory.” This is aggressive towards conservatives. If I respond by saying, “That’s not correct!” This is marked out as an act of aggression. “How dare you challenge me, you brute!” Comes the reply, the offender projecting their own aggressive stance on you. They take no responsibility for their original statement that was provocational, or the fact they’ve hurt your feelings.
The way to handle this is to say: “I am responding to your inaccurate statement that doesn’t represent my views. This statement is aggressive and untrue for these reasons.” Usually you will be met with abuse, but at least you point the finger back at them, revealing who the aggressor truly is. The important thing is letting everyone reading it know that you are the one being attacked, and that you are only defending yourself. It is the other person who is the aggressor.
Changing the Subject
You’ve scored a point, and it can’t be beaten, so your opponent switches tactics. They will try and drag you into a battlefield they are more comfortable with, usually related. As Mark Twain says, “an idiot will drag you to their level and beat you with experience.”
I sometimes give in and argue in the new battlefield, win enough of them and you will win the war, and usually people who argue like this will only have so many battlefields in the Inception of Incompetence their arguments can become, however the best advice I can give is to say: “This is irrelevant, as we are talking about the subject we are talking about, not about this.” The opponent will usually try to drag you into their new battlefield a few times. The best way to handle this is to play to the narcissist within the SJW mind and say: “If you can’t even argue about what we are talking about, you are simply not worth my time. We can move onto less important matters later.” This will usually trigger vitriol within your opponent and force them to stay on topic.
Attacking/Belittling Your Achievements
Let’s say you’ve made some accomplishments in your life. I’m a composer, actor, film maker and I ran my own company. I am now terrible at making music, a trash actor, my films suck, and my company now has bad reviews from someone I didn’t work with. I’m also incredibly ugly, and believe it or not I’m going bald! (Something I’m well aware of!)
It starts with an attack on your achievements. Usually this comes from a lack of achievement from the person who attacks you. This brings you down to being human, rather than the overarching demigod that you actually are, and as Dutch said in Predator: “If it bleeds, we can kill it.” Then you just get insults afterwards.
The best response is to say: “I know, how is this relevant to our conversation?” This very much annoys people. They hate it when you don’t care about their opinion. It’s their aim to hurt you. If you don’t let it show, and don’t rise to it, you will be fine.
Emotional Blackmail
“We are supposed to be friends!” “I thought you were my friend!” “I thought I could trust you!” Or my favourite: “I thought you were a good person!” Are quite commonly used by people attempting to assert emotional and psychological control over you. It’s particularly malignant. “I thought you were a good person!” Or words to that effect are particularly nasty as it implies you are actually a bad person and it’s a secret jab at you, also implying they are good and wouldn’t normally associate with a bad person like you. These people really are sick. This is emotional blackmail, designed to make you look bad and make observers hate you.
The best way to fight this is to say: “You drew me in by attacking me directly/indirectly, you misrepresented me/my beliefs/my friends, why are you doing this? I thought we were friends too…” This reality check will usually work because sometimes bringing people down to ground is necessary. Not everyone is purposefully aggressive and sometimes it can lead to peace. At other times it can lead to you being blocked and smeared. Lovely stuff. That’s not a friend you will miss.
Demeaning, Name Calling and Demonisation
How often have you found yourself called an idiot, a moron or attacked for being ugly? I get this a lot from people, it’s one of the many advantages of being an idiotic ugly moron. Simply your enemies in this scenario don’t have an argument to use against you. They will revert to toxicity and blanket statements calling you alt right, Tory scum, a terrorist, pathetic, little, Nazi etc. I usually ask these people to try and remain on topic and not snarl at me like some sort of beast, but a kinder approach is to ignore it and try and get them to focus on the argument.
Spelling Mistakes and Grammar
If they point out spelling mistakes and grammar, you’ve already won. I like to ask people if they could kindly address my points rather than trying to distract from their inability to argue against them. Hold these people to account for their own weaknesses.
