SJWs Always Lie

30 Aug

-Vox Day

Rule One: SJWs Always Lie.

Rule Two: SJWs Always Double Down.

Rule Three: SJWs Always Project.

If you’re reading my blog – and my books – you probably have an interest in science-fiction and fantasy. If you have such an interest, you will probably have heard of Vox Day. Given the noise-to-signal ratio of the recent Hugo Awards debate, where Vox was demonised as [insert your favourite hater here], some of you will have a strong urge to just put the book down and back quietly away from it …

If you do, you will have proved one of Vox Day’s central points.

A standard tactic – and not just one restricted to SJWs – is to mock the messenger, particularly if the message stands up to rational analysis. Therefore, a person who questions the accepted narrative of [insert social justice issue here] is branded as a racist, sexist, homophobe, etc … with the intention of convincing the undecided or the weak-willed to ignore him. After all, who wants to listen to a racist, sexist, homophobe, etc?

In the current climate this book may have a fair claim to being one of the most important books you will read. It is no surprise, therefore, that most of the one-star reviews on Amazon are insults directed at Vox Day personally, rather than the book itself. The unspoken intention is to mock the messenger, thus discrediting the message.

Read this book. You may hate it, but at least you will have the pleasure of knowing you made up your own mind.

One of the most heartbreaking stories to come out of the Soviet Union came from a man who’d been sentenced to the gulag (prison camp for dissidents); he asked himself, afterwards, why he hadn’t fought or run when the police came for him. He just sat in his house and awaited his fate. The answer, of course, is quite simple. The USSR was a prison camp above ground (and a mass grave below); the inmates – sorry, the population – were conditioned not to resist authority, even when authority was brutal, capricious, untrustworthy and quite thoroughly hypocritical.

Many people will say ‘it can’t happen here.’ But it can and it does.

Our society is under attack by Social Justice Warriors (or, as I prefer to think of them, Social Justice Bullies). They have, as Day points out, become the new thought police. Tell an off-colour joke? Lose your job, reputation and perhaps even your life. Disagree with the prevailing orthodoxy? Get harried into silence and then buried below a wave of focused scorn and contempt. Question the claims to victimhood of the aristocracy of victimhood? Get called a racist, sexist, homophobe, etc.

But what is a Social Justice Warrior anyway?

Put simple, a SJW fights for ‘social justice.’ That doesn’t sound too bad until you understand what it means. Social Justice ignores the individual in favour of the group. By this logic, all Black Americans are one, even though it doesn’t require much intelligence to realise that that cannot possibly be true. You’d be lumping Will Smith, President Obama, Ben Carson, Al Sharpon and Freddie Grey together, even though one is a great actor, two are politicians, one’s an unashamed race-baiter and one was a thug who was shot while committing a robbery.

To make this worse, each group is rated on a scale of victimhood. If there is a clash between two groups, SJWs automatically swarm behind the lower-ranked (or should it be higher ranked) group involved, even though the facts may lean the other way. Therefore, as far as the SJWs are concerned, a white man is always in the wrong when involved in a clash with a black man. In fact, although the average SJW will rant and rave about the evils of racism, many of them tend to be strongly racist towards white males (even when they are white males themselves). The self-loathing many of them feel is directed outwards against their own society.

It doesn’t take much effort to dig up the negative results of SJW policies. Policing in America has been badly hampered by the quest for social justice. Policemen involved in racially-charged incidents were tried and convicted in the court of public opinion a long time before the case ever saw the inside of a court of law. Their wives and families were also targeted. (This too is a common attack vector for the SJWs.) Accordingly, police are less willing to serve their communities for fear of seeing their lives ripped apart by SJWs. People are afraid to speak their minds – to point out that the SJW has no clothes – for fear of being charged with having said something, anything, that someone might have found offensive.

The SJWs are driven by emotion – and they tend to use emotion to keep their attacks moving forward. Emotion powers the Social Justice narrative. Once someone is emotionally involved, it becomes difficult for their preconceptions to be undermined – even if they’re based on a lie. This is at least partly why SJWs are so keen to use ‘racist’ as an insult – it’s a keyword that most people are conditioned to find horrible, urging them to lean away from the target. This only gets worse when the target isn’t someone known to the listener (thus avoiding the problem of positive emotions counteracting the negative ones.)

This book will tell you much of what you need to know about SJWs and the threat they represent to society.

