UNRIGHTEOUS INDIGNATION

SJW rage as power play.

by James Lawrence

Those of us who devote lasting attention to the antics of SJWs cannot fail to discern a 'core pattern' to their behaviour, which runs as follows:

1. Pick a target, usually an isolated individual, and take loud and public issue over some trivial word, deed, or object that has supposedly "caused offense" (recent examples: a hula doll, a joke name, and a few lines in an email regarding Halloween costumes).
2. As quickly as possible or after encountering any resistance, erupt into a state of violent anger and escalate the dispute with hysterical ravings, profanity, personal insults, aggressive body language etc.
3. Demand some outward show of compliance, again seemingly trivial, such as an apology or a retreat from a minor position, implying that this will put an end to the aggressive and hysterical outburst (in fact, it usually serves as a justification for escalating things even further).

The main points to bear in mind here are the aggressive and disproportionate display of anger, the deliberate choice to cause a disturbance in public, and the apparent triviality of both the "offence" and the desired "redress". Refusing to believe the stock SJW position that such anger is completely justified (and that anyone accusing them of it is guilty of oppression), many have begun to speculate on the reasons why these people seem so prone to hair-trigger outbursts of rage. My favourite theory, guaranteed to fry the little wind-up brains of Trigglypuffs everywhere, holds that SJWs are made constantly angry by self-hatred of their own repressed desires to participate in the "racist" and "sexist" iniquities that they condemn.

However, as interesting and amusing as such lines of thought might be, I do not think that attempting

This is apparently what "sexual
harassment" looks like.

to plumb the depths of SJW mental illness is at all necessary here. It has been well said that leftist theories of society, while either severely limited or outright untrue in themselves, can nevertheless serve as reliable guides to the obsessions, preoccupations and intentions of their authors. If the "social justice movement" has a theory of society, it is one in which everything that human beings do is reduced to various forms of power play between dominant and subordinated groups; and I suggest that we interpret SJW rage along these lines, as a deliberate, calculated method of exerting power over other people.

Judging from the above-cited examples of SJW tantrums that were recorded and uploaded to the internet, this method of power play directed at others is mostly very effective. (Just watch how easily "Shrieking Girl" silences her Yale house master's rational arguments by purposely losing her temper, or how quickly Zarna Joshi's working-class target beats his retreat after she starts up her wolf-cry about sexual harassment.) Of course, in none of these cases can the SJW be said to "win the argument", but nor did Stalin "win the argument" with Trotsky when he had an ice-pick smashed into the latter's head. Understood on its own terms as a form of power play, the SJW rage attack is far more intelligently devised than any SJW attempt at rational argument.

Because the "offences" seized upon by SJWs are so trivial as to seem of no importance to an ordinary person, the target of a suitably alarming rage attack will tend to offer little resistance against the absurd charges levelled against him. He will likely go along with a similarly trivial-seeming show of "redress", such as an apology, in the hope of shutting his interlocutor up - little realising that he is not only allowing himself to be symbolically dominated, but also making admissions of guilt that will later be used against him (see Vox Day's 'SJW Attack Survival Guide'). The choice of public space for the rage attack not only serves to embarrass the target, but also deters future challenges to "social justice" by broadcasting the display of social dominance to others. In light of this, it is no wonder that these tactics are flourishing outside political activism as well: modern, thirty-plus professional women are reportedly now "flying into violent rages for the most trivial reasons", apparently in the belief that such aggression is a "form of empowerment" against "traditionally dominant men".

The rage-attack beyond political activism.

Now, "empowerment" is not quite the correct term for all of this, unless we qualify it as "empowerment within a context of dependency". Anger, and particularly the sort of incontinent hysteria that is the mark of a weak and insecure character, cannot in itself bring any sort of power - unless, of course, the targets of that anger are sufficiently committed to civilised, peaceful, reasonable norms of behaviour that are rejected or ignored by the person getting angry. The rage-attacker is dependent, not only on the distant protection and patronage of the state, but also on the immediate willingness of the people he derides as moral reprobates to placate his tantrums nicely rather than acting as violently and uncontrollably as he does. As such, he is a social parasite, a voluntary brother to the bands of foreign tribute-demanders screaming about "microaggressions" in a superficially intellectualised variation on "hey you looking at me funny?"

If Alt-Righters are to act as effective antibodies to the social justice virus, we shall have to jettison the almost pathological European concern with keeping the peace at all costs, and make it a point of principle to never preserve harmony where discord is merited. We may have to learn to present a dual face to the world: practicing civilised norms with those who reciprocate them, and keeping a decidedly "uncivilised" repertoire of ridicule, counter-accusations, pushiness and deliberate rudeness for the parasites from within and without who do not. Remember, the more of us who become impervious to the rage-attack and other SJW tactics, the more the SJWs will be left to take the path of least resistance and devour their own allies.