In modern America, we face an enemy which is implacable in its desire to subvert, overthrow, and destroy our traditional American way of life. This enemy goes by many names – the Left-wing, progressives, political correctness, cultural Marxists – but one name which they have applied to themselves seems to best sum up what their intentions are: “social justice warriors.” These people refer to themselves this way because they believe it is their purpose in life to crusade against the “evils” that they think pervade America – “racism, sexism, homophobia, intolerance” and all the rest. The practical effect of all of this is that they end up harassing, assaulting, and otherwise trying to make life miserable for millions of normal, everyday Americans who simply want nothing more than to live how they want to live without some overweening, pencil-necked ninnies intruding and to trying to coerce them into certain behaviors and opinions.
This is why it is so delicious when one of these intrusive, self-appointed guardians of social justice finds herself receiving a richly deserved comeuppance for her efforts.
The instance to which I am referring can be read about here, you will need to scroll down about two-thirds of the way to the portion about “Hank” and Adria Richards. To briefly sum it up, “Hank” (not his real name) is a computer technology developer, and Adria is (theoretically, at least) one as well. They met, to the extent to which this term can be used, at a conference in California in 2013. “Hank” and a friend, apparently bored by the proceedings, because to crack wise with each other, making jokes about big “dongles” and “forking repos.” Adria, sitting in front of them, chose to become offended by these jokes, took their picture, and then publicized it on her Twitter account. Except she didn’t talk about a couple of guys making juvenile jokes – she chose to cast it as two evil white men presenting a clear and present danger of raping her, right there in the middle of the conference. Hence, she chose to turn it into a classic “social justice warrior” scenario – she, a self-described Jewish black woman, chose to try to create an incident in which she could initiate a social justice conflict between herself and two individuals ranking lower in the sociopolitical hierarchy. In other words, she was simply being an old fashioned bully of the kind that populates the “social justice warrior” circles.
Her own statements in the interviews serve to show what a soulless sociopath this woman really is.
She sought to publicly humiliate a man she had never met before, and who wasn’t even talking to her, and who likely didn’t even know she existed until he noticed her taking his picture. She sought to have this man punished for essentially saying things she didn’t like. She believes to this day that she was fully justified in getting a man with a family to support fired from his job for saying those things she didn’t like. When asked if she felt bad about getting him fired from his job, she said,
“He’s a white male. I’m a black Jewish female. He was saying things that could be inferred as offensive to me, sitting in front of him. I do have empathy for him, but it only goes so far. If he had Down’s syndrome and he accidently pushed someone off a subway, that would be different…I’ve seen things where people are like, ‘Adria didn’t know what she was doing by tweeting it.’ Yes, I did.”
She continues to assert the ridiculously laughable claim that she felt she was in “danger,” and that she feared that “Hank” and his friend might rape and/or kill her right there in the middle of a technology conference, and that nobody would have done a thing about it, since they were all white guys who presumably approve of that sort of thing.
That sort of thinking, this sort of a response, indicates that Adria Richards is a sociopath, someone so divorced from reality that she cannot even function in normal civil society. She can’t interact with other people in normal and reasonable ways that don’t involve her being the center of all attention. She seems not only unwilling, but unable to take responsibility for her own actions, or to even understand that such responsibility should be taken. She lives in a bizarro world where she is the one who has “compassion, empathy, morals, and ethics” to guide her daily life choices, even as she invents rape fantasies to justify destroying the life of another human being.
Which it is why it is so eminently satisfying to see her lose the conflict. As you will note from the article, “Hank” was hired by another technology company almost immediately afterward. Adria, on the other hand, remains bitter and unemployed, at least so far as the time the article was written. To top it off, she became the target of a rather nasty campaign of internet hatred for several months on end.
Normally, I would feel at least a twinge of compassion for someone facing such a circumstance in her life, even if it was her own fault. But in this case, I can’t help but feel that she deserves everything she got, even if some of the pushback was distasteful.
