The Psychology of Radical Leftists: GamerGate, SJWs and the War on Post-Modernism

Review of SJWs Always Lie by Vox Day

SJWs (Social Justice Warriors) are a radical leftist group or demographic who act as the West’s self-appointed thought police, judges, juries and executioners. The careers of many good people have been ruined because some SJW decided to take offense at something they said or did and organized a witch hunt against them.

Vox Day is an unabashedly outspoken Christian blogger whose blog I have read on and off for 5 years or more, although not recently. He does not have a very friendly attitude toward Muslims, but as a Muslim myself, I understand where he is coming from; his dislike for Muslims is understandable since he has seen so many of them allied with the establishment, and so many others act barbarically in spectacular ways.

A person who, based on lifelong exposure to negative information about Muslims, concludes that Muslims are a negative influence in this world, should not be dehumanized and attacked, since they are not the ones that are at fault. Those who are truly at fault should be held responsible; Muslims who act barbarically and Zionists who constantly push a negative view of Islam to help their war effort against the Arabs and Iranians.

I was curious to see what is in Vox Day’s SJWs Always Lie, so I decided to read it, and it is better than I expected. As an observer of the SJW disease, I had thought of writing a book on it myself (the way I wrote Sex and Purpose to fight the anti-male radical feminist worldview), so it is a pleasant surprise to find out that someone else has done your job for you, and better than you expected.

An Introduction to SJWs

SJWs Always Lie starts off with an examination of the SJW mindset. The key SJW behavior is the use of a pretense of victimhood to gain the moral high ground against a hated human, so that that human can be destroyed, and the process is used as a highly enjoyable hate trip that justifies their existence.

SJWs have one big problem however, which is that there just aren’t enough people to victimize them. If your identity is based on getting off on hating people, it can be highly unsettling to find no one to hate today, therefore you must go looking. Day mentions the creative ways SJWs seek opportunities for enjoying hate trips:

Did you notice someone is black? That’s racist. Did you fail to notice someone is black because “you don’t see color”? That’s racist too. Did you defend yourself against charges of being racist by pointing out that you are married to a black woman? That just shows how racist you truly are because you have objectified a black woman and reduced her to nothing more than a shield to cover your racism. Do you point out that you can’t be a white supremacist because you are not white? That’s just hiding behind your genes, which is, of course, racist.

The Tim Hunt Affair

The Nobel Prize winning scientist Tim Hunt was one of many men whose lives have been destroyed because some nobody of an SJW decided to take offense at something they said that any fair-minded person would recognize as quite benign. The reason why what he said was blown out of proportion is that SJWs have no human empathy. Once they find a good opening for a hate trip, all considerations of another person’s humanity are thrown out of the window.

Tim Hunt quickly apologized for the harmless things he had said, but below is a typical SJW response to his apology:

After intense criticism for undeniably sexist comments he made about female scientists, Nobel Laureate Tim Hunt offered up an apology that really only made him look worse. [Emphasis mine]

Day makes the important observation that SJWs, despite the intense social pressure they put on their target to apologize, do not actually care about the apology. What they are after is for the person to admit they did something wrong, which can then be used to increase the pressure on him, rather than let off the pressure.

Day mentions the general prognosis of an SJW attack:

  1. SJWs attack a statement or action by the target.
  2. The target apologizes in the hope of resolving the situation.
  3. The apology is deemed to be insufficient or irrelevant in some way, and the social pressure actually increases.
  4. The target is destroyed.

Resign now!

Day says that when SJWs are given an opening for a hate trip against someone, they orchestrate a massive attack against them in the hope of intimidating them into resignation. The person is made to feel that the world has ended for them, that there is no coming back from their fall, that everyone hates them, that they are worthless.