War is Pointless
At the end of the day, there is only one thing to realise and this is that war is absolutely pointless and fighting these people is a waste of time. If, like me, you feel inevitably drawn into these involuntary conflicts with these people, maybe this will help, but the best technique is always to ignore these people and walk away. It’ll lead to a happier, more successful life.
by Chan Walrus | Aug 21, 2021 | Essays
The left wing of politics looks towards a state of social equality and egalitarianism, as is commonly referenced in popular media. Whilst currently we live in a system that is dependent on multiple hierarchies of power, from employment to government, to social status, support of what we have established traditionally within our society and having these social hierarchies and respecting them is closer to being right wing. I have come to realise that most Social Justice Warriors are far right authoritarian radicals, due to their alignment and behaviours.
The vast majority of Social Justice Warriors accept the system we live in, though they have an intolerance for the powers that be, and are hugely critical of the people they see in power. Rather than picking up the slack where needed to make the world a better place, they prefer to congregate in a vast authoritarian hashtag army for whatever is currently trending and demand the government helps people over, accepting their lower status within the hierarchy and offsetting the responsibility of helping those less fortunate than themselves to ‘other’ more ‘privileged’ people.
Responsibility is always an interesting idea. A group of people demanding higher taxes so the government can answer every problem they have with the world shows an incredible lack of personal responsibility, and what’s more shows a distinct lack of caring when it comes to how society is run. In an egalitarian society, we would ideally all share the responsibility as a community. The outright abandonment of personal responsibility to make people’s lives better in favour of blaming other powers like the government, and expecting them to kowtow to demands that they perform the actions all of us are personally capable of is not a left wing school of thought. It shows a distinct lack of personal responsibility and a reliance on a higher power, and is frankly unacceptable.
Barry Clark, a well regarded professor of economics wrote that the left wing “claim that human development flourishes when individuals engage in cooperative, mutually respectful relations that can thrive only when excessive differences in status, power, and wealth are eliminated.” This I thoroughly believe, and yet I see the SJW come into battle with a distinct lack of respect for their opponent, armed with hate, unjustified labelling, blanket statements, authoritarian cruelty and the motivation to dominate someone into submission, dehumanizing them and trying to establish a moral superiority over them. They use the far right policies of oppression, political violence and attempt to force and bully people into submission trying to assimilate them into their beliefs or bully them off of social media, “Cleansing” the enemy, so to speak.
Based upon their savage and brutal actions and the disgusting way they attack others on social media, I believe that these people do not undertake the ideology of a peaceful and cooperative respectful equality. Instead, a draconian regime of authoritarian social hierarchy seems desirable to them. They use labels and blanket statements to engage in war with Conservatives or people who classify themselves as “Right Wing” in order to dominate them, rather than try and find out what their personal ideas are. Their stance is one of aggression and they belittle and ignore any proof or argument presented against them.
They use a shield based around a faux-morality, in which they support groups that they see as ‘inferior’. This is usually the result of a narcissistic urge to self grandeurise, with people saying: “I recognise these people who are struggling, and help and support them.” This makes them look morally ‘good’ on social media. Despite the fact it’s easy to hashtag that you care about a political cause or even post about it often on Social Media, even put links on your website etc or write about it, unless you are supporting the cause in the field, you are doing very little to further it. Very few SJWs honestly support causes as evidenced by a distinct lack of deeds and actions, instead using them for personal political grandstanding.
When we look to the idea of equality that the left wishes to have, what we see from the SJW in raising armies against their enemies, treating them with utter disrespect and hatred, and attempting to socially humiliate people to prove their moral superiority is definitely far right. They do this because they believe that utter domination of a person will raise their social status whilst lowering their enemy. This is clearly right wing behaviour, and we are talking about authoritarian right – the very people they claim, hypocritically, to hate.
The radical witch hunting of anyone who does not fit the thought pattern required to be a ‘desirable person’ has created an atmosphere of fear on social media. Using the book of morality, groups of SJWs go hunting ruthlessly and blitzkrieg any enemy of their flavour of the month moral crusade they can find. Due to the way they carry out this predatory behaviour, it is reasonable to suspect that the motivation behind their actions is dishonourable, dishonest and corrupt. It is not respectful, polite and in many cases could be considered inhuman.
Their logic is insanely flawed to the point where they believe that anyone who they label to be an undesirable doesn’t support their chosen moral stance, regardless of any argument or protest which is quickly brushed aside. They use straw man arguments and misrepresentation to single out victims and bring allies to help them, demonizing their opponents using trigger words and blanket statements to attack and humiliate a person into submission through hateful barrages of abuse and twisted logic. There is usually no reasoning with them. Their position and behaviour is so aggressive one can only call them radicals.
