The Anatomy Of Modern Social Ideologies

An ideology, simply put, is a collection of ideas about the world. While that standard definition doesn’t sound inherently evil, the actions of those who follow a dogmatic ideology pose a grave threat to the mental stability of the very subscribers themselves. Sometimes they are a physical threat to those around them as well. Ideologies that don’t bend to fact, in and of themselves, are logically incoherent for there are always aspects of the group of ideas that either contradict reality, or contradict other ideas encased in the ideology. Mental devotion is not difficult to garner for zealots, charlatans, demagogues, and charismatic public speakers. Large crowds of people are desperate to understand how the world works. Most people are so thirsty to consume the fine wine that is truth that they will easily succumb to someone who hands them any sort of purple liquid. Then, with their mouths eagerly open to ingest, they devour the metaphorical poison without question. Duped ideologues then go on to convince all of those around them that they were not poisoned as they lay dying in the hospital bed.

Contradictions with reality are standard practice with ideologies and you can count on people who believe the dogma to consistently look at the world through that lens. The person will continue to label themselves as a member of the caste that attaches themselves to that particular idea sect. The person will identify themselves as a member of that group so readily, so quickly, so easily, and so whole-heartedly that an attack on the ideas will morph into an attack on their very self. The movement is them, and they are the movement. The individuals are the group of ideas because they haven’t thought outside of the ideology. The ideology becomes them because their thinking process and handle on reality is dictated by the ideology. It is a virus rearing to strike around every corner. Ideology driven mental short-circuiting doesn’t discriminate by intelligence, it just takes longer to refute the maze of large words and jargon when debating someone intelligent. It all arrives however at the very same conclusion: False.

These ideologies often have a group of leaders and intellectuals at the front who do a very reputable job of convincing people that what they are saying is true and coherent. Any argument put forth to combat the reigning idea is met with a flock of flimsy shields, and no matter how many shields are destroyed there will always be some that pop up to block the shots. Those flimsy shields usually consist of fabricated victimhood and smearing the person wielding the sword as someone who is threatening the safety of everyone with a shield, no matter how many times they get bashed in the head with one of them. However, no matter the claims, those who advocate for a world where reality takes precedence over ideology need to keep swinging.

One would think that factors such as logic, rationality, facts, and the ability to adapt a worldview would be natural vaccines against an ideology. Unfortunately that is not enough to convince someone to disassociate with an ideology. No matter the situation, no matter what the movement is doing, no matter the consequences of their actions, and no matter if the group goes against their own ideas, as long as the label stays the same people will follow. Distorted social ideologies are gaining power in the world today. Yes I do mean gaining power. Ideologies have gained power before and it has led to catastrophe. Pay no mind to how trivial or mindless the idea is, if it gains power it will be deadly. If an ideology has absolute power behind it, people die. An ideology is hurtful when it refuses to bend against the awesome weight of reality. However in many cases the ideology simply makes up facts that support its claim outright. If supporters of the ideology regurgitate that lie long enough it will start to become truth to an ever growing chunk of the population until the lie is seen as an “obvious no-brainer” and is never questioned again. Those who do question that supposed “obvious no-brainer” are treated as intellectually deficient or simply laughed at for not believing in what everyone else tells them is true. Even if that questioning is lined with irrefutable facts the mocking will still ensue, thus branding this per se questioner as a simpleton who doesn’t deserve a voice.

An ideology could claim the sky is green in order to explain all facets of society and life in general, but if the original premise that the sky is green is challenged then the entire ideology falls apart. This is where the intellectuals come in. With their massive intellect they would dream up constant rationalizations for this phenomenon. “The sky is ‘green’ but what is the concept of ‘green’ anyway? Green is subjective and everyone sees a different green when they imagine the color. To some people the sky may be scientifically blue, but it will always be green in my eyes. Perhaps some of our greens are actually blues; maybe the sky is a healthy medium between green and blue. Everyone is too black and white with their thinking by stating that something ‘is’ a certain color in the first place. There is no nuance or intellectual fortitude by just stating that the ‘sky is blue and the science says so’. Scientists aren’t taking subjective experience into account.” This is how the argument consistently operates. Faulty arguments laced with impressive sounding philosophical jargon and rhetoric could convince enough people to believe that the sky is ‘green’ by clouding the issue to the point where no one knows what ‘green’ and ‘blue’ is in relation to the sky color argument. Another strategy they use is to make large claims for what “society” believes in order to promote their argument. Society is racist. Society is sexist. They are setting out to prove a preconceived conclusion. Any evidence in support of their conclusion is taken on board. Any evidence against it is dismissed, ignored, or rationalized away in some ridiculous manner.

