“By setting up fictitious monsters and pretending their influence is everywhere and in all things, the paranoid person creates an environment where he or she always has something to fight against. By making the interpretation of the threat completely subjective, he or she can make an enemy of anyone, or anything, for any reason, at any time. Since the problem does not actually exist, the problem can never be solved. If one can monetize the fear they create, it can bring in an endless stream of not only entertainment and social excitement, but revenue as well…[w]hether the doctrine at issue is…statism, or any other hysterical superstition, there are certain constants. Holy men preaching to flocks of sheep about deities and devils, causing all manner of mayhem in society, while blaming the impurity of their followers for the troubles the holy men caused.” [emphasis added]
During the 19th century, Alexis de Tocqueville observed that in a democracy, there is a lot more complaining, whining, and bitching than there is under more obvious authoritarian regimes. Expressing grievances about rather trivial matters becomes not unlike a hobby or sport, and this is the essence of the Tocqueville effect. As he wrote in his seminal work, Democracy in America:
“In aristocratic countries the great possess immense privileges, upon which their pride rests, without seeking to rely upon the less advantages which accrue to them…when an aristocracy carries on the public affairs, its national pride naturally assumes this reserved, indifferent, and haughty form, which is imitated by all the other classes of the nation…in democracies, as the conditions of life are very fluctuating, men have almost always recently acquired the advantages which they possess; the consequence is that they feel extreme pleasure in exhibiting them, to show others and convince themselves that they really enjoy them…the members of a powerful aristocracy, collected in a capitol or a court, have been known to contest with virulence those frivolous privileges which depend on the caprice of fashion or the will of their master. These persons then displayed towards each other precisely the same puerile jealousies which animate the men of democracies, the same eagerness to snatch the smallest advantages which their equals contested, and the same desire to parade ostentatiously those of which they were in possession.”
One-upmanship is what is being described here, and it would seem to be the case that altering the form of government does little other than change whom engages in this shameless vanity. It is my contention that the Tocqueville effect, when combined with the popular national vanity seen in modern Western democracies, leads to the development of the victim mentality.
Fake grievances encourage the cultivation of the victim mentality, which in turn grows the power of the State. The only reason Leviathan agrees to write, enforce, and interpret laws is when it perceives an opportunity for itself to increase its own iron grip upon the hapless citizenry. Social justice warriors, neoconservatives, and “peaceful” parents are all contemporary examples of political factions who, by the sheer expression of their grievances, demonstrate the accuracy of the Tocqueville effect.
Definitions are now in order, since the first task of philosophy is to call things what they are, objectively. A “social justice warrior” (referred to hereafter as an “equality freak”) is an advocate for social justice, which itself is just a relabeling for what theoreticians call “positive liberty.” Those who are neoconservatives concern themselves with “spreading democracy” at the barrel of a gun against foreigners. “Peaceful” parenting claims that there is no such thing as a good parent, and therefore these wicked humans must atone for the Original Sin of procreation by abstaining from spanking their children.
Listing some terms used by each of these proselytizers is useful for recognizing them whenever they are within public view. Equality freaks admonish their captive audiences to “check their privilege,” while also waxing not-so-eloquently about “rape culture,” “institutional racism,” “structural violence,” “transphobia,” “otherkin,” and “syndicalism,” not to mention their desire for “safe spaces” and “trigger warnings.” Neocons will scream bloody murder about “stealth jihad,” a “global caliphate,” “white genocide,” “radical Islam,” and “Muslim sympathizers.” Similarly, the “peaceful” parents lecture endlessly about child abuse, spanking, disciplining, and early childhood trauma.
