Social Justice is a Language Virus

[Mr. Wrong]

I've done it!

I've been exploring social justice at an intuitive level, attempting to discern some sort of universal human psychology that would allow for spontaneous manifestation. That's a fancy way of saying I've been trying to find something natural to humans that can create social justice without any outside influence. I've been entirely dissatisfied with Stef's contention that base desires like greed, envy, resentment and plain old failure can allow for the social justice virus to take root. Well, take root curated by propagandists and ideologues but I digress. No, I contend that this is entirely an internal process, requiring not even the existence of other people to manifest. I believe it to be an entirely personal phenomenon - which very much accords with social justice. Both with their narcissism and egomania but also with their projection. After all, the root of all projection is a belief about oneself, not a belief about others.

So all that said, I located the source. I wouldn't be posting here after so many years otherwise. As the title suggests, it's been hiding in our language the entire time. Turns out, the dissolution of meaning in language isn't just an effect of social justice (or cultural Marxism, whatever name you have for it). Rather, that dissolution is responsible for each of their 'positions' and not the other way around. I use quotations though since through this perspective, these 'positions' are transformed ONLY into ex post facto justifications, rendering what you probably recognize as the core of the ideology as basically a denial matrix. In essence, what you understand as social justice is really a network of excuses that developed out of logical necessity. A logical necessity borne from a deeper, more primal axiom that necessitates these excuses, lest reality challenge and ultimately disprove it. One that they don't recognize but operate on regardless.

To say it plainly, social justice is an enormous ex post facto justification acting as a defense mechanism, both for their own peace of mind and against external challenge to it. It is, practically speaking, a system of denial. That said, this is why addressing these ex post facto justifications is so ineffectual. You're addressing only their excuses, NOT the belief those excuses are designed to maintain. Their ultimate rationale as a SJW isn't predicated on these 'positions' nor are these positions properly concluded. I mean to say that they are arrived at only by virtue of necessity, not reason. Whether it's their economic foolishness, their political beliefs, their rampant sense of victimhood, everything. It all comes back to this single source found in the corruption of language. So I'll say it now and make the largest claim I can make here:

I can link EVERY SINGLE SJW belief and behavior to this common origin with an uncanny consistency. Not because I'm some great intellect, but rather because it's the truth. It's so consistent because it's true. Period.

I've been obsessively robust regarding this matter. Frankly, I wish I were just speaking big - I'm not. I'm more desperate to be proven wrong as this obligation, without actualization, is killing me. I need substantiation. I'd prefer to be wrong but dammit if I haven't figured this out. It even goes so far as to explain the nature of political binary and the nature of the Christian religion too. I'm sure you've noticed Stef's 180 on Christianity over the years. Well, I can provide the answer as to what Christianity is alluding to and for that reason, why it's been so integral to both maintaining and creating Western civilization. And why SJWs hate it so much.

For those of you in the know, Christianity is an enormous allegory (metaphor?) to philosophical INDIVIDUATION (for the love of God, this is the answer to EVERYTHING). To that point, Jordan Peterson is correct when he submits that the Genesis story is explaining the manifestation of consciousness, given consciousness is predicated on, or the other way around, individuation. It's a 'Chicken and Egg' sort of thing at that point. The only reason I managed to figure this out is because individuation turns out to be the OPPOSITE process employed by SJWs. Or rather, their denial necessitated by their axiom requires them to take on the exact opposite process to individuation. You basically understand this as mere denial, but it's more particular, precise, and complicated. Think 'perfect denial'. Yes, such a thing exists and I call it 'nebulization'.

 

If you're only interested in the axioms at work and their interplay, see this video (visuals included): 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I6ag4EA7xBw

This will give you God, consciousness, and social justice on a silver platter. It's intuitive, given that was the methodology of my work. Also, if you're one of those math wizards, you'll notice that my presentation of the process of individuation parallels the construction of the Surreal Number System. I'm not going to state that my position has some mathematical proof to it, but it's absolutely the same thing. It's up to you whether or not maths and philosophy must remain separated. I admit it excites me, given the implications.

 

Consider the following video an introduction covering the superficial concepts in a more entertaining format:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O4yhY41WQmI

If it means anything to you, I've shown my face and outed myself. I'm prepared to live honestly in that regard.

