The Regressive Left, pt. 6: The Ideology of Social Justice

It’s time to bring this back to life. I started this series two years ago, attempting
to define the regressive left. I’ve made five episodes in which I talked
about the characteristics of this social plague, exposed its fallacies, and provided some historical
and philosophical background. I then decided that I should go deeper, and
perform a critical analysis of the academic trends that it relies on. For that, I realized that I needed to read
more, and that is why I haven’t uploaded a new video in this series for over a year. I still have a lot to read before I get down
to it. But recently, I attended MythCon, and something
happened there that made me realize another video is needed. What happened was a debate between Dr. Richard
Carrier, one of the people behind Atheism Plus, the idea that brought SJW politics into
the atheist movement, and Sargon of Akkad, one of the leaders of the opposition to it. The debate was around the question of where
do social justice and atheism meet, but it was a rather frustrating affair, which revolved
almost entirely around semantics. I realized then and there that before we can
move further in the debate, we need to clarify what we mean when we talk about social justice. For Dr. Carrier, it seems, social justice
just means any cause that you believe in. His main argument was that atheists should
not be content with speaking against religion, but should also pick a cause to fight for. The example he gave was fighting for women’s
right to abortion. But in that, deliberately or not, he deflected
from the discussion we wanted to have, which is how social justice warriors are destroying
liberalism. Social justice, nowadays, is a term that became
associated with a specific movement, and what Carrier was doing just served to blur the
term. This is the argument that Sargon of Akkad
was making, but when he tried to define what this movement is, he found that it was like
trying to catch a greased pig with your bare hands. At first he called it Marxism, then intersectionality,
then postmodernism. That led to a discussion about the meaning
of these terms, and eventually, very little was achieved. To prevent this from happening again, it’s
time we figured out what we are talking about. So, what is social justice? Is it Marxism? Is it inter-sectionalism? Is it postmodernism? The answer is: it is all of these things,
and none of these things. The social justice warriors are grave robbers,
who dig up the corpses of dead white men, steal from them what they want, and then put
it all together. The result is a philosophical abomination,
a Frankenstein’s monster that has no intellectual right to exist. But that is why it is also hard to kill, because
it doesn’t have a brain, and you don’t know exactly where its heart is. So, allow me to take a shot at explaining
how this monster works. Some of you might be tired of hearing about
social justice. This is a good sign – it means that you
don’t feel stifled by it like you used to. In the time that has passed since I started
this series, our power has grown, and we are now a cultural force that rivals the SJWs. We saw evidence of that at MythCon, where
Richard Carrier was on the defense against Sargon. Personally, I feel increasingly sorry for
SJWs, who are quite obviously the biggest victims of their own ideology, which is making
their existence a very miserable one. It is more interesting for me now to develop
the counter-culture that we’ve created. But the time to lay down our weapons has not
come yet. The way I see it, until now we have been defending
middle earth, and now we are ready to march on Mordor. Mordor is the academy, and we need to take
the fight to them. For that, we need to think critically about
the schools of thought that comprise the social justice movement. For that purpose, this series will go on. A detailed critical analysis shall be provided
in upcoming parts of this series. In this video, I’ll just outline what these
schools of thought are. As I was thinking about this metaphor, I started
thinking: if Mordor is the academy, and the different regressive elements that I’ve described
so far are the rings that it created to rule our thought, what is the ring to rule them
all? What is the main idea at the basis of it all? And I think that the main idea can be found
in Jean Jacque Rousseau’s famous saying: “Man is born free, and everywhere he is in chains”. Now that sounds like a paradoxical saying,
but what Rousseau means is that the nature of Man is to be free, and yet the society
of today oppresses him. The reason for oppression, then, is not the
flawed nature of humans, but the flawed nature of contemporary society. If we fix the way society is structured, humans
will live in a utopian state. That is the big difference between the 18th
century Rousseau, and 17th century Enlightenment thinkers like, say, Thomas Hobbes. Hobbes also claimed that Man’s natural state
is to be free, but to him it meant that he is free to pursue all of his urges and desires. Because of that, the natural state is a state
where it’s every man for himself, and humans harm each other. Therefore, they have to form a society with
rules, to protect themselves from one another. So for Hobbes, the limit that society puts
on our actions is not oppression, but limits that we willfully accept as necessary for
our survival. For Rousseau, on the other hand, the natural