Another reason for intimidating people into resigning is to later be able to claim innocence in the whole affair. The SJW Mark Surman (head of Mozilla Foundation), who took part in the intimidation effort to get Brendan Eich to resign, later wrote:

As I look at the world’s reaction to all this, I want to clarify… Brendan Eich was not fired. He struggled to connect and empathize with people who both respect him and felt hurt. He also got beat up. We all tried to protect him and help him get around these challenges until the very last hours. But, ultimately, I think Brendan found it impossible to lead under these circumstances. It was his choice to step down.

According to Surman, Brendan Eich totally “chose” to resign. It wasn’t because ten thousand SJWs were screaming non-stop for him to resign, to be fired, to be crucified.

Connie St. Louis, the poor dame who was so upset by Sir Tim Hunt’s comments and who started the SJW intimidation effort against him, went on to say:

‘I’ve no regrets about breaking a journalistic story. This is about journalism. Secondly it’s about women in science. My intention was not for him to lose anything. But he didn’t lose anything. He resigned.’

“He resigned”. The fact that she and a thousand of her friends put a poor old man through hell had nothing to do with it. I actually feel sorry for her and her SJW friends. How low do you have to be, how much darkness should there be in your heart, to do this to innocent people then feel no guilt?

The psychology of radical leftists

It appears that SJWs only flourish in liberal secularist societies that have recently abandoned their dominant religion and culture (Christianity, in the West). The same applies to radical feminism, Marxism and other post-modernist ideologies. The key factor within all radical leftist (post-modernist) ideologies is that they do not believe in the infinite worth of human life.

This is something that Jordan Peterson refers to often in his lectures, although never in those same words as far as I know. To radical leftists, if you are with them, you are a human, if you are not with them, you are not a human, you can be dehumanized and demonized and zero empathy will be extended to you.

The Western Christian civilization is built on the romantic ideal that all humans are equal, and Western common law is built on the idea that human life is infinitely worthy, that you cannot treat humans like things. Even atheists like Terry Pratchett (whose thinking was far more Christian than he realized) have strongly defended this very-Christian teaching, saying:

Evil begins when people are treated like things.

The defining characteristic of all extreme leftist ideologies is the dehumanization of certain classes of humans, and this makes all of them inherently anti-Christian, and inherently anti-Western civilization. It is for this reason that in the West, those (like Jordan Peterson) who have actually internalized Western values feel extreme revulsion at these dehumanizing ideologies. They all feel scummy because they all have this unifying factor; not all humans are equal in their eyes, and in fact many SJWs would happily watch all straight white males butchered out of existence and may even lend a hand in the process.

In traditional Western morality, everyone is a human and is treated as such. In radical leftist morality, everyone is a non-human, a worthless peasant, unless they prove their humanity by proving to be members of the leftist aristocracy. A radical leftist will treat you like a potential human if they don’t know you very well, but once they discover that you do not accept to be intimidated by their aggressive worldview, they will quickly drop this veneer of civility and treat you like a non-human. To a closet aristocrat, everyone else is either a fellow aristocrat or a sub-human commoner.

James Watson, the Nobel-prize winning scientist whose career was ruined by an SJW witch hunt, says that he had become an ‘unperson’ as a result. He was no longer treated as a human by the SJW-operated media, foundations and corporations, he was no longer afforded human dignity and empathy, he was no longer a human. He was an unperson to be stamped on, to be destroyed and torn apart, because he had dared to sin against the SJW religion.

And the strange thing about all radical leftists is that they pretend to operate out of empathy. The Marxists who murdered 11 million innocent Christian women, children and men did not do it for power and privilege, oh no, they did it because they felt so sorry in their hearts for those poor peasants who were being oppressed by the aristocracy.

The most crushing critique of radical leftists I have read comes from the sci-fi writer Frank Herbert, who said they are all “closet aristocrats” (referring to anti-conservative revolutionaries). Radical feminists, Marxists and SJWs do not operate out of empathy. That is the last thing they care about, and in fact their defining characteristic is a lack of empathy for a certain section of humanity. What drives them is their closet aristocracy; they want to bring down existing power structures in order to create a new one with themselves at the top.