 

This is as different and new as any theory out there, though of course I argue that mine is the correct position. So if only for curiosities' sake, I invite you to delve into this matter. I guarantee that at least one perspective you have will be replaced with something you consider to be more true. That alone is a benefit, I think. Moreover, you'll find that this hardly challenges anything you believe. Instead, it will add on it making you MORE RIGHT rather than proving you wrong. Basically, your observations and conclusions will be preserved. You'll just have a far greater understanding of those conclusions and their implications. You'll also know the kryptonite to social justice, free of charge. Take it. I owe Stef that much.

So here are the two links you can best put to use:

Entire Treatise: https://document.li/nDr6 

Introductory Version PDF: https://document.li/I5oM

Introductory Version Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=enU3i68FcVg

Listed above is a secondary introduction that's more in-depth than the video I posted prior, but if you're interested at all in my work, read the treatise instead. I admit that due to your understanding already, the first 4 chapters may come as a bit of a refresher albeit more in-depth, but I promise you nothing but revelation after that point. Truly, I have to set up a lot of dominoes before I can prove myself as thoroughly as I intend. When it comes to what I call Antithesism (the best label IMO), all should be made clear - and I mean that. To you, there will be no double standards, no hypocrisy or irrationality left in the social justice warrior. You'll understand their motivations to a tee. Nothing will seem strange anymore. Of course, I can only relate to you my experience of this perspective, but this is where I'm at. It's over for me. I want to bring you to where I am. I don't want some vain distinction. I want you to know what I know and if not here, then where would something like this find purchase? Please, read.

 

Now, I can answer what questions you may already have, but if you've interest in a new perspective you're best to read the treatise itself. You'll find the answers in there and anything you find contentious in my reasoning, especially regarding the perspective of the SJW, remember that it is only how THEY need to think. It doesn't have to follow necessarily from reason nor accord with your particular understanding of consciousness or psychology. Yet from that point, the consistency must be maintained. I'm glad to be informed of any errors. Hell if I'm mostly right, I'd love this to become a collective effort of FDR itself. Show the world what we can do.

Thank you for your consideration and don't give up.

 

[smarterthanone]

Ok, so I watched the Pt 1-5 and skimmed a few parts of your treatise. I found it pretty interesting. So stay with me if you explained it somewhere and I didn't see it yet.

1. How are people infected? What is making the susceptible?

2. What is the treatment or cure?

I don't think this is just some random thing happening, but part of evolution on a more idea evolution or epigenetic level, that would be why it changes so fast like a virus vs typical evolution.

Where the liberal SJW side is attempting to remove what makes them dissimilar, as you mentioned, as an end goal of some kind of borg collective or bee hive or something, which is more degenerative as health, IQ and other things are not important anymore past a base level but being as dissimilar as possible and fitting into the group is the best quality.

Then on the other side, when smarter, better people keep mating with smarter better people, eventually they will be that much smarter, healthier better, so it would be a more normal path of evolution for more complex and capable humans.

If left alone for a very long time, the human species could diverge over this.

[ofd]

If you look at the history of Western civilisation you will see that there were two waves in history in which SJW and related phenomena became popular.  One started a bit after Luther's reformation when Anabaptists and other sectarians believed that there be no auhority except their own, when it comes to biblical interpretation. In the aftermath you will find modern phenomena, like crossdressing, polyamory, hippie communes and what not. That uprising didn't last long because both Protestants and Catholics wiped out attempts of those groups to establish independent communes.

The other wave started with the Enlightenment and hasn't ended yet. In short, it is characterized by the application of Nominalism to biology and social structures. Teleology makes no sense in physical sciences, like physics or biology. But it is essential for biology (what is the function of an organ? What is its purpose? When does it work properly) and sociology (What is the purpose of a family? What is the function of a school? What is the role of the state?). That enables SJWs to substract everything connected with teleology and to replace it with their own brainfarts. Humans turned into malleable beings with no history, no context and no connection to each other, except through a shared ideology.

[Mr. Wrong]

On 8/5/2017 at 3:25 PM, smarterthanone said:

Ok, so I watched the Pt 1-5 and skimmed a few parts of your treatise. I found it pretty interesting. So stay with me if you explained it somewhere and I didn't see it yet.

1. How are people infected? What is making the susceptible?

2. What is the treatment or cure?

I don't think this is just some random thing happening, but part of evolution on a more idea evolution or epigenetic level, that would be why it changes so fast like a virus vs typical evolution.

Where the liberal SJW side is attempting to remove what makes them dissimilar, as you mentioned, as an end goal of some kind of borg collective or bee hive or something, which is more degenerative as health, IQ and other things are not important anymore past a base level but being as dissimilar as possible and fitting into the group is the best quality.

Then on the other side, when smarter, better people keep mating with smarter better people, eventually they will be that much smarter, healthier better, so it would be a more normal path of evolution for more complex and capable humans.