state is a state where people live in equality and harmony. So the reason that they are not doing so today
is because their second nature has been corrupted. It has been corrupted by the social institutes,
by the education system and by culture. So if we fix those things, we will develop
a second nature that is compatible with our benign first nature, and then we will have
Utopia, where full freedom and equality shall prevail. We’ve already discussed some of this in part
5, and there we’ve also seen what happened when the French Revolution tried to implement
a crude version of Rousseau’s philosophy. We further described how the failure of the
French revolution prompted Enlightenment thinkers to reevaluate their ideas, and develop the
notion that Man still has to mature before he can create the perfect society. In other words, that Man’s nature is indeed
good, like Rousseau said, but Man hasn’t reached his final form yet. Because of that, because he is in this incomplete,
immature state, he is still incapable of fully manifesting his good nature. The purpose of Enlightenment, then, is to
guide Man towards maturation. Only then will he be able to form the Utopia. We also saw how this led to the rise of Hegel,
who claimed that the progress towards Man’s maturation is done in a dialectic way. There is always an ideology that is in power,
and this ideology makes one group of people dominate and oppress other groups of people. But neither the masters nor the slaves can
be fully happy in this situation, because this is not the true nature of Man. Eventually, someone of the oppressed class
reworks the ruling ideology to create a better ideology, and this new ideology spreads to
other minds until it leads to a revolution that establishes a newer and better social
order. This order still has masters and slaves, but
is less oppressive then before. And then someone creates a better ideology,
and so forth. According to Hegel, this process has already
reached its end. With the Enlightenment, the human mind has
devised the perfect order, where everyone is free and equal. All that is left now is for this ideology
to spread to every mind, and then we will have a global utopia. But after Hegel came Marx, who adopted his
dialectic theory of progress, but claimed that he got a few things wrong. First, Hegel argued that the progress takes
place in the realm of the spirit, where the human mind develops better and better ideas
that supersede one another. Marx, on the other hand, argued that it happens
in the realm of matter. Progress happens when the prevailing economic
system is replaced by a better economic system. An economic system produces a certain amount
of wealth, but since this wealth isn’t enough to feed everyone, the people are divided into
master and slave classes. Gradually, better ideas and better instruments
are produced, and the overall wealth increases. Eventually, the overall wealth reaches a point
where a new economic system can be envisioned, and the oppressed class adopts this new ideology,
and carries out a revolution that puts it in place. This new system is more equal and wealthy
than before, but still has master and slave classes. But within it, better ideas and instruments
can be devised, and the overall wealth increases until it reaches a point where an entirely
new system can be envisioned, and so forth. Hegel believed that Enlightenment was the
end of the road, the final destination of progress, and that its ideas will erase class
and create a homogenous and harmonious society. Marx saw this as another mistake. The economic system created by Enlightenment
was capitalism, and it is indeed more equal and harmonious than previous systems, but
still divides society into two classes: the bourgeoisie, who are the employers, and the
proletariat, who work for them. The capitalists system is an exploitative
system, in which the workers get only a small share of the wealth that they are producing,
and the bourgeoisie get richer and richer on their backs. Based on this dialectic theory of human history,
Marx predicted the future. Capitalism, he said, will continue to create
greater and greater wealth, and for the first time in the history of human civilization,
there will be enough wealth to feed every human on Earth, and a utopian society will
become possible. At the same time, it will destroy every existing
culture, until only two group identities shall remain: the proletariat and the bourgeoisie. As a result, the global proletariat will feel
solidarity, and there will be a universal identity on which it can form a universal
homogenous society. Meanwhile, the wealth disparity between the
classes will gradually increase, until eventually the proletariat will revolt, abolish capitalism,
and establish a global communist society, where everyone shares the wealth. There were a couple of disastrous ideas contained
in this philosophy put forth by Marx. First, by transferring the process from the
realm of ideas into the realm of matter, he could treat history as if it was an exact
science. Economy and wealth can be calculated, and
based on his mathematical calculations, Marx and his disciples believed that they can predict
the future. Second, by predicting that we need just one
more revolution before Utopia will prevail, Marx unwittingly gave his followers license
to take any means necessary to bring about this revolution. Since they are fighting to transform a world