As it stands, I must be frank. It is one thing to be ‘outraged’ and ‘upset’ by things. To talk about them online, as though your opinion actually makes a difference is fine as well… To change profile pictures to show you support a cause and to hashtag and share articles about something. This is fine. But this isn’t what the SJW does. The SJW uses things as a weapon of war, to run their enemies down and gain political social power. George Floyd was a human being. He had a dubious history, but his death was unnecessary. As soon as the SJWs found out that the man had a past, they stopped parading him around like a hero and moved on to the next person they could use to attack others. As they got outraged and upset about Harambe, about Cecil the Lion, furiously posting that they will never forgive or forget… Most of them have forgotten, and found another weapon to use. Petty people, looking for a target to vent their hatred and frustrations on without a care for the results of their actions, and people wonder why suicide rates among young people are so high…
Whatever weapon is used can be replaced when it falls out of favour, which means that most of this emotion worth ruining lives, dividing friendships and treating people like garbage over is not even genuine. It’s part of a fanatical and divisive weapon used to attack people under a flag of faux morality. This faux morality is used as a method of politically oppressing others from an area of relative safety. This falls more into far right extremism than other ideologies.
Economically, the left prefer the idea of a decentralized economy, prioritising social ownership and local control rather than allowing for state/government run systems or private control. Interestingly enough the right wing libertarians also in some cases have a similar ideology. It is interesting to note that whilst the idea of the liberal left would be supportive of people who are disadvantaged in society, rather than using their society to help fund support for people through charities, the SJW vehemently demands the government support and help people who are disadvantaged. In the UK, this is something the government generally does to a reasonable, if imperfect standard.
Putting the government in a place where they have to be responsible for helping the people the SJW sees as disadvantaged is an acceptance and reliance on a preferable hierarchy, and looking to it as the desirable answer to a problem, rather than getting together as an egalitarian community to work together to fix a problem. This is a right wing solution to a left wing problem, a problem people care so little about that they make noise about it, and precious little else – which leads me to believe that they do not honestly care about the problem and merely use it for social grandstanding.
It is also interesting to note that the SJW delights in the shutting down of their enemies financial assets. This has occurred on a number of occasions including the banks closing Donald Trump’s bank accounts following the Capitol Hill riots. People expressed glee at the situation, enjoying the fact that people that had the power to take away Trump’s financial access had done so. So rather than accepting the idea of equal banking, they were happy for an authoritarian move forced upon someone they did not like. This would not constitute the idea of equality in terms of banking, more so an acceptance and relying on the hierarchical power of banks. Also worryingly to note, it could be done to anyone for whatever reason, a rather disturbing situation to be honest.
This was also prevalent in the shutting down of Trump across the leading social media platforms at the time. The SJWs were absolutely delighted at the way powerful sources were able to shut down the then President of the United States and applauded and even praised the platforms for these actions. This is another indication that they enjoy the insidious abuse of power over others which would align them far right. A person cannot equally represent themselves and must be suppressed by a dominant force.
Ultimately we have to face one simple fact. Anyone who tries to oppress others for having a different belief system, to dominate them and humiliate them, and prove some kind of hierarchical superiority over others, to dehumanise people and quell their freedom of speech cannot be considered left wing at all. These people, these SJWs are of the right wing authoritarian crowd, pushing a dark agenda that does more damage ultimately than healing anything.
If we are to live in a better world, we should be trying to accept each other and treat each other with respect and human decency, not trying to dominate people with blanket statements and cruelty. I want to believe in a world where people are free to have their beliefs as long as they don’t hurt others. I believe in a world where the poor are supported and protected by governments, because I see too little evidence of society trying to provide for the homeless, the disabled, the unemployed and the needy. I realise that it is only by having the right wing structural hierarchy that these people will be safe.
by Chan Walrus | Aug 19, 2021 | Essays
I hate you, because of the colour of your skin, because of your political beliefs, sexual identity, height, weight, and because you are reading this essay. You disgust me for all of these reasons and you should be ashamed of yourself.
None of that statement was fair, and yet every day, people are judged not for who they are as individuals, but for labels that are placed upon them. It is horrible when people do that. We are all, each our own individual selves. Not the colour of our skin, our gender, our sexual orientation or food preferences.