These three political factions of the equality freaks, neocons, and “peaceful” parents cash in, both metaphorically and literally, on the victim mentality. I think Tocqueville predicted the rise of the equality freaks when he said:
“I think that democratic communities have a natural taste for freedom: left to themselves, they will seek it, cherish it, and view any privation of it with regret. But for equality, their passion is ardent, insatiable, incessant, invincible: they call for equality in freedom; and if they cannot obtain that, they still call for equality in slavery. They will endure poverty, servitude, barbarism – but they will not endure aristocracy.” [emphasis added]
In other words, these SJWs prefer an equal slavery to an unequal freedom. Regarding the parallel rise of what became the neocons, Tocqueville predicted:
“I think that extreme centralization of government ultimately enervates society, and this after a length of time weakens the government itself; but I do not deny that a centralized social power may be able to execute great undertakings with facility in a given time and on a particular point. This is more especially true of war, in which success depends much more on the means of transferring all the resources of a nation to one single point, than on the extent of those resources. Hence it is chiefly in war that nations desire and frequently require to increase the powers of the central government…thus, the democratic tendency which leads men unceasingly to multiple the privileges of the State, and to circumscribe the rights of private persons, is much more rapid and constant amongst those democratic nations which are exposed by their position to great and frequent wars, than amongst all others.” [emphasis added]
This suggests that the preeminence of the warfare–welfare state is a key feature of democracy itself, not to mention a scathing critique of democratic peace theory. Whether it be by way of government subsidies, financial “reparations,” or good old fashioned e-begging, promoters of fake grievances are well-compensated for their black propaganda.
Political correctness, learned helplessness, and identity politics all feed into the victim mentality, and in turn, the proselytization of fake grievances. Nearly every major ideology has got a faction of self-identified “victims” whose frequently baseless claims are abhorrent to the truth. Equality freaks are the most obvious at doing just this, with neocons being the most repulsive, yet the “peaceful” parents are the most subtle of the bunch.
Sophistry is used by each of them without a second thought, for any criticism, or mere questioning, of the legitimacy of their fake grievances are presumed by them to be made in bad faith. Equality freaks usually accuse their opponents of either racist or rape “apologism,” neocons accuse their opponents of being “muzzie sympathizers,” and the not-so-peaceful parents accuse their opponents of being child “abusers.” I would also like to point out here the regular avoidance of systematic (that is, real) grievances by the victim peddlers; equality freaks appear to have no problem with intellectual “property” or the abusive use of copyright, neocons are perfectly okay with the military-industrial complex as well as the police state, and the “peaceful” parents seldom take issue with either the bureaucratic CPS or government schooling.
Integrity is the achievement of ends-means consistency; its virtue lays in the honesty of one’s character, even if such an individual is otherwise notoriously despicable in other respects. Unfortunately, such is not the case here with either the equality freaks, neocons, or “peaceful” parents, simply because the equality freaks desire censorship for their opponents, but want themselves to be immune from being charged with committing defamation, libel, or slander – neocons want religious oppression for their opponents, but desire a theocracy of their liking to be imposed onto “the nation,” and “peaceful” parents, I suspect, quietly desire spankers to lose their children, yet they don’t want their own children to be legally kidnapped by the CPS.
All of these fake grievances remind me quite a bit of Emmanuel Goldstein and the Two Minutes Hate from George Orwell’s 1984. According to neocon theory from Carl Schmitt, you must have an enemy image by which to hold the entire society together; every facet, from industry, to media, to the arts, to academia, to social life in general, is essentially held together by what Webster Tarpley called “a monstrous myth.” The truth of the matter is, however, that bigots are not hovering around every corner in order to pounce on someone just to harass them, Muslims are not hiding under your couch just waiting to slit your throat with a scimitar, and parents are not foaming at the mouth to beat their children with glee.
An uncomfortable truth is the fact that these three factions will ally with each other whenever they share a mutual interest, even when you’d assume they otherwise would not. The equality freaks will ally with the neocons on the grounds that Muslims are sexists and homophobes, except whenever it is more politically expedient to “defend” the Muslims on the grounds that not doing so is racist.
Speaking of Muslims, I doubt the equality freaks, neocons, and even “peaceful” parents would have any empathy for what happened to Aziz Raheem Awalludin and Shalwait Nurshal back in 2013. For the “crime” of slapping the back of their son’s hands for not praying, this Muslim couple was arrested for violating the Swedish anti-spanking law. It is not unreasonable for me to assume that the equality freaks would hate them for being “breeders” (that is, “cisgendered” heterosexuals), the neocons would demonize them for their religiosity as a threat to national security, and the “peaceful” parents would herald the arrest and prosecution of these child “abusers” for only slapping the boy’s hands. Here you have a situation whereby there is a family that is being ripped apart by governmental tyranny, who are real victims, and instead of either supporting the Awalludin family or criticizing the Swedish government, these fake activists, I suspect, would be more than happy to tow the government line by praising actual oppression.