in which millions die every year from wars, malnutrition and exploitation into a Utopian
world where no one will die of those things, whatever they do to get there is justified. Marx himself warned against trying to impose
communism on the people. He said that the historical process must be
allowed to run its course, and the communist ideology must take hold of the minds of people
before the revolution can occur. Alas, since the Marxists believed that they
could predict the future, they didn’t think that they needed to wait. In part 5 we described what happened when
the communists in Russia took hold, and how they felt that they had the right to impose
their ideals on the people, believing that this will fix their corrupted second nature,
so that their benevolent true nature can manifest itself. The Marxists in the West, meanwhile, were
dealing with a different problem. The problem was this: capitalism in the West
has reached a point where it produces enough wealth to provide for everyone’s needs. According to the Marxist theory, this should
have been followed by the rise of the new system, the Communist system, and the proletariat
was supposed to revolt and make sure that it takes place. And yet, this did not happen, and working-class
people seem happy and content to live in the capitalist society. 20th century Marxist thinkers had to explain
why Marx got it wrong, and their answer was this: the proletariat doesn’t revolt because
capitalism is an extremely pervasive ideology, which is infiltrating the minds of the people,
and creating a false consciousness that makes them believe that they are free and happy. Thus, the change cannot just happen naturally,
as Marx thought, but we must actively work to break the conditioning. Western Marxists, realizing that politics
will not get them to their goal, thus turned to education as a way to change Man’s second
nature. They started to market their ideas through
the academy, and raised generations of students on them. The problem is, young students are usually
more impetuous than old professors. By the late sixties, Marxist activism was
based on some very rudimentary beliefs. One, that the Western people are now ready
to create a utopian society. Two, that the capitalist system is actively
preventing them from doing so. We must therefore bring down the system by
force, and Utopia will prevail. In the seventies, this way of thinking resulted
in a lot of terrorism and bloodshed. And that’s one of the reasons why it completely
lost favor with the general public, and kind of disappeared by the end of that decade. But this simplistic structure was then picked
up by another way on thinking, which in part 4 I’ve defined as feminist creationism. Feminist creationism is the belief that the
gender roles in today’s society are not the result of a natural evolution, but rather
of a moment of creation, sometime in the past, which resulted in the formation of a Patriarchy. The Patriarchy is an ideological structure
that runs our society, in the same way that Marxists see capitalism, and it divides us
into a dominating class of men and a dominated class of women, similar to the bourgeoisie
and proletariat in the Marxist theory. However, while Marxism describes the capitalist
system as something that we have arrived at after a long dialectic process of progress,
feminist creationism, for reasons that we shall later discuss, does away with this idea
of progress. The Patriarchy has been around for millennia,
and remained essentially the same. It’s as if they’ve taken only the last stage
in Marx’s history, and use it to characterize all of history. When you accuse regressive feminists that
they hate men, they will deny it, and point out that they don’t claim that men are knowingly
oppressing women. The Patriarchy, they say, is constructing
the minds of both women and men, and we are all victims of it. Men also suffer, even though they are brought
up to dominate women, because a master’s existence is actually miserable. Again, this is borrowed from Marxism. The Marxists claim that the bourgeoisie are
also victims of capitalism, and are miserable even with all their wealth, because it is
against human nature to exploit other people. But this feminist defense is disingenuous. It is true that they see men too as victims
of the Patriarchy. But what men are guilty of, in the eyes of
feminists, is that they refuse to bring down the Patriarchy. The feminists believe that they want what’s
best for men, because bringing down the Patriarchy will make men happy as well. But most men disagree with this theory, and
that is why feminists hate them. Once again, this is identical to how Marxists
regard the bourgeoisie. In a Communist society, they believe, the
former bourgeoisie will also be happier than they are today. And yet the bourgeoisie won’t let the Marxists
do them this favor, so the Marxists hate them. But why should men adopt the feminist position? Well, remember what Hegel and Marx said: the
oppressed class is the one that holds the more progressed ideology. And since feminists represent women, the oppressed
class, their ideology should take over. There is just one little problem here, though:
once you have done away with the dialectic process, this idea isn’t valid any more. Hegel and Marx could justify this idea, both
because it makes sense within the dialectic theory, and also because they could point