It’s very easy to label people, I myself do it all the time, and it is likely that you too do it, even if you do not really recognise it within your normal day to day life. I have been labelled as many things, and oftentimes, I do not fit the blanket statement that covers those things. This is without doubt infuriatingly annoying.
Are You How You Appear?
An example of my being labelled and despised for it would be my political ideology. I see myself as a conservative. I do not support the conservative party of the UK. Because of the things I have said being maligned, sometimes purposefully and wilfully by others for their own political means, this has been used as a weapon to turn people who do not like the conservative party against me. Because I am conservative, I like the conservatives, they say. Well, no, I like to have a conservative ideology, but I might well think the entire party are a bunch of corrupt weasels. Something these people most likely believe themselves.
I am right wing in that I believe in the inevitabilities of social hierarchies, and what’s more I think they are necessary. We can see this in governments, the idea of democracy, the fact that most people would rather happily work for an employer who will pay them less than they themselves earn.
I started my own business, and so do many others, but it is a rare thing where people are paid the same as their boss… if you run a business, do you take home equal wages to those who work for you? It is unlikely. I think it is nice we have a right wing structure that helps pay benefits in this country and supports the unemployed, the disabled and the people others refuse to help.
Are these reasons to hate me? Of course! Because I am right wing, I am a fascist, socialist, racist, far right nazi with the urge to destroy society and everyone within it. All I yearn for is to watch the world burn… – Or so people would have others believe. This of course, is not true. I can be a belligerent asshole at times though.
The left wing, according to every definition I have read, supports social equality and the idea that people are all equal morally and in terms of worth. It is in competition with the ideas of natural hierarchy, and I see it as being incredibly dangerous. This is because I see no evidence that anyone aspires for true social equality because most that claim to engage in conflict with those that value social hierarchy, and you can bet your last dollar safely that they sure as hell won’t respect the opinions of others who have a different world view. Social equality also means social responsibility and most of those who claim to be left wing in their posts and arguments do little to support the needy, graciously relying on the right wing societal structures that help them so they don’t have to, whilst attacking them consistently.
The issue is the muddiness of the water in the way both doctrines are perceived by the majority of people that espouse them. The majority of people on the vocal left will demean the right, for example, and claim moral superiority to them. This is an act of social hierarchy and would more typically fit the right ideology, which means that doing this is very hypocritical and not the kind of action one would expect of the left, at least according to its definition. I could comfortably say that most of the people who vocally assume their identity is left wing, or use the terminology to preach social justice are on the political right. Usually much further along than me. The ones who want to change the world and alter the thought patterns of others and dominate through authoritarian means are often the far right they fear so much. It would be hilarious if it wasn’t so sad.
But what about the social justice we fight for? you might say… I shall quote the great Thomas Sowell: “Since this is an era when many people are concerned about ‘fairness’ and ‘social justice,’ what is your ‘fair share’ of what someone else has worked for.
Let’s work out a mathematical equation:
Take the amount of money you give to charity per month, supporting anything from friends to organizations.
Then take the amount you spend on yourself for luxuries, new shoes, socks, holidays, wine, meals out, takeaways, tattoos, hair dye, hair gel, caramel lattes, or sweets and treats from the shops. Things you don’t need to survive.
Which of these numbers is ultimately greater? In most cases, it will be the second one. I have several vices myself. I am an avid lover of Coca Cola and Dr. Pepper. Now if I take the amount I drink per month, I’m looking at about £80.00 – £90.00 which I’m not spending on helping other people. I don’t really have many other vices. Overall they equate to around £125.00 per month according to my workings out.
This is less than I give to helping others and supporting charities. I work on average around 60-70 hours a week, sometimes doing as many as 80 hours. I support organizations like Greenpeace, the PDSA and similar charities. Outside of this, I provide free services for small businesses, and spend hours supporting them and helping them grow for no financial gain. I write music for people’s films and ask nothing in return, not because my music is without value, but because I want people to be able to use it for anything they like. I have worked on taking down the websites of white supremacists who incited violence against people of colour and who doxed them. Some of the money that I get in ad revenue on this site will be going to charity, so by reading this, and enduring the ads, I would like to thank you for helping me help people.
