Thursday, August 17, 2017

Gamergate

Historians one day will look back and is an overworked motif, but there's no reason to stop beating the dead horse now, comrade. I am hesitant to make predictions about specific political actions. Jim thinks he smells blood, and perusing Drudge does not assuage any feelings that we are sitting on a knife's edge once more.

Perhaps it is my relentless sense of optimism, or that I am riding an endorphin high from lifting, but I generally think that for all our criticism across the wild wild world of the dissident right, and believe me I have plenty, the Left is far more likely to cock this up than we are. Much less Trump. Certainly it sounds like handwaving when I dismiss the antics of the media or Antifa as echoes reverberating through a closed harmonic chamber, so let me dispense with the handwaving and offer you some insight from an unlikely place: Gamergate.

Gamergate isn't interesting because vidya, or because of ethics in journalism, or because of Zoe Quinn's cock-gargling antics. Gamergate is interesting because it gives us a very good look at the mechanics of the Leftist religion, which I will refer to by Moldbug's term ultracalvinism:
The "calvinist" half of this word refers to the historical chain of descent from John Calvin and his religious dictatorship in Geneva, passing through the English Puritans to the New England Unitarians, abolitionists and Transcendentalists, Progressives and Prohibitionists, super-protestants, hippies and secular theologians, and down to our own dear progressive multiculturalists.
The "ultra" half refers to my perception that, at least compared to other Christian sects, the beliefs of this faith are relatively aggressive and unusual."
Specifically, the ultracalvinist drive to proselytize and evangelize, behaviors directly rooted in their explicitly Christian philosophical ancestors, were the mechanism that caused the entire catastrophe we now call Gamergate. Gamergate was a plane crash that never quite hit the ground, and looking at it from the outside as a non-participant allows us to glean an interesting bit of insight about what exactly happened.

A great many people enjoy and believe in conspiracies for a whole host of reasons someone properly trained in the pseudo-science of psycho analysis could explain to you better than I. This is not something the Right is immune to, and you will often find people who, even if they don't explicitly say so, indicate through their rhetoric that they believe that our enemy approaches omnipotence, that he has all of the angles mapped properly and that little, if anything, is outside his control.

I sincerely doubt this.

The reason? Gamergate. Gamergate shows us the folly of the Left, that the Leftist religion is not so much an intelligent virus that is constantly testing your armor for gaps and cracks that present an opening. Rather, the Left is more like cancer, in that wherever it has room to spread, it will, and it does not think much, if at all, about the consequences of spreading - such as the potential to kill its host or the potential that the host will notice and have a surgeon remove the tumor.

This is evident because Gamergate was a horrendously bad strategy run by low quality people - even the sort of people high up in the UN - who did not realize what they were doing. The overall goal of the Left, if the Left even really has goals in the strictest sense of government, required the eternal sedation of White men who otherwise might see their dispossession coming and resist, perhaps through violence.

Video games were an excellent sedative for disenfranchised young White men, who found themselves pilloried at every turn by the a priori "you always lose" called postmodernism. The best bet the for the establishment would have been to simply leave the losers alone. Instead, Gamergate awakened a foe the establishment did not ever anticipate, and since then we've acquired a surprisingly effective, surprisingly sharp and surprisingly willing to learn dissident Right that has been nothing but a fearful thorn in the side of the powers that be.

Part of the problem with the narrative in the above paragraph is that I refer to the establishment as a thing rather than a collection of individuals with a limited amount of information on a range of topics, acting day to day as best they can to enrich themselves. Anita Sarkeesian is a good example of the sort of thinking that goes on in the head of an individual with a share of power in the current world order. Anita Sarkeesian is not a hypocrite per se with regards to her sob story about being a tough grrl gamer and facing abuse and blah blah blah. This is because Anita Sarkeesian is not actually ideologically a feminist. Sarkeesian, like Zoe Quinn and a whole host of other semi-famous dweebs, e-celebs and grifters, really only believe in their own individuality and the enrichment. Like democracy, a system of perverse incentives exist that compel individuals to pillage as much as they can before the eject or are ejected. Nothing matters to these people outside of the money and resources they can harvest from x y or z. Calling Anita Sarkeesian out for her lame interpretation of the already astonishingly stupid ideology of Feminism was pointless, because Feminism is just a temporary vehicle for Sarkeesian (and a great many other young social status climbers). When the vehicle runs out of gas, they will look elsewhere. Where too many heads are around one watering hole, a thirsty individual will look elsewhere. This search-locate-harvest-abandon cycle is what spurs the SJW tendency to worm their way into organizations and institutions. It's all about the resources. The increase in individuals looking for a cheap mealticket creates competition for scarce watering holes, and like the way Marx regarded the bourgeoisie, the eye of the SJW is always on the lookout for new opportunities to line their bank account. This is how you get wretched White women worming their way into the vidya industry.

The lesson you should ultimately take away from this is that there is no central processing unit directing every soldier to their exact, set task. Rather, a collection of individuals with often parallel interests constantly seeks new resources, creating a visually ossified mob that is none the less subject to the whims of popularity. Popularity changes, watering holes move or dry up.

What happens next?

No comments:

Post a Comment

To Truly Live Free

It is the summer of my life. The man I know, of whom I now write, is nearing the end of his autumn. As the leaves abandon the trees, so ha...