Condensed Treatise on Social Justice by VANDAL .pdf

File information

Original filename: Condensed Treatise on Social Justice by VANDAL.pdf

This PDF 1.5 document has been generated by Microsoft® Word 2013, and has been sent on on 18/05/2017 at 05:13, from IP address 65.95.x.x. The current document download page has been viewed 464 times.
File size: 187 KB (21 pages).
Privacy: public file

Download original PDF file

Condensed Treatise on Social Justice by VANDAL.pdf (PDF, 187 KB)

Share on social networks

Link to this file download page

Document preview

Condensed Treatise on Social Justice

Where do I start? In order to condense everything I have to say I’ll need to speak more conclusively
rather than consecutively. So it’s on you to fill in the blanks which frankly I don’t trust you to do
accurately but at least sufficiently enough to gain a general understanding.
Such a people person, I know.
Now, you want to know just what the fuck is happening in the West right now. You want to know what
the deal is with this so-called culture war. Well, it’s not a culture war. It’s not some competition
between two competing perspectives. There is culture – in fact all cultures on one side of this conflict,
and a destructive void on the other. That void is the Left – the whole Left. No, don’t even start. I know
you think the Left represents a legitimate position. It doesn’t. Had me fooled too. In its entirety, it is
hypocritical and so self-destructive – even suicidal at the level of the individual. This is why it destroys
itself in every manifestation be it economic, political, cultural, personal, whatever. It doesn’t hold. The
reason it’s hypocritical, or better put the reason why it is internally inconsistent, is because it’s never
been a position. It’s never been a set of principles or beliefs or even a singular conclusion upon which it
operates. Instead, it operates in opposition to any and every legitimate position one could take. But you
say, “Muh Classical Liberalism.” That’s not the Left for the same reason Women’s Suffrage was never
about feminism. They took credit for these after the fact, amalgamating them in order to garner a
perceived legitimacy in the eyes of the ignorant. In the eyes of fools; definitively.

Instead of representing a position, the Left represents a transition and a perpetual one. It’s the effort to
take legitimate positions, principles, singular conclusions – whatever, and dissolve them. To constantly
and consistently dissolve anything and everything. Not to create something or to submit a different
perspective, but to resist what has already been presented. To resist what is presented by the Right, by
definition: by those who DO take a position. That’s all the Right is. This is why the Right is so diverse yet
easily grouped under the eponymous banner. If there is any ultimate destination for the Left’s
transition, a ‘position’ for the Left to take, it’s literally nothing: the position of nothing. Essentially that,
in practice, a position cannot and should not ever be taken. I wish it were as simple as nihilism and
relativism, but these are only symptoms of this ‘perspective’. They’re merely consequential, just like

every so-called ‘position’ of the Left. They’re only stepping stones. The true Left is a completely illogical
and impossible paradox. At least nihilism claims that ‘there is no truth’. This mind-virus at the heart of
Leftism is only the claim, in response to every claim presented by another, of “that claim isn’t true.” It
alludes to some ultimate truth but will never present it, never theorize it, never work toward it and
never, NEVER let anyone else work toward it. It’s the practical, actionable version of nihilism that no one
ever thought truly existed. That Nietzsche was so concerned with. Well it manifested, in fact millennia
ago, because this isn’t anything new. It’s a trait of human psychology.

This is where I could go into the nature of theory, conceptualization and all that shit but I don’t have to. I
can explain this through the same vector I would use to communicate it: language. Credit where it’s due,
it was Molyneux who said that ‘language was the Matrix’ and he was right. See, the only way the Left,
these people who resist every position, even position itself, can maintain such adamant and irrational
denial is through language. Language isn’t just how we communicate reality to each other but how we
understand it. So gimme a minute to explain this to you and then watch all the ‘positions’ of the Left
transform into the transitions, into the dissolutions they actually represent.


