Social justice warriors

Hello, sorry if i posted this topic in the wrong section of the forum.

Since i am not an American, i do not understand the very notion of "social justice warriors" and why do they often see what is not where is not. Please let me elaborate :

A few days ago, on a social networking site, i have found a page posting photos of animals and nature. I gave that page a positive review. While reading other reviews, i noticed a very SJW-istic one, it claimed that page is brainwashing people into joining religious cults. I replied to that review and ask that person how is a page featuring photos of nature and animals "brainwashing" anyone?
She got triggered and repeated the brainwashing part, this time adding new elements, for example "white supremacy", "neo-nazi cult" and apparently had a personal problem with another page ( !) maybe or maybe not related to this one posting only European art.

Now i have a few questions :

- why are some people talking without documenting first? all she had to do was look at my profile, some of my info is public ( age, birthday, photos) and see what i'm made of before automatically labeling me as a weak and easy to manipulate person
- why are some people always presuming white European women are easy to manipulate? thanks but no thanks, (i am 38 y o, practiced the same religion since age 16 and i already have a political orientation i'm self-educating into)
- why didn't she tried to have a civilized dialogue with me?
- what's with this "white supremacy", "neo-nazi cult" and hatred towards European art ?


Thank you for reading this.

Red.eclipse1635 wrote:

Now i have a few questions :

- why are some people talking without documenting first? all she had to do was look at my profile, some of my info is public ( age, birthday, photos) and see what i'm made of before automatically labeling me as a weak and easy to manipulate person

Are images always honest and the full representation of the individual?
Appearances does not mean how someone chooses to present himself/herself, using all kinds of methods, such as clothes, make-up, symbols, social credentials etc.

Red.eclipse1635 wrote:

- why are some people always presuming white European women are easy to manipulate? thanks but no thanks, (i am 38 y o, practiced the same religion since age 16 and i already have a political orientation i'm self-educating into)

Speaking only for myself....my generalizations do not exclude the presence of contradictions to the rule.
I speak of the common, the average, and not about the uncommon.

Red.eclipse1635 wrote:

- why didn't she tried to have a civilized dialogue with me?

Ask her....not enough data to judge.

Red.eclipse1635 wrote:

- what's with this "white supremacy", "neo-nazi cult" and hatred towards European art ?

'Nazi' is a word used by simpletons when they feel cornered. It's the easiest way to become aware that you are in the presence of a moron.
Why is all art good?

Moderns have these warning calls, used by many species....like 'Nazi', by post-modern nihilists, and Abrahamics, some also use 'sinner' of 'Satan', as I said, or women usually use 'rape' to indicate discomfort or a potential threat.
It's a herd warning call, used in times of distress, or when one wants to warn others, in its group, of a possible threat.
A call to warn or for help.

Arahamics have all sorts of dismissive terms....such as 'sinner', 'phobe' i.e homophobe, xenophobe etc.
It indicates a hive-mind reacting to an external threat.
Ironically it reveals their phobia, in the projection.
So, the one using 'Nazi' as a defensive attack, is usually terrified by Nazism, or what such a mind understands of it.
It's a dismissive attack, and a virtue signal...so it has two functions. It calls to the herd to gather and circle...like animal warning calls.

The idea that there are divisions in the species 'human,' when they easily accepts them in every other species - and their terror at the idea that they may belong to what is inferior, or that the social cohesion they depends on might be shattered by the idea that one breed might be naturally advantaged, in certain traits, in comparison to another, are part of the insecurity and vulnerability self-consciousness produces.  

The absence of an absolute makes the idea of a uniform, oneness, a whole, humanity, a seductive idea.
Within the herd, the uniform whole, the individuals dilutes its inferiority, and dissolves its culpability into wholism - externalizing both.

No, of course images are not always the honest representations of an individual. Makeup, symbols, credentials, bragging about one aspect or another. Still in some cases it is not that hard to figure out an individual by carefully analyzing all the data provided.

Cannot and will not ask her anything, i prefer to distance myself from people with empty profiles, belligerent attitude and way too creative mind aka a photo of a red fox being a bait ( !)

I'm not saying all art is good. Example : pop music from my country. this maybe sound arrogant, but no, it is not good, it has no feeling, no message,no meaning, at least not to me.

What is good and what is bad? Look at the impact certain arts have on society. Examples : wannabe graffiti. while it is a form of art, it is bad because again it doesn't represent anything but vandalism . symphonic metal compared to hip-hop : in my opinion, Tarja Turunen is a goddess, while the multitude of "tough black girls" without anything to show than their bodies are just garbage.

