A Practical Workshop On Group Dynamics: Expelling Social Justice Females And Beta Males

Alternative title: How To Be Patriarchal In An Unpatriarchal Society

This week is Social Justice Industrial Complex week at Social Matter.

The workshop here is a quick, get-your-hands-dirty introduction to socio-sexual group dynamics, but the main point is to provide concrete steps to understand and defend against the poison drip of group subversion. Moving forward, I’ll just take social justice to mean the lot of leftist flotsam: Marxism, feminism, environmentalism, progressivism, etc.

Users have sat on the sidelines mystified by the recent events of #GamerGate and the destruction of 4chan. For many of them, this represents their ‘red-pill’ moment, the moment which they’ll cite years later down the road as the beginning of their ideological shift.

Group engineers still are involved in shaping group dynamics. All eyes are on the development of a patch, a way to immunize groups from succumbing to infection.

This is part of the patch. It begins by postulating some fundamentals. Are these to be taken on faith? Not at all. A post could be dedicated to each point. But in this context, I’m working from a particular set of priors. The axioms should be plausible to anyone who’s taken pains to dissect #GamerGate:

-Males are disinterested in colonizing female spaces

-Females are very interested in colonizing high-value male spaces

-Colonization occurs for the purpose of status, validation, resources, and furthering of entryist ends, which are almost always leftist in nature

-Entryism works by outsiders adopting ingroup gang signs and Trojan horse tactics

-Once organizational priorities reach a breaking point, the dam bursts, and the hordes pour in. Rome is sacked, and what remains of Rome is no longer Rome but instead a dying, decaying, and diseased thede

-Conquest’s second law states that if an organization isn’t explicitly right-wing, it’ll drift leftwards

-Male groups are subverted and redirected to fem-centric goals/visions if women are present and not managed with an iron fist

-Never Enough: submit to one female demand as reasonable compromise will be met with further leftward drift

-The more masculine a group is, the more frenetic, shriek-y, and snarky the feminist rhetoric will be in response

-As far as ability goes, which is central to the functioning of a group, any given female is replaceable by a male as capable, if not more capable, with virtually no counterexamples. The opposite is not true

– The health of a thede (ingroup) is inversely correlated with the number of unmanaged women in the group

The latest vid from Rock The Vote is just another nail in the coffin of female participation in the political process, or in any other male-oriented activity. If I were to stare at the wall in a dark room brainstorming how to make female suffrage and participation look frightening, ridiculous, and infantile, it would have looked something like a fat, dancing Lena Dunham–without pants–encouraging the lumpenprole youth to vote, along with Lil John smoking a cartoonishly sized joint. Full stop. I concede that my video would not have been as good as Dunham’s. She has a real talent.

And what in the video do the youth say they’re voting for? That’d be prison reform (because prisons are mean!), reproductive rights, women’s rights, human rights, global warming awareness, etc. Those were the women. The males in the video uniformly participate in the female form, insofar as they exhibit low T and other female-centric physical and psychological characteristics. The ‘males’ wanted to vote for education, marriage equality, racial equality, and an end to deforestation.

Capital-M Male groups are different from female groups. Female groups are of little civilizational import and are largely inconsequential. There are virtually no groups in existence which are maintained purely by female resources and female members, with the exception of some sororities. In comparison, this is standard fare and expected operation for male-dominated groups.

So, females naturally attempt hierarchy-gaming/subversion strategies instead of resource acquisition. Females cannot compete in terms of resource acquisition on their own merits, so they rationally switch to a strategy in which they have a distinct advantage. Females are socially attuned and socially clever, so it’s unsurprising to see unilateral attempts to direct male resources to furnish them and/or their groups and ideas.

Females employ parasitical strategies, in order to attach themselves to healthy hosts and drain them of resources and validation. If the parasitical strategy is ultimately successful, the group will be nothing more than a shell of what it once was. Volumes of history could be dedicated to the decline and fall of extraordinary, male-dominated associations in the 20th century.

Unlike parasites, however, females don’t seem to consider the connection between their life-sucking activities and the health of the group. A parasite moderates consumption. Females often do not, and so they often push so hard that the organization simply collapses, at which point, they mosey on over to the next organization. There are millions of orgs out there. Gaping holes are there to be exploited by opportunistic females with moderately high verbal intelligence or attractive physical traits.