See, what we need to understand about “social justice conflicts” of the sort initiated by Adria Richards is that they are all about power. What Adria Richards did to “Hank” was to try to assert the power of her “preferred status” as a minority female over “Hank,” a dreaded and despised white male. “Hank” and his friend were having a private conversation, one which she was not a part of. Perhaps it was a bit tasteless, but it was their conversation, not hers and theirs together. She chose to force herself into the situation. She chose to make a nuisance of herself, and did so specifically so she could exercise her “black Jewish female “ power of getting white men fired whenever she jolly well chooses to do so.
Sorry lady, but my sympathy bucket has all run dry.
But we should note the salient fact of this matter – “Hank” won the conflict, at least in the long run. That is something with very little precedent in recent years. Or, perhaps to be more specific, the conflict was won FOR “Hank,” since he himself made the cardinal error of apologizing for something for which he was not really at fault. It was won by thousands of people who finally decided they were going to oppose a social justice warrior trying to ply her trade. The exertion of pressure worked in the opposite direction this time around – and it was because a bunch of people finally decided they were going to stand up and be counted. And yes, maybe the way some of them went about this doesn’t suit our refined sensibilities, but it nevertheless shows that when the mass of regular, everyday people choose to stand up against the SJWs, we win, and they lose.
That is the fundamental lesson to be drawn from this story with a happy ending. This is why GamerGate is one of the few targets of SJW aggression that has successfully and consistently pushed back against the attacks. The GamerGaters fight back. They don’t hunker down and hope to ride out the storm without taking too much damage. They got vocal all across the internet. They exerted reverse pressure on the trade magazines that formed much of the zone of conflict. They resisted the efforts by posers like Anita Sarkeesian and her flunkies to impose themselves into their cherished realm.
In short, they refused to yield the moral high ground to the SJWs – and thereby gained a 4GW victory. They did not allow the social justice warriors to control the field – they refuted decisively the false narrative that the SJWs attempted to create that said that gaming is hopelessly “sexist” and needs to be “restructured” to suit the sensibilities of radical feminists, and that everybody thinks so. Everybody doesn’t think so. In fact, very few think so. Most people just want the Fembots to leave them alone. No moral high ground for you, Anita.
And this should raise the question in the rest of our minds – what would happen if the rest of us decided to refuse to grant the SJWs the perceived moral high ground of public opinion elsewhere? What effect would this have on the trend of opinion among the great unwashed masses of low information voters who generally make their political and social decisions on the basis of the majority of what they see online (which may or may not actually be what the majority of people really think)? What would happen if we did something as simple as flooded the comments sections on news articles on hot button issues with our opinions, instead of just saying, “Why bother?” Demotically speaking, those and venues like them online are the battlefield. Considering such activities to be “beneath us” is to yield the ground to the SJWs – because we know that they are out in full force, every time an article about gay marriage or some other SJW cause appears on the web. And that is how the opinions of the great unwashed masses get molded. And that’s how these masses begin to tip the wrong way. And that’s how we end up with a burnt out husk of a nation that used to be the epitome of greatness.
Or put another way, you’d be amazed at how differently the direction of discussion in the comments section of an article about an SJW hot button issue can change, when even a dozen dedicated anti-SJWers jump in and spend an hour subverting the narrative and altering the flow of the conversation.
When SJWers are faced with determined pushback – when the moral weapons of “racism, sexist, homophobia, and intolerance” are blunted by firmly standing on principle – they typically crumble. Knowing this, why aren’t more of us on the traditional Right finding out backbones and push back against them? Does it really work?
22 thoughts on “A Social Justice Warrior Story With a Happy Ending – and an Important Lesson”
Not quite OT – http://clientsfromhell.net/post/112782217639/i-am-a-photographer-who-used-to-be-based-out-of
The punchline is at the end.
Maybe Adria can work for Randi Harper’s new org http://theralphretort.com/gravy-train-randi-zoe-cuckster-alex-cash-in-with-new-harassment-org-0304015/ – note that Randi recently lost her job. Maybe spending too much time on her githib (freebdsgirl) libelware (the only opensource code I can find). She didn’t accept my pull request to add me to the blacklist, I’m hurt. But this will be a 501c3 slush fund for when Patreon is not enough.