My criteria : art has to have a powerful positive impact, to address to the soul and mind.

Satyr wrote:

So, the one using 'Nazi' as a defensive attack, is usually terrified by Nazism, or what such a mind understands of it.

This might sound a bit amusing, but i have talked to a few Nazi people ( not high-school kids with shaved heads and weird fetishes for certain punk/metal bands) and i got only good advice aka " go to the gym", "stop arguing with morons on the internet" and so on. I don't know what to understand. Some see it as a big ugly boogeyman, some see it as the only healthy ideology, the one that will save Europe. Maybe there is a lesson to be learned here,who knows.

Nazi means national socialism, a.k.a. German nationalism.
Brutes will be brutes. Manimals are manimals, on every side of the 'debate'. Simpletons will always be able to relate to their counterparts.
The ideology is but a small piece of a bigger concept, rooted in ancient-Greece, as its highest cultural point, and Rome, as its highest civilization point, but goes further back into pre-historical times, connecting us to Indo-European spirituality.
Hitler simply adopted and manipulated what was already present.  

Their highest civilization is the US, which is currently in decline. This makes them particularly dangerous, because a caged or dying animal is always the most dangerous when it senses its own death.
Protecting yourself is always good advice.
How this dying animal will react as it dies, is unpredictable. Take Trump, for example, as a narcissistic reaction after Obama's wake-up call - a bigger symptom following a smaller symptom.
Even a dying hyena is dangerous to approach.

Nationalism is a small piece...from group, to tribe, to city-state, to nation-state, and now we are entering the age of super-states or SuperOrganisms.

Even leftists are group oriented, though they will not call it 'ethnicity' or 'nationality'.
They change the labels to set themselves apart from the undesirable, the threatening,, and within their desired identity.
Humans are always relating to some group identity, alluding to some form of socialism, social ordering.
But, for morons, certain words are forever connected to their trigger-points...such as 'will', is always connected to Nietzsche, and 'ego' always to Freud, and national-socialism always to Hitler, and commune' always to Marx.

Modern imbeciles are word-dominated, and this is why Nihilism is a potent linguistic virus.
Words, language, has such an impact on them that they begin to believe that words are magical....like when some Christians believe that by simply speaking the word 'Satan' you evoke him, you conjure his presence.

Satyr wrote:

Nazi means national socialism, a.k.a. German nationalism.
Brutes will be brutes.

The ideology is but a small piece of a bigger cocnept, rooted in ancient-Greece, as its highest cultural point, and Rome, as its highest civilization point, but goes further back into pre-historical times, connecting us to Indo-European spirituality.  

Their highest civilization is the US, which is currently in decline. this makes them particularly dangerous, as a caged animal is always the most dangerous when it senses its own death.
Protecting yourself is good advice.
How this dying animal will react as it dies, is unpredictable. Take Trump, for example, as a narcissistic reaction after Obama's wake-up call.
Even a dying hyena is dangerous to approach.  

I wasn't talking about the ancient Greeks,Romans,Indo-Europeans. Whenever i'm accused of being a "nazi" people talk about relatively recent events,Holocaust, Anna Frank, cruelty, equality, Jesus.

That's the part i don't understand: how am i supposed to blindly believe whatever the press says? Was i there when this Holocaust happened or not? No, i was not there.
Can someone prove the existence of Anna Frank? No, it might be just yet another created by Hollywood story,as were many others.
Equality: nope, common sense tells me we are not equal, we cannot be equal, Nature has its own laws we might or might not understand.
Jesus: i better shut on this before i insult anyone on this forum.

Um....yeah....okay.

So, first rule: the victor writes the history books, according to his ideals and what goal he wishes to accomplish.
Second rule, the victor always reduces the defeated 'enemy' to something absurd and disgraceful.
Third rule, the victor always exaggerates himself positively, and the enemy negatively.

What does it matte if Anne frank was real, or if Jesus was an actual person, or not?
The narrative is, for sure, a hyperbole, if not a lie.
holocausts have been occurring throughout time...the worse one, up to date, was the extermination and destruction of the native-Americans...the other big mass-extermination was the Armenian genocide, by the Turks.
Have you ever hear of them, or seen a Hollywood movie made about them?
Have you ever heard of a sob-story about some poor girl, or boy, trapped in a war-time situation, that had nothing to do with the Jews and the Nazis?
If you don't understand Indo-European civilization, you have no way of understanding Nazism, and Hitler, and therefore no way to understand what these current 'social justice warriors' are all about. Without that foundation you have no way to comprehend Marxism, and post-modernist psychology.