Reality is a secondary issue regarding ideology. The main issue of an ideology is getting people to believe in the ideology, to support the cause, and to tow the party line. This is why the virus analogy is so appropriate. Killing the host isn’t a concern. Destroying everything around them isn’t a concern. The only concern that they have is convincing everyone (and themselves) that they are correct about the world. The vital sin of an ideologue is to admit you were wrong. How strange is the human condition that we are able to believe en masse that Jewish people should be exterminated, that we should drink poison to be reunited with a comet, or that we should treat people unequally so that equality can be achieved? It is the poison of correctness. It is the deathly whisper of absolute certainty. It is the siren song of being unfalsifiable.

In many cases with moral ideologies, such as 3rd wave Feminism, they break their own moral code by pretending to be the underdog. They are constant victims and that is why they are entitled to act violent and break the very moral codes that they set for other people. They excuse themselves of any wrong-doing because they are doing it for the right reasons, but they go through everyone else’s actions with a fine tooth comb in order to find something that they can construe as sexist, racist, misogynist, or unequal. Anyone who subscribes to an ideology that doesn’t waiver in face of the facts is surrendering their intellect to the idea. They are sacrificing their free thought in order to fit the mold. They are giving their brain over to the ideology. They are becoming their own idea.

Lastly, and perhaps the scariest thing, is that their very identity is welded to the idea. An attack on the idea is an attack on that ideologue’s very person because their very person is nothing but the ideology. These people are victims, they have always been victims, and they will forever be victims. They use their victimhood status to erode basic human rights, and people let them get away with it as long as they are “helpless victims.” If you want to imagine the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face forever, and the face being stepped on apologizing to the boot for what it’s going through.

Twitter Has A Corruption Issue

Randi Harper has become infamous as someone who vehemently opposes #GamerGate. Considering #GamerGate is very anti-corruption it wouldn’t be a surprise why Randi Harper would oppose it. She opposes it so much that she has created a James Billingham style Block Bot in order to block people who would identify themselves as supporters of #GamerGate. Here is an image of the pinned tweet that is currently on Randi Harper’s Twitter account.

Unfortunately, for our “anti-harassment” and “online rights” crusader there is some information that still needs to be addressed. There was an incident involving a twitter user who got banned for “violating Twitter Rules” as detailed by these emails. The first email is what Randi Harper sent after filing a report against the Twitter User, then the email afterwards is a confirmation email stating that the person did indeed violate Twitter Rules. Before anyone accuses me of releasing her email address, she posted these photos on Twitter herself.



Randi Harper claims she sent the report because a “Large amount of unsolicited @ replies or messages” is against the Twitter Rules. Harper urged them to look through her timeline to see that the User was Tweeting about Randi almost exclusively. I searched this Twitter users timeline as well and found five times where Randi Harper was mentioned. I found five. Which shouldn’t be a big deal according to Randi Harper.


Apparently, it is. Twitter also only identified five tweets that they were forcing this Twitter User to delete in order to restore their account. As detailed here.


So, Randi Harper thinks that you shouldn’t whine like a baby if you receive 78 mentions, but she just can’t seem to handle five. It’s also very interesting to note that since this has been set as a precedent it seems like the Twitter Rules define five @ mentions a “large amount.” It is also important to note that these tweets were detailing Randi Harper harassing people. I find it very strange that Twitter is quick to jump the gun and suspend someone calling attention to harassment while also claiming to be staunchly against harassment.

A separate incident occurred a couple months ago regarding Randi Harper’s own ban and reinstatement. It seems like Randi Harper has had a personal meeting with the ironically named “Head of Twitter Trust and Safety.”


This person’s name is Del Harvey who is currently following Randi Harper on Twitter. I am unsure as to when the “Twitter Head of Trust and Safety” began following Randi Harper, but she has to at least be aware of some of the things Randi Harper has done. These statements, of course, come from an anti-harassment and online rights crusader.



I understand that one of these statements was from Facebook, but it still details how this supposed anti-harassment hero acts when she isn’t grandstanding about how anti-harassment she is. I attempted to get
clarification from Randi Harper about her meeting/interaction with the “Twitter Head of Trust and Safety” and she wasn’t very helpful. She has since blocked me so I can’t view what she actually said and I think she may have deleted the tweets, but I can give you my side and paraphrase her side as charitably as I can.

