Apply Now: Terrorists, Rapists, And Jihadists Wanted

If you haven’t understood leftism as a dirty crackhouse of addicts giving each other dopamine hits for superior holiness yet, read this and you might. Check out the quote at the top of the article:

“Activism is the rent I pay for living on this planet.” – Alice Walker

This isn’t just a pithy quote. Progressives and leftists fully believe this with all their hearts. If somebody asked you, “What is the rent you pay for living on this planet?” you may, if not scolding them for wasting your time with philosophical mumbo-jumbo, reply with your actual financial rent, or reply that, if there is a philosophical, abstract rent that human beings pay to live on this planet, that rent consists of blood, sweat, tears, and lots of hard work.

How does this activist describe the life of an activist?

It’s long hours, empty bank accounts, angry girlfriends/boyfriends/spouses who are ready to leave you at any moment, family that doesn’t get it, making calls, receiving calls, logging contacts, selling a vision, rejection, empty promises, fulfilled promises, emails, press releases, signatures, counts, validation, databases, vendors, merchandise, rallies, public speaking, volunteers, supporters, haters, naysayers, politics, more politics, and people wishing you would just stop. Especially your doctor.

That sounds pretty awful. What kind of person would voluntarily choose to lose all their money, lose their spouse, lose their health, aggravate their family, and spend all their time dealing with politics? What is the gain for this massive cost?

According to the mainstream opinion, these people are righteous and holy for giving up everything for what they truly believe. They do it for nobody, least of all themselves – after all, look at everything they’re giving up! That these so-called activists become very well positioned – as a result of their activism – for high social status (and therefore easy money and easy sex) giving speeches, touring colleges, appearing on talk-shows, lecturing on social media, working for non-profits, writing articles, and advising politicians and companies on “diversity” is swept under the rug. That whole matrix of money flowing to leftists is for a just cause; therefore, its selflessness cannot be questioned.

You may think the writer is a little crazy for giving up everything for a left-wing ballot initiative. He’s not. He’s known his whole life, consciously or unconsciously, that the way to gaining power is holiness, specifically progressive, activist holiness. Power is worth infinitely more than mere money, mere family, mere time. The writer isn’t crazy; he is very sane–interpreted in a particular sense. What is crazy are the incentives that have been set up for gaining power. With sane powerless people and insane incentives, the incentives will win, and the sane and intelligent will take the insanity of the incentives to a whole new level for the sake of satisfying them.

More than 1 million illegal Middle Eastern and African migrants entered Germany in 2015, with the invitation of the German government. This year, hundreds of thousands have already arrived and a 1-2 million yearly migration from Asia and Africa into Germany is beginning to sound like the new normal. This migration is in contravention of EU and German law. It is opposed by majorities of people in Germany and in every country that has received any of these migrants. These migrants are unchecked, unvetted, uncontrolled and more than 13% of them completely disappear once in Germany, some 130,000 people.

As if the obvious danger of allowing millions of people, mostly young men, from countries that are smouldering craters or terrorist warzones wasn’t enough, these migrants have already been implicated in mass rapes, thefts, murders and unprecedented (for Europe) terrorism.

Sane observers, much like noticing how insane progressive activists are, will notice how insane the German government seems to be. Why import millions of useless and dangerous people every single year? Why take on these huge social and financial costs when Europe is already facing so many problems? Before the Migrant Crisis, Europe was facing a veritable Euro Crisis, a Greek Crisis, a youth unemployment crisis, and even an admitted integration crisis with legal non-European immigrants, and many other crises besides. All was not well in the Old World. Why would anybody willingly add this to a cluttered plate?

Sane observers of this crisis have been numerous, owing to its sheer preposterousness. They have made many sane points. If the German government wants to solve its demographic problem, why invite a group of migrants that are 80% male? They won’t be producing children. If the German government wants to solve economic problems, why invite Africans and Middle Easterners instead of Chinese and Vietnamese? Surely the Germans are aware that East Asians have a better reputation for productive work and education, and they are no less willing than West Asians to migrate to Europe, given the opportunity. If the German government simply thinks sheltering “refugees” is a humanitarian necessity, why not accept any refugees from the ongoing war in Ukraine?

