« Version française ici »
I’m well aware of the growing
presence of a certain portion of people who identify themselves with the
political left and are pejoratively called Social Justice Warriors
(SJW). Even my little blog is putting me in direct contact with these
folks who, thinking themselves rather righteous, believe that there is a huge
slew of “injustices,” whether seen or unseen. Not being content with the idea
of equality, they are seeking special treatment and privileges for whatever
group they deemed oppressed.
You might have already heard
of activist Saul Alinsky, who was an American community organizer and is
generally considered the founder of modern community organizing. The kind of
SJW behavior currently surfacing in online environments isn’t all that new and
much of it comes straight from the Alinsky’s 1971 book Rules for Radicals. In Rules for Radicals, Alinsky
compiled some lessons learned throughout his community organizing experiences
and wanted to apply them to the current, new generation of radicals.
Those who are now called SJWs
are people who often bring up topics related to social justice. Upon closer
inspection, they are mostly concerned with their own reputations, rather than
effecting any real change. Wanting to be seen as virtuous and pure, they then
toss around cherry-picked historical data in the form in slogans and catch
phrases to fit a certain narrative. This opinion piece is a good example of this, providing an
erroneous and, at times, outright false portrayal of the history of slavery in
Québec.
One of the biggest traits
among SJW types is their verbal abuse and bullying. While they are abusing
others and calling names, they also play victim and are adept at using
crocodile tears. Their favorite words tend to be one of the following:
offensive, intolerant, sexist, racist, homophobic, antisemite or islamophobic.
They are usually encountered on the internet, as it’s easier to post comments
on social media than to actually go out and do something in real life.
Getting back to the book
Rules for Radicals, Alinsky promoted the idea of finding an external antagonist
and turning it into the community’s “common enemy,” usually a local politician
or organisation having some connection with community affairs. Once the enemy
is targeted, the masses who make up the community are called to unite in
opposition to it. With the external antagonist established, the community's
goal is to triumph over their adversary. This is usually done through slander
and character assassination. It doesn’t matter whether the accusations are true
or not, what counts is that the slanderous portrayal of the enemy sticks in the
minds of the masses.
Rules for Radicals encourages
exaggerated public demonstrations and protest. Alinsky put forth that his
strategies allowed his organization to achieve its goals much more quickly than
in regular bureaucratic methods. Perhaps this kind
of weltanschauungs wouldn’t be so dangerous if individuals holding
such worldviews were at least somewhat tolerant of their fellow community
members with whom they disagreed. But today’s radical “far left” has turned
social justice into a totalitarian ideology. You’re either with them, or you’re
with the racist, murderous and oppressive skinheads.
Here are just a few of
Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals:
Ridicule is man's most potent weapon. It works as a key pressure point to force the enemy into concessions. There is no defense. It's irrational. And it's infuriating.
Good tactics are ones your people enjoy. This means that your activist minions will keep doing the tactic without needing encouragement or incentive to continue. They're doing their thing and will even suggest better tactics because it’s a fun game. A good example of this would be ganging up on someone through online social media in order to ruin their reputation (professional or otherwise), as in the R v Elliott Twitter case.
If you push a negative hard enough, it will push through and become a positive. This means that something like violence, usually condemned, can win over the public’s sympathy because the public tends to empathize with the underdog. Recently, someone calling themselves a snowflake on Facebook told me that he would be in favor of the death penalty if it meant getting rid of certain “racist groups”. Nevermind that the left has always been against the death penalty. However, some of them are now encouraging it to eliminate their enemies. They are now eating themselves from within.
Never go outside the expertise of your people. Feeling secure makes anyone more courageous. This is why SJW types, culture jammers and whatever else they are called only talk about the immediate here and now. They never analyze the history of ideas or the logical foundation of their worldview, because such research is outside their expertise and they might end up looking foolish.
Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it. Cut off the support network and isolate the enemy from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions. Remember when the Richard Lafferty compared Lucien Bouchard and Jacques Parizeau to Hitler? Or how Québec solidaire still viciously smears the Parti Québécois regarding the now defunct values charter, as if it were an ongoing project? Some of the more radical QS members quite often make caricatures out of old projects in order to personalize and demonize any PQ member (yet they rarely, if ever, have any criticism for the federal government).
Decent people cannot use
Alinsky's “rules” because they are too polite, law abiding and honest. They
find it difficult to lower themselves to the depravity necessary to effectively
contest the rising menace of the fanatical SJW. They bully people into
submission and censor the free speech of others. They get people fired from
their jobs, thus preventing people from feeding their children or having a sense
of independent livelihood. They engage in violence and property damage and
think this is OK. Their self-delusion is probably the worst thing. They
honestly believe themselves to be tolerant, open-minded and advancing their
cause for the benefit of society as a whole.
Bottom line, these ideologues
recognize a worldview based only on their emotions and their subjective
experience. Reality and people’s lives do not matter. Their ends justify
any means.