You want to keep it simple.

There is no good/evil, but only in the minds of simpletons. Irony of ironies, many think they are sophisticated, quoting from Nietzsche's 'Beyond Good and Evil' who then imply good/evil with every word they speak, and accuse others of a motive when they declare themselves innocent of all motives due to the absence of 'free-will'.

Self-Deceit is part of the human condition.
War is war. some die other live; some win, others lose; some survive others perish.
The narrative shifts depending on who is doing the narrating.
Does anyone speak of the atrocities done against the German nation after the war, by the 'good allies', or during the war?
No.

The sob-story is always about the self-idealizing writer of the narrative.
One has to wonder what stories we would be speaking about if the Germans had won.

Satyr wrote:

Um....yeah....okay.

So, first rule: the victor writes the history books, according to his ideals and what goal he wishes to accomplish.
Second rule, the victor always reduces the defeated 'enemy' to something absurd and disgraceful.
Third rule, the victor always exaggerates himself positively, and the enemy negatively.

What does it matte if Anne frank was real, or if Jesus was an actual person, or not?
The narrative is, for sure, a hyperbole, if not a lie.
holocausts have been occurring throughout time...the worse one, up to date, was the extermination and destruction of the native-Americans...the other big mass-extermination was the Armenian genocide, by the Turks.
Have you ever hear of them, or seen a Hollywood movie made about them?
Have you ever heard of a sob-story about some poor girl, or boy, trapped in a war-time situation, that had nothing to do with the Jews and the Nazis?
If you don't understand Indo-European civilization, you have no way of understanding Nazism, and Hitler, and therefore no way to understand what these current 'social justice warriors' are all about. Without that foundation you have no way to comprehend Marxism, and post-modernist psychology.

You want to keep it simple.

Why does it matter if Anna Frank or Jesus were real? Because every time i say i love my country and want to preserve the few remaining good things in it i am intoxicated with "Christian values" i do not believe in or adhere to, with sob stories about WW2, with shameless glorification of "peace,love, equality, fraternity" - the lion and the lamb sleeping in the same enclosure.

Yes, you are right, i do not understand much, i do not understand nauseating forced on my throat tolerance, acceptance, over-writing of everything my parents taught me .

This is why i asked about the SJW and their crazy labeling system.

Compare a narrative with another and both with the world.

They say you can find out a lot by one handles defeat, but also victory.
In the aftermath of World War 2 the 'victor's gloated over their 'goodness', and identified as the 'victim'. This tells you all you need to know.

My parents taught me things....my father was a Marxist, for socio-economic reasons, not matters of ideology, and my mother is, still, a devout Christian, without being a follower of a Church....I am neither.

Consider, for example, [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] as opposed to Marxist-socialism, or national-socialism.
The difference between theoretical and pragmatic.

Remember, it's all matter of context.
Some forms of socialism are 'good', or at least tolerable and justified, whereas others are 'evil' and despicable; some massacres are a matter of fact, and excusable, and others are vile atrocities; some racism is justified and another is a form of injustice.

To a moron 'free-will' is nonsense, and its negation liberates him from personal responsibility, while it is totally applicable to accuse another of injustice or error in judgment or of an intentional 'evil' motive.
To another moron war casualties and massacres are just a by-product of armed conflict, and even justified, for another imbecile they are a result of some form of evilness, envy and resentment.
It's all about the context and the time, as well.
See, sometimes 'race' is something spiritual, deep, profound, too complicated to define....as in 'human race' but at others times and in regards to human races, the same cocnept is shallow, superficial, an illusion, and reducible to skin pigmentation, as in black/white/yella...
It all depends on context - meaning if you have integrity or not, and if you are a coward or not. It all depends on intent, and intent is based on need/desire, and need/desire is determined by genetics within memetics.

It's all about how you use words, and how talented you are in lying to yourself to protect a fragile tiny little ego, from the true source of 'evil', and wrong-doing and injustice, i.e. reality.
One man's piece of shit is another's messiah, or his 'nomisma', offering him pleasure and liberation from his own idiocy.  
It's all about the Benjamins.

Satyr wrote:

Remember, it's all matter of context.
Some forms of socialism are 'good', or at least tolerable and justified, whereas others are 'evil' and despicable; some massacres are a matter of fact, and excusable, and others are vile atrocities; some racism is justified and another is a form of injustice.

