Word is a Weapon. Lethal, one should have a license to operate such a thing. When enough people get access to it, we must consider another word, War.

One would be wise to study the history of warfare, as the Word itself has gone through several historical evolutions; modernisation of the Word indeed, spread to the masses without instructions or ethical guidance. It has become Slaughter.

Modernity, the end of the Household. Or rather a transformation. The Worker now belongs, not through any metaphysical order of God and Tradition, but contractual, temporal belonging to the new format of House, the Factory; the Company.

So Marriage is no longer the establishing of a House, because, for the Worker there is no such things as House of his own. The Worker is indeed defined by this lack of Own. So they were given the Word instead.

The Word spread like a Virus (Word Virus) through the working class. It is Bondage, a crystaline structure that binds the workers into a fixed repeating form.

It is a weapon that eliminates anyone and anything that is Impure to that crystaline strucure. No wonder the Word is so closely related to the idea of Purity.

So if the spreading of the Word troughout the Working Class should be considered an act of War, then this is truly an instance of Class Warfare.

And it has become Slaughter.

As with the majority of Genocides, it is really a Gendercide; the destruction of the enemy Male, the impure Male. It appears as Suicide, sometimes hidden as Accident. But rarely an Accident in the game of the Word. Or what the Word is supposed to conjure.

It is a rigid structure of Peasantry, the Hunters are firmly eliminated, and the Word is the choice Weapon is this process. Indeed, it turns the Hunter into Prey.

As any other word, the Word is not only a Weapon, but also a delimiter. To utter the Word is to destroy what it is supposed Conjure. It’s a dynamic negation of itself.

To utter is to Kill it. The Word is not what it appears to be, it is not a Thing, or a State, but a method by which to destroy the Thing. It’s a whip to beat a subject into submission.

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off on Word

What is Social Justice Warriors (SJW)

SJW is short for Social Justice Warrier. The term covers a particular group of activists, bloggers, Tumblers (users of Tumblr), and the other on the surface seem to struggle for social justice; discrimination against minorities (even if they are the majority in general).

They are often trained in universities under professors who were students during the student riots. The professors are survivors of the purge of the universities. They maintained their Historical Materialistic mindset, but reformulated it to make it more safe and linguistically distant from Marxism and class struggle (did someone said ‘Social Capital’?).

SJW’s advocate for equality, but uses inequality and manipulation as a method. It’s all about the target. They perform an irrational attack on the irrational. Their reasoning is based on real or constructed discrimination of different groups. Any criticism or opposition to their research, ideas and actions are dismissed by claiming that the critic belong to a privileged group, or suffer from false consciousness. The opposing view is really just reactionary, discriminatory, or express fear of loss of privileges. They fail on the way to relate to the arguments, and go for moral condemnation of the sender.

One of the problems is that their research is of such poor quality, that it is difficult to determine whether there really is discrimination or not. Our knowledge of our own culture disappears on the way.

Because they perceive all knowledge production and decision-making as an expression of power and protection of privilege, they also concieve their own will to power and protection as the core of their own knowledge production and decisions. Arguments and research should, and exclusively only can, cover power. Power is both the core of their worldview, and their motivation.

Aidan Rankin calls them ‘pseudo-liberals’. They are not liberal nor progressive. They are system maintainers, conformists, and therefore also fit particularly well in administrative positions.

Rankin writes

Pseudo-liberalism combines the Marxist emphasis on collective struggle with a stridently capitalist emphasis on consumer demand.

Marxist’s strictly scientific, in many ways over-rational, approach to politics is quite distinct from the Pseudo-liberal’s obeisance to unreason.

New Liberalism, in practice, creates authoritarian bureaucracies obsessed with ‘discrimination’, rather than the free society its advocates claim to want.

[They] abolish the idea of equality for all individuals under the rule of law, and replace it with special privileges for groups.

The groups are predefined and no one can avoiding belonging to at least one group.

Their approach is to take key gatekeeper positions in government bureaucracy, NGOs, subcultures like Gaming and Atheists in the United States, Human Resource in private companies, etc. They are generally not in the top leadership positions, but the positions below. The intention is to modify or influence from within and the position below visible leadership is advantageous, because these positions are stable over a career, while the positions at senior management level continuously changed.

Political leadership then becomes difficult, because the people who will carry out the decisions in practice see it as their duty to turn the assignment in the direction they desire. Customers and clients are therefore more dependent on the person they happen to encounter; the personal is political in a very personal way.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment