Have We Reached Peak SJW Yet?

Posted on | March 28, 2018 | 4 Comments

“Everybody with two eyes and a brain could see Zoe Quinn was crazy. Why did Eron Gjoni want to date that tattoo-covered, facial-pierced, mentally ill ex-stripper whose real name is Chelsea Van Valkenburg? I don’t know, but he did, and the consequences were world-historic.”
— “Crazy Woman Who Caused #GamerGate Announces She’s No Longer Female,” Jan. 14, 2017

The term “social justice warrior” (SJW) was coined nearly 10 years ago by Will Shetterly. The son of civil-rights activists who were threatened by the Klan during his childhood, Shetterly became an award-winning science-fiction writer. It was in the context of his writing career that he encountered the indignant Internet mobs of virtue-signallers and identity-politics activists who inspired the epithet. By the time the #GamerGate controversy arose in August 2014, “SJW” was a popular label for this increasingly familiar type, and Shetterly’s coinage was made famous by Vox Day in the title of a 2015 book, SJWs Always Lie.

Like Shetterly, Vox Day is a science-fiction writer, and shares similar experiences of how Cultural Marxism (“political correctness”) has distorted the sci-fi world, particularly in terms of criticism and awards, influencing decisions of major publishing houses as to which authors to publish and promote. Publishers have become sensitive to online “fandom” mobs, in which the loudest voices tend to be militant SJWs. In his 2014 book How to Make a Social Justice Warrior, Shetterly traces the SJW worldview back to critical race theory — “a philosophical framework with roots in Marxist thought,” per the Wikipedia biography of Derrick Bell — and “intersectionality,” a feminist concept promoted by Bell’s protégé, Kimberle Williams Crenshaw. Shetterly remarks:

If you wonder why most of the people I mention are women, it’s because the most prominent social justice warriors are female. The men rarely add anything original to a conversation, perhaps because they don’t dare say anything that might jeopardize their male ally status.

Canadian SJW ‘Big Red’ (a/k/a Chanty Binx).

SJWs compete in what I’ve called the Victimhood Derby, as illustrated by the conflict between radical feminists and transgender activists:

By the time a feminist reaches the radical point at which normal sexual intercourse is regarded as inherently oppressive, she has already marched a good distance down the Crazyville Road. Sane, normal people become the Enemy and, in order to maintain her delusions, the feminist seeks out the company of her fellow radicals, who share and confirm these extreme beliefs.

Part of what has made the transgender cult so obnoxious to so many people is that postmodern gender theory promotes self-created victimhood, a counterfeit of genuine oppression which, as those familiar with Gresham’s Law understand, leads to a devaluation of victimhood. If a member of the most “privileged” group (white heterosexual males) can gain victim status merely by calling himself “her” (or “they” or “ze”), and identifying as a nonbinary genderqueer translesbian, what does this tell us about the validity of the “social justice” worldview?

Zachary Antolak, a/k/a ‘Zinnia Jones,’ a/k/a ‘Satana Kennedy.’

Zachary Antolak was just a nerdy atheist when he started making YouTube videos in 2008, but has since become both a transgender “expert” (albeit with no known credentials) under the pseudonym “Zinnia Jones,” while also selling pornographic videos as “Satana Kennedy.” (Warning: Do not Google that; you can never unsee it). How could such a psychiatric basket case be regarded as anything except a laughingstock? Yet within postmodern 21st-century “intersectional” feminism, Antolak/“Jones” is taken seriously and applauded as a courageous crusader for “social justice.” It is impermissible to criticize or disagree with weirdos like Antolak/“Jones,” and radical feminists have found themselves “de-platformed” for daring to oppose the transgender cult.

 

Speaking of “science,” last month an anonymous question was posed in the “Evolution” section of the Internet site Quora.com:

“I got into an argument with my friend because
I reject evolution because it’s heteronormative.
Are scientists going to make evolution more inclusive
or will they replace it with something else?”

 

Permit me to speak on behalf of the Sane Community in declaring that the person asking this question is deranged, demented, delusional, bonkers, wacky, off her rocker, and cuckoo for Cocoa Puffs.