In fields where a high IQ is required, females will congregate in the outlying concentric circles, since g effectively prohibits entrance—that is, unless standards are lowered to accommodate them. So instead of game developers, they’ll be game/developer evangelists, they’ll be project managers, they’ll be in HR, they’ll be game reviewers and journalists. They’ll explore the gaming culture using critical theory, expose misogyny and incorrect stereotypes and promote a healthy understanding of masculinity.

If you don’t believe in entryism, look at the 2014 MacArthur genius grants, and look at the awards from, say, 1981. The MacArthur Foundation is dead, but it never really lived. It is not the paragon, but it illustrates that descent from dead to deader is possible.

Even in 1981, it was pwned, giving the genius grant to Stephen Jay Gould. But still, that same year, a grant was handed out to Stephen Wolfram. Female clergy don’t care if the church they took over in the name of LGBT rights goes under. There are plenty of churches out there, after all, and this one might look really, really pretty as a condo development with an in-house hair stylist and masseuse.

Sometimes females play United Front, which is an old school Leninist strategy. The objective of United Front is to identify groups to infiltrate, proclaim a common enemy, join forces, and subvert the groups, all the while “fighting” an external enemy. For the Bolsheviks in 1935, who were desperately afraid of German military might, the United Front was fascism. And so Russia joined the soon-to-be-defunct League of Nations. Communists and noncommunists must unite under the banner of collective security to fight off the fascist menace, they declared. This tactic had the additional side-benefit of bolstering the Soviet fatherland on an international level, and operated through pwned institutions like the American Youth Congress, American League Against War and Fascism, and the National Negro Congress. Note the spamming of legitimate-sounding organizations.

The battlefield is the school boards, non-profit institutions, Bible studies, forums, imageboards, churches, and governments. Anti-communist literature and propaganda apply to social justice warrior infiltration.

Replace Socialism With Progressivism:

“I can prophesy that your grandchildren in America will live under progressivism. And please do not be afraid of that. Your grandchildren will…not understand how their grandparents did not understand the progressive nature of a progressive society.” – Nikita Khurschev, Soviet Communist Party boss, in June 1957.

Replace Communism With Social Justice

“The Social Justice Warriors claim they are working for a “better world,”…To fight for Social Justice, they say, is to become part of the most sacred crusade in the history of man. Many well-meaning citizens, attracted by these words and not seeing behind Social Justice intentions, have been swept into the Social Justice thought-control net.” – J. Edgar Hoover, Masters of Deceit, p. 93

Who are the major players? We understand there are female entryists, but not all female entryists are alike, and not all male facilitators are the same, either. I’ll borrow the divisions suggested by J. Edgar Hoover and update how they’re fleshed out:

  1. Open Party Members

Once subsumed by Social Justice, these individuals dedicate their lives wholesale to the cause, contributing resources, time, money, expertise, anything, everything, at great personal cost—just to see SJ advance one step further. These are the students who take 7 years to complete a Bachelor’s Degree because they see domination and entrenchment of the ideology in the university’s student union as a small, but worthy objective. They openly and proudly proclaim that they are feminists, socialists, radicals, environmentalists, etc. Everything for Social Justice. Every small victory that takes an inordinate amount of investment is another step closer to victory. Rightists fall victim to this strategy on the aggregate because instead of fighting and dying on every hill, they’d rather busy themselves with work, family, friends, church, and so on. Politicization is not even in a Rightist’s vocabulary. Open Party Members, on the other hand, run front groups, open and explicit groups, and direct outrage. This Social Justice outrage is most useful when kept up at a frantic pace.

  1. Concealed Party Members

Affiliation isn’t publicly known. This category is less clear in here and now, since Social Justice is so accepted in so many ingroups, that there are very few groups left where Social Justice Party members have to conceal their identities. This may occur in some unreconstructed churches, or areas dominated by the masculine essence. SJWers are usually too haughty and proud and narcissistic to hide their identities. Indeed, it’s part of their pathology that they use every possible social encounter to loudly broadcast their feelings, in the expectation that their signal carries the power to induce conformism. In this sense, they are reverse-communists. There are almost no crypto-SJWers.