If the government needed migrants to solve its problems, why did it wait until the migrants broke the border laws of eleven different countries to announce it? Why wasn’t the Merkel administration organizing mega-consulates in Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan to snatch up and legally fly all these migrants to Germany in 2012, 2013 or 2014? Lots of inconsistencies here.

Spandrell has had some theories on what’s going on in Germany. Frankly, I think the activist’s article from the top of this page provides a much better and more obvious explanation. Quite simply, arguing about the economic, humanitarian or demographic merits of the migrants is pointless because that assumes there is some reasonable entity in charge of Germany making reasoned decisions on what migrants to allow to enter Germany based on their relative merits weighed against each other in some kind of singular complex calculus. But that is wrong. There is nobody in charge of Germany, and the people making compartmentalized decisions about migration, multiculturalism and integration have absolutely no use for smart, intelligent, well-adjusted, economically productive and peaceful migrants.

The people working in public schools and universities, social agencies, left-wing political parties, federal ministries, humanitarian non-profits and the like actively want horrible migrants to arrive and stay in Germany. That the migrants are mostly male, unlikely to ever work a job, but very likely to commit a violent crime is not a negative for these people – it is an unambiguous positive, and they know it.

What could signal one’s belief in human rights, human equality, the power of government education and the true value of every human being more than importing 1 million of the people least likely to ever be re-educated or made valuable? And how else to gain power these days? With tens of thousands of at-risk jihadists in Germany every public school, university, social agency, left-wing party and non-profit is going to double in size, funding, and power. The more migrants, the more need for these people, and the more dysfunctional, the better – the more resources that will be necessary to sink and the more these people can skim off the top, and the more holiness they can proclaim and keep for themselves.

They might even get their face on the cover of TIME magazine. Sane solutions have been declared anti-democratic, racist, bigoted, xenophobic, hateful, anti-constitutional and evil a priori, so progressive solutions are the only ones allowed, even if they never work. In fact, the less they work the better – if they ever solved a problem, hundreds if not thousands of people would be out of an easy and high-status job.

The same logic is at play with the progressive white aid workers who get raped by violent and poor locals in Haiti and then come home and pen essays on how they still believe in human equality, aid work, education, and democracy. Of course they still do. It’s how they gain power. Getting raped and believing just proves that you are more of a true believer than any of those rubes who would give up the eternal ideals of human equality and democracy if the ideals led to some minor and unimportant cost like being raped. Until this point is widely grasped, there will be no end to the madness. They’re not doing it accidentally, or because they’re crazy, or because they’re uninformed. They are very well informed, and they understand the incentives, and they are applying all their intelligence, fervor and energy to the incentives – insane as they may be.

If it’s already been declared by those in power that social justice (human rights, equality, democracy, etc.) is the only and eternal good (and it has), then the only way to gain power is to demonstrate how much stuff you’re willing to give up in the name of social justice. You might see devout progressives giving up their daughters, or Intel giving up $300 million, or these Germans giving away their entire country, and you might think they’ve gone insane, and you might try to point out to them the utility of their daughters, money and countries. Unfortunately, the abstract utility of daughters, money and countries is only abstract compared to the very real and immediate utility of power-by-status-signalling, and the more stuff you give up the more power you get. Sane people might think there is a limit to the amount of stuff you can give up, but there really isn’t. Anything and everything can and will be sacrificed until somebody stops the signalling spiral.

Social justice, comrade, is without price.

Mark Yuray is verified on Gab. Follow him there and on Twitter.

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

19 Comments

  1. Richard Arrhenius March 8, 2016 at 11:30 am

    Good article. Makes me think of the discussion about Joker from Batman The Dark Knight. At the end of the discussion, Alfred says this about why Joker does what he does:
    “Because some men aren’t looking for anything logical, like money. They can’t be bought, bullied, reasoned, or negotiated with. Some men just want to watch the world burn.”

