the archaeology of 'SJW'

[sologdin]

time to stir the pot.  the objective of the infamous protocols of the learned elders of zion is to articulate and protect a far right pro-aristocrat, pro-monarchist, pro-theocrat position, primarily by associating liberal capitalism, socialism, cosmopolitanism, secularism, modernity, taxation, commerce, banking, &c. with coarse anti-semitic stereotypes and thereby attempting to damage anything to the left of absolutism by conflation with judaism and relying on the precession of its assumed audience's prejudices.

the twelfth protocol specifically complains that progressive doctrine 

Quote

has introduced the conception of every kind of emancipation, but has failed to establish its limits…All the so-called liberals and anarchists, if not in fact, at any rate in thought. Every one of them is hunting after phantoms of freedom, and falling exclusively into license, that is, into the anarchy of protest for the sake of protest.

other protocols share with illiberals such as ayn rand and freds hayek the silly proposition that progressives create false rights via republican governance.  this therefore is the lineage of invective against so-called 'social justice warriors,' no?  it is essentially a rightwing quietist slur  seeking to discourage egalitarian activism that might invade the claims of aristocracy, or power, or privilege, or property, or whatever.  

how's that feel, anti-SJWs, to realize that y'all's ideological archaeology unearths a corpse fabricated by tsarism in order to hold back the modern world?

[DireWolfSpirit]

Yep it's a complete fabrication that is still spewed by the right wing as if it was nonfiction.

 

The Protocols of the Elders of Zion or The Protocols of the Meetings of the Learned Elders of Zion is an antisemitic fabricated text purporting to describe a Jewish plan for global domination. The forgery was first published in Russia in 1903, translated into multiple languages, and disseminated internationally in the early part of the 20th century. According to the claims made by some of its publishers, the Protocols are the minutes of a late 19th-century meeting where Jewish leaders discussed their goal of global Jewish hegemony by subverting the morals of Gentiles, and by controlling the press and the world's economies.

Henry Ford funded printing of 500,000 copies that were distributed throughout the US in the 1920s. Adolf Hitler was a major proponent. It was studied, as if factual, in German classrooms after the Nazis came to power in 1933,^[1] despite having been exposed as fraudulent by The Times of London in 1921. It is still widely available today in numerous languages, in print and on the Internet, and continues to be presented by some proponents as a genuine document.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

DWS,

Who among the "right-wing" seriously cites the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion" as though it's not complete and utter crap?

[DireWolfSpirit]

1 hour ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

DWS,

Who among the "right-wing" seriously cites the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion" as though it's not complete and utter crap?

Ser Scott my exposure to that tactic has been on other forums (i'm not publicizing them) and it is quite disturbing. It's vociferous, likely organized and can only be described as a campaign of hate speech. All the cases where i've seen the Protocols presented as real have been from posters and profiles who support right wing agendas. I've never seen a liberal or Socialist claim the Protocals were a non fabrication.

[Dinsdale!]

3 hours ago, sologdin said:

progressives create false rights via republican governance

What do you mean by that? I'm unfamiliar with the argument... or perhaps just with this particular descriptor for

 

3 hours ago, sologdin said:

articulate and protect a far right pro-aristocrat, pro-monarchist, pro-theocrat position, primarily by associating liberal capitalism, socialism, cosmopolitanism, secularism, modernity, taxation, commerce, banking

 My impression is that the neo-reactionaries (anti-SJW) are neither theocratic nor anti-capitalist. Or even anti-taxation. They pine for a world in which (Google CEO) Eric Schmidt is literally the emperor of America. Or perhaps just the principality of the San Francisco Bay.

The whole phenomenon is rather strange to me. Essentially they view progressivism as an evil mental virus, and therefore we must turn back the clock. But they basically want to turn back the clock to Hobbes. And as Corey Robin pointed out in the Jacobin, Hobbes provides an early basis for rejecting a government as illegitimate, if it fails to provide uniform justice... seeds of progressive thought. Now I'm just venting - you would too, if a friend had talked you into reading one of Curtis Yarvin's interminable articles.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Never is a very long time and all is a very large number.  I don't doubt your sincerity but I'd be shocked if every "believer" in the "Protocols" was "right-wing".