Kill the aristocracy and become the new aristocracy! SJWs want to destroy everyone who does not submit and join their pack, who does not submit to being led by the loudmouths who run the movement, not because they have so much empathy for the people they supposedly want to defend, but because they seek power and everyone who gets in their way is automatically a non-human that must be crushed. An SJW leader does not want to sit back and relax in a world of peace and egalitarianism. She wants to be at the top of a pile of her butchered enemies and reign supreme, unquestioned, with absolute power.

Straight white males are hated not because of any inherent evil contained within them, but because they are still, to this day, the upper class, the de facto aristocracy that a radical leftist so much desires to bring down so that she can sit in their seats herself.

Wikipedia

Wikipedia is a favorite reality-revising tool for SJWs. Day mentions that:

As of this writing, 55 percent of the Wikipedia page about Sir Tim Hunt, PhD, cancer researcher, Royal Fellow, Knight Bachelor, husband, father, and Nobel Prize-winner, concern “Remarks about women in science”. Of the 517 total edits to that page since it was first created in 2005, 318 were made in the first five weeks after his comments at the Korean luncheon.

GamerGate

Day does a good job of lampooning the the attention-seeking career victims Zoe Quinn, Anita Sarkeesian and Brianna Wu.

When people were disgusted with the incestuous relationship that so many in the gaming journalism had with one another and with game publishers, creating an utterly corrupt and pathetic journalism culture that hated its own audience, GamerGate was created.

What is not generally recognized is that such incestuous cultures exist all over the place, not just in gaming. It is in academia (especially the social sciences), in the broader media, in government, in the finance and banking sector, in the startup and VC scene, everywhere. It’s just that the corrupt gaming journalists were unlucky enough to pick a fight with tens of thousands of young men who had nothing to lose by fighting back (unlike in academia, where your career is always on the line if you dare to challenge corruption and deceit).

Since the start of GamerGate, gaming journalists have been screaming at the top of their voices into their own echo chambers, and using their millions of dollars of funding, continue to control the gaming journalism sector, dishing out favors to those who worship at the SJW altar and continually attacking their often imaginary enemies.

The incestuous journalists continue doubling down, as Day mentions, such as this statement by Amy Wallace for Wired:

GamerGate makes a political movement out of threatening with rape any woman who has the temerity to offer an opinion about a videogame.

They cannot help but repeat the same hysterical mantra “rape harassment homophobia rape harassment homophobia” and delude themselves into thinking they are saying something intelligent.

Science fiction

The SFWA (Science Fiction and Fantasy Writers of America) is one of your typical corrupt SJW organizations that has a Professor Umbridge-style love for their pure-blood friends (Jews, blacks, homosexuals, other protected minorities and categories) and a genocidal view toward everyone else. Such organizations generally get away with all of their corruption and abuses by pretending to stand for tolerance and other nice things.

SFWA was unlucky enough to run into Vox Day, who ruined their incestuous game of getting their own pure-bloods top the charts of their awards year after year and gain millions of dollars in easy profit through their cushy deals with publishers.

Such organizations are generally totally stuffed with leftists, since their very creation goal is to push leftist-friendly names up the charts and leftist-friendly agendas down people’s throats. Very few conservatives are attracted to them since they see through them, that they do not stand for anything except self-promotion as a primary goal and the promotion of their agendas as a secondary one.

Vox Day’s efforts to get the Hugo awards out of the clutches of the SJWs managed to get the pathologically lying John Scalzi down his pedestal and even got the Game of Thrones writer George R. R. Martin to complain about the unfairness of the fact that for once leftists are not totally in charge.

Through it all, the media almost never approaches Vox Day to get his opinion on the matter, even though he is largely responsible for the massive controversy created around the resetting of the Hugo Awards, because, as Day explains, it is so much easier to lie about someone by quoting other people about them (as the media did) instead of talking to them.