  2. I really like this article because you bring into it the peculiar perverse nature of whatever drives the West – a power system that rather than rewarding western elites for protecting their people instead rewards them for paradoxically denigrating the white man as uniquely power-ridden and evil. There’s something very nasty about it. After all, you can believe in equality or human rights without sceaming “racist”, bigot, hater over and over in a drum circle ritual. People nowadays think nothing of the idea that white men are supposed to “care” for the children of other races, who have absolutely no interest in “caring” for the children of white men. (I am thinking of Beslan and the CNN reaction which was to blame the Russians.) White men themselves believe this, or half-believe it. This mindset seemed to crystallize with the hysteria surrounding Zimmerman, who was made into a white man in order to satisfy this powerful desire. The desire to feminize white men could explain the deep hatred towards Trump, who is stirring up white male testosterone levels, and will be obsessively attacked as Hitler, the incarnation of all worldly evil. This fixation on Hitler and the transfer of Hitler hatred to normal white men is a new and disturbing development.

  3. People find it hard to believe that someone could imbibe and regurgitate a somewhat complex and, from a certain point of view, detrimental social script as that of a social justice warrior. “Can’t you see this is not working?” one might say… but Mark points out, their response might simply be: “Can’t you see that it is??”

    It must be remembered that someone can inherit these social scripts without being self-aware that they are doing so. Everyone can learn a language simply by exposure, knowledge of grammar is secondary and hard won. Unfortunately, this only makes it even more insidious.

    Great article Mark, I’ve been finding status motivations highly explanatory lately— it’s exciting (and disturbing) to think what’s still to be uncovered.

    1. I’ve been becoming increasingly convinced lately that, on the whole, examining habits, status games, social dynamics, motivations, signalling, coordination problems, etc. is a far, far more productive and explanatory way of understanding human affairs than demographics, economics, genetics, etc.

  4. Thank you for this article. I wonder what you make of the argument in the third essay of Nietzsche’s Genealogy of Morals. I agree that this social reinforcement provides incentives that are very important, especially in the upper echelons of current power structures, but I also see many holy ones who are not powerful and are not materially or sexually rewarded for their holiness.

    This would make it seem to be a Ponzi scheme from the perspective in the article, one in which many strive for the same goal without gaining a payoff. Yet it seems to me that the holiness itself, absent of any other reward, is also actually satisfying many of these people. Some of that must be the pleasure of conformity and self-righteousness, but I can’t believe it’s only that.

    It seems that, in Nietzsche’s terms, there must also be fantastic feeling of satisfied will to power in these people: to achieve the perverse in order to prove all existence wrong about what’s desirable; to break one’s nature in order and pretend mastery of it; to appear to break all heteronomy in favor of autonomy. There is often other reward and that is important to many, but there is also a pleasure to this perversely named holiness that I’m not confident is mediated through extrinsic reward. And it seems to me that that other pleasure is an essential foundation for the rest of the reward structure: it’s what motivates us to become so holy the flesh rots off our bones (Dampier, Roth, DeLillo) instead of stopping when the girls lose interest.

    This is not to say I disagree with the observation that status signalling is the primary perverse motivation here, or that our society does not reward it. I mean to say I wonder if you agree that this other part is also important, and if so, to also ask what else one might provide to satisfy this particular craving for power over one’s own nature–one’s people’s nature, too. It does not seem like something to neglect.

    1. For me, status, or hierarchy, is primordial. In a monastery a saint would have higher status than a backslider.

      1. I don’t think this addresses the question, which could also be read: how do some people become so convinced that their actions are high status when they are horribly unhappy and abused and not all praised? I agree status is fundamental, but what about how status motivation is learned can make these people feel such strong status reward for otherwise unrewarding life choices? (I’m not talking about the elect of pundits, professors, and artists here, I’m talking about the miserable, lonely, unemployed preterite.)

        Is it just mimesis run wild? Or is there something else to the false hierarchies they believe in?

        1. New word (for me), preterite, thanks. I imagine you mean crybullies who demand their rights? If so, no doubt they have found it pays. They are shakedown artists able to exploit the human rights racket with the eager assistance of status-marking Eloi, in my humble opinion.