For Anita “I’m afraid to go to Utah” Sarkeesian, and the others claiming to be scared of threats, I suggest they get a Concealed Carry Permit. Totally ruins the narrative. Even worse is to maybe suggest Brianna Wu might not be able to get his permit, if they are strict about mental stability. http://www.breitbart.com/london/2015/02/13/the-wacky-world-of-wu-the-tortured-history-of-gamergates-self-styled-feminist-martyr/
The problem SJWs have is they are passive – aggressive bullies that can’t stand conflict. They fold when challenged.
I was impressed with Bob Whitaker and his white genocide mantra. It’s just a consistent message proving moral victory (over the open borders people) followed up by pointing out the immorality of typical reactions. I think they coordinate and hone their debate tactics on Whitaker’s website. They only deal with race/immigration but it’s an interesting example.
Be careful with this. Co-opting SJW methods means taking on a lynch mob mentality ourselves, putting ideology before common sense, smearing otherwise innocent people who’ve made small, harmless mistakes.
Push back against them, yes – when they come after you or other undeserving victims. Fight defensively and asymetrically. They have more experience with their own methods, plus the advantages of numbers and momentum. And the referees are on their side – the system is biased in their favor. Don’t be the Iraqi Army trying to challenge the US armed forces at their own game.
Butting heads with our thick-skulled opponents is a losing proposition. Stick a foot out and trip them, however, and they fall flat on their faces while you remain standing.
4th generation warfare is a battle for legitimacy. Resistance is necessary. But David picking up a club to fight Goliath is worse than useless – it reinforces Goliath’s seeming invincibility and thus the hopelessness of resistance.
The SJWs are a Goliath in David’s clothing. They are the underdogs of their story. Reversing SJW swarming and bullying tactics against them reinforces their false narrative of being David. Set aside your personal feelings on the Israelis and the Palestinians (to Hell with both of them, I say) for a moment, and understand that this is one of the strategies Israel has undertaken to maintain international sympathies over the decades – it portrays itself as being David, when in truth it is Goliath.
Resist, yes. Stand ground, yes. Come to the aid of their victims, yes. But be very careful not to go onto the offensive by copying their tactics of singling out soft targets for swarm harassment. Their movement is Goliath, but as individuals they are David – because they tend to be losers, misfits, freaks, and nuts, not to mention gays, women, or minorities. Hence they are the underdog if you single them out – their movement can best be understood as a pack of feral underdogs (perhaps some endangered breed, since there aren’t very many of them) whom the community, in its misplaced love of animal rights (for it is indeed cruel to abuse a dog), allows to roam about unchecked.
Kicking these dogs off a person being mauled makes you a hero. Roaming around with your friends and kicking down any loose dog you see on the street makes your dog-loving community think they need more laws to protect dogs and prevent animal cruelty, even if they were nasty and feral. Your community doesn’t believe there’s a feral dog problem. They believe there’s an animal cruelty problem. Plus, one of those dogs you’ve killed might have turned out to be someone’s stray pet and not a feral. Then you’re in big trouble.
Resist the social justice warriors. Protect their undeserving victims. Argue back. Your example leads others to do the same. But don’t become another ideological lynch mob, even if your targets our deserving. Their own stupidity, cruelty, hypocrisy, dishonesty, and lunacy will turn the crowd against them. Defensive resistance prolongs the struggle and causes them to expose more and more of those qualities. Surrender concedes them legitimacy. But taking the offensive and trying to use their tactics against them reinforces the lies they tell, which a quarter of the crowd already believe and half of the crowd half-believe.
We know what we have to do.
There is truth to what you say. The trick is to get control of the narrative in any particular situation.
You’re right – don’t just swarm them and call them names and make death threats, like they do.