to cases in history in which this actually happened, in which the oppressed class held
the more progressive ideology, the ideology that eventually took over. But feminist creationism doesn’t believe in
progress: all historical changes, according to it, happened on the surface, and presented
no real essential change. So how can they rationally justify the idea
that the women, the so-called oppressed class, are the ones that hold the more progressed
position? They can’t. This idea isn’t deduced from the feminist
creationist theory. It is just a leftover from Marxism. Now we are beginning to see why I say that
social justice warriors are grave robbers. They have dug up the corpses of Hegel, Marx
and other dialectic thinkers, took from them only what they like, and discarded the rest. The result is an ideology that has no inner
rationality to hold it together, a bundle of self-contradictions. The SJWs usually don’t realize that these
ideas are derived from Marxism, and scoff at the accusation that they are Marxists. Actual Marxists are also incensed when they
hear this suggestion, and announce that they have nothing to do with these SJW idiots. And they are right. Feminist creationism is a total bastardization
of dialectic thought, and should not be confused with Marxism. But Marxism is what led to it, and Marxists
should acknowledge it and own it. So, feminist creationism is made of bits and
pieces of Marxism, creating an abomination that philosophically has no right to exist. However, these bits and pieces are only part
of what makes up the Frankenstein’s monster that is the social justice ideology. Let us now continue our autopsy of it, and
work our scalpel into another part of its pathological anatomy: intersectionality. The idea behind intersectionality is that
we should not deal with every form of oppression as an independent thing, but realize that
they intersect, and create specific problems where they do. So a black woman doesn’t just suffer oppression
from being black and from being a woman. There are also specific problems that belong
to being a black woman, which traditional theories have missed. Now, this in itself makes sense. It makes sense that the intersection of different
group identities does indeed cause specific problems for the individual, and acknowledging
it can help us address and solve these problems. But when intersectionality gets combined with
feminist creationism, the results are catastrophic. First, the introduction of intersectionality
is one of the reasons why feminism had to disavow dialectic theory, and adopt creationism
instead. As long as it was just about men and women,
you could say that the Patriarchy is just the latest stage in the dialectic process. But if you adopt dialectic thought, you have
to admit that there is progress, and that Western culture is the most progressed culture. With intersectionality, which believes that
we must fight white domination over non-whites, you cannot possibly accept the idea that white
culture is more progressed. And so, the feminists must deny that there
has been any progress, and instead believe that our society is the result of a single
act of creation. This is how intersectionality has a bad effect
on feminism. But the effect that creationist feminism has
on intersectionality is even worse. Because creationist feminism asserts that
our minds are all shaped by the Patriarchy, and that this will remain the case until the
Patriarchy is brought down. And so, your individual struggle doesn’t really
matter. It is pointless as long as the Patriarchy
exists. When you apply this model to intersectionality,
the result is that SJWs pay no attention to the problems of the individual, for instance
of the black woman. What is being “intersectionalized” in social
justice thought is not the individual, but the system. The system is no longer just the Patriarchy. It is the Imperialist White-Supremacist Capitalist
Patriarchy. And all of our energies must be directed towards
bringing it down. And so, when an Arab woman complains about
the treatment of women in the Arab society, the SJWs tell her: shut up, you are helping
the imperialist Patriarchy. If a Western woman complains about being harassed
by male members of a non-white minority, she is told: shut up, you are helping the white
supremacist patriarchy. If a poor working-class man complains about
being mistreated by a wealthy woman, he is told: shut up, you are just displaying the
misogyny of the patriarchy. And so forth. And so, nothing actually gets done for the
individual. They are all told that they should forget
about trying to fix their specific problem, and instead concentrate all their efforts
on bringing down the Patriarchy, because this will immediately cure all of their problems. Intersectional feminism, that purports itself
as a movement that focuses on the specific problems of every individual identity, is
actually busy shutting all these individuals up. What intersectional feminism ultimately amounts
to is a power play by black feminists to take over the movement. It has allowed them to portray themselves
as more oppressed than the white feminists, and in their logic, as we recall, that means
that their views are more progressed. The white feminists are told: bow before us,
bitches! As whites, you are actually part of the imperialist
white-supremacist capitalist patriarchy. So shut up, and listen to us, because we are