The core unit of all language is a word and every word is constructed in the same way. You take two or
more criteria but at least two, then present them as a combination using some distinct verbal noise to
represent this union. This makes every word in language an umbrella term by definition and this is
absolutely true, though you’ve never considered it. Think about it. Every word breaks down into a more
complicated definition. A fireman is a human male firefighter. Fire is an exothermic chemical reaction
that combusts oxygen. A human is a primate but also a mammal, a vertebrate, etc. Even atoms split into
protons, neutrons, and electrons which themselves split again and again and again. So by this reasoning
and as strange as it seems, an atom isn’t real. It’s a concept: like a forest. It’s a collection of smaller
particles that we present as a singular union using the umbrella term ‘atom’. It’s we who create these
distinctions through perception. Consider: what distinguishes the quarks in the air from the quarks in
your arm? We do. Sure, there arise different physical properties when considered as part of a whole,
that of the physical makeup of your flesh and that of the air, but as quarks they’re equal. It’s like

computer code. 1’s and 0’s are all there is and all that exists in every game from Pong to Fallout 4. We
craft their distinctions through their assembly. Reality isn’t any different. Call them building blocks, if
only because that’s what they are. Our language not only reflects this reality but is entirely based on it.

So that said, the following term is all you need to understand if you want to understand the political
binary of Left and Right: INDIVIDUATION. Individuation is the process of combination and so the creation
of a new union, a new something, that I described in the last paragraph. It’s called individuation because
it’s the process through which you individuate, the process through which you create, perceive, and
finally RECOGNIZE an individual. It doesn’t matter if this individual is a rock, tree, atom, or even a
person. It’s the same unconscious process every time. It’s how your brain works and how mine works
and how everyone’s brains work. This process should seem familiar, because it’s the basis of space and
time, all of physics and logic itself: CAUSE AND EFFECT. Cause and effect is presented as a chain i.e. a
‘chain of cause and effect’ but it’s hardly so linear. It’s not so much a chain because it expands
exponentially retroactively. It gets ‘wider’ into the past and ‘narrower’ in the present. This is because
every cause is the result of an INTERACTION, not a singular action. You need TWO OR MORE things, two
or more INDIVIDUALS to interact in order to produce an effect which, when responsible for a
subsequent effect, is described as a cause. It’s like an elimination tournament. There’s ultimately one
winner, but each step toward that final outcome was the result of an interaction, a match between two
other players. The starting pool of competitors may have been a million strong but it doesn’t matter.
Eventually their interactions result in a single victor and the nature of cause and effect is no different.
Such as it is, the way we construct words is no different. This is why the definition of a word can AND IS
near-infinitely complicated since we can break it down near-infinitely. Ever asked, “Why?” over and over
again like a jackass? Yeah, it’s just like that.

So when we use a word, we’re ultimately communicating a conclusion. The conclusion of all prior
interactions; the final outcome as we perceive it. For this reason and as strange as it will sound to you, a
word is a position. It is a conclusive statement regarding the nature of reality and particularly of the
process that effected it, that produced it as an outcome. This is individuation. Yeah, it’s as simple as
combining two or more criteria, like painting a flamingo blue in order to produce a ‘Bluemingo’ as you
may describe it, or even as simple as recognizing that with the addition of time, your computer is now

an ‘older computer’ than it once was. It’s all the same process. [X+Y+(n-1...) = Z]. This is significant
because it proves beyond the shadow of any doubt and even the ability to doubt, since it operates prior
to our ability to even manifest doubt, that every word we have describes a causal relationship. Every
word is, in effect, describing some system of cause and effect, some system of causal relationship. For
this reason, every LEGITIMATE word that we have isn’t some arbitrary designation of meaning but
descriptive of some process in reality. It is objectively determinable insofar as it is logically definable.