Instead, gain the moral high ground by controlling the narrative, and that’s really what my advice at the end of the article is all about. Say, for example, that some pro-gay marriage story draws the ire of a member of one of our insurgency “strike groups,” who then calls in his squad. DON’T go on there screaming about sodomites and talking about how gays should be stoned. DO go in there and shift the narrative over to how the advance of gay marriage has resulted in everyone else losing freedoms, such as people being fined for refusing to bake a cake for a gay “wedding” against their own conscience, that sort of thing. Take away the high ground, and make them fight on the battleground of OUR choosing. Make them have to go on defence to try to make the case for why THEY aren’t fascists (even though they are), rather than allowing them to set the terms of the “discussion.” That sort of thing.
As for the issue of co-opting SJW methods – yes and no. Don’t project the nastiness they do. BUT, they obviously have a set of winning tactics, even if their execution is despicable. We’d be fools not to copy what we can profitably use. It’d be like refusing to use rockets as a weapon because the Nazis did.
Consider other analogies. A Congolese warlord’s army invades a village and rapes, butchers, and cannibalizes every person in it. The terrible stories of what they did to that village that resisted them make the next fifty villages surrender without a fight.
The cannibal warlord’s method of conquest is exceedingly effective. Should our own army put this practice to use?
Our country’s enemies have used suicide bombers, kamikaze pilots, child soldiers, and women as human shields and bomb carriers to great effect in different times and places. Should we adopt these methods if they had a chance to be useful for us?
You and I are in agreement about the need for resistance, and probably about the tactics we should actually use (what you’ve just suggested sounds right to me).
I’m just warning you to be very careful and thorough in explaining what you want people on our side to do. If people misread your message as a suggestion to copy SJW personal harassment methods and start doing that, then this call to arms backfires very badly.
“I’m just warning you to be very careful and thorough in explaining what you want people on our side to do.”
This is why we *organize* for 4GW. My vision for this would be to collect select “teams” of anti-SJW 4GWers, drawn from places like this site and others who are likeminded, both in our principles as well as having an understanding of 4GW, to conduct the first. Quality over quantity, and all that.
That’s part of why I selected Traditional Right to offer this article to, instead of some of the “bigger” sites like Renew America and Canada Free Press that I submit more “mainstream” articles to. TradRighters, IMO, are more likely to both “get it” with respect to 4GW, and to have the “fire discipline” necessary to successfully conduct it.
I would never farm for 4GW teams on Free Republic, for instance, FReepers are notorious blathermouths, while yet also being do-nothings when it comes to actual “activism.” Learned that the hard way years ago.
Further strategic musings on the culture wars…
Our enemy is a 4GW movement that embeds itself within a civilian population that it readily uses as human shields. These are women, racial minorities, gays, liberals, and poor people. Social justice warriors are accepted within these groups because they come from these groups. They are a minority within these groups – consider the number of jihadists in the world as a percentage of military-aged Muslim men. The ratio is hundreds of thousands to hundreds of millions – 1:1,000 in other words. Most women, minorities, gays, liberals, and poor people are not politically active nor ideologically committed cultural Marxists.
Social justice warriors have been very successful in misdirecting the reprisals of the right to fall upon these groups as a whole rather than just themselves. This has fed the ranks of the social justice warriors with freshly outraged recruits and gathered more and more support from these groups for their cause. Consider the case of the Manosphere, where influential counter-feminists have mounted a disastrous carpet-bombing reprisal campaign against radical feminist propaganda. They’ve put big holes through some of the feminists’ lies – but they’ve also blasted all women as cheating, immoral, untrustable whores, exploiters of Betas and groupies of Alphas who will marry a man only for the sake of collecting alimony after an inevitable divorce. They have branded every woman as the enemy – is it any wonder that so many women are throwing their support behind the feminists?
On the strategic level, we are dealing with a very successful 4th generation entity that has been waging a very successful campaign against the defenders of an establishment who seem to be stuck in 2nd generation mode. The social justice warriors always have the initiative. Their reactions are quicker. Their attacks are unpredictable and come on dozens of fronts. Conservatives by contrast are stuck lumbering around reactively. Isolated outposts are picked off before slow-moving reinforcements arrive. Conservatives respond with massed barrages of firepower that land on empty positions the nimble social justice warriors have already moved on from – or crash down upon the heads of uninvolved civilians, producing more and more support for the social justice warriors.
How is this enemy to be defeated. Per William Lind, we must shift from the second generation to the third generation. That entails a shift in doctrine from firepower to maneuver. Defense in depth – drawing our enemy into overextending itself so that it may be cut off from support and collapsed. We make no impact on our enemy in the battle for legitimacy by firing back en masse against gays, blacks, and feminists. We score a victory when the social justice warriors are lured into destroying their own credibility and legitimacy.
Consider a battle like Kobani, where the Islamic State met an enemy that stood fast and fought to the death in spite of the odds against it. Kobani’s resistance to IS’ usual shock-and-awe mode of attack threw up a major impediment to IS’ momentum. IS responded with escalation, throwing more and more of its forces into a battle to take Kobani at any cost. This escalation put IS’ credibility on the line. Defeat in Kobani would put a halt to its previously unbroken string of victories. Kobani also became a test for Islamic State’s capabilities: could it continue to win battles even under US bombing? Islamic State wagered it could – and after months of attrition, it has lost that bet. Kobani is not nearly a Stalingrad for ISIS, but it is the first real defeat it has suffered.
Social justice warriors, like the Islamic State, are ideological zealots. They depend on shock and awe to drive their enemies before them, overwhelming soft targets with sudden, highly coordinated attacks, making a brutal example of those guilty of minor infractions in order to keep the masses terrorized and subject to them. And like the Islamic State, when they are confronted with a point of resistance that shock and awe won’t crush, they will commit against it to the point of overextending themselves. They are drunk with easy victories and they are dependent upon continuous victories to maintain the morale and numbers of their recruits, who have very short attention spans and will desert any movement that does not yield immediate results (see Occupy Wall Street). And they believe Progress (their Allah) is on their side. More and more of them will continue to swarm the unexpectedly hard target. The longer it holds, the more desperate they’ll become – and in their desperation they’ll become more and more dishonest, hateful, idiotic, cruel, insane, and ridiculous. If the defenders can hold out against that without caving in on the moral level themselves, the social justice warriors will lose their credibility in the eyes of their supporters and neutral observers, and the SJWs themselves will be demoralized, exhausted, and collapse or retreat.
This is where Gamergate seems to have slipped up. The social justice warriors bit off more than they could chew and engaged a target that was far more resilient than they expected. Gamergaters put up the stout resistance that would draw the SJWs into overextending themselves in a battle of attrition. But on the moral level, they have been discredited by morons and trolls who harassed their opponents with crude rape and death threats.
Gamergate, like the SJWs themselves, is a leaderless movement. Therein seems to lie the problem. Leaderless movements cannot maintain discipline. Discipline is essential when it comes to defeating an enemy on the moral level when that enemy is perceived to be the David. Consider the success of Hezbollah, an Islamic militant force that stands head and shoulders above its legions of rivals in terms of discipline and organization. Hezbollah’s rank and file do not behead people or set them on fire. Hezbollah’s rank and file do not go out and slaughter Lebanese Christians after Hezbollah’s leadership makes a deal with the Christians. When Hezbollah declares a ceasefire, Hezbollah’s rank and file cease fire.
That seems to be the crucial next step: organization and leadership along 3GW lines.
Thanks for the comments. If I can have your permission, I’d like to incorporate your comments on here as part of my “training material” for 4Gwers online.
Re: leaderless movements – the leadership that we need is, I believe, exemplified in the cadre organization shown in Bill Lind’s Victoria. Leadership is needed, but it must be multinucleated and local. The model I have in mind for my own incipient efforts is to gather a cadre of people I trust, train them, and then set them to developing their own cadres in their own states and local areas. These cadres, in turn, would provide the leadership for effective directed action using groups of activists gathered and vetted by the cadrists.