  1. Fellow Travelers

Assent to feminism, Progress, Social Justice, and whatever form leftism contingently cloaks itself in. This is the Social Justice Warrior who will retweet, like, share, and occasionally donate to preordained causes, though she views it as someone else’s job to man the ramparts. Not very familiar with the deep doctrines of SJ. Perhaps took one or two classes on feminism and signals allegiance. Not usually willing to invest in formal institutions for any length of time. FTers switch between fervency—based on the latest Emma Watson speech—and lengthy periods of time where nothing is done at all. Hot, cold, hot, cold. The best place for FTers is in front groups, where they constitute an innocent and endearing force for the Party. The front group is viewed as an independent organization, and if by chance the FTer gains status in a group, the SJW puppet masters dictate the next moves. FTers are supposedly neutral voices in the public arena, who cry out for SJW, but not in so many words.

  1. Opportunists

These folks support the SJW Party when it’s personally beneficial: for status, to be ‘left alone,’ for profit, for some kind of ROI. From the Rightist point of view, unless there are very clear reasons for signalling SJW, opportunists must have targets promptly placed on their backs. Collaboration for personal gain at the expense of the overall group or organism must be dealt with swiftly and brutally.

  1. Dupes

Mostly filled with regular, run-of-the-mill conservatives who pitifully play the ‘Truer Scotsman Than You’ gambit—e.g. “Conservatism is more anti-racist than liberalism,” and “Conservatives are the real feminists.” Dupes agree with ‘First Wave Feminism’ and are unwitting pawns. Although it is unlikely that they can be mobilized in service of more radical ideology, Dupes guard the rear formation, so that FTers, CPMers, and OPMers can push forward into enemy territory. Dupes consolidate gains. Dupes do the work of the Party, but are unaware they’ve been pwned.

SJW propaganda is meant to attract non-SJWers with promises of “freedom,” “equality,” “love,” “no hate,” “peace,” “justice,” “progress,” “tolerance,” etc. How these terms are instantiated and operationalized through semantic perversion occurs later. Or implicitly. This is known as Double Talk. Identify front groups. Do not support them. Alert your fellows and either avoid strenuously or launch an assault.

Now that we have an idea of how to understand socio-sexual dynamics, I want to make sure to cover the countermeasures, the defensive tactics.

What is to be done?

I occasionally participate in a group which discusses philosophical theology and exegesis, but also includes the personal element; it’s a small Junto. For personal improvement and development. Very constructive. Pro-social. The group is exclusively male, and we have reaffirmed and made explicit that no women are allowed. Not once. Not ever.

A single woman fundamentally alters the dynamics of a group and more often than not for the worse, perverting the structure irrevocably. In the case of the group I attend, a woman would likely complain in private that it’s too intellectual. Or enough time to talk about ourselves and our struggles. Suddenly, she doesn’t want to be alone, and she wants a friend to accompany her. Standards of politeness are for elsewhere, not for a male-oriented group with a clear purpose and with clear aims. Standards of political correctness are anathema. If you find yourself running a diagnostic program on your thought processes before you speak to make sure that you won’t upset the females in the group, consider that you have been pwned.

Capture the flag or exit the game. There is no hope for group neutrality. Social Justice does not play fair. Left and right are proxies for distinct psychological groupings, but the left is ultimately a corrosive force which escalates its demands through total slavery to a holier-than-thou mechanism.

Gnon favors exclusion over assimilation. The dangers of assimilation are too great and are often solely for the benefit of one or a few who facilitate female entryism for validation. Women enter through men. Women are replaceable, and women aren’t desirable as warm bodies in the group for their own sake. The louder the entryists are baying at the gates, the more you need to shore up the walls.

Will women sometimes slip in online? Sure. But make the bar for fem-anon entrance high. Make the environment toxic for fem-centric points of view. Determine the weak points of the group. Where might women attempt to enter? Take 4chan, for instance. Even announcing themselves as fem-anons instead of anons screams for the men to take notice and consciously or unconsciously treat them specially.