Think of it this way:
The word, the conclusion regarding the outcome of the causal relationship the word is describing, is a
WHAT. The causal relationship itself is the HOW. Thus for every LEGITIMATE word we have, for each and
every instance you can tell me WHAT something is, you can also describe HOW it is. This is why we can
have different definitions – hell entirely different languages, and yet still manage to communicate. It’s
because when we communicate effectively we’re discussing the nature of the causal relationships that
we observe. So it doesn’t matter the word, the WHAT itself. What matters is the HOW. If we can
describe HOW something is WHAT, be that your version of a ‘good movie’ or genre of music or
whatever, the umbrella term for that doesn’t matter. The causal relationship is objective, observable,
determinable, and logically understandable. The word we use to describe it, the subjective aspect of
individuation, of creating a distinction, the WHAT doesn’t matter. Simply put, a 1 is a 1 no matter what
language you speak. There is a word for ‘I’ or ‘me’ or ‘you’ no matter what language you speak. There is
a word for greater, better, less, more, and so on. It’s a universality in language borne from the same
foundation upon which it’s based or rather it attempts to describe: causal relationship.


This is what the Left attempts to destroy. Though more accurately said, the attempt to destroy the
products of this process is Leftism. It’s what makes you a Leftist. Though of course, they can destroy all
the WHATs, all the words, all the conclusions, all the individuals we can create through individuation,
but they can’t destroy the HOWs. They can’t destroy the very nature of reality; of that which we observe
and attempt to describe through language. This is why their only tactic in this endeavor is denial. They

can only deny reality and destroy what WE can make of it, not actually destroy reality itself. They can
only hinder and hamper and eventually eliminate our ability to perceive, to use logic, even to think.
Hence they target language itself. They attempt to corrupt language to destroy its purpose of
description, communication, and understanding. That’s their Matrix. They trap themselves and us in a
language of ever-losing meaning. A language and so reality of growing nebulousness and thus
uncertainty where definitions aren’t logical i.e. where they cease describing causal relationships and
with that sever language from its purpose of describing, cataloguing, communicating, and understanding
just that: causal relationship i.e. reality itself. In arraying themselves against the process of individuation,
they are literally attempting to make no sense. They are, in fact, against making sense – even of sensing

Basically, the dissolution of standards by the Left is their dissolution of words. They are destroying
WHAT and denying HOW. Thus your STANDARDS, your CONCLUSIONS, your POSITIONS, are destroyed
along with them. Hence the mental instability, cultural rampancy, and growing degeneracy of the Left.

So with this degenerative process itself describing the Left, where do different Leftist groups come
from? Different Leftist iterations exist by virtue of what Rightist standard (word) they apply this
degenerative process to, hereby referred to as nebulization. Rightists, in the true political binary, only
represent people who engage the process of individuation. They are, simply put, theorizers: wordcrafters. So that said, their opposition, the Left, engage in the opposing process of nebulizing these
words. Feminists seek to dissolve ‘woman’. Marxists seek to dissolve ‘ownership’. Communists seek to
dissolve ‘property’. Socialists seek to dissolve ‘preference’. Finally, Social Justice Warriors represent the
largest amalgamation of these efforts and seek to dissolve all of the former though fundamentally, they
seek to dissolve ‘choice’ through their conceptualization of what they call, and you must NEVER USE,
‘privilege’. The concept of privilege, when taken to its logical conclusion, represents a wholesale
destruction of the human condition; namely preference but its actualization through choice. No really.

Now, no one person can manifest this process of nebulization universally since they’d go quickly insane.
Nothing would have any meaning. Moreover, they can only manifest it with regard to what the Right has
already created for them. In this way the Left is parasitic by nature; acting only in response to that which

another creates i.e. the Right: the word-crafters, the standardizers, the individuaters. Naturally this
makes sense given Leftism is an effort to destroy, never create. To create would be an act of
individuation, of Rightism, by definition. Hence any Leftist who seeks to define what a ‘real woman’ is or
attribute some particular value to race is labeled, in some fashion, as a part of the Right i.e. ‘Nazi’,
traditionalist, conservative, DISCRIMINATOR, etc.


So taking feminism as the first example, they sought to dissolve any and all meaning for the term
‘woman’. I know that sounds crazy given they claim to be the champions of women, but it’s really not. I
can prove it and I have the entire library of feminist academia to do it. Not a single feminist can define
what a ‘woman’ is anymore and neither are they want to. In fact, they’re afraid to since the moment
anyone does they are ousted from the collective. There are dozens if not hundreds of examples of this.
I’ll patronize you only one more time by explaining, once again, that this is because they engaged in the
process of individuation. They set a STANDARD for what a woman is and thus acted entirely counter to
the process of dissolving ‘woman’. Naturally, original feminists were always inclined to dissolve ‘woman’
(though not necessarily consciously or intentionally) and feminism has always, ALWAYS sought such
dissolution. There have never been any real ‘waves’ in feminist ideology. Feminists merely catered their
ideology to ingratiate themselves to the ignorant masses before returning to their original designs after
gaining sufficient social power. Of all fucking people Limp Bizkit put it best, “Resurrect your intention
once your opinion is now mass-produced.” Smarter fucker than he gets credit for.

So as you’ve no doubt recognized yourself, ‘woman’ doesn’t mean anything anymore. It’s not a
biological trait, a behavioral trait, a psychological or even purposeful trait. It describes nothing and any
attempt to attribute meaning to it is now labeled ‘sexist’. In effect, ‘woman’ as a word no longer
describes a causal relationship. In fact, ‘woman’ is no longer an umbrella term used to represent the
combination of two or more criteria. It’s quite literally nothing now. It describes no criteria, no cause, no
effect, no outcome. Period. It has been entirely divorced from the process of individuation. The
supposed liberation feminists claimed to bring to women was to liberate ‘woman’ from definition. They
freed it from the constraints of language itself, not some oppressive patriarchal sex role. Hence without

describing a causal relationship one couldn’t attribute any purpose to interacting with ‘women’. As such,
‘woman’ was ‘freed’ from any societal expectations i.e. any predictions as the outcome of interaction
with women. Thus ‘woman’ lost its status as a sex role.


This is where we have to get real and by real I mean personally challenging. Y’know the meme, “Your
waifu is shit?” Well in that same vein, “Your personal identity is shit.” Not that you’re a shitty person,
but that your perception of yourself is shit. It’s as pretend as your waifu and you hold to them both for
the same reason. Moreover, you don’t even understand identity and you have to in order to beat the
Left. If you want to distinguish yourself from ineffectuals like Sargon and Molyneux you have to know
what’s actually going on here. Remember, Leftists remove all criteria from words. So what happens
when they use those words to describe themselves? You get a corruption of identity. So first you need
to understand identity before you can understand the effects of its corruption.


With all words representing causal relationships, the words you would use to describe yourself are no
different. As such, every word you use to describe yourself communicates some effect in reality, some
HOW that we can logically determine i.e. how you are white, charismatic, smelly, etc. But identity isn’t
as simple as a personal description. Instead, it’s a description of all the causal relationships in which
YOU’VE EFFECTED. Your identity isn’t what has caused you to be, but what you have caused to be. Your
identity isn’t an effect of another, but an effect of yourself. It’s YOUR identity. As such, identity is, has,
and always will be descriptive of your actions and so is tied directly into, if not describing in its entirety,
your responsibility. I call it your ‘legacy of effect in reality’.

Remember the old adage, ‘judge a man’s character by his actions’? It’s not just advice. It’s not just what
we ought to do but what we have to do. It’s the truth. It’s how identity, character, all of it is formed and