If left alone for a very long time, the human species could diverge over this.

You will need to read the treatise in its entirety, should you wish to understand it in full. Every answer is there. Though you could just as easily watch the big 3 hour one. That'll cover the philosophical matters with little animations and everything.

The Etymology of Social Justice will provide the particular answers you've asked here.

 

1) The further one is divorced from the realistic consequences of their actions, the more they're able to entertain beliefs that aren't congruent with reality. Though more importantly, the self-righteousness inherent to mankind as an effect of philosophical individuation (read the treatise) is something that can only ever be tempered. In other words, we learn more of reality not through investigation and revelation but through disillusionment. So we believe ourselves to be right about everything - up until we're proven wrong, which we then adopt a new position of self-righteousness all over again. This is demonstrated in science which recognizes this quirk of human programming. They remain agnostics in all things and endeavor to prove themselves wrong, as opposed to right, which they contend is fundamentally impossible.

Basically, the self is our single foundation from which we view the world. As such, that foundation is taken for granted and what I mean by that, is that it's taken as true. The 'self' is always what's true to us. This is why every belief you have is what you believe is right. The very concept of rightness is self-referential. Again, take a read or watch to see why. Though to that point, the nihilism, relativism, and narcissism endemic to the Left is a product of that full-stop.

Now, I won't say that the Marxist propaganda had no effect - it did. But it hardly infects anyone with something so consciously recognized as a philosophical or political or even moral position. Not even resentment is a motivation, as Stef appears to believe. Rather, Marxism allows for the persistence of terms without meaning. Though I believe I covered that. The phenomenon of 'special snowflake' and 'everyone's a winner' taught in public schools removed the criteria necessary to distinction. In this case, the distinctions of success and individuality i.e. being special. It then transformed them into hollow terms. With everyone being special, valuable, and everyone winning no matter what, the mechanism by which we develop distinction, philosophical individuation, was corrupted. This lead to the phenomenon of how nothing could yet remain valuable (covered in the language series) which resulted in the denial of individuality necessary to maintaining one's 'value' with regard to no criteria. I called this nebulization and yadda yadda yadda.

So with self-righteousness a core of human consciousness itself (as argued in the treatise) shielding it from disillusionment allows for the phenomenon of nebulization to manifest which results in this Leftism we see today that I've dubbed antithesism. So it's an entirely natural, spontaneous phenomenon that manifests in different magnitudes based on what environmental pressures can or can't keep it in check. So abundance, welfare, things like that are able to catalyze it. Meanwhile, hardship, identity, and purpose are able to keep it in check. But fundamentally it all stems from self-righteousness and the denial of reality one must engage in to maintain it.

 

2) The treatment is to force those who've succumbed to nebulization to define terms. The oldest philosophical mandate there is, defining terms breaks their minds because it robs them of this nebulous, indistinct identity they've claimed for themselves. It also dissolves their camaraderie which has been demonstrated numerous times. The only belief they truly 'share' in common is that of a personal self-righteousness, resulting in similar behaviors though not bound through any mutuality - technically speaking. That illusion is what keeps them functioning as a collective. Severing that illusion, like Luther did when he translated the Bible, is all that needs to be done to shatter them like Christendom. You will note that nobody attempts this.

 

As for the link between this and IQ well, the greater doubt of the high IQ individual facilitates philosophical individuation and so disillusionment. So their self-righteousness is far more tempered than low IQ individuals, which has already been observed. Though this raises the obvious corollary that women aren't technically attracted to confidence but rather conviction - which follows given mating habits of 'bad boys'.

 

I was on vacation. Would've replied sooner.

 

 

[Mr. Wrong]

On 8/6/2017 at 0:08 PM, ofd said:

If you look at the history of Western civilisation you will see that there were two waves in history in which SJW and related phenomena became popular.  One started a bit after Luther's reformation when Anabaptists and other sectarians believed that there be no auhority except their own, when it comes to biblical interpretation. 

Was on vacation. Sorry for the late reply.

 

I mention and praise Luther in the treatise, actually. People misinterpret what happened during the reformation. I hadn't known of any rise of the SJW during Luther's time, but I'm excited to hear of it. Any more info or sources you have on that is only going to better my argument.

