Stop Doing "Ally" Work without "Ally" Pay
Cucked Supplicants of the World - do our bidding!
Today is the lowest form of post, but I must write it just for the sake of mental expiation.
This is a meme that was shared in a group chat for an academic program I am in;
Ginny here certainly does fit the part, no?
I just want to say something, and I’ll be brief:
If you are an “ally,” and you expect to somehow compensated for your “allyship,” you are not only gullible and pathetic, you are also wrong. In fact, you have often placed yourself several steps forward in line to be burned as a sacrificial cuck, because you are convenient. It is far harder to put someone on trial if they don’t hang around the courthouse, yet folks such as Ginny have chosen to intern there instead.
I solemnly believe that most people who serve as human shields for the professionally aggrieved do so out of the mistaken belief that this will somehow exempt them from a future infraction, or that it will absolve them of the same sort of spurious campaigns of reputation demolition akin to what is happening to Russel Brand right now. It won’t.
Though I fundamentally agree with this original supposition of this quote (tumblr post?), i.e. you shouldn’t hold an ideal just to get positive social feedback, it is nonetheless pretty galling for someone to say: "everyone should be treated with equal respect" and then in the very next paragraph say, "also, fuck you because of your gender or skin color" and in response to that I'm supposed to say, "oh okay, i get it - so when you say all people should be treated with respect, you mean everyone but me."
Person 1: Fuck white People!!
Person 2: Hey…I am white and I’m here helping you, why would you say that?
Person 1: I wasn’t talking about you.
Person 2: Oh, okay. Phew.
Person 1: But if you think I was talking about you, that is because of your white fragility.
Person 2: So were you talking about me?
Person 1: If you think I was, then I was.
Person 2: And if I didn’t think you were?
Person 1: Then you’re racist.
Person 2: Oh, okay…cool…(shuts off all critical thought for next 30 years and just does what they’re told).
Besides those blessed with blissful ignorance (i.e people who like Two and a Half Men), the only type of person who is capable of truly giving into this is spineless, and most spinelessness emerges from a lack of internal coherency and strength. This, of course, is a primary strategy of “The Project” in society right now, to endow some people with unlimited unearned confidence while infecting others with unlimited unearned shame. You can do this by confusing people about their gender, attaching moral agency to their appearance, or - failing successful implementation of the first two - target their kids and then wait 20 years.
It takes a pretty deranged mind to think that a human can be endlessly insulted and still remain supportive of a cause. And it takes a pretty deranged society that this exact thing is happening more often than never. Of course, it should be no surprise that such an ethic has emerged in a society on the heels of an early 2000s militant atheism, when people brazenly shrugged off religion as the language of the idiotic. Proclaiming that religion was anathema to positive self-esteem (well, with original sin and all), these “logical fallacy”-bros paved the way for a cultural void so deep and dark and hollow that it could only be replaced with something that had 10x the shame production of religion but offering 100x less charitable, kind, loving, and life-giving directives.
Eh, what can you do. I am but a simple man, and I live by simple codes. I think feeling good about yourself makes you a better person and that makes society better, but such thoughts are antiquated and “un-critical.” But if it’s worth anything at all, here is my own dissertation of moral admonitions, and please notice that these rules are much simpler to read and ergo much easier to remember than the twisted ethical frameworks of our friend Ginny:
Help people who are being treated unfairly
Be grateful to people who help you because they didn’t have to.
Makes more sense, no? Or at least I guess it did before most major American cities were consumed by the manic idolatry of the weak and whiny.
I suppose a simpler question would be this: When did everyone become so rude and so proud of it?
Of course, it should be no surprise that such an ethic has emerged in a society on the heels of an early 2000s militant atheism, when people brazenly shrugged off religion as the language of the idiotic.
This is an interesting historical observation. I've never connected Richard Dawkins and friends with wokeism, but it makes perfect sense now. We had to demolish the old system before we could replace it with a new one.