Does this mean I’m a good person? Not really. These are just some of the actions that I take that most would associate with the left wing. I support charities because it is the right thing to do, and help businesses and film makers because I know how hard it is to start out in these areas. I help fight racism where it exists because I believe that we as a species should not fight each other based around petty differences.
Morality… Let’s Pretend.
Let’s look at things morally. I’ll start with a horrifying statement: “I do not care about the homeless.” Do I give money to the homeless? Absolutely! I also give recommendations for them to contact Emmaus, or advice if they want it. But do I actually care? No. I’ve never asked a homeless person to stay with me or tried to directly help them or try to personally fix anything in their life. That would be the action of someone who truly cared. So, with this in mind, I cannot pretend I truly care. Making a big racket about how I care all over social media would be pretty ridiculous if it is simply not the case. But I see this every day. “I’ve given a homeless person this! Look at me, I’m a good person.” Is it really you who has helped the person or has the homeless person helped you gain social favour.
Every day, I see people who screamed Black Lives Matter when George Floyd died, yet not only did they not care about the death of David Dorn, but they were quick to drop Floyd the moment it was discovered he had a criminal past. He no longer fit the role that was needed, and quickly more names were brought forth that people could believe in and have something to be outraged about. I am still upset that George Floyd was murdered, regardless of who he was before it happened. He was still a human being, and it angers me how quickly people swept him under the rug.
When George Floyd was murdered, I was upset to learn a police officer had taken the life of someone. It didn’t make a difference to me what colour his skin was, nor, as I later found out, that he had been a criminal. What upset me was the unjust killing of someone at the hands of someone who should have been there as a protector.
The people who were quick to abandon George Floyd and cheer for the riots in the United States showed not a shred of care for David Dorn who lost his life in them, or the others who died. They endorsed the riots and supported them on social media, caring not a hoot for the lives the riots destroyed. Businesses of people of many different nationalities and skin colours utterly destroyed in sheer acts of incomprehensible hatred. So many people were part of it. So many people died because of it. So many people kept cheering through the bloodshed and had the gall to claim that these riots were peaceful protests.
What does this mean?
It’s simple. George Floyd’s life was something to post about, something to get angry about, a reason to scream and argue and shout. Learning more about him, people no longer considered him a martyr, that would be unsafe. So they didn’t really care about him, his family, the situation or anything else. They looked for more “black” people who had been killed by police. They found Breonna Taylor. They used her for their own self grandeurization on social media as they had with George Floyd.
Hate is Easy, Love is Hard
It’s very easy to be angry and it’s very easy to hate. To hate me for being a conservative, to hate the policeman that killed George Floyd for what he did, to hate George Floyd for being a criminal. For hating him because of his colour or his gender, for anything.
When someone says: This person is a “Label” it’s easy to think of the label as being the only thing that person can be. There are people I dislike because of the labels they have marred themselves with. As a father I am very opposed to pedophilia, as I think most sane people are. But in the normal context of day to day life, if you learn someone has a specific label, it doesn’t mean they fit the mould.
If someone has a belief, they can also be wrong and learn later on in life that they were wrong. I used to be a communist, believe it or not. Many might have hated me for that, but hatred only creates a bad reaction which can further spur someone down a dark path. It’s only by showing compassion to people and trying to show a different way of life that we can ever really find out what lies beneath a label.
In care work, we are taught to see the person first. This is part of dementia training and I think it is a very valuable lesson to teach. You see a person, they might be your friend, someone you’ve known for years, and they have a different thought. Something you might be opposed to. It doesn’t change who they are, and it is something that should be discussed with them. The next time you see someone with a different world view, try to understand where they are coming from. It’s only by trying to understand and being on the level with people that we can ever teach them and build a better world.
by Chan Walrus | Aug 18, 2021 | Essays
There has long been a war between the social media giants of our times and conservative thoughts and values resulting in rampant censorship, abuse and a fascist assault on people’s liberties. Over time people have become increasingly frustrated with their conversations being shut down and their beliefs trampled on in places which purport to have no clear political bias.
