Coexistence with SJWs, Mrs. America, and Other Thoughts

I’m inclined to disagree with this post.

I’m also inclined to agree with this post. It is impossible to coexist with a group of people who wants to replace your value system with their own, to destroy your customs or replace them with their own, and to remake the society you share with them, in their image. For this reason, people who consider themselves woke should be looking for new communities in which to live. People should stop trying to live with people who don’t share their value system. It’s tough, because on the one hand, people probably locate in places, stay in places, that is, or move to other places, because of things like family and money. Less likely is it that people relocate because of their personal values.

People cannot be ruled peacefully. I’m sure every government has slaughtered someone for a crime with no victim, or at the very least threatened someone to part with their person or property but never had to follow through on the threat because whatever was demanded was given. In that case, they used the threat of violence, can we consider that peaceful? No. It’s inevitable that if you live with people who do not agree with you ideologically, under a government, you run the risk of them gaining control of that government and using it to enslave you. It’s possible to at least enjoy slavery under a government whose edicts you agree with or at least tolerate. But if you see those edicts become increasingly difficult to stomach over time, then the situation grows increasingly untenable. It also, as it becomes more tenuous, becomes less likely to have both outcomes, one being a peaceful outcome and the other being a coexistent outcome. My advice. Leave. GTFO while you can.

This is a good article, and it brings up excellent points. The FX TV show Mrs. America, villainized Phyllis Schafly, an incredibly influential woman who lead a conservative, anti-communist campaign in defense of the American family and traditional women’s roles in American society, during the 70s. Cate Blanchett plays Schafly and the writer of this article picked up a post from FX of a speech Blanchett’s character gives on one of the episodes, and some of the twitter responses. First off, the speech is excellent and everything in it is true. Second, the writer links to an excellent article about Phyllis Schafly, assuming it’s all true…wink, wink, you have to be skeptical and get the full story. Check out the article.

But if true, Phyllis Schafly was an incredible woman. She lead a campaign not just to effect change in the political sphere, but also to protect the heart of American society. That’s fantastic work, and something few people could understand the importance of, I think. In part because we all spend so much of our time working, or trying to recover from work. We spend so much time pedaling a mouse wheel, we have little time to reflect and think of our world and effect change in it, real lasting change. Survival both socially and materially are important, but so is the inidivudal legacy. The mark we make on the world, that makes it a better or worse place. This woman left the world better than she found it. Again, assuming the article is true. Equally incredible, this woman lived to the ripe old age of 92, and made it to the year 2016. So she was born in 1924! Her parents may have been part of the generation (or at least her grandparents) that enjoyed a classical education. For more on that, see here.

Another excellent point he makes: Women in modern society, how unhappy they are, specifically in the years since the second wave of the feminist movement. And of course, because the point of the movement was not to liberate women, but to weaken them, and drive a wedge between them and men, and ultimately weaken society so it is easier to dominate and control. Such a slow process. I have to give credit to the banksters and propagandists and other tricksters and cowards for being so dedicated, so disciplined, and so effective.

I may start following this blog, because of this article. Now to my criticisms. We can certainly coexist, although I believe a certain strength and brutality of character is needed. Let me be clear on the context for this brutality. We must be clear about who and what we are dealing with. Ideas are very much enemies in this time, maybe in all times. And the way one deals with their enemies must always end with either they themselves avoiding them, defeating them, or their enemies withdrawing, defeated or destroyed. So the thing that needs to happen here is no different. These ideas are our enemies, not necessarily the people wielding them. We’ve got to be brutal as we attack the ideas and destroy them or get the people wielding them to withdraw, otherwise we’re not upholding our values. Maybe this is not for everyone. There are ways of handling conflict, one way is to engage it directly and speak out against it, one way is to avoid it, and I’m sure others exist. This is another good topic.

For those in our community, we can shame, ridicule, gently tease, or outright shun to let people know their ideas are not welcome. If we’re not doing this, we’re not properly defending our community. Ideas can work like viruses and can destroy the fabric of one’s mind, one’s relationships, one’s community, society, etc. This is what we’re facing in the world today. People apparently didn’t know or didn’t care and did little to contain and defeat the bad ideas that are now shouted in the media from all directions. But I like avoiding. I support GTFO, women not sleeping with men who follow bad ideas, and likewise with men not sleeping with women who follow bad ideas, instead shunning them and shaming them for having stupid notions about the world, or about people, or about life. This SJW xyz-shaming nonsense is nonsense. Virtue signaling is a good call out for people who try to call someone out for [insert issue here]-shaming, like slut shaming, or some other type of shaming. Nothing wrong with pointing out shaming, however, when the shaming is done nonsensically. An example of this is free will shaming. People shaming other people for not listening to the authorities and trusting their own judgement. This is stupid and needs to be called out.

Society would be stronger if people just started doing this with confidence. In a free society, people associate voluntarily. The current society has forgotten what it means to associate with people in your own community. Like attracts like. Perhaps opposites attract on some level, but ‘birds of a feather,’ and you can judge people ‘by the company that they keep,’ are useful phrases here, because in the current system, people are forced into a ‘melting pot,’ beginning at schools, and continuing with shopping in public, standing in lines, waiting in traffic, using public transportation, which by the way is going to be an incredible cluster after the “new normal” finishes working its way through those wonderful (dismal, retarded, commie) cities with well developed public transport systems (not including taxis and ridesharing…mainly buses, trains/subways). Holy hell, I’d love to see how they plan to implement the social distancing b.s. with regards to that situation.

This isn’t 100% true, you still see people associate with their own people in community and racial and sometimes various social groups. But the attitude for a lot of people is we’re all just people and we just move in and out of relationships and there aren’t any groups and we’re all ‘the same,’ whatever that means. So “who are we to judge each other?” And so on. Judging others is rational and healthy and another thing missing. Shaming, teasing, judging, shunning, and calling people out are all things that absolutely need to be done in the current situation and in past and present as well. This is how individual people defend themselves from destructive ideas on a social level. This defense is necessary to preserve or restore any community to a healthy, functioning one, and is frankly the only way I can see healthy people coexisting with SJWs. Hopefully with enough encounters with appropriate negative feedback behaviors, they’d look into their ideas more and change them. If not, they would find their own clan and associate with it. I need to add ignoring as well. Ignoring bad ideas followed by avoiding the ideaholders is a great way to deal with this issue also.  In all cases, bad ideas bring negative outcomes, which is why they deserve negative reinforcement.  Don’t get me wrong, you should hear someone out, until you understand them.  Keep an open mind.  But once you understand them, you are not obligated to agree, coddle, sugarcoat, tolerate, or whatever you’d do with some outsider that you’re stuck with in a work situation or other such temporary brief encounter you just want to get through so you can move on with your day.  We’ve all had those.  Inside your community, be it your school or your church or sports team or friend group or work or wherever… you have to decide for yourself what your community is.  Inside that zone, stand up for your values, again, even if only by ignoring and shunning.  Something that overlaps well here (and is another good topic) is the difference between non-assertive versus assertive behavior.  Most of the interactions we have might be (if we’re workers or school attendees) some form of (quasi) forced association, anyway.  With regards to that, there’s no shame in not being assertive.  Without it every person’s community is doomed to more of the same, slow erosion and destruction by the vultures and hyenas and useful idiots that mindless zombie representatives of a political agenda are.