SJWs in the corporate world

Vox Day quotes Eve T. Braun of Barclays (a British financial institution), who shamelessly admits her SJW hiring procedure that is designed to help her company hire more SJWs:

Two other things we implemented which aided the recruitment process:

We followed advice which is quickly becoming the industry norm. Never look at someones Github profile until you have made the decision to hire or not hire them and do not let it influence you. Github profiles tend to favor CIS White men over most minorities in a number of ways. CIS white men often have more spare time or chose to pursue building up an impressive portfolio of code rather than women or minorities who have to deal with things like raising children or instiutionalised racism. Some in the SocJus community have even said that technically companies could possibly even be breaking discriminatory law by allowing peoples github profiles and publicly available code to influence their hiring decisions – watch this space.

We used Randi Harper’s blockbot to assess applicants twitter profiles for problematic or toxic viewpoints. This may sound a bit extreme but some of the staff here suffer from Aspergers & PTSD and our top priority is to ensure that they don’t get put in triggering situations.Making a wrong hire could present a scenario where the employee could be triggered on a daily basis by another employee with an oppressive viewpoint. Other than from a diversity standpoint, from a business standpoint these sorts of negative interactions can cost a company a huge amount of time & money in employees taking off sick days. When all the employees are on the same page the synergy in the office aids productivity.

In short, we treat straight white men as second-class citizens when hiring.

Handling an SJW attack

Day dedicates a large part of the book to teaching what to do in the case of being subjected to an attack by an SJW, such as at your job. He says that it is crucial to never try to reason with your attackers, saying:

The most important thing to accept here is the complete impossibility of compromise or even meaningful communication with your attackers. SJWs do not engage in rational debate because they are not rational and they do not engage in honest discourse because they do not believe in objective truth.

SJWs have no interest in talking to you. They want to destroy you. If you reason with them, instead of their being favorably impressed by your arguments, they will simply seek through everything you say to find more openings for attacking you.

Do not apologize, because this is always used as an admission of guilt, and is used as a basis for over-blowing your guilt.

Be aware that once they have launched an attack on you, they will press you hard for an apology and repeatedly imply that if you will just apologize, all will be forgiven. Do not be fooled! I have seen people fall for it time and time again, and the result is always the same. The SJWs are simply looking for a public confession that will confirm their accusations, give them PR cover, and provide them with the ammunition required to discredit and disemploy you.

Keep your calm, and as non-SJW neutrals see that you are just an ordinary person going about your life, they will see the SJWs for what they are.

In a corporate setting, document everything said and done by your attackers. If your boss says someone has made a complaint against you, ask them for the complaint in writing with the relevant signatures. Get your lawyer involved as soon as possible. Document any breaking of the corporate code of conduct or the relevant laws and use these against them.

And do not resign. They want to intimidate you into resigning so that they can get rid of you without being held publicly responsible for it (although there is the issue of references).

When dealing with neutrals, do not try to win them over, but stay calm and point out any lies made about you without seeking anything from them.

Using SJW tactics against them

Day recommends using the tactics SJWs use to fight them back. While most of what he recommends is morally justifiable, he does go on to mention that it is OK even if one scoops down to their level at times, through sabotage, for example.

In his view, this is war, and the enemy is ruthless and has no morality, therefore anything (legal) goes when fighting them.

Morality, as Jordan Peterson says, is about finding a way of life that can be followed today, tomorrow, next year and generation after generation by everyone in a society without it causing decay and breakdown. The Quran’s view of morality is the same. The two central priorities of Quranic moral philosophy are:

  • The long-term survival of humanity.
  • The short-term moral integrity of humanity.

This is the Straight Path (compare with Frank Herbert’s “Golden Path” in the Dune sci-fi series). The fight against SJWs is to ensure the first part of the above morality; they are anti-civilization, therefore they must be kept in check. But doing anything immoral against them goes against the second part, therefore it is not acceptable according to this view of morality.