One well known digital encyclopaedia, Wikipedia, has long had a series of values that are spurious at best, as we can see with it’s treatment of Gab and Parler, which have both been misrepresented and maligned on the platform, and currently hold misinformation on protected pages. So now, I think it’s fitting to use Wikipedia as the tool with which to judge the social media platforms they actively support and allow to thrive, rather than the ones they malign. I think we all know which ones I am talking about.
Let’s start off with two terms:
Wikipedia (2021) refers to Government as: “The system or group of people governing an organized community, generally a state.”
A state can be classified as a polity, which in turn is classified as any group of people who have a collective identity who are organized by some form of institutionalised social relations, with a capacity to mobilise resources. A polity can be a corporate board, and hence, a social media company in itself is a form of Government over it’s domain and controls the rules within it’s society.
Wikipedia (2021) refers to Dehumanization as: “the denial of full humanness in others and the cruelty and suffering that accompanies it. A practical definition refers to it as the viewing and treatment of other persons as though they lack the mental capacities that are commonly attributed to human beings. In this definition every act of thought that regards a person as “less than” human is dehumanization.”
Dehumanization is common on modern social media platforms, it is a crime committed by the people on social media who deride and oppress others, and by the platforms themselves which not only support this behaviour but allow it to thrive through an incompetent and sometimes lazily automated system.
Dehumanization is regarded as a Crime against Humanity. This crime against humanity on social media is not held in check, it is part of a controlling fascistic agenda, put in place to persecute people who are guilty of wrongthink. To label them as a dissenter. To deplatform them and force them into exile from their family and friends through indoctrination, through a clear agenda to subjugate people and to destroy those with different beliefs and ideologies.
Social media platforms as of the time I am writing this have too much power, and commit acts of atrocity against people who have done nothing to deserve it and condone misrepresenting and mistreatment of people on their platforms using a combination of twisted logic, “fact checking” which is provided by companies with a political agenda, and refusing to be responsive to issues on the platforms.
People on social media also commit these acts of atrocity. I speak of course about the ‘noble’ SJW who is happy to use any number of blanket terms to condemn anyone with a slightly conservative mindset… Or more disturbingly, anyone who says anything that they can purposefully misconstrue for their sadistic attacks and purely narcissistic agenda. The use of blanket terms used to victimise people: Homophobe, Racist, Islamophobe, Nazi, Far-Right, etc, has become commonplace. People flock to those words to persecute someone, regardless of any form of proof that a person is guilty of any crime, looking to abuse and assault other human beings that may have done nothing wrong.
If you end up being called these words, there is nothing you can do to argue, no words you say, no proof you bring will be listened to, as the mob attacks mindlessly. It’s only desire is to reduce a human being to emotional rubble. This is all done in the name of the greater good, after all, you are no longer human. You are scum. If you think you are safe just because you believe in truth, justice and the same things the SJW purports to believe, you are wrong. At any time, anything you have ever said can be purposefully taken out of context, purposefully misconstrued and maliciously used against you.
So why would people who claim to be for equality and justice dehumanize anyone? Simple. They are trying to establish a moral and social dominance over you within the social hierarchy. They do not attempt to listen to you, or afford you any opportunity to have equal say or thought. They are not really interested in equality at all, they are merely interested in looking good socially. Not only this, but they are eager to witch hunt and character assassinate people in order to further their own sense of self importance, and care not a jot if they misrepresent someone. The word “sorry” is alien to them, as is confessing to making a mistake. Such is their narcissism, they cannot even see that they have made a mistake.
It is interesting how much the SJW relies upon and even calls for the established hierarchy of the platform for assistance, and uses arguments from authority citing politically biased news sources without respecting equality of response. It’s highly authoritarian and far-right in its approach.
There is a much contested quote “When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross.” So certain social media platforms are contextually in accord with this quote. They came wrapped in the words of people claiming to want to bring people together and looking for truth, justice and all things wonderful. Instead they bring domination by fact checkers that write their own facts and distort the truth on a regular basis, by allowing and creating division in society, and pushing political power and agenda any way they see fit.
It is easy to dehumanize anyone reading this, and believe me, I thank you for reading this. All I have to do is tell you you are a white supremacist, and that’s argument over. I don’t need to argue with you anymore because you are nothing more than an enemy of truth, justice and equality. You should feel ashamed, and I have the right to say whatever I like about you, to shame you and abuse you in whatever way I see fit.