 

[The guy from the Vale]

Scot,

Considering the "Protocols" paint liberalism and socialism as evil Jewish cabals, I don't think they're in any way appealing to left-wingers or moderates from the start. There may be some obscure believers in that sham, but the only people I've ever met who took that rag in any way seriously were either right-wing extremist anti-semites or salafist extremist anti-semites. They may hate each other's guts, but they are willing to agree that Jews, liberals and socialists are the worst.

[The Marquis de Leech]

14 minutes ago, Dinsdale! said:

The whole phenomenon is rather strange to me. Essentially they view progressivism as an evil mental virus, and therefore we must turn back the clock. But they basically want to turn back the clock to Hobbes. And as Corey Robin pointed out in the Jacobin, Hobbes provides an early basis for rejecting a government as illegitimate, if it fails to provide uniform justice... seeds of progressive thought. Now I'm just venting - you would too, if a friend had talked you into reading one of Curtis Yarvin's interminable articles.

The sort of world envisaged isn't so much Hobbes (who, after all, doesn't care if a regime is secular or not, so long as they can enforce order and stability), but rather the forgotten third father of Western Conservatism (in addition to Hobbes and Burke):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_de_Maistre

[Martell Spy]

So, is there any connection between the Protocols and the various conservative conspiracy theories involving the United Nations?

[James Arryn]

16 minutes ago, Martell Spy said:

So, is there any connection between the Protocols and the various conservative conspiracy theories involving the United Nations?

That way lies madness: Rousseau, even.

But in the same way that adolescent need for identity often manifests itself as a negation of parental mores, Conservatism's true parent is Liberalism. But for the fear of that, not this, IOW.

I contend that all fear based ideologies are therefore irrational, however much reasoned superstructure has since been built thereupon. Z.O.G. et al is just another Xeno/Other which serves to blame/fear/motivate. There is something wonderful about the post-diaspora maintenance of cultural identity, and it's understandable though sad that fearful people interpret that through a sinister...ha!...lens darkly.

[Dinsdale!]

2 hours ago, Roose Boltons Pet Leech said:

The sort of world envisaged isn't so much Hobbes (who, after all, doesn't care if a regime is secular or not, so long as they can enforce order and stability), but rather the forgotten third father of Western Conservatism (in addition to Hobbes and Burke):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_de_Maistre

So if the neo-reactionaries win, we have an establishment of religion? If so, what is the religion?

[Darzin]

Quote

So if the neo-reactionaries win, we have an establishment of religion? If so, what is the religion?

Well that would be what the purges are over...

Though a lot them don't seem very religious, but support it for it's "social control" aspect.   

 

[James Arryn]

Yeah, the spirituality is less important than the orthodoxy.

[Shryke]

On 2/21/2016 at 8:11 PM, Dinsdale! said:

What do you mean by that? I'm unfamiliar with the argument... or perhaps just with this particular descriptor for

 

 My impression is that the neo-reactionaries (anti-SJW) are neither theocratic nor anti-capitalist. Or even anti-taxation. They pine for a world in which (Google CEO) Eric Schmidt is literally the emperor of America. Or perhaps just the principality of the San Francisco Bay.

The whole phenomenon is rather strange to me. Essentially they view progressivism as an evil mental virus, and therefore we must turn back the clock. But they basically want to turn back the clock to Hobbes. And as Corey Robin pointed out in the Jacobin, Hobbes provides an early basis for rejecting a government as illegitimate, if it fails to provide uniform justice... seeds of progressive thought. Now I'm just venting - you would too, if a friend had talked you into reading one of Curtis Yarvin's interminable articles.

This misses sologdin's point entirely.