Anyway, Stef and just about everyone else are dead wrong about the reformation. They've transformed it more into a self-serving narrative than relating it to how people actually operate. The narrative goes that the people were ignorant of scripture and when it was finally translated for them, they were able to form their own beliefs and so shatter the collective. Nope. Wrong. This isn't how people operate. The disparate beliefs between Christians were always present and yes, they were remedied by the monopoly the priests had over the holy text though more integrally, the monopoly they had over the LANGUAGE. Essentially, any ambiguous language allows for personalized definition and with its shared use regardless, a projection of your definition of terms onto all others. That said, there is no greater an ambiguous language than an utterly foreign one.

So in reality, Christians had several different beliefs that weren't being communicated, for reasons of deference or fear or through the plain inability to claim anything of a text you can't read. Though more importantly, their disparate beliefs were masked in the projection inherent to the ambiguous language. So all the hymns, the rites, everything was individually interpreted and personally validating. As such, people projected their experience of such things onto others, as though they were joined in the act of validating themselves too.

For example, Jane believes [X] about God and by doing [Y] with everyone else, believes that everyone else must also believe [X] about God.

Yet, Bill believes [Z] about God and by doing [Y] with everyone else, believes that everyone else must also believe [Z] about God.

So in short, it created a false collective of people who didn't share the same individual beliefs, but rather the same belief about everyone else in the collective. That the collective believed what the individual believed. So it's sorta the same belief in a way, but not really. Anyway, by translating the Bible Luther removed the AMBIGUITY endemic to this collective, though specifically its language. From then on, the differences between believers could become more readily recognized, not created. So really, Luther's translation served to DISILLUSION the church more than anything. That's the reality of what he did. Luther demonstrated to the church that their collective was a lie and that they were fundamentally operating on self-righteous projection, using the nebulousness of the language and rites and everything within the church in order to do so.

 

So if what you say about social justice rising after this break in the church well, that accords entirely with how it may be formed as an effect of schism which I cover in the treatise. Essentially, every schism results in 3 groups:

Traditionalists who stick to the old criteria for the identity.

Reformers who fashion new criteria for the identity.

Nebulizers who deny the need for such criteria for the identity.

Basically, nebulizers are akin to those feminists who, when met with a claim of what constitutes a woman, will protest, "Doing that or not doesn't make you a woman! It's irrelevant!" Though they repeat this claim of irrelevance ad infinitum until the term in question, in this case 'woman', loses all meaning and becomes a hollow term. That is to say, EVERYTHING becomes irrelevant to its construction. So nothing makes you a woman save for mere proclamation, yet nothing can be claimed to be entirely divorced from influencing it, given there is no means of determining its bounds. It's like a thing that's literally everywhere but is also nothing.

This is so obviously an effect of language and not anything else. It makes me want to scream that it's gone unnoticed.

 

So 'woman' is the most important and influential thing in the universe that must be considered in all matters, but whose nature is ultimately impossible to determine and should you do so, you're a sexist because you discriminated it - you made it something.

This, you'll note, is no exaggeration as this is what has happened to it - given none can properly define 'woman' anymore.

 

It's a language virus. It has everything to do with the nature of words, which is why social justice and the 'identities' therein, are all just words that have succumbed to nebulization - meaning loss. That's it.

 

Also, you're right about the necessary exploration of purpose, but purpose is already integral to reason by virtue of the process of philosophical individuation i.e. how we create things. Look:

Everything that exists is purposeful i.e. produces an outcome. There is a way to create it, and there is something that it does. It has an existence in reality and an interaction with reality. Hence its production of outcome. When we relate this outcome to our own understanding of reality we call this 'purpose'. It's what we expect will occur based on our understanding of how something exists. It's an aspect of prediction.

For this reason, every 'what' is in reality a 'how'. This transcends all physical boundaries and permeates our very language. That is to say, every single concept we have is purposeful by definition and WHAT it is is necessarily HOW it is. No exceptions. The reality of this is only that this is how our minds work. Everything, every word when used to described something is necessarily an attribution of purpose. Even a rock, as you will interact with a rock based on your expectations of it i.e. its outcome and so will manifest it purpose in that instance.

It's inescapable and thus why IDENTITY is the core issue the West is struggling with. Why? Because if every word is an attribution of purpose, then every word you use to describe yourself becomes an attribution of purpose to yourself. Ergo IDENTITY is purposeful and in order for anyone to consciously manifest purpose, they must do so through behaviors. So an identity is a role, every single time. Yet, in the 1960's we destroyed the sex role for women and now 'woman' has come to mean nothing. Like clockwork, it was inevitable. All social justice is is the largest amalgamation of people who've severed identity from describing purpose.

I invite you to read the treatise or watch the Etymology of Social Justice (which isn't a typo).

 

Thanks for your time.