2015 will be remembered as the year that the social justice movement reached peak absurdity.
It was a year where the so-called progressive left supported white people posing as black people to become celebrities, while simultaneously condemning the entirely fictitious crime of “cultural appropriation.” It was a year where politicians had to apologise publicly for stating that “all lives matter” because it is racist to imply we are all equal.
It was a year that saw the media endorse the “listen and believe” ideology pushed by radical feminists that saw innocent men smeared for rapes that never occurred. Meanwhile, those same feminists crowing about “rape culture” remain tight-lipped when we have an increasing volume of rapes and sexual assaults at the hands of immigrants from predominantly Islamic countries.
2015 was the year where a recent recipient of gender reassignment surgery, Bruce Jenner, won not only the woman of the year award but also the Arthur Ashe Courage Award over a nineteen year old girl, Lauren Hill, who battled brain cancer while holding down a starting position on the Mount St. Joseph basketball team.
If you state any of this is as preposterous as it clearly is then you are, of course, a bigot. Or a racist. Or a rape apologist. It doesn’t matter which, just something suitably shocking so as to discredit you and cause those of a neutral persuasion to view anything you say with distrust. Refuse to be shamed into silence? Then they come for your job, your home, your family, whatever it takes to make you stop espousing your dissenting opinion. Never forget, there are no bad tactics, only bad targets.
That the social justice movement is inherently crooked should come as no surprise. The clue is very much in the name. As we all know, there is no natural force that brings about equality and fairness. It is something we have to manufacture ourselves through systems designed to represent the rich and poor, the empowered and the disenfranchised, alike. And while we do have these systems and they work for the most part, they aren’t perfect and need to be monitored vigilantly to ensure they function as intended and can be improved.
The social justice movement has no patience for this; instead, they abuse whatever position they hold, whatever power they wield, in order to push an agenda they see as righteous, to make sure it is their beliefs that become mainstream. They rationalise the lies they tell, the agenda they push and the deeds they perpetrate against dissenters as being part of some greater good. They believe their victims are simply on the wrong side of history and as such are fair game.
If the outlook sounds bleak, don’t worry. The cracks are starting to show. After cocooning themselves away in an echo chamber and blocking any dissenting opinions for so long they are starting to cannibalise each other, as developer Brianna Wu found out. Her throwaway comments about the virtues of capitalism were enough to see her excommunicated. Now she has written a letter of “true” to the phantom menace of #GamerGate, a consumer movement that has no representatives, organisational structure or official membership. Shaun King is starting to appear increasingly mad following the #BlackLivesMatter movement rejecting him for a lack of accounting for funds.
In addition, real liberals, now starting to identify as cultural libertarians, are realising that the left they knew is not only dead but it has betrayed them. Frustrated at censorship, the policing of language, the minefield of identity politics and the public shaming that comes with failure to negotiate it, they are leaving the leftist parties in droves. And while those who want to pander to these social justice peddling faux-liberals seem numerous, it is increasingly becoming recognised that it is the right that is now counterculture. Suddenly the bed they have made for themselves is looking increasingly empty.
It may surprise you to learn this, but we here at Breitbart, myself included, believe in justice for all. We see the plight of victims of racism, and we are sympathetic. We see gender inequalities and want to rectify them. What we will never advocate is removing someone else’s liberty in order to improve the lot of a group that may or may not “have it worse.” This approach to politics is that of a child. The right to freedom of expression, and ensuring that all are equally able to enjoy this right, is the most important thing to preserve. It is hard to form an alliance with any group that would willingly sign this away for something as cheap and ephemeral as moral high-ground.
So yes, the social justice movement is losing credibility. It looks increasingly ridiculous with each passing day, and even the traditional supporters of some of their barmy beliefs are wavering in the face of common sense. But, because we stand for a lot of the same things they do, even if they would never admit it, here’s five ways the social justice movement can restore credibility in 2016. Be sure to pass this on to a SJW you know.
Stop changing definitions of established academic terminology
Anyone who has ever uttered that “racism is only possible with privilege and power” is a dishonest cretin. It isn’t and never will be, no matter often you repeat it. Racism is readily accepted as the discrimination of or hatred towards someone based on their race. It’s that simple. And yes, that would qualify a lot of the garbage you spout about white people being subhuman scum — strange given the bulk of the social justice movement are white people from middle or upper class backgrounds — as racist hate speech. How curious then that you’ve created a definition that means it is impossible to be racist to white people…
The moving of the linguistic goalposts in this manner only underline how little substance your points have when subject to scrutiny. It makes you look foolish in the eyes of academics and intellectuals. It makes people less willing to engage with the discussion when you marginalise one group to show solidarity with another.
If this wasn’t enough, the insistence on inventing new, patently ridiculous terms to explain phenomenon that only exist within the confines of your head is hurting your cause. No-one outside of your group takes terms like “mansplaining” seriously. Quite the opposite in fact. It rightly makes you figures of ridicule.
Stop abusing positions of power and influence to suppress facts that make you uncomfortable
We get it that you have managed to infiltrate a lot of the tech industry. There’d be nothing wrong with that. Any industry benefits, even thrives, when it has a range of ideologies and ideas coming together. However, the social justice credo has made it impossible for you to resist abusing the privilege that comes with these positions. Why else has something like social media, which should be something that unifies as well as challenges, become such a politicised minefield?