the ones who hold the truth. The term “Imperialist White Supremacist Capitalist
Patriarchy” was coined by the black feminist bell hooks, sometime back in the nineties. Since then, LGBT identities have also become
part of SJW intersectional talk, so I guess we should also add heteronormative and cis-normative
as adjectives of the Patriarchy. But here, there are some feminists who are
fighting back against allowing trans-women into the movement, and I suspect that part
of it comes from the realization that once this is allowed, the trans-women will be the
ones in control, the ones who can tell all other feminists: “bow before us, bitches! You are all part of the cis-normative Patriarchy. We are the most oppressed, and therefore the
ones who hold the truth!” The trans issue really throws intersectional
feminists into a loop. The current debate going on in their circles,
on whether trans-women are women or men, might seem pointless to an outsider, but a lot is
hanging in the balance. The question is: are trans-women the most
oppressed group, or are they actually part of the oppressive Patriarchy? These are the ways in which feminist creationism
and intersectionality, when combined together, are creating something that is even worse
than both of them. The Social Justice ideology is basically an
intersection of philosophical abominations. But we are not done. To complete the portrayal of our intersectional
Frankenstein’s monster, we need to talk about another school of thought: postmodernism. Postmodernism is philosophy that argues that
the Modern Age has ended. What is the Modern Age, according to the postmodernists? Well, it is the age that begins at the moment
we’ve discussed earlier, when, at the end of the 18th century, Western culture started
to be ruled by the idea that Man needs to progress and mature, until he reaches a point
where he can create a perfect society. According to the postmodernists, the belief
that we can get to that point has lost its ground. We should therefore adjust our thinking and
our values to this new reality. Postmodernism is one of the reasons that Marxism
lost favor. Marxism is a modern way of thinking, which
still believes that Man is progressing towards Utopia, so it is hard for it to operate in
a postmodern world. That’s why some radical leftists had to reinvent
themselves, and developed the social justice ideology, which, as we’ve described, steals
bits and pieces of Marxism. And it also steals bits and pieces of postmodernism,
to create an irrational and unholy mix. For instance, let’s take the question of power. Marxism, as we’ve seen, believes that society
is ruled by an ideological structure that gives one class of people domination over
the other class. Being a Modern way of thought, Marxism believes
that we can overthrow this structure, and create a society where there are no power
relations, no discrimination and oppression. Michel Foucault, one of the originators of
postmodernist thought, argued otherwise. He showed that there is no one power structure
that is designed to give one group domination over another group. Instead, power is dispersed and held in many
places, creating a grid which we are all part of. This grid does create a paradigm that is ruling
our thought, but this paradigm isn’t to the benefit of any group. Every one of us is discriminated in some ways,
every one of us takes part in the discrimination of others. And this cannot be changed. We can make things better and less oppressive,
but we can never be completely rid of oppression or discrimination. The modern dream of creating a world with
no oppression is therefore a pipe dream – power relations are a fixture of human society. This realization is liberating in several
ways. First, when you realize that there will always
be power relations, you accept it as part of reality, and you don’t feel oppressed any
more. Just like you don’t feel oppressed by gravity,
a force that is always holding you down. Humans have found ways to overcome it, like
creating machines that fly, but you can never eliminate gravity. In the same way, we have found ways to make
human society more free and less oppressive, and formed a society in which one can live
a happy life. And we can carry on and make things even better. But we cannot eliminate oppression altogether,
and if you continue to believe that there is actually a way to create a non-oppressive
human society, you will always feel oppressed, so you have to free your mind of that old
modernist notion. Second, it is liberating because you realize
that there is no one group that oppresses another group. Men suffer discrimination just like women,
and women take part in creating the discrimination just like men. So there’s no place for hate towards entire
groups. Third, it is liberating for the individual,
because you realize that you have power to change your situation. Every one of us occupies an intersection on
the grid, and holds some of the power. I can sit at home and make a YouTube video,
and this video then spreads through the grid and creates a ripple effect that reaches other
points of power. So, unlike the Marxist, I do not feel powerless. This way of thinking, of course, is deadly
to radical feminism, as it completely undermines the Patriarchy theory. But they found a way to appropriate Foucault
for their needs. When you point out to them that you can no
longer say that men have all positions of power, so we are no longer a patriarchal society,