A matter of context? Are you talking about hypocrisy? Let's talk massacres, for example: "x" number of people died in concentration camps, waaaaaa that's a "tragedy and a shameful page in the history of humanity". "z" number of Romanians and Latvians were killed,sentenced to life in prison or sent to "Y" work camp by the communist regimes in their countries, no one gives a flying f**k.

What has this to do with socialism? Romania was, back then, " Socialist Republic of Romania".

So yes, i get your point.

This has to do with something more fundamental than how ideologies are applied and how individuals learn to react to their application.
It has to do with how language affects the psyche.

Soviet Russian Socialism was not the same as German National Socialism, and Mao's socialism is different from Zionism's version.

Those who do 'give a flying fuck' are those who manipulate words to exploit human idiocy.
Those feminine-based minds that cannot help but employ word-games in their exploitation and manipulation of retarded men-children.

Satyr wrote:

Soviet Russian Socialism was not the same as German National Socialism, and Mao's socialism is different from Zionism's version.

Of course they were not the same and are not same.

Soviet Russian style Socialism :

you are a registered nurse in Romania, have 4 children. The State gives you 20 euro/month for every child and your salary is 1000 euro.
from your salary, the State takes the following: CASS 25% ( in case you lose your job and the State has to give you 25% of your salary for 6 months) , CAS 10% ( health insurance) and tax income 9-10% . you ask the State why do you have to pay the CASS, the CAS and the tax income and barely survive from one month to another and feed,cloth & send to school 4 kids. They say " hey, your kids get a free meal/day". that "meal" is a small piece of pastry and a glass of milk, maybe just maybe an apple added to the menu. bottom line, the State doesn't care about you or your children at all.

you lose your job and have monthly payments to a bank, the bank sues you and takes your stuff.
you lose your job and cannot pay the rent, the landlord throws you and your children out, even if is winter.

German style National- Socialism :

you are a registered nurse in Hungary, have 4 children, your salary is 1000 euro/month. you pay 10% CASS, 5% CAS and no tax income.depending on the school, they might give your children a REAL meal.

you lose your job, your monthly payments at the bank are 80% of cases frozen
you lose your job and cannot pay the rent, the 10% CASS are used for this, so your children do not live on the street,froze or starve.
Bottom line, the State cares about you and your children.

I was talking about something more fundamental.
Marxism based on materialism, i.e. production/consumption, measures by money, or socialism where blood is the standard.
Money or Blood.
Stalin was vilified by the (((west))) when he shifted from internationalism, a.k.a. Trotskyism, to nationalism.
He advocated nationalistic socialism - which would be Russian socialism.

But there has never been a strictly capitalist or communist system.
A pure capitalistic system would collapse, or would quickly leas to revolution.
Just as a purely communist system already did.
Capitalism/Communism are both part of the same materialistic standard, differing only on how production would be ordered and controlled and how the product will be disseminated.
Both evaluate themselves and the world, according to production and consumption.

Putin is the natural inheritor of a Russia-based ideology, starting form Stalin. He easily converts to capitalism and simply replaces some degree of materialism with what was missing in communism, i.e. a spiritual element to their shared identity. So, it is logical to return to Orthodoxy, because that's what Marxism attempted to destroy and replace with its materialism.
Russians have always been more crude, more barbaric, so they have a natural resistance to some more abstract forms of Nihilism.
The Cold War also 'protected' Eastern Europeans from the onslaught of the parasite-meme that gradually infested the west, during that period.
For one, they had little access to Hollywood and its continuous degrading and depraving message, directed towards young impressionable minds.
Entire generations of American children were raised in that depravity, and we now see the consequences.

Satyr wrote:

Just as a purely communist system already did.
Capitalism/Communism are both part of the same materialistic standard, differing only on how production would be ordered and controlled and how the product will be disseminated.
Both evaluate themselves and the world, according to production and consumption.

From my point of view, both systems are bad.
Capitalism: you have Hollywood,depravity, mindless soulless distractions,stores full of merchandise, but no money unless you do something really bad . you can "socialize" with others under strict control, anything "suspicious" attracts the ban hammer
Communism: you don't have the mindless depravity, which is a good thing. at the same time, you don't have anything strictly necessary, which is a bad thing. again, you can, within some limits, socialize. still, there's a ban hammer waiting to hit you.

*speaking your mind seems to be a big no-no in both systems
**as a person born in 1980 in a communist country, i experienced both parts of the same materialistic standard and found myself hating them both.


Is there a solution to all of this? Is there a way of rejecting all the fake values forced on our throats and just live our lives with our families in a decent way? No feminism, no mental slavery , no mandatory " tolerance" towards things we reject?