          1. I’m thinking not so much of the crybullies as the people the PUAs call gammas and omegas. In my life there seem to be many progressives who live ideologically broken lives without receiving shakedown money, sexual favors, or actual status among any of their real-life peers, yet who still refuse to compromise their principles as if those granted them status. If you’ve not met such people and this doesn’t seem real, we likely can’t discuss it further but I’m happy for you!

            My question is whether their almost solipsistic status-seeking (which naively seems like it would be an oxymoron, but still seems to exist nonetheless) is among the primary reasons for the stability of the larger perverted incentive structure Mark Yuray describes correctly in this piece.

          2. Most men aren’t particularly talented or attractive. I knew guys in the 60s who couldn’t get dates but were sexually rewarded by feminists after they joined SDS. Think of the horrible Bill Ayres. He was scoring way above what his talents and looks would have carried him in a non-feminized culture. But, fortune favors the bold. And he seized on a strategy that was quite successful if you’re into, well, what we have today. He even helped launch Obama. But, he had to have feminism, the pill, the Vietnam Nam war, blacks burning cities and mau-mauing the flak catchers; and a very rich, liberal society composed of young men seeking anti-heroes to do it.

          3. I think we’re attributing to much reason and agency to these “status losers” (or perhaps everyone). In my view, a social strategy comes first, and perhaps is even imprinted early on and very hard to dislodge.

            Let’s assume for a moment that a large portion, a majority even, of our mammalian brain’s cognitive capacity is occupied (perhaps unconsciously) by continuously assessing our position in the social landscape, much of which overlaps with our ideological signaling. We might see our ideology as a rational choice, because we can fathom that alternatives do exist, but if we consider the precursor constraints generated by our position in the social hierarchy there isn’t really a choice to be made. Changing our ideology by choice, even if we realize our current one isn’t bringing us fame, money or pussy, would require reassessing all our social relationships which is impossible not only because of the magnitude and complexity of that computation, but also because these assessments are probably held mostly subconsciously.

            Perhaps this sort of shift can be achieved over time, given that a viable alternative is present during the transition, but I think it helps explain why some people become trapped in a seemingly obvious self-destructive ideological pattern.

          4. Yes. Most people really are too busy trying to make a living or have no interest in ideology anyway so they take the line of least resistance.

            Anything sacred becomes taboo. In my opinion, the current taboo is human rights. It cannot be questioned. Individually, we need to stop using the term. We have no rights. We have privilege, obligation, honor, custom, divine order of some sort.

            Anyway, that’s what it used to be more or less. Seemed to work pretty well.

          5. Thanks, these are all good points. Early imprinting and assimilation is important, and we do often imprint more on idols and norms than our own experience.

        2. I think that the particular circuitry of the victimhood > status dynamic causes these “omegas and gammas.” Basically, as long as these people *believe* that their victimhood will be rewarded with status at some point in the future, they will continue to be victims and continue to be left-wing. Whether or not they ever realize that their victimhood and failure will not be valorized and rewarded is another question altogether. Probably pretty much the same dynamic with kids trying to be NBA stars, college hipsters trying to be screenwriters and ghetto black teens trying to become the next Don Corleone. 95% fail miserably, 4% fail admirably, and 1% get the real treasure, but 100% wholeheartedly believe they can make it if they just try hard enough.

  5. For the selfless narcissist, surrender to an idealized status value is the highest form of self love. Dr. Sanity wrote about this here: http://drsanity.blogspot.com/2007/04/selfless-narcissism.html

  6. >If the German government wants to solve its demographic problem, why invite a group of migrants that are 80% male?

    My suspicion is that Germany and other similarly suicidal EU countries are allowing in these mostly male “refugees” with the idea that, later on, they’re going to allow these “refugees” to bring in their wives, girlfriends, families, whatever.

    1. Possibly; but this has not been articulated by any public figures or politicians with power, so their arguments, taken at face value, are still idiotic. That the nancyboys in power are conspiring for triple leftism at half the price behind-the-scenes is a point not lost on me.

  7. They’ve made misanthropy socially acceptable, simple as that.

Comments are closed.