they will answer that power has been dispersed, and that the Patriarchy is now a grid which
has its power held in many places. In other words, rather than accepting that
Foucault’s philosophy invalidates the whole Patriarchy theory, they presuppose the Patriarchy,
presuppose that there’s a structure that oppresses women, and only then use Foucault to characterize
this oppression. And thus we get another part of the social
justice ideology. In previous chapters, I characterized the
regressive left as radical left that is masquerading as liberal, and thus fools many liberals into
taking sides with it. The main thing that defines the radical left
is the idea that they know how to bring Utopia, so they think that they have the right to
force it on others. But since we no longer live in the Modern
paradigm, no longer think that we are progressing towards Utopia, liberals are no longer swayed
by utopian discourse. The radical left thus has to cloak its true
intentions, and postmodernist language is what it usually uses as the cloaking device. Language, of course, is an important theme
in postmodernist thought, as well as Modern thought. One of the things that defined the Modern
Age was the realization that language plays a big part in determining how we view the
world. In the 17th and 18th centuries, Enlightenment
philosophers argued that our minds can perceive reality as it is, and on that basis form a
well-structured language that can represent it. Modern thinkers argued that it is not that
simple, since the language that we grew up into already shapes how we perceive reality. No existing language represents the truth
– they just represent the narrative of the people who speak it. Thus, the Modern thinkers set out to overcome
narratives and create a language that can represent reality as it is, as part of the
process of Man’s maturation. But gradually the realization sunk in that
we are incapable of creating such a language, and the postmodernists claimed that this Modern
project was itself just a narrative. According to the postmodernists, we will forever
be stuck in narratives, which will bias the way we perceive reality. But the fact that language cannot represent
the absolute truth doesn’t mean that it is a bad tool. You can remain loyal to intellectual honesty
even if we can’t reach absolute truth. There are still many other reasons to want
to remain rational and empirical, and aspire to create a language that best represents
reality as we know it. Therefore, many postmodern thinkers still
maintain loyalty to reason and science. At the same time, we should be aware that
our language has some bias, and that this bias can sometimes lead to social discrimination. So there is also merit in criticizing language
from this angle, and aspiring to create a language that is less discriminatory. That is the liberal approach to handling the
insights of postmodernism. Social justice ideology takes these insights
and twists them. Combined with feminist creationism, it produces
the claim that our language is biased because it was created by the Patriarchy. Again, this goes back to the idea that Man
is born free, and everywhere he is in chains. The SJWs believe that if only our language
was structured correctly, there would be no discrimination. So the existing language is perceived as violence
towards the so-called oppressed groups, and we must create narratives to counteract it. Since language can’t represent objective truth
anyway, we have license to create narratives that are completely based on subjective experience,
and disregard facts. The only value that they have to obey is that
they supposedly help to undermine oppression and achieve social justice. And so, social justice creates narratives
of oppression, which are taken as gospel. These narratives, of course, feed into the
discourse of intersectional feminism, and enhance the hate towards the Imperialist White-Supremacist
Heteronormative Cis-Normative Capitalist Patriarchy. And so we find ourselves where we are today. These, then, are the components of the social
justice ideology. It’s a combination of postmodernism, intersectionality,
and feminist creationism, which itself is a bastardization of Marxism. Taken on their own, Marxism, intersectionality
and postmodernism, while having a lot of serious problems, also have merit. But when you just tear out parts of them,
and then patch these parts together in the way that the social justice ideology is doing
it, you get this irrational bundle of victimhood, resentment, grievance, vengefulness, intolerance,
narrow-mindedness and bigotry, which has no merit whatsoever. The problem with Frankenstein monsters such
as these is that they are hard to kill, because they are hard to define. I hope I helped you understand the anatomy
of this monster. In the upcoming parts, I will get deeper into
the schools of thought discussed here, and show how they got twisted into this monstrosity. This will require some research, so bear with
me. The social justice ideology presents itself
as the next step of human progress. In fact, it is a regression, a barbaric transgression. The social justice warriors are anti-freedom,
anti-equality, anti-diversity, anti-tolerance, anti-democracy, anti-science and anti-reason. They are a threat to everything Western civilization
has built over millennia. And that is why they are the regressive left.


