Amerika

Social justice: a psychological defensive impulse

psychological_defensiveness

It is well-known that one cannot “teach” anything to a social justice worker, or “SJW.” These people organize on the internet at night to attack those they feel are on the wrong side of history. Like a cult, SJW works as a circular confirmation of reason: any challenge is seen as an enemy, and “therefore,” it affirms the truth of what is arrayed against it. They believe they are as righteous as the holiest holy man, as altruistic as Mother Theresa, and as solidly-grounded in reality as the most astute scientist. And yet, at heart, they are a lynch mob which delights in tearing down those more successful than it and then justifying those acts with far-Left ideology.

Liberal (Leftist) thinking has always been debilitating to insight, and despite many analyses on the topic, seems immune to criticism which might provoke introspective. Its inherently defensive, passive-aggressive outlook creates confirmation bias every time it is challenged. This causes me to query as to its origins as a psychology. The Liberal Mind is a book written by the psychiatrist Lyle Rossiter describing how liberal thinking is a nurtured condition, meaning that it starts with psychological instability and becomes a pathology through the hands of others, just like neurosis can be conditioned into obsessive-compulsive purchasing by the right television advertising.

Following up on that, Just Business, Not Personal is another book written by the now deceased psychiatrist Howard F Stein describing how organizations adopt the personalities of their owners and officers. Again a sort of nurtured effect: people in groups are influenced by the culture of that group, but the culture is changed by how people behave and the reasoning they give — even if excuses and justifications — for their actions. How the Mighty Fall by Jim Collins shows the end-effect of liberal nurture in that only approximately 11 out of 20,000 listed companies are assessed as “Great” as opposed to merely “Good.” He does not use the term conservative or liberal, but its quite clear once you look at the empirical failure conditions he condensed (over 10 years) for us mere mortals. The culture of companies reflects the individuals in them, and most are mediocre, with some rising barely above to be good enough to succeed — but not Great.

In the recent economic recession, only one hedge fund seemed to be actually hedging against loss, Universa Investments L.P. This follows from the idea that most companies are in fact nowhere near as competent as they estimate themselves to be, perhaps because something in the general audience of workers conditions them — “nurtures” them — into being mediocre.

So, how does this happen — I mean — where did this nurture thing kick in?

From my limited exposure I am certain that children aged 4-5 start the reasoning process with their parents. Once the child attains the ability to communicate, logic and realism is embedded into them through feedback with parents, others and the world. The parents, in this time-frame, “teach” the kid to do things like cycling or eating properly, the reason one stands up and walk, or sit and eat or laying flat to sleep, as part of explaining why there are roads, or chairs, or beds. The liberalized kid does not learn this. For him/her it is not logic to sit and eat; it is a “moral right” because the parents sit and eat — therefore he/she can also do it. He/she does not cycle down the road because its faster and effective, but because the “other” kids are doing it, so the liberalized child assumes it has the “moral right” to the same. If you look at collective societies, this is where they go wrong.

This juncture is also where the notion of “equality” starts and this is also where it should be killed with pure simple bi-lateral reasoning. Studies by the South African Research Council (CSIR) into criminal behavioral solutions pointed this out as well. I also have the input (based on a book by John T. Malloy) that engineers become creative if they had this — and he actually calls it conservative — experience at that tender age.

However, we all know that not having both parents is problematic. Psychologists also identify “developmental psychology where children growing up cannot “take it” and become traumatized. These trauma can also lead to defensive behavior that can be passed to next generations and so, I would like to posit that this particular strain of defensivity results in SJW action. The reason can be condensed by saying SJWs are anti-realistic not because they are not logical, but because they reference moral rights in a universal context as if still under the care of their parents.

It’s like looking into your own shiny glasses, instead of looking through them. It’s logical to look through glasses, while its morally your right to have glasses because others have those shiny ones too. This goes even further than looking at the glasses. The affected person will continuously in his/her own mind play his/her anticipatory game of who to coattail, or what future moral benefit to gain, instead of achieving simple situational awareness.

In other words, what reasonable people will grasp in seconds, the defensive SJW person will first play in his/her simulacrum head-game overnight, still never actually getting it. They do not exist in reality but in a world composed of moral judgments and based in feelings, lost in a pathology of competition with the parents who failed them. The parents created a culture that nurtured this outlook, and the children carry it on, patient zeroes of a force that will erode the civilization around them and plunge it into eternal darkness.

Tags: , , ,

|
Share on FacebookShare on RedditTweet about this on TwitterShare on LinkedIn

Recommended Reading