Not All Women Are Like That. If male frames are strong enough, and the females have contributions to make, entrance is permissible in some male groups. If she turns out to be a rotten egg, count it as a security breach. Assess what assets she had access to. Clean it up. If she entered the group via a man, he should be reprimanded and lose status points. Reassess entrance procedures. Reflect on what the warning signs were, if any. If the banning process was both crucial and difficult, soberly consider an explicit rule which forbids female membership entirely. Take the time to look at the dynamics of internal resistance. Who resisted? Why? What were her connections to the resisters? What is the relationship between the resisters and the entryist?

If she explicitly self-identifies as a leftist of any kind, she should be refused entrance. This includes Marxism, environmentalism, progressivism, liberalism, feminism, etc. Now, likely, it will be the case that other members of the group are Dupes and unaware of the significance of leftward drift and the SJW struggle for supremacy. If you can’t discuss socio-sexual dynamics in plain language with others in the group, then since the most immediate and pressing end goal is explusion, find another ‘legitimate’ reason to provide cover. A conflict of interest. Anything will do.

Males who cede ground to females and facilitate entryism should be strongly reprimanded for their weakness by the rest of the group, and especially by the leadership. These males clearly were more interested in personal validation and/or sex at the expense of the health of the organism—the common good. For this, they should be reprimanded if not removed for a period of time—removed permanently, if necessary.

Take the example of 4chan. Moot attended a feminist conference. Moot’s girlfriend works at Gawker. Having a significant other dedicated to spreading cancerous memes signals more than enough about personal priorities. In any healthy organization, Moot would have to be removed post-haste. This sounds extraordinary to some, but it’s likely that they’ve forgotten what healthy even looks like. So how would they know the organism is sick?

And if the concept of the common good is not present as a diagnostic and normative tool for prevention, it is almost impossible to defend against entryism. I can’t stress how important this is. Females will employ individual rights rhetoric, like free speech, as a siren call for the organism to come closer and lower its defenses. If the concept of the common good is not present, then trying to remove a malignant tumor not only violates the rights of the tumor, but the move comes at extreme cost to the remover. Whistleblowers of entryism should be validated for prioritizing the whole over the part, not disparaged, and validation is difficult without an active agreement that the common good is not just the sum of individual groups, but instead represents the health of the overall organism and the achievement of group outcomes that are not discretely reducible to individuals.

A useless tactic is one that runs contrary to instinctual drives. Men en masse will probably not invade female spaces as a countermeasure. The MRAs might try, but nobody likes MRAs.

 

Apply the patch. Ultimately, the best defense of all is in initial group formation, in selection, rather than placing a bandage over an infected, gushing wound, as an after-the-fact-measure. That’s just too late.

Mainstream conservatives never have to answer these questions. Their job consists in eternally pointing out double standards. This works, meaning conservative writers have no incentive to push the conversation any further. They’ve already done the work of addicting the right-wing Vaisya crowd to hysterical coverage of the hysterical left.

Why ask the hard questions, why ask for solutions when you can rest on laurels and push buttons to increase the frequency and severity of right-wing frothing? No incentive for change, so no change.

Liked it? Take a second to support Social Matter on Patreon!
View All

6 Comments

  1. I got more new insights out of this one article than I have any other in a long time. This is a writer to keep an eye on.

  2. This is outstanding! Well-done, sir. But I have one relevant point I’d like to make if women are permitted to comment here. If you’d rather not have females commenting on this essay, I completely understand, and please just delete my comment.

    You write:

    Men en masse will probably not invade female spaces as a countermeasure.

    Yes, but there is one scenario that ought to be seriously considered by men who are trying to apply the patch you describe. You see, there are certain kinds of men who seem to prefer to put themselves under women’s leadership or who seem to want to hide behind women’s skirts, and their behavior is demoralizing to other men, who then also get into the bad habit of looking to women for leadership and passively waiting around for women to tell them what to do and when to do it.

    This is nothing new; consider Deborah and Barak:

    4 And the people of Israel again did what was evil in the sight of the Lord after Ehud died. 2 And the Lord sold them into the hand of Jabin king of Canaan, who reigned in Hazor. The commander of his army was Sisera, who lived in Harosheth-hagoyim. 3 Then the people of Israel cried out to the Lord for help, for he had 900 chariots of iron and he oppressed the people of Israel cruelly for twenty years.