  1. Oh shit thanks. Foucauldian feminism confused the shit out of me and I was like "All the no. Not even going to try to understand." Of course it's inconsistent nonsense. Great presentation overall. Really great condensation of a lot of complicated ideas!

  2. False Framing

    1. Dialectic (Proletariat vs. Bourgeois) vs. Harmonization (Heart & Lungs both needed for greater being)

    2. Patriarchy, Antisemitism, Racism. Words that are taboo and evil. They blind people to underlying reality, necessity and goodness of these words sometimes point to. Like violence is sometimes good. These taboo evil words are sometimes good for a social / tribal animal such as us.

    3. There is no "evil" so I cannot be evil. "Because I am not a Marxist your critique is invalid." Slippery word games to avoid being pinned down to reality. Solution: "We are BOTH playing word games and have our own languages, therefore we both need to define and agree to use a third language that we both agree to for this discussion." Language is a psychological weapon we need to first define rules of engagement.

  3. That was a fast click 🙂 Great stuff, it's good to hear a take from someone who's clearly well-versed in Left-wing academic jargon and still thinks there's some value to it, but wants to steer it away from the errors that have beset it. (Where we would disagree is probably that I don't think there were many errors, and that there's probably a lot more deliberate dishonesty in academia than one might wish.)

  4. One of your best videos Zarathustra! This is why I’ve been a long time subscriber and why I keep coming back. I really wish you would get out on more of the channels to promote your material. More people need to hear it takes like this because they’re so well done. Keep up the good work.

  5. One person on a deserted island is free, there are no ethics or morality beyond that person's objectives.

    Add one more person, and in order for them to co-habit the space, each will be necessarily imposing chains on the other. For instance they will be likely denied the "freedom" to kill the other or destroy their property.

    For anyone to have rights, all others must be perpetually denied the freedoms to infringe such rights.

  6. This is all good and well but Carrier told me that he and 5 other guys are working on better access to abortions and therefore SocJus is great.


  7. I think the dialectic theory thing is pretty true, except I don't think the progressions are necessarily always for the 'better' in any one-dimensional way. It's an effective and sophisticated mechanism, but not foolproof, and as always, careful awareness and the phenomenon of free will are crucial.

  8. at 26:25 you show a little cartoon of a monkey doing some sort of of yogistic exercise, suggesting that the text on the cartoon expresses some weird eastern idea. Yet the text is a paraphrase of Epictetus, Enchiridion 1.