I posted the picture of her claiming she met with/emailed the Twitter “Head of Trust and Safety” Del Harvey. I then proceeded to ask her what those statements meant. She then claimed that I took the statements out of context from a conversation a couple months ago. She then called me a “little gator.” I told her that I was flat out asking her for context on the statements. She then did not answer my questions, but turned it around and said something along the lines of “How about I ask you for context regarding a conversation with your friends, you are not entitled to information.” I then told her if she found a conversation I had with friends that she would like context on I would trade with her. She then refused my generous offer because everything she says gets screen-capped and misconstrued. I then told her that maybe if she released some context about the statements she could rub it in their faces and prove them wrong. She then told me to have a nice life and blocked me on Twitter.

Blocking on Twitter is another issue I have with the Twitter Rules. The Twitter Rules state that they will consider you a spammer if you have a large amount of people blocking you. This coming out after Randi Harper developed her GamerGate blockbot. This doesn’t seem fair to the people who have never harassed anyone who fall under the net of the GamerGate blockbot. Large amounts of people use this blockbot as a harassment tool. This was true with the Atheism+ BlockBot as well which is currently in legal trouble. They label people as harassers, slap their twitter handle on a blockbot, and then get blocked by a large amount of people. Harassment, of course, being defined as whatever they please on that given day. They are not required to put forth any evidence of harassment to put someone on this blockbot. Yet, when an innocent person is put on the blockbot for one reason or another, they are at risk of being labelled a spam account by Twitter.

Returning back to the Randi Harper report against this particular Twitter User, she is showing emails about how the entire situation went down. She filed a report, then emailed Twitter support, then got the User’s account suspended. Then a man named Ethan Avey who is a “User Safety Product Manager” told this Twitter User that this was done in error. I am currently unsure as to whether he is claiming that the ban was done in error, or being made to delete the five tweets specifically about Randi Harper was done in error. Either way it shows bias in the favor of Randi Harper.


Twitter has a severe corruption issue that needs to be looked into and addressed. Twitter cannot keep handing the power and influence over to these types of people. We saw it with Women, Action, and the Media. Now we are seeing it with the likes of Randi Harper. Who is to say that Randi Harper is the only person scraping benefits from friends in high places? I’ll end this post with a little message from Randi Harper to Ethan Avey giving him a heads up that all of those nasty harassers will be asking him legitimate questions about the error. Ethan Avey has since protected his Twitter account.


Ordering Your Coffee Black #RaceTogether

Starbucks has begun a hashtag campaign called “#RaceTogether” which is supposed to assist in mending race relations. The more cynical side of me would say that this is just a way for Starbucks to capitalize on the current zeitgeist. Putting that to the side I will pretend that Starbucks truly cares about racial inequality to the point where they are instructing their baristas to discuss it with their customers.

As much as I would love a lecture from a twenty-something about my privilege, I am afraid I am going to have to oppose this campaign. As a person of paleness the topic of “race relations” gets exhausting especially with sentiments floating around that it is impossible for other races to be racist towards white people. Writing “Race Together” on a cup is not going to solve any potential race issue. It is not going to “facilitate” a conversation. If anything it will leave them with customers of very specific demographics and political worldviews. Then drive out the rest.

This is a blatant flipping of standard anti-racist sentiments. Race immediately becomes the most important thing to someone who brings up race constantly. Perhaps the least interesting conversation to have with someone is about their race. If I walk into a Starbucks, sit next to someone, and get handed a “conversation starter” worksheet, I am going to crumple it up and throw it into the garbage. Race is not an interesting conversation to have with people you have never met before. In fact, it’s hardly an interesting conversation for people you know very well. What do these conversation starter worksheets even say “So, what’s it like to be black?”

I am far more interested in a person’s dreams, goals, aspirations, hardships, interests, family, friends, funny stories, which books they enjoy, and which politicians they hate. Trying to force a conversation about race relations is about as useful as having a lead life raft. The vast majority of people are extremely uninterested in the races of the people around them. However, Starbucks is going to try and force you to be interested due to a vast minority of racists in the world. I decline. Dunkin’ Donuts is now my go-to coffee shop because hopefully, as a person of paleness, I’ll be able to order a black coffee without putting oversensitive baristas on the fainting couch.