The two things go together; you must act morally today, in the smallest and greatest things, and in this way you ensure humanity’s long-term good. If you say you are working for humanity’s good but do something immoral, you are automatically a hypocrite (or a short-sighted person). The foundation of the Quran’s moral philosophy (and Jordan Peterson’s) is to serve humanity, but to never do evil or become evil in the process. The end never justifies the means.

And what this means is that in a fight against SJWs, one must never break any laws of morality even if they themselves have zero concern for morality. I am sure that Day will agree with much of this. For example he will not support making up random statistics to prove some point against SJWs. However, he does not clearly demarcate where the line is drawn.

What he does in supporting slightly laxer morality in the fight against SJWs is the same thing done by Islamist terrorists in defining the world as an “abode of war” and pretending that they are in a war even though they are living in peace in their countries, so that they can do anything done in times of warfare.

It is far better in my opinion to always maintain moral integrity. Nothing you do against SJWs should be shameful if made public. Day’s view is that we are going from point A (SJW-dominated culture) to point B (SJW-free culture), and that slightly laxer morality is acceptable if it helps this cause. My view is that morality is about the journey, not the destination, and doing anything immoral is a way of winning a battle but losing the war. The war is for truth, justice and morality after all.

However, what if some horrible SJW in the Human Resources department is plotting to get you fired, and you work in the IT department and have the power to destroy her computer with a hidden piece of malware and get away with it? Is this a morally justifiable act of self-defense if through sabotaging her career you ensure that she cannot sabotage yours?

Day’s morality probably says yes. Quranic morality says no, one should maintain respect for the social contract and for one’s contract with the company (to not sabotage other employees). Day’s morality is more satisfying for an irreligious person, since it feels fair. Quranic morality is less satisfying, but one’s faith in God mitigates this dissatisfaction. Even if you let the bad guys hurt you and you forbid yourself from responding in kind, God will reward you, so it is actually an opportunity to earn God’s approval and rewards.

So how does one win against the SJWs if they always have access to immoral tactics while we do not? One wins through reaching the hearts and minds of good people. Jordan Peterson has severely crippled the SJW agenda by teaching thousands of young people that there is something better, that morality and truth are better, more beautiful, than the dehumanizing radical leftist ideologies that currently have sway in the West.

Since Day is focused on a small section of the effort to resist post-modernist ideologies, he is more likely to think in terms of tactics and short-term strategies rather than morality. But it is morality that will win in the end; morality is a long-term anti-post-modern strategy, and the proper morality, once adopted by a person, will cause them immunity to SJW ideology on the one hand, and will turn them into something of an anti-SJW activist on the other, enabling far more positive change than merely winning a battle or ten battles against SJWs.

The last part of the book is dedicated to various tactics to be used against SJWs, such as homeschooling, building alternative institutions, and avoiding employing SJWs and trying to get them fired wherever possible. He mentions how the Catholic Church and the US Army Rangers remained remarkably SJW-free until recently while other institutions cowed to to them. He gives a set of guidelines to help organizations stay SJW-free, such as having the leadership follow rules that encourage them to expel members who advocate for significant changes to the organization’s goals and structure.

These tactics all make sense, but in reality they are unlikely to do much good. SJWs (and all other radical leftists) are fungi that grow on the decaying foundations of dying civilizations. Rules and laws have zero power to stop them. Radical leftists took over one after another of the West’s admirable colleges and foundations and corrupted their original purposes not because these colleges and foundations lacked defenses, but because the people changed.

The power of leftists is not a cause, but a symptom, of a civilization’s decay. Any effort to fight them back with tactics is as futile as the efforts of conservatives suing universities to make them stop being so SJW-centered (mentioned by Day himself).

What needs to be done is to revitalize the civilization; it is to change people so that they once again respect truth and justice (like what Jordan Peterson is doing). Tactics are just the tip of the iceberg, and they can be useful. But alone, by themselves, they are quite futile. As the example of the Catholic Church shows, once the people change, the organization changes, no matter how conservative and how many rules and regulations it has.