    (for my part I've realized that one of things that is not within my power is to get you to make videos attacking the Israeli government over their fascists oppression of the Palestinians; I won't even mention it, no matter how many innocents they murder).

  9. "Capitalism in the west has reached a point where it produces enough wealth to provide for everyone's needs."

    Are you really this historically illiterate? There were thousands of labour movements across Europe and America working to secure more rights for workers after the industrial revolution. Every labour law about safety, pay, hours, company store bullshit, etc. were won by labour movements. Even right-wingers couldn't pretend that "capitalism is working" which is why fascism as a movement started. Instead of leftists making the problems of capitalism about how bosses and governments treated workers, fascists sought to unite poor, working, and rich classes under nationalistic sentiment which ended up being best done by othering another group of people and blaming them for all the problems. That's why Germany used Jewish people as scape goats and the only reason these sentiments waned was because the recent memory of WWII drew everyone away from fascism and a post war boom in America made leftists seem unnecessary. And guess what happened when the war memory faded and the boom ended?

  10. I enjoy your "outside the box" angle on things, but I have a more boring "occams razor" response. It's just female nature manifesting itself in a technological, resource abundant, place and time. I'd be curious of your counter to this as I always enjoy hearing your take and our positions aren't necessarily mutually exclusive, but my explanation is why I think people like Sargon can't explain social justice. Either Sargon is genuinely clueless, or he knows fully that he can't just say "a lot of women are irrational and they're controlling the discourse". I know some people will write me off as a misogynist for saying that. That couldn't be further from the truth. I'm just a man of reason and honesty. I'm willing to hear out counter arguments.

  11. Great work, thank you. So, it's not accurate to call them Marxists, but given that this has been cobbled together from pieces of various philosophies and ideologies including borrowing heavily from Marx, would you say it is accurate to call it neoMarxism?

  12. 22:25, Well, that and the fact that if they follow Gender constructivism to it's logical conclusion, you get a paradigm in which feminists can't claim EXCLUSIVE victimhood because gender wouldn't exist.

  13. Hello there,
    Thank you for your content I enjoy it a lot.
    However… I have a question? If people define what they see as the "Enemy" , and they become active. (Just like SJWs are active in the political field) … isn't there a chance that this new counter culture that argues against SJW-mentality bears with it the risk to spawn an even more "active" counter culture? And these people that take it to the next level aren't they themselves at risk to radicalise?

    I've posted this to a Sargon of Akkad video at some point… where (and this is my opinion) his sometimes unnuanced vieuws that largely come forth from emotion (not ratio) pushes him to become just like the person he criticises. As I said before, where Anita Sarkeesian once said: "Cause, like, when you start learning about systems, everything is sexist, everything is racist, everything is homophobic, and you have to point it all out to everyone all the time.", part of the radical wing of the countermovement will just go: "Cause, like, when you start learning about SJWs, everything is social justice, everything is political, everything is anti-white-males, and you have to point it all out to everyone all the time.".

    Also the quest of these people to get more "likes" , "vieuws" and "patreon money" not only bolsters their own ego making them feel more "right" in the process. It also compells them to spit out more content every day. The more volume you produce, the less quality it will have. Like you say about your own videos: "I need to do more reading"… This is seriously lacking with a lot of these figures, making them (for me at least) just as ridiculous as the people they attack. These rants online also become more and more emotional every time… because emotions sell.

    The fact that you take time to figure things out, and make your ideas ripe before you put them out their for debate… is one of the biggest things that I appreciate about people like you. Also… your ideas are open for debate, which in my opinion, doesn't make you a radical. Radicals are so confined in their own logic that they lost the ability to listen to annything but the sounds that already resonate in their heads.

  14. Man, I love your videos. 😀
    While many people regurgitate the same talking points over and over again it seems that with pretty much every of your videos I can learn valuable things.

  15. To the best of my knowledge, this is the only video that breaks down this ideology. I think its one of your best political videos, and is certainly one of my favorites.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *