In many ways, SJWs Always Lie is the sequel to The Irrational Atheist. If the latter could be described as Vox Day taking a backhoe to the roots of the tree of lies, than the former can be described as Vox taking a chainsaw to its trunk and branches. Atheism is, of course, the big lie from which the vast majority of the small lies—such as feminism, equality, diversity, and so forth—spring forth. SJWs, being liars, are the practitioners of the Atheist philosophy whether they realize it or not. In fact, the SJW orthodoxy and orthopraxy is practically to a word the communist manifesto of 1963, in which the destruction of the Christian religion was one of the stated aims. In short, Social Justice is practiced by those who hate God and the natural order, irrespective of whether said practitioners recognize the roots of the philosophy they have put into practice.
To this end, Vox’s epigraph neatly solves answers the question of what to do with those who fight for the forces of darkness. The answer is pretty simple: fight back twice as hard.
Vox begins by identifying the enemy. The prototypical SJW is a self-deputized member of the thought police, an activist for activism’s sake. They are defined by victimhood and identity politics; indeed, this is how they determine status amongst themselves. In a complete subversion of the natural order, higher status is given to those who are (nominally) the furthest away from possessing oppressive power. Basically, the closer one is to be the antonym of a straight WASP conservative entrepreneurial male, the more social power one accrues in the SJW social circle.
This subversion of the natural order means that SJWs always lie, which is Vox’s first law of the SJW. The second is that SJWs always double down (i.e. continue to lie when called out), and the third is that SJWs always project. Because SJWs virtually always obey these three laws, their mode of attack is both easy to predict and easy to counterattack. Vox spends a lot of time describing their methods of attack, in part because he uses #GamerGate and the Sad Puppies campaign as real-world examples. Not surprisingly, he also spends a lot of time discussing how to counterattack. I won’t summarize either of these points here, in part because he has done so himself, and in part because I want readers to line his pocket by buying the book out of curiosity, if nothing else.
SJWs Always Lie is a tremendously important book for the role it plays in giving conservatives and Christians—the main targets of the Social Justice Brigade—a guide on how to resist their attackers. Intriguingly, a small amount of resistance is often enough to inspire SJWs to retreat.
While this book is a very useful guide to resisting the SJWs, it has some very serious shortcomings. The most fundamental shortcoming is that Vox’s focus is much more political than religious. This appears to be an extension of his personality and subsequently personal desires.
He mentions that “Truth, Liberty, and Justice” are the ideals of the anti-SJW movement, and makes no bones about allying with those who just want to be left alone to make their own games/art/whatever. In essence, his fight for liberty as an ideal is mostly an extension of his sympathy towards those who just want to be left alone. Furthermore, the man himself has stated on his blog that he wants to be left alone by the SJW crowd, and that he wouldn’t fight them if they simply left him alone. He is essentially a loner that wishes to exist outside of a social hierarchy—he doesn’t want to answer to anyone, and he doesn’t want people to answer to him. He simply wants to be alone.
Because he personally desires to live and let live, he chooses liberty as a political goal and fits his tactical prescriptions to that aim. In doing so, he makes two serious errors. The first is that he identifies SJWs as being politically motivated instead of religiously motivated (an amusingly ironic error, as will be obvious shortly). Subsequently, his second error is tactical, in that he advises treating moderates with civility. After all, his goal is to minimize social conflict and strife so as to be left alone in pursuit of his own interests, so there is little point in being more divisive than necessary, which makes him sound downright…moderate.
The root of Vox’s primary error is especially ironic because he ignores his stated first goal of the SJW, which is that they always lie, and takes them at their word that they are politically motivated. If they always lie, then why believe that they are motivated by politics? Even more ironically, Vox appears to be highly susceptible to believing that SJWs are politically motivated because, in this instance, his own motivations for writing this book and resisting the SJWs are political, which means that Vox is projecting his motivations onto his opponents, which astute readers will note is in complete accordance with the third law of the SJW, making Vox …an SJW?
I kid, of course, but I think Vox’s error is entirely understandable in light of his personal experience, and I don’t think his error does anything at all to undermine the tactical value of his book. However, I think that it is far more accurate to identify SJWs as religiously motivated, rather than politically motivated, and that the religion they practice is Satanism for they are liars just like their father the Devil.
The reason that I believe SJWs are religiously motivated instead of politically motivated is because the behavior that Vox describes as intrinsic to the SJW perfectly describes the behavior of a false teacher that I know. More to the point, I was able to witness this behavior firsthand.
Well over a year ago, a preacher by the name of Holger Neubauer began to preach the doctrine of preterism. It was the full-blown AD 70 theory nonsense that runs counter to basic bible doctrine and teaching. In teaching this theory, Holger managed to convince another preacher by the name of Steve Baisden to join him in teaching this heresy. Steve and Holger then commenced to convince another preacher by the name of Scott Klaft to join them in this, then the three of them went around challenging preachers they knew to debate them on the subject. No one would respond to them, what with them being apostate and all, so they began to brag that everyone “in the brotherhood” was too scared to debate them. Steve felt pretty bold by this point, and began to state on his facebook page that he would debate anyone at anytime and anyplace. When no one took him up on that offer, he began to claim that no one could refute his false doctrine, which enabled him to drag a large number of his congregants into apostasy.
About fifteen months ago, a preacher by the name of John Chowning took him on his offer to debate anyone anytime anyplace, and suggested they have a debate at IPFW in August of last year. John Chowning submitted the affirmative that “the scriptures teach that like Jesus’s resurrection from the dead, there will be a universal bodily/physical resurrection from the dead.” Steve agreed to be in the negative and rebut Chowning’s affirmative. This was the result:
Assuming you watched the video in its entirety, it is pretty obvious that John Chowning had a grasp of the dialectical and Steve Baisden did not. Consequently, Steve was pretty well trounced by John, and lapsed into general incoherence.
Per the second law of the SJW, Steve doubled down. He declared himself the winner of the debate, in spite of not ever answering any of the logical syllogisms presented and also in spite of violating the rules of formal debate (e.g. no new material in final rebuttal). Astute observers will note that Holger, on Steve’s behalf, complained about the difficulty of making it to the debate in spite of a) having promised to debate anyone anytime anyplace and b) having agreed to the debate a couple months prior.
In the months following the debate, Steve bragged on his facebook page that everyone was still scared to debate him because he trounced John Chowning. He has since also doubled down on preterist doctrine, and fully admits that there is no hope of resurrection.
The reason I share this story is because Steve is nominally a Christian, and is also a political conservative. In fact, his dislike of SJWs would probably rival Vox’s. Furthermore, if you watched the whole debate, you’ll note that Steve ineptly tried to DISQUALIFY John as a political liberal. In essence, we have a self-described Christian conservative conforming to the three laws of the SJW. The problem is, Steve isn’t an SJW, and his behavior wasn’t politically motivated.
Thus, it should be more apparent why I say SJWs are religiously motivated. They are liars, and children of their father the Devil, the great deceiver. They are self-deceived liars who believe lies. Thus, I think it an error to describe their motives as political even if the theater of war is political.
Consequently, this means Vox’s book is tactically sound but strategically suspect. The battle is (currently) political but the war is spiritual in nature. Those who are liars are the enemy.
This bring us back to the second error, which is the advice to treat moderates with civility. Vox describes the moderate as “the man who only shoots at his own side, and never the enemy” and goes on to say:
Moderates merit friendly civility, but no respect. They are often useful, if irritating allies, but do not permit them any input into strategy and tactics or decision-making. And do not accept them as leaders except of their own moderate faction. They are considerably worse than useless in that regard, because they are constantly trying to find a middle ground that quite often does not exist.
As tactical advice for a political battle where the goal is to beat back the SJWs in order to be left alone, this is sound advice. As a strategy of spiritual warfare, this is unsound advice. Those who are not for us are against us. There is no third way in spiritual conflict, there is good and there is evil; there is nothing else. Those who are lukewarm are no better than those who are evil. As such, it is best to treat moderates as SJWs. They need to know, in no uncertain terms, that they must either be fully committed to defending what is True, Just and Good, or they will be counted as enemies. Plus, if they only shoot at you and never your enemies, you are only deceiving yourself if you think these so-called moderates are anything other than your enemies. If it walks like a duck and all…
All in all, this book is very useful, and will hopefully serve as a springboard for some very practical Christian theology of modern spiritual warfare. It does have its shortcomings, but its tactical practicality cannot be overstated. It’s a must-read for anyone who plans on resisting the children of the great deceiver. Buy it and read it today.