He's not asserting they are theocratic or whatever, he's asserting they are out to "discourage egalitarian activism that might invade the claims of aristocracy, or power, or privilege, or property, or whatever". With the really salient bit here highlighted.

His assertion is that anti-SJW folk are seeking to discourage activism towards equality in order to preserve their own place within the existing hierarchy.

Their rants against political correctness and people pointing out sexism and racism and all that sort of stuff is because they perceive those criticisms as an attack on their own position and beliefs and self.

[Lord Mord]

I had always thought that was largely assumed, in practice if not always explicitly in theory.

[Dinsdale!]

2 hours ago, Shryke said:

This misses sologdin's point entirely.

He's not asserting they are theocratic or whatever, he's asserting they are out to "discourage egalitarian activism that might invade the claims of aristocracy, or power, or privilege, or property, or whatever". With the really salient bit here highlighted.

His assertion is that anti-SJW folk are seeking to discourage activism towards equality in order to preserve their own place within the existing hierarchy.

Their rants against political correctness and people pointing out sexism and racism and all that sort of stuff is because they perceive those criticisms as an attack on their own position and beliefs and self.

Yes, I understood that part of his post. Which is why I didn't comment on it. And yes, I think Solo captured the ressentiment of the anti-SJW crowd well, as do you. 

I WAS disdaining a bit the grenade he threw to start the thread. And fishing for neo-reactionaries - I am recently aware of them and trying to sort out how they differ from the rest of their tribe.  

 

[The Marquis de Leech]

On 21/02/2016 at 4:52 PM, Dinsdale! said:

So if the neo-reactionaries win, we have an establishment of religion? If so, what is the religion?

Perhaps not religion per se, but certainly an oppressive irrationality. Neither Hobbes nor Burke can really constitute an enemy of rational thought - de Maistre certainly did, which is why I cited him.

[Ser_G]

Most people who identify as "anti-SJWs" (I prefer "SQWs" - "Status Quo Warriors") would not identify with the association here.  The trick that most of that crowd manages to pull (mostly on themselves) is to convince themselves that they are not opposed to liberalism, equality, or most of the other things that the far-right elder-zion-spewers are fighting against.  They manage to convince themselves of this by finding a few token issues with which they identify as a "social liberal" and that don't really affect them, or do so positively (most often cited: religion, gay marriage, and marijuana legalization), even as they fight tooth and nail to oppose activism that *does* challenge their privilege.  This is the Brogressive in a nutshell, and the current SQW screechers are dense with Brogressives.

That's the point to the slur being "SJW" - which is co-opted from a phrase originally used by earnest pro-social-justice folks and which used to describe someone who used the language and base concepts of social justice to justify behavior that was primarily abusive; it was a term used to describe people like Benjanun Sriduangkaew (aka "Requires Hate") to differentiate them from positive activists.

Now, of course, it means "Anyone left of Stalin" (or, alternately, "To assholes, any non-asshole"), but the underpinnings of the term still hold sway in the people who use it unironically: "We're not opposed to social justice," they say (mostly to themselves), "we're against people who use the concept of social justice to be bullies."

And, of course, to the privileged, equality often looks like oppression.  So you convince them that the "SJW" is a creature opposed to actual social justice, that the left-ish components of their worldview make them the true progressives, and boom, you have a crowd of people (see: all of 4chan and 98% of Reddit) who make overtures toward left-libertarianism but whose actual political beliefs are shaped heavily by places like Brietbart.  Think of it as a minor and modified Southern Strategy.

[Dinsdale!]

5 hours ago, Roose Boltons Pet Leech said:

Perhaps not religion per se, but certainly an oppressive irrationality. Neither Hobbes nor Burke can really constitute an enemy of rational thought - de Maistre certainly did, which is why I cited him.

Ah, I see, so it requires and oppressive & irrational centralizing dogma, religion being one variation. The requirements is not so much for God but for Goebbels. 

[The Anti-Targ]

So SJW actually means Sympathy for JeWs?