Whether it’s Reddit trying to pretend that the recent migrant driven gang-rapes in Cologne didn’t actually happen, Twitter banning critics of feminism while refusing to treat ISIS recruiters the same, or Facebook doing deals with the German government to suppress discussion about the immigration crisis in Europe, this desire to control information and discussion is now starting to reach sinister proportions. And what should really send a chill down the spine of anyone claiming to be for social justice as a concept is that these types of practices are the same ways that totalitarian governments, old and new, operate.
The towering liberal figures I admired would stand toe-to-toe and have roaring arguments with their political opponents. The late Tony Benn was vehemently opposed to the politics of Enoch Powell, and yet not only did he debate him on an even battlefield, he spoke kindly of him away from it too. The liberals of today lack that courage and instead resort to the sort of low-rent tricks that they once decried. It also shows a disgusting lack of ambition. How serious are you about tackling racism, sexism, homophobia and their ilk if you’re not even willing to try and persuade the people that hold these views? That should be the minimum you are willing to do for the cause.
Facts cannot be denied. Instead of trying to hide them come out and tell us what they mean and why they happened instead of gagging the people asking those questions.
Stop perpetuating the myth of rape culture
In Western society no-one thinks rape is acceptable. Rapists are thrown in prison where they can expect violent reprisals from the other inmates who, despite their own obvious shortcomings, consider it an affront to decency. On release they are placed on sex-offenders registers, ensuring they will never work in an unsupervised capacity around women and will always be treated with suspicion and disgust. There are more support networks for victims of this appalling crime than there ever has been. The legal system has changed to facilitate those who feel threatened and vulnerable in ensuring justice is dispensed.
The word “rapist” carries such weight that even a false allegation can be enough to end careers. Ask John Leslie, a seemingly ever present face on UK television at the turn of the century, now living like a hermit and bankrupt after false allegations run wild in the media. Or how about the students at universities such as the ones wrongfully accused at the University of Virginia in the much publicised report in Rolling Stone magazine? These innocent young men were harassed and threatened by angry mobs in the aftermath of the lies. Could examples such as this, and there are plenty to choose from, exist in a culture that celebrates the rape of women? I think we can both see the obvious contradiction here.
It is a reprehensible view that men are somehow all rapists by default who need to be trained not to rape. There is absolutely no scientific basis for this and yet we are starting to further humiliate and shame the young men in our society with farces like enforced “consent classes” based on this lie. If anything will cause resentment towards feminists and women it is exercises like these. Meanwhile, you turn a blind eye to some of the biggest offenders towards women’s rights, bringing me to…
Take on radical Islam
I have yet to hear an explanation as to how the social justice movement can reconcile its silent support for the extreme interpretations of Islam and all the problems inherent within it. It has been left by those on the right to point out the issues caused by trying to have modern society adapt to a literal interpretation of a faith that predates medieval times. And yes, no-one denies there are those who go too far and too eagerly plunge into racist rhetoric but they don’t represent us either. We support the right to practice whatever religion you want. Just don’t expect us to embrace barbaric practices and behaviours along with it. The social justice practitioners remain tight-lipped every time this culture clash rears its head.
When extremists subvert a faith to invent a dress code for women, that is mentioned nowhere in the Quran, that seems they covered head to foot on the basis the men in their society may not be able to control themselves, how can you in the social justice movement not be critical of that? When homosexuals are killed by being bound and thrown from tall buildings, while around the world followers of Islam support death for gay people, how can you not be critical of that? When immigrants sexually assault and rape women in groups, how can you elect to condemn anyone talking about it before the attacks themselves? Can any of you explain why you give religious fundamentalists a free pass in the interests of multiculturalism?
Your steadfast refusal to actually take on the more radical interpretations of Islam are one thing but electing to suppress the much needed reporting about these phenomenon are actually starting to not only endanger the potential future victims but it also protects the perpetrators. You need to revise your stance quickly because standing shoulder-to-shoulder with those who do genuinely oppress homosexuals and women erodes any credibility you have when you claim to represent the interests of those groups.
Accept that in professional circles your sexuality and gender are irrelevant
Is there any reason why on all of your biographies you give these elaborate definitions of your preferences when it comes to bumping uglies? Trust me when I say that no-one cares. While a lot of you will have entered into the world of tech-blogging straight from the bubble of a decent university, and therefore haven’t had a real job, I can assure you that things are very different in a professional environment. If you need proof of this I can happily link you to official business websites. Nowhere on their employees biographies will you see their favourite pronoun or what they like to do with their genitals of an evening.
Also, it’s really fucking dull. If you’ve ever been in group situations it’s always the most physically repellant, loudmouthed bore that endlessly drones on about their sex-lives in a bid to either be shocking or interesting. They achieve neither. You’re not breaking barriers, you’re just testing patience. Tell us about your credentials not your sexual peccadilloes.
Follow Richard Lewis on Twitter @RLewisReports.
COMMENTS
Please let us know if you're having issues with commenting.