Therefore the only long-term way to beat radical leftists is to instill in people a morality that rejects leftist ideologies at its foundation. A Christian like Day himself, if put in charge of an organization, will immediately start cleaning up the SJW decay. If an SJW Human Resources person makes a bogus claim of racism against an employee because they made quite a harmless joke, he is not going to take the claim seriously, and in this way the SJW is crippled. It is people, before tactics, before anything else, that are needed for defeating radical leftists.

So Day suffers from the same belief as other conservatives that tactics are central to winning the battle against leftists. They are not. Moral philosophy is.

Teach people a morality that rejects the genocidal leftist view (that some humans are non-humans), and that recognizes that the leftist view is genocidal, and you have totally crippled the leftists regardless of what new grotesque monstrosity they mutate into.

Dialectic, rhetoric and trolling

This is perhaps the book’s greatest contribution to the discussion surrounding SJWs. It encircles the battle within a logically understandable framework, explaining why talking to SJWs is futile, and why his own highly masculine, highly rhetorical approach to fighting them is so effective.

Dialectic is a tool that can be used to convince people of the truth of something through logical argument. Rhetoric is a tool that can be used to convince people by playing on their emotions, by imparting emotions to them.

In case it is not already apparent, this chapter is primarily written for dialectic-speakers. Rhetoric-speakers, especially SJWs who are inclined to think badly of me, will only see “blah blah blah, Aristotle, blah blah blah, I’m so smart, blah blah blah, spaghetti spaghetti” and scan through what looks like total word salad to them trying to find something they can use to minimize or disqualify me.

And that is exactly what an SJW does to you whenever you are trying to communicate with one using logic. Have you ever had an experience where you have clearly laid out a complete train of thought for someone, only to have him stubbornly declare that you are wrong, that you must be wrong, and there is no possibility you could be correct, without pointing to a single flaw anywhere in your argument? You were speaking the wrong language. You were speaking in dialectic to a rhetoric-speaker, and it didn’t work, did it?

Even SJWs who can more or less understand dialectic don’t speak it themselves. That is why they are infamous for never admitting they are wrong even when everyone else can see it, and why they are constantly moving the goalposts and revising the history of what everyone knows actually happened. It is absolutely pointless to speak in dialectic to them; unless you are actually talking to them for the benefit of an audience, there is no reason not to go directly to rhetoric and hammer on their emotions rather than relying on reason to accomplish the impossible.

He goes on to say:

If they launch the usual “sexist, racist, homophobic, Nazi” line, don’t blink, just hit them right back with “racist, child molester, pedophile, monster” and watch them run. If you’re of a more delicate constitution and are not willing to go that far even when attacked unprovoked, try “creepy” and “stalker” on the men and “psycho” or “ugly” on the women and it will usually have much the same effect. You know your rhetoric is effective when they block you online, or in person if their eyes widen with shock and their jaw drops. You will know you have mastered the art of rhetoric if you can make an SJW retreat in tears or cause a room full of people to gasp in disbelief before bursting out laughing at the SJW.

What he is explaining, as he himself says, is to “troll” SJWs:

“Trolling” is what SJWs call it when you reply to them in their own rhetorical language.

That is a good way of describing it. The entire SJW attack sequence is to use lies and falsehood to cause an emotional reaction in people, as Connie St. Louis did in her attack on Tim Hunt. Her Guardian article on him had to be revised 30 or more times as witness after witness called her out for her lies.

Those of us who value truth and justice and are capable of logical thought are at an immense disadvantage in any fight with SJWs, since we try to use calm logic and statistics while they throw non-stop barrages of lies at us. If you mention a statistic that reflects negatively on [SJW pure-blood category], forget the statistic, that is entirely irrelevant. What matters is that you are a racist, homophobic or misogynist person. Or you are white, which automatically makes your thinking invalid.