This is how the radical right wing sociopaths that claim to be left wing think. No evidence presented, no capitulation, no apology is enough for the crime against humanity you never committed. But what do they do? They strip you of your right to be equally heard, they take from you your voice, your equality, your rights as a human being to stand up and say: “This isn’t who I am.” You are maligned, dragged through the dirt and stamped underfoot, and you may have done nothing to deserve it.
This behaviour is radical, dangerous, and it destroys lives, and pushes innocent human beings to suicide, and with suicide rates climbing in a world increasingly enraptured by the heady embrace of social media, we can only wonder when this madness is going to end.
When people are abused by the far-right SJW, they could be completely innocent of any and all actions they are accused of, yet friends, family and colleagues may turn against them as they might think that the SJW has some knowledge of that person they do not. Human beings who have done nothing wrong have been shunned out of society, and branded with hateful labels, surrounded by a cloud of hate, for things they never said, did, stood for, or thought.
Is it any wonder that people under such an oppressive doctrine of hate are easily radicalised and taught to hate?
We now live in a world where conservatives are terrified to post their real opinions and feelings on social media, not necessarily because they are wrong, but because they know they will fall victim to the terrifying hate crusade, led by sociopathic far right SJWs seeking to demonize them. The social media platforms are also happy to shut down people, with posts ‘disappearing’ and ban hammers being handed out regularly by the powers that be, whenever it is called for.
There is an oppressive atmosphere online created by a stifling of freedom and the suppression of anything that does not fit the narrative. This is endorsed, supported and nurtured by tyrannical groups of people who classify themselves as being the enemies of evil and by this disassociation with evil, they are, at least in their opinion, good. Evil is anyone or anything they deem to be evil, for whatever reason they wish. They can pluck these reasons, and present them with no evidence and still cause catastrophic damage that can ruin an innocent person’s life.
They play a very simple game which is often referred to as “association fallacy” it goes something like this. “You are this, therefore, you believe this.” This is incredibly ignorant and a very stupid form of argument. Even in social groups wherein a large number of people do share similar beliefs, it is never a good thing to assume that a person believes something, even if it is common within the group. It’s dangerous and can cause catastrophic harm. Try asking two filmmakers to agree on camera presets and remember they both fall under the blanket term of filmmaker.
The SJW tends to appeal to emotional stimuli using a combination of trigger words to dehumanize their opponent. They use guilt by association to lower an opponent’s social status, and honour by association (with justice!) to raise their social status. This is the hierarchy game which they crave, and the main reason that it’s easier to associate them with the far right than the left which they claim so often to be, as they spare their opponent no equal footing, honour or quarter.
Now we can look at absolutely any field or area in the whole of human history, and it is very hard, if not impossible to find two people who have exactly the same opinion about everything. We see arguments and debates in government, the sciences, and in all walks of life from acting performance techniques to anime, and there are disagreements and arguments about just about everything.
Guilt by association is a muddy water, and a reprehensible way to treat other people. They might even hold values you do not like or respect, but it doesn’t mean that your assumption another person feels or thinks a certain way is correct. It is also important to note that just because someone may have reprehensible views, that doesn’t make them wrong on certain topics, which means that if someone has something genuinely useful to say, despite not liking them, it can be good to listen.
Because I am a conservative, many people assume that this means I support the Conservative party of the United Kingdom, which I currently don’t. The truth of the matter is that I prefer them to the opposition who I see as being people who would systematically destroy this country and force it into a financial hell due to mismanagement of economics. I would vote for the conservatives as a tactical vote to help protect people from Labour. So why would I be against the Labour party, the party of opposition?
What some people see as “free transport” and “free school meals” will not be paid for by the government, but by the poorest in society due to the way the opposition currently wants to increase minimum wage, corporation tax and taxes on the rich, all of which have historically been bad for people on the lower rungs of society, like myself and my family and friends. With humans being replaced by machines in the workforce and having their work requirements expanded as their colleagues are let go, they will react in shock as they experience this, as every society has when it has experienced this.
What I see from the Labour party is a concentrated effort to apply unrealistic financial pressure to the lower classes, so they develop a reliance on the government with “free transport” and “free school meals” and they see the government as a caring lifeline trying to fix a problem they blame on the economic policies of their conservative enemies.