All human systems are socialistic, because man is a social organism and man needs others.

Where systems differ is in what standard they use to evaluate good from bad social behaviour - Capitalism/Marxism uses production and consumption, so we modern are dominated by the ideologies of materialism, evaluating ourselves by how much we make, how much we consume.
Other social systems use other criteria....like blood, genetic relationships.
Others use spiritual criteria.

In all of the the group imposes limits on the individual.
We'll leave the ancients aside and quote from more contemporaries.


The relationship of individual with the group becomes increasingly negative, as the group increases in size, imposing stricter rules concerning his/her behaviour, and reach an apex of suppression when the group converts from homogeneous to heterogeneous.
Suppression is accompanied by alienation.  

Putting aside the Jordan Peterson quip, the guy has a point. Letting women fight in war, whether literal or cultural and on whatever side, leads to avoiding the primary responsibility they have at home. A home that is not well protected enough to need their intervention will result in a loss of respect for the man, no matter the circumstance.

I always was attracted to what are called 'tom boys' but not butch lesbians....women who are less delicate, more like ancient Aryan females - Spartan women - who also fought when the city was threatened.
But, yes, their primary duty was to bear and raise children up until the age of seven.

Spartans only places names on the graves of the dead when the male died in battle or the female died when giving birth.

Feminization applies to both sexes...males are becoming emasculated and females are becoming infantile, losing all durability - becoming delicate flowers, dependent, unable to do anything on their own; unable to raise children unless the system supports them.

I am as well, but from my experience such tomboys are more obsessed with the Alpha, than the average/Alpha female, to the degree of infertility or single motherhood. The man they need and would likely be fulfilled by, is one with a feminine aesthetic that would balance them out, whom they often overlook or don't respect.

We see this tragedy in the Trojan War, where Achilles slayed Penthesilea who fought on behalf of the Trojan State, and she could not come to kneel before any man, even a man as mighty as Achilles, but only the abstraction.

Nature doesn't only punish those whose standards are too low, but also those who hold unrealistically high standards and lack some degree of humility in the face of the flux.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Impulso Oscuro wrote:

I am as well, but from my experience such tomboys are more obsessed with the Alpha, than the average/Alpha female, to the degree of infertility or single motherhood.

This is a product of being exceptional; true for both sexes/genders.

Impulso Oscuro wrote:

The man they need and would likely be fulfilled by, is one with a feminine aesthetic that would balance them out, whom they often overlook or don't respect.

According to wieniger's 'formula'. A more masculine disposition would also demand a highly masculine male to dominate it.

Impulso Oscuro wrote:

We see this tragedy in the Trojan War, where Achilles slayed Penthesilea who fought on behalf of the Trojan State, and she could not come to kneel before any man, even a man as mighty as Achilles, but only the abstraction.

Such pride is admirable.
Such a woman would not give herself to Magian weasels and wormtongues.

Impulso Oscuro wrote:

Nature doesn't only punish those whose standards are too low, but also those who hold unrealistically high standards and lack some degree of humility in the face of the flux.

Indeed.
It's why in my essay titled 'Tentative Defence of Monogamy' I claim, that things are more dire for the top 1% of females, than it is for the top 1% of males. A female needs a superior, or at least a male equal to her, to bring out the feminine in her. For a male the inferior is expected, if it is not so low as to degrade the male's 'lowering of himself' so as to pass on his genes.

Satyr wrote:

According to wieniger's 'formula'. A more masculine disposition would also demand a highly masculine male to dominate it.

That is what they want but not what they need, such a man (if he exists) has no time for such petty challenges from such a woman, he is too busy preparing against the next challenger. Most men, if not restrained by the State, can dominate a woman physically and despite the resentment will accept their fate once impregnated.

Satyr wrote:

Such pride is admirable.
Such a woman would not give herself to Magian weasels and wormtongues.

Bravo, and yet she didn't mind making herself their instrument of war, and preventing herself from growing up by having children.
Many European women today, by being biologically barren, never grow up and have no problem replicating and defending the memetic disease.

Satyr wrote:

A female needs a superior, or at least a male equal to her, to bring out the feminine in her. For a male the inferior is expected, if it is not so low as to degrade the male's 'lowering of himself' so as to pass on his genes.

Perhaps this is the pollution created by excellence, eventually a male population will hit its peak performance within a given environment, and yet its women will still expect more, some beginning to withhold their wombs for the One to save and dominate her, just like a certain Jewish woman...