Traits of people we want, especially in the cadres:
– High intelligence, not so much of the “book learnin'” kind, but of the common sense kind. These folks can always get the proper book learning in strategy, tactics, philosophy, etc. as we go.
– Fire control, people who realize that the best route is sometimes to hold your fire and let the enemy come to you, handing them enough rope to hang themselves.
– Commitment to the principles of liberty and tradition, goes without saying.
Traits of people we DON’T want:
– Politicos, people whose mindset is that we will fix the country by electing the right person or party, who think the right movement (like the Tea Parties) are going to :”work within the system” and make things right. I.e. 2GW thinkers who can’t break out of the mold and who think in terms of pure politics.
– Electronic street thugs, people such as you’ve been describing whose idea of “activism” is to send death threats. This applies also to people whose idea of first response is to grab their guns. That is the VERY LAST response – though we may end up to that point anywise.
– People who have no interest in learning. If we are to counteract the SJWs, we *MUST* have a solid grasp of the strategy and tactics necessary to do so. People too proud to learn things they don’t know are people useless to us. And if they don’t want to hit the books, like the cadre in Victoria, then chances are they’re too lazy for what we’re preparing to do.
This is just a short draft of some thoughts I’ve been digesting the past couple of days.
Yes, consider anything I’ve said here free to use.
An important difference between the #GamerGate scenario you describe and the larger and separate identitarian scene is that the public writ large doesn’t sympathize with the identitarian scene, and doing so can be lethal to their professional careers. One guy at a tech conference making techy jokes isn’t even in the same sphere of social performance as identitarianism. In the former the public can sympathize with the idea that some poor guy is getting picked on by some pearl-clutching sociopath, in the latter John Q. Public becomes an evilnaziwhowantstokillsixmillionjews if he sympathizes with an ideology and world view fundamentally opposed to egalitarianism.
Absolutely true. But the enemy you’re dealing with is the same, and so is the strategy to combat it. GamerGate can be looked at as a warmup for identitarianism.
One worry I have is that people just won’t grasp the concept of identity for lack of IQ or whatever. If they don’t then it seems like large-scale goals would require the left’s tactic of little front movements that pick religion, race, gender, economics, etc. and just stick to that issue. I see folks doing this on facebook with pages about national traditions and things like that. Mr. Lind wrote somewhere about grand strategy being to connect yourself to as many centers of order as possible while disconnecting your enemy from as many as possible. I wonder if that can be applied to single issue front movements or not. I guess manifestations of common sense can seem like centers of order in todays culture.
The Left has been incredibly successful at playing the long game. It was a long march through the institutions and it’ll be a longer march back out.
I agree, Western civ is an enormous goal. I’d also be interested to hear you guys’ thoughts on localized strategies. Not necessarily secession like in Victoria but forming intentional communities. And not for retreat but to restore and preserve culture while working toward long term goals. I’ve thought Christians should do this for a while and recently saw a Jared Taylor video “A white society: how we can get there” where he considers different approaches.
Secession might be nice too, but that’s over my head at this point.
I think we can see GamerGate as a flawed, yet ultimately successful, pushback against the SJWs. Even though it had a lot of the “sinking to their level” that Vendetta decried above, it nevertheless remains true that GamerGate DID accomplish two things:
1) It successfully defended the gaming community from the invasive changes that the SJWs wanted to foist off onto it, and
2) It did awaken the “fighting spirit” in a lot of folks to start up against further SJWs encroachments in other areas.
Simply put, the GamerGaters showed that it could be done. Now we just need to run with the ball and teach a lot of people how to do it right.
True – but it can be done, and I think the raw material is out there, waiting to be mobilised.
Mozilla is taking a huge hit for essentially firing Brendan Eich at the behest of the SJWs. When given a choice, consumers DO vote against gay “marriage” and the rest of the SJW nonsense.
I still need to write a follow-up to this, but intentional communities are going to be the bedrock of a restoration. https://www.traditionalright.com/the-road-to-imperium/
The best part might be that it was a very public “loss” for the Left.
Just lend me a link if you publish on another site, since I’ll be wanting to read your next piece on this.