top of page

A cause I care a lot about is social justice

Thursday 5/23/24

One of the core canards of the fake-ass, Woke, narcissistic, hypocritical social media internet age is that someone who is almost always assured to be a horrible person, lacking entirely in courage, integrity, and self-awareness would, if they could go back in time, or were made to, be a heroic leader of humans who stood apart from the crowd--and against all societal groups, if required--and took on all manner of scorn, abuse, loss of earning power, because of their principles and unwavering sense of decency and duty and protean courage.

What is more absurd than this idea that someone who can stand up against nothing without knowing that they are one of many millions, would be the one person calling out everyone else?

Such people are always with and in favor of the group and the protection of the group, and what they answer to, without fail, is that which portrays them in the best light (to simpletons enacting the same charade). They have no actual interest whatsoever in what is just and equitable, and they would never make a sacrifice for anything they believed in, because really all they're invested in is how they appear--that being the key word--to others.

This idea of retconned heroism is amusing, because it also presupposes that prior to this recent period in the person's life, there wasn't any worthy cause requiring them to go against large groups at personal risk and/or cost, or else they would have. They're fifty now, but there just wasn't anything that required their guiding example at thirty-five, because they would have been leading the way. Just like it they existed in 1924, they would have held those who warranted it accountable.

For example: Every single person who reads this journal knows what I'm saying about publishing to be true, including the people about whom I'm saying it. Completely accurate. You think Sigrid Rausing doesn't know? David Remnick? Of course they do. But as of yet, there is no one else in the world standing up for what I'm standing up for. Yes, certain things about me make that more doable. The ability, the track record, the knowledge, all of the things that this journal is. A clean bill of moral health. I've not Lorin Stein-ed anyone. I am the proof of what I'm saying incarnate. Me, and also the juxtaposition with them. But it's not like anyone thinks, "Well that's as wrong as can be what he's saying." It'd be out there. And there isn't a single cricket making a single sound, because everyone knows what this guy is saying is as accurate as can be. He has opened up the purest vein of truth. There are certainly people, on their own, apart from me, who have been victims of an evil system and have no chance within it. And there are certainly people, apart from me, knowing this system to be evil. How come we see no evidence of anyone else standing up? Later, people will attach their voices to my cause. When they think nothing could be safer than to do so. But that's how that will work.

The kind of person who wishes you to believe that if they were alive before they were born they'd be this crusader no matter what is the last sort of person who would show courage and be a leader and let their dissenting voice ring out. They'd be trying to curry the greatest amount of favor, which comes down to evaluating what they need to adopt--in terms of speech and pretend-belief--in order to appear a certain way in the eyes of others.

These people aren't fooling themselves. They're not thinking in terms of what they believe or don't believe. They are pursuing a sensation. It's about a feeling.

Remember Pac-Man? In the game, he eats one of the pellets on the sides, and those ghosts start flashing and Pac-Man is crazed. He's cognitively tapped out. He's just all about eating those ghosts.

That's how most people are with "social justice." They're in it for them. No one else but them. Cognitively tapped out. Morally tapped out. Eat eat eat eat eat eat eat. Time to feed.

On the Facebook dating app, there's a prompt that says, "A cause I care a lot about is..."

If someone says "breast cancer awareness," you know they've had someone in their life who suffered from the disease. That's how it is with things that are legitimate, thought-about--however-limitedly answers. It pretty much has to be personal. People don't go outside of their own experiences. That takes empathy. Very few have any. Empathy, as we've seen, requires effort and imagination.

You know what many women will answer?

"Social justice."

A cause I care a lot about justice.

A cause I care a lot about are causes.

It's practically the same, yes?

That's how vapid and insincere people are.

Maybe you went to church as a kid. You were bored. Your parents might have wanted you to participate, though, because your confirmation or something was coming up. The priest said his thing, which you weren't listening to, certainly weren't thinking about, and you said the same answering refrain that everyone else said.

That's how it often works right now.

Yes, there are exceptions. Some people do care about other people, but most people just care about themselves, and now we have this huge group of people who try to get others to care about them by pretending to care about values and principles regarding which they could not care less.

They certainly would never risk anything. They wouldn't risk not being able to go to Whole Foods that week and have to put it off to the next, let alone anything of consequence or even of however small a personal risk. Not so much as the risk of a single feeling.


Commenting has been turned off.
bottom of page