It baffles me to the point of exasperation that no one can be bothered to do any form of research, and happily accept the words of the people who would financially and politically benefit most from Labour being in power. It is also quite amusing to note that in a world in which the Labour Party would be in power would be pandering to desirable hierarchy and opting out of self sufficiency which is more conservative in its approach.
So what economic policies am I talking about? Increasing the minimum wage is a tax on the employers – so prices rise, workers are made redundant, replaced by machines where possible and have reduced benefits. Generally work requirements are increased as well so their performance at their job has to improve. Etc. This is also an issue with increasing corporation tax and taxing the rich who own companies. You will pay for those “free things.” More than you will for being self sufficient. Glittering trinkets, praised by shills, but worth a lot less than what you lose.
I think wanting to protect people in society, especially the disabled and people on benefits and low wages who are struggling is a very human thing to do. I also think most people want people on benefits and low wages to have happier lives. I just think a lot of people do not understand economics and would rather attribute the majority success of the last conservative landslide election to idiocy and racism. Something that also baffles me especially considering the witch hunts of our last election.
I find the majority of arguments against conservatives hold little water and usually result in the same things: Boris Johnson says silly things and looks like a haystack. Michael Gove looks like a cuttlefish. Theresa May is haunted by those fields of wheat. Jacob Rees-Mogg is a relic from the times of Queen Victoria. All of these are just personal insults because people do not like these people, and they just want to be nasty to them. I have seen a lot of humanity from all of these people, who have been cruelly maligned on social media, and often in the news.
So why is this important? This is a form of dehumanization. “Tory Scum! Tory Scum! Never Trust a Tory! Tory bastards! Every Tory a lying scumbag! Fuck the Tories. Look at this Tory in power, look at what a clown they are!” A collection of people, angry, frustrated with their lives, tearing at people out of sheer fury. Absolute hate. Consider for a moment that the majority of people in this country voted for the Conservatives in the last election. All these people are silent, having to listen to this abuse, ringing out.
The one or two people who walk into the trap of responding and trying to bring facts to the table are dehumanized, stripped of any right to respond and are screamed and jeered off of social media by people who frankly in most cases have the intelligence and mental processing powers of a butternut. I realise the disservice I am doing to the butternut here, but I am merely being facetious. It was amusing to note that most people who are pro Labour and anti Tory seem to love the EU, but blame the Tories for issues caused by the EU’s laws. Reasoning with them is like arguing with a brick wall.
These people who dehumanize others claim to be victims of people in power. They accept people in power are dominant over them in the social hierarchy of society. Their answer is not to try and bring things up with others in a positive way but to tear people apart like a shoal of piranhas, sinking their teeth into an innocent victim. They wish for power over others, and it is incredibly desirable to them. So much so that they cannot be said to be true believers in equality.
It is interesting to note that whilst the true left believe in equality and respectfully allow their opponents a platform as equals, these far right SJW radicals oppress their enemies into silence through abuse, dehumanization and relentless mocking, and see deplatforming of individuals as something great. George Orwell said: “If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face forever.” If stamping on others, dominating, controlling their lives, social profiles and banking, subjugating them and forcing them out of your perfect society because of labels you put on them, then maybe, just maybe you’re not the good person you claim to be. Maybe you’re a predatory SJW.
One thing to note is that there’s also an opposite side to the spectrum. People may like things not normally associated with them, their styles, ideologies or beliefs. A personal example: I do not like rap, I generally detest it as a musical form. Most people would assume that this means that I do not like all rap, and utterly reject the genre. This is incorrect. I rather enjoy a song called Stan by Eminem, who I respect as a lyrical genius, despite the fact I don’t enjoy most of his music. I also really liked Tonight’s Hero by Futurecop, (the version with Lyrics.) But overall, I dislike the genre.
In general, it is not good to reduce anyone to a stereotype as it strips a person of their individuality and dignity. For me to say these things about SJWs may be hypocritical and indeed, my opinions on SJWs are that they tend to be horrible or at least incontrovertibly misguided people. It does not stop me trying my best to talk to them in as human a way as possible and to respond as well as I can to their insane allegations and abuse. I try to listen and respond and that is my own failing as a human being. What I have learned from years of talking to these people is that there is no reasoning with them. The things we try and do in the name of universal brotherhood and friendship…