It is not actually the case that SJWs are incapable of logic. It is that brain blood flow seriously decreases when one is dealing with someone they are hatefully emotional about. An SJW on a hate trip cannot understand logical argument because that requires using parts of their brain that have largely shut down due to the hate trip. Instead of using their higher brain functions, they use their mammalian brains in their fight with you. They cannot write a coherent paragraph to prove you wrong, what they can do is call you names.

The hate trip causes a serious mental imbalance, which makes the SJW incapable of dialectic, and forces them to use rhetoric. Even if you write a 30-page essay that totally and utterly destroys all of their claims, instead of sitting calmly to disprove your assertions, they will know they are beaten and will act like that particular instance never happened and will retreat to calling you a Nazi. If someone brings up your essay to them when they lie about you, they will block that person, perhaps even report them for “harassment”.

Day is right that the correct way to respond to SJW attacks is to troll them wherever possible. What they want is to make you cower and submit, they hate you and want to destroy you. What you must do is to treat them like they are nobodies, jokes, outsiders, outcasts, children, and there is nothing that will make them back down faster than this.

SJWs, however, are champions at using the race, gender and minority cards, so even if you attack them in the same way they attack you, don’t be surprised if they can convince people to see your actions as ten times worse than theirs, and this can easily get you banned from SJW-controlled communities like YouTube and Twitter.

Like I said earlier, fighting SJWs is actually just a small part of the fight against genocidal post-modernist ideologies, so winning arguments against SJWs by trolling them will often be a waste of time unless you have nothing better to do. They are nobodies that will go back into the woodwork once the culture changes and pretend that they were never SJW to begin with. They are cowards who only get away with what they do because there is no one to stand up against them.

Islam and SJWs

An interesting wrench thrown into the radical leftist machine in the West is Islam. Devout Muslims who actually read the Quran often and try to follow it cannot be radical leftists, because radical leftism always, always requires the dehumanization of certain sections of society, and Islam does not allow that. My name and religion may make me appear like a useful tool for radical leftists (yet another minority to put in their pockets), but my Quranic moral philosophy makes me find the attacks on “old white men” and cracks about “rednecks” utterly revolting and a sure sign that someone is a lying hypocrite when they do this then go on to tell me how sorry they feel about [protected minority/category].

Either you respect truth, justice and the infinite value of all human life, or you do not. If you are worried about blacks living in ghettos, you must be worried about whites living in trailer parks, otherwise you are a lying closet aristocrat. There is no middle ground.

In this way, Muslims, even if they never give a thought to fighting SJWs, will fight them nonetheless as long as they follow the Quran. The Quran’s moral philosophy is antithetical to radical leftism, therefore the only friends radical leftists can find among Muslims are those who know little about Islam, who join some bandwagon or another out of a desire for power and prestige, or out of a naive desire to support some cause they do not fully understand. As soon as the SJWs show their true colors (the fact that they would happily carry out genocide against the classes of humans they dislike), devout Muslims in their camps will be revolted and would sooner or later leave.

Salafis

An interesting observation I have made is that many Salafi groups act very much like SJWs. They attack those who get in their way mercilessly, dehumanizing their enemies, even if their enemies are greatly respected leaders like Yasir Qadhi, Tariq Ramadan and Muhammad al-Ghazali. To them, either you are for them or against them. Being part of the group requires constant virtue-signalling and attacking of outsiders, and their identity is often defined in terms of who they hate, rather than who they love.

While I am against Salafism, I should clarify that there are many good, kind and pious people among them.

Conclusion

SJWs Always Lie is a necessary documentation of the SJW mindset and mode of operation that should convince many moderates that these people are not what they pretend to be, everything they support is supposedly about empathy, yet their defining quality is their dehumanization of others, their utter lack of empathy for those they hate. Vox Day’s successes against SJWs should motivate more men and women to stand up against them.

Despite his focus on a narrow expression of radical leftism, readers convinced of the truth of his message should automatically acquire some immunity toward all forms of radical leftism, and this is a great achievement in the fight against these ideologies that have no respect for truth, justice and the humanity of others.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.