understood in our own unconscious. This is why you can ‘identify as white’ but it doesn’t mean anything.
It’s a forgone conclusion, an objective reality, an absolute culmination of all prior effects. It’s final. Most
importantly, IT PRODUCES NOTHING. Without producing any effect of its own, any outcome, we can say
in full confidence that there is no PURPOSE to ‘white’. This is why it’s not an identity. Every identity you
can name has purpose because it describes a causal relationship and particularly the result of, or
ongoing culmination of, someone’s actions. Example:
Leader, healer, killer, charmer, greater, lesser, boxer, plumber, giver, taker, etc.
I call this ‘to ‘er’ is human,’ since by definition – since purpose is integral to every possible identity we
may possess, every identity describes a role. It’s a behavior you effect with reference to the outcome it
produces. Again just like words, we can discuss HOW you are charming or a leader or whatever. The
words themselves don’t matter. Only the HOW does. Only the causal relationship that we can
demonstrate or at least logically describe matters. That’s why I can find you charming while others don’t
and yet no one is wrong. We subjectively decide what criteria determines what is ‘charming’ yet the
criteria that we may choose from remains entirely objective and in the case of you, equally observable
and demonstrable. It’s like mixing paint. I can mix whatever I want and call it ‘Blorp’ and you can mix
whatever you want and also call it ‘Blorp’. But so long as we can describe HOW we created our
respective Blorps, we can communicate what Blorp means when either of us evoke it. We can’t be
wrong in naming it ‘Blorp’. We can only be wrong in falsely describing how it was we made our
respective Blorps. Another example is building something out of the same pieces of LEGO. So long as
you show the different LEGOs you used, your name for their combination doesn’t really matter. There is
no ‘correct verbal noise’ for what you made. There is only a proper description of its parts, their
interaction, thus ultimately the causal relationship that has created it.

So you get it? Identity is as ever what you do. Sure, someone may see what you do as charitable while
another may see what you do as miserly, but so long as they are properly representing their standards
for either and without any internal contradictions, both are right. Though to be fair, such a scenario will
generate an eventual contradiction in one party given that they are polar opposites. As such, any foray
into determining this contradiction is an act of introspection which culminates in greater wisdom. Not
greater intelligence, but a greater understanding of your own understanding of reality. Of making your

perception of reality more congruent and consistent and thus more reflective of what is true. It is, as all
the bullshit gurus like to say, “How you find meaning.”

The last thing to say about identity is that when determining purpose, when determining the outcome
of your actions, it’s necessarily predictive – even regarding matters of the past. Nobody knows the full
extent of your actions or even what you necessarily effected. Thus even while the outcomes of your
actions can be established, the ultimate PURPOSE of those actions remain predictive. Even your
intentions don’t matter in this regard as they’re predictive too. So say you cut off someone’s arm. That
you did so is objective, but the subsequent outcome of that act isn’t known, neither is why you did so.
Are you a soldier? A surgeon? Did you kill that someone? Were they evil? Were they good? Did you
doom humanity? This is the subjective aspect of determining someone’s identity. It’s a process of
predicting what will happen or what did happen as a result of your actions and also of predicting your
own intentions. The objective aspect, the action that we know you did, is the jumping off point for all
this prediction. This can also work in reverse, determining what caused you to do this and so on. So in
such a situation you are definitively a dismemberer by virtue of cutting off someone’s arm, but the true
nature i.e. the purpose of this interaction isn’t known.

So there exists an objective and subjective aspect to any identity. There’s a more in-depth explanation
for why this is so which is fucking fascinating but we don’t need to get into that. Though what you do
need to recognize, and give yourself a moment to process, is that this act of attributing to someone an
identity through subjective and objective means is what you call Narrative Crafting. A narrative is simply
the story used to outline some sort of causal relationship that then forms the identities of all parties
involved. Victims, perpetrators, heroes, villains, etc. Take any objective criterion, say high criminality
amongst blacks, and provide a predictive (subjective) framework that shapes an identity for them into
whatever you want and you’ll have created a narrative.


Related documents

condensed treatise on social justice by vandal
kathry olsen music social change 2260 ch1
gender 1
cultural marxism book outline 2
lit womanist approach

Link to this page

Permanent link

Use the permanent link to the download page to share your document on Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, or directly with a contact by e-Mail, Messenger, Whatsapp, Line..

Short link

Use the short link to share your document on Twitter or by text message (SMS)


Copy the following HTML code to share your document on a Website or Blog

QR Code

QR Code link to PDF file Condensed Treatise on Social Justice by VANDAL.pdf