Who are the adherents of these three political factions? Anita Sarkeesian, Cathy Reisenwitz, Antonio Buehler, and Brad Spangler are considered to be equality freaks. Neocons include Bridgette Gabriel, Pamela Geller, Glenn Beck, and Sean Hannity. Two “peaceful” parents include Dr. Murray Straus and Stefan Molyneux.
There are also formal organizations who advocate the neocon and equality freak narratives. ACT! for America and the Idaho Three Percenters held a joint counter-protest to a street demonstration favoring the Syrian refugees last November, which just further confirms the neocon infiltration of the patriot movement, as well as validating all of Naomi Wolf’s fears about the ten steps that are taken to close down an open society. Meanwhile, the Center for a Stateless Society and the Center for Gender Advocacy are trying to socially engineer their audiences to give a crap about “intersectionality” and to slavishly ask permission for every sexual act, the latter tutorial of which was filled with so many mixed messages that it was mocked as being “consent porn,” and subsequently considered not good enough for masturbation, despite being set to some bump-and-grind Eurotrash background music.
Opponents to each of these manipulative factions are, thankfully, increasing over time. Men’s rights activists and “cultural” libertarians include Karen Straughan, Chris Cantwell, and Lauren Southern. Those of an antiwar sentiment who understand the neocon game include Cathy Young, Alex Ansary, and Dan Sanchez. Two critics of “peaceful” parenting include Dr. Walter Block and Lenore Skenazy.
Identity politics of any kind offers a false hope to those who find themselves disadvantaged in some way. I oppose “social justice,” the terror war, and all these anti-spanking diatribes because I am an individualist – the common thread between these three political factions is that they collectivize people based on either their sex, religion, or familial role. By the same token, I am not an MRA, MGTOW, or a “cultural” libertarian simply because I don’t think that false dichotomies are the right way to “organize” any sort of opposition to authoritarian sycophants, whether it be reactionary outbursts or needless adjectives tacked onto libertarianism. The fact of the matter is that the Millennials are the least bigoted, least religious, and least violent generation in recorded history.
Authoritarians must jockey people into opposite directions, since individuals are never allowed by the modern Thought Police to exercise their free will. Implicitly, the dangers posed by the not-so-peaceful parents, the neocons, and the equality freaks would initially seem to encourage one to become a recluse just as a mitigation in order to lower the probability of anyone snitching on them to the State, whether that takes the specific form of false rape accusations, false terrorism accusations, or false child abuse accusations. However, wallowing in self-pity is never the answer, given that it is an insult to personal responsibility – the equality freaks, neocons and “peaceful” parents are, at best, fools, and at worst, liars, simply because they promote the victim mentality that encourages sensationalism and the warfare-welfare state; therefore, any pretensions they may have towards human liberty is just lip service.
What drives the pushback against the victim mentality? Thus far, it would seem to be a combination of valuing individuality, etiquette, and skepticism. What appears to be holy water against those who promote fake grievances is the classically liberal French tradition that was borne out of the Age of Enlightenment, which itself is largely traceable to the British Levellers as the 17th century predecessors to John Locke. Understanding the rights of man in his wallet is, I think, the indispensible realization made by libertarians over the past 374 years throughout this evolution of human liberty. Comprehending self-ownership as the yin to the yang of the non-aggression principle, and everything that means, is what these professional victim peddlers are mindlessly afraid of recognizing.
Doom porn and fake grievances go hand-in-hand in enabling terrible security culture. It would become incumbent upon you to beware of misleading statistics and avoid collectivism like the plague. Skepticism and personal responsibility for the decisions you made about your own life, I think, encourages good security culture. You can begin on this path by rejecting contemporary mythology, pointing out confirmation bias, and embracing rationality and empiricism. Only when the most dangerous superstition is unveiled as the most cruel hoax ever devised will humanity be fully empowered to take its rightful place amongst the stars.