In short, she is crazy, and it is a waste of time to offer rational arguments in reply to craziness. We do a disservice to the mentally ill when we act as if their delusions deserve to be taken seriously, except as symptoms of their psychiatric pathology, yet this questioner on Quora received a serious reply from Anna Hardin, who recently received her Ph.D. in anthropology from the University of Minnesota:

Because science is just a set of methods we use to observe and report what is happening around us, scientists will not replace the theory of evolution unless another theory that better explains the change we observe in living things is better supported by the evidence. Evolution is well supported and has been for almost 200 years of scientific research, so it is unlikely that a better theory can be discovered.
To the point of heteronormativity, only the evolution of sexually reproducing organisms is heteronormative and only insofar as it requires sexual reproduction. On the other hand, the ways that scientists describe evolution is often very heteronormative, and some confuse sex and gender or ignore variation in sexual behaviors. Other scientists are working to change the ways that we talk about evolution so that it is less anthropocentric and less heteronormative. Heteronormativity is no reason to reject evolution, but it should motivate us to find better ways to discuss evolution and variation that are less biased.

Yeah, I guess so, but shouldn’t an anthropologist point out the basic problem with the jargon term “heteronormativity”? In point of fact, heterosexuality is not only normal, but necessary to reproduction of the species. The development of modern contraceptives and so-called assisted reproductive technology (e.g., in vitro fertilization) has given rise to a counterfactual belief system which ignores the reality that, even in 2018, the vast majority of human births (probably 99% or more) occur the old-fashioned way. It is only in the most affluent nations that even a single-digit minority of people avail themselves of IVF and other such methodologies, which are quite expensive and require the involvement of highly-trained medical technicians, whereas making babies with good old-fashioned heterosexual intercourse is free and so simple that untutored teenagers are capable of doing it.

This is why, for example, the total fertility rate (average lifetime births per woman) is 6.49 in Niger, compared to 1.54 in Rhode Island. The per capita income in Rhode Island is $30,830, more than 25 times the per capita income in Niger ($1,200). While wealthy Rhode Islander women have access to advanced fertility treatments, the poor women of Niger have four times as many actual children. Extrapolating this comparison on a worldwide basis, it is easy to see why the lives of future generations will almost certainly be as “heteronormative” as always. Decadent youth complaining about “heteronormativity” will likely have few if any children; meanwhile, the vast majority of the world’s children will be born to people who can’t afford the luxury of whining on Internet forums about how oppressed they are by abstract concepts.

Feminist Tumblr: "The Nuclear Family is the Factory of Gender." https://t.co/XnvEulVdAN pic.twitter.com/CzpnWpDQJ2

— The Patriarch Tree (@PatriarchTree) March 28, 2018

SJWs may demand that scientists “make evolution more inclusive,” but without regard for scientific theory, the scientific fact is that the process of natural selection can never be “inclusive.” Human beings are in a competition for survival, not only as a species, but also as individuals. Any human who does not reproduce is a failure, from a Darwinian perspective, because the genes of such people will not be replicated in future generations. Non-reproductive humans — the Darwinian failures — are only useful to the species insofar as they can, during their lifetimes, contribute something to the overall survivability of the breeding population. Consideration of such scientific realities, when combined with the philosophical influences of Karl Marx, Friedrich Nietzsche, Oswald Spengler, et al., had catastrophic consequences for 20th-century Europe. The genocidal atrocities of totalitarian regimes (Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot, Menghistu) had their origins in atheistic ideologies that claimed to be “scientific,” but which wrought unprecedented suffering. We may say of these ideologues what the Apostle Paul said of the pagan Romans: “Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools.”

A sort of mass hysteria — an epidemic of insanity — seems to have taken hold among the college-educated elite in our society, and this SJW madness is, as Will Shetterly observes, most prevalent among women. This was evident at last weekend’s anti-gun march.

Insane woman accidentally explains why Donald Trump is President. pic.twitter.com/ttrOlxEXfk

— The Patriarch Tree (@PatriarchTree) March 27, 2018

SJWs are eager to make sure mental illness is not blamed, for obvious reasons. pic.twitter.com/z13zizHxRw

— The Patriarch Tree (@PatriarchTree) March 27, 2018

Feminist SJWs are eager to protect the mentally ill from criticism, because no entirely sane person is a feminist SJW. These demented women attack the marriage-based “nuclear family” because there are no men who would want to marry them or have children with them. They have completely isolated themselves from the functional mainstream of normal American society and yet, because the Democrat Party has embraced these lunatics as part of their core constituency, their delusional grievances are treated as legitimate by the liberal media.

We have probably not yet reached “peak SJW.” There is no ultimate limit to their insane depravity, but this tidal wave of SJW madness may eventually begin to recede, if the Democrats lose enough elections. If the healthy segments of our society — those whom Kurt Schlichter calls “Normal Americans” — can maintain a governing majority for another few years, SJWs will burn themselves out in despondency and rage.

 

 

Comments