    4 Now Deborah, a prophetess, the wife of Lappidoth, was judging Israel at that time. 5 She used to sit under the palm of Deborah between Ramah and Bethel in the hill country of Ephraim, and the people of Israel came up to her for judgment. 6 She sent and summoned Barak the son of Abinoam from Kedesh-naphtali and said to him, “Has not the Lord, the God of Israel, commanded you, ‘Go, gather your men at Mount Tabor, taking 10,000 from the people of Naphtali and the people of Zebulun. 7 And I will draw out Sisera, the general of Jabin’s army, to meet you by the river Kishon with his chariots and his troops, and I will give him into your hand’?” 8 Barak said to her, “If you will go with me, I will go, but if you will not go with me, I will not go.” 9 And she said, “I will surely go with you. Nevertheless, the road on which you are going will not lead to your glory, for the Lord will sell Sisera into the hand of a woman.” Then Deborah arose and went with Barak to Kedesh. 10 And Barak called out Zebulun and Naphtali to Kedesh. And 10,000 men went up at his heels, and Deborah went up with him.

    11 Now Heber the Kenite had separated from the Kenites, the descendants of Hobab the father-in-law of Moses, and had pitched his tent as far away as the oak in Zaanannim, which is near Kedesh.

    12 When Sisera was told that Barak the son of Abinoam had gone up to Mount Tabor, 13 Sisera called out all his chariots, 900 chariots of iron, and all the men who were with him, from Harosheth-hagoyim to the river Kishon. 14 And Deborah said to Barak, “Up! For this is the day in which the Lord has given Sisera into your hand. Does not the Lord go out before you?” So Barak went down from Mount Tabor with 10,000 men following him. (Judges 4:1-14)

    I have also seen this dynamic in the blogosphere. I knew a woman who had a blog that was focused on advising other women how to shed both their acquired feminism and their innate tendency to try to subvert male leadership. Quite a few men were pleased with her blog and contributed to the conversation in constructive ways, but after awhile I noticed there were other men who just wanted to sort of hide behind her skirts and suck their thumbs. They ought to have been spending their time more profitably on male blogs, but they didn’t want to be challenged…they just wanted a sympathetic ear to complain into and they wanted to be told that Mommy was going to make everything okay. Their behavior was revolting and demoralizing to normal men, and they continually pulled the conversation off track, back to their crying and complaining, whenever the blog mistress tried to engender supportive conversations among the women about how to be better submissive helpers of men rather than bossy leaders of men.

    Such men are destructive, even though as a woman I can’t help but feel sorry for them and want to comfort them, because they prevent women from admonishing and supporting one another AND they demoralize other men. As a woman, I have an EXTREMELY hard time speaking harshly to such men and telling them what they ought to hear – that they ought not to be hiding behind a woman or expecting her to lead them out of this crazy mess of a culture – which is why it is so critical for other men to deliver them a much needed verbal smack upside the head. I suspect these men also serve as entry points for female entryists.

    1. Appreciate the comment, SSM. Indeed, I think part of the explanation for men-behind-skirts phenomenon is that while these fellows may have assented to the manosphere intellectually, it hasn’t really sunk in on a deep psychological level. So in a sense they have less agency than natural alpha males because they can’t innately overcome the feminine paradigm which has come to dominate the public sphere. This suggests that in more ‘patriarchal times,’ they would’ve been free-riding on the other efforts of top-notch men who established masculine dominance of the public sphere, anyway. And like the good beta males they are, they just followed suit.

  3. I think SSM makes good points, in spite of her lack of Y-chromosome. A crucial aspect of guarding against malevolent entry is a strong ideal of the type of men (in theory persons) we want this organization to consist of. This is really the thinking behind the reactionary oath. It is not so much focused on an ideological or religious program as it is on what makes a good man, one who is trustworthy, largely independent of race or creed.

  4. SSM’s point is good enough to be a supplementary strategy to Hadley’s. Practice what Hadley preaches, AND drive the thumbsuckers to colonize female spaces. Clever readers can certainly think of some ways to bias that choice as part of the expulsion process.

    It’s a 3-fer. Preserve internal strength. Create an option of colonizing female spaces that didn’t really exist, because the presence of males does change female spaces. Then give those spaces weaklings who will offer some emotional charge while sapping effectiveness.

Comments are closed.