It starts with an introduction to SJW-attack on both a micro and macro scale. The micro-scale attack may be something as simple as an accusation of a ‘micro-aggression’ at your place of work; a macro-scale attack may be something as savage and unjustified as the campaigns directed against Tim Hunt or Brendan Eich. (To some extent, George Zimmerman and Darrin Wilson are also victims.) These attacks will feature charges that are rarely worthy of being put before a court of law, but are maddeningly difficult to refute before the next charge is hurled into the fray. ‘Investigators’ will dig through electronic records to find something – anything – which may substantiate the charges, paint whatever they find in the blackest possible light and scream about it as loudly as possible.

These attacks are not primarily – if at all – about punishment. Instead, they are intended – deliberately – to create horrific examples. In Brendan Eich’s case, for example, the attack was intended to deter others from opposing gay marriage by crushing his career, reputation and future. No one can safely consider themselves immune from the SJWs.

The attacks, Day notes, tend to follow a set pattern; the target is isolated, the target is hammered, the target is pressured to resign and eventually buried by bad press. The resignation is particularly important as it is a de facto admission of responsibility (as noted later in the book, actually firing someone requires due process). To this, the natural human response is to beg for mercy, which is a terrible mistake. SJWs are bullies, plain and simple, and bullies are always attracted to weakness.

Day goes on to discuss GamerGate and its role in pushing back against the SJWs. To cut a long story short, a game designer was caught having several affairs with industry reporters, who gave her game (I’ve never played it, but Day makes it sound about as much fun as going to the dentist for a filling) star ratings. This blew the lid off intense frustration within the gaming community about new games that were designed more to please SJWs than gamers; they went on the attack, developed a mass movement and only fought back harder when the media establishment painted them as villains. (You may not believe the SJWs represent more than a swarm, but it’s hard to look at the history of GamerGate without understanding that gamers believe themselves to be targets – and that they might well be right.)

The SJWs went mad – as they did, later, with the Hugo Awards and the Sad/Rabid Puppy campaigns. It is hard to exaggerate the sheer scale of poison hurled at both the Sad Puppies and the Rabid Puppies. (To give one example; a man in a mixed-race marriage was accused of being a racist who was using his black wife as a shield; clearly, despite marrying her and raising a child, he was a racist. There is no logic in this, merely an attempt to use shouts of RACIST, RACIST to shut down debate.) Their operating principle was simple enough; their lies could get around the world before the truth had even been uploaded to the interest. And the core issue – the non-issue of diversity in SF – was buried.

Finally, the latter third of the book discusses what to do if SJWs attack and how to keep pushing back against them. This is easily the most important section and contains a great deal of advice which is applicable in many other situations. These can be summed up as ‘Don’t Panic, Don’t Respond, Don’t Apologise, Don’t Resign and Get Everything In Writing.’ It’s probably best to regard most SJW attacks as being on the same level as a child throwing a public temper tantrum; it’s loud, its unpleasant and the natural response is to do whatever it takes to calm the child down, but it will soon pass – and the child can do little to harm you. This is not always true of the SJWs, of course, yet keeping calm can allow you to migrate most attacks. Day concludes that most targeted individuals would probably have kept their jobs if they’d followed his advice.

There are two weaknesses that are probably both worth mentioning. In the course of illustrating his first principle – SJWs Always Lie – Day focuses on John Scalzi’s attempt to inflate the viewing figures for his website. On one hand, of course, this is such a minor matter that it illustrates the central tenet quite nicely; on the other, given that Day and Scalzi have a history, it looks as though Day is pursuing a personal grudge.

The second weakness is that the book doesn’t go too deeply into the nature of the beast. Who are the SJWs? They are not, in a conventional sense, a conspiracy; they will challenge their detractors to prove a Vast SJW Conspiracy in the certain knowledge that one cannot be proven. They are, however, a cluster of people who share a set of attitudes, combined with the technology to engage in easy activism. As such, they are both a very minor threat and a serious problem.

This may seem absurd, but the SJWs are – in many ways – the proof of Men In Black’s assertion that ‘a person is smart, but people are dumb.’ SJWs become attached to a narrative – a through line that purports to explain an event – and then refuse to accept any evidence that contradicts the narrative. Their agreements are not based on a reasoned consideration of the evidence, but raw emotion; there is no point in trying to reason with SJWs because they are not governed by logic and reason. Their attacks are so vicious purely because they want to keep the narrative going, rather than allow it to be questioned and picked apart.

You may not like the author, but you should read this book.

At the very least, you should know what you’re rejecting.

26 Responses to “SJWs Always Lie”

  1. Paul (Drak Bibliophile) Howard August 30, 2015 at 11:07 pm #

    Two thoughts.

    One key to understanding the power of people like the SJWs is the concept of “group-think”. There’s no need for an organized conspiracy when there’s a fair sized number of people who think and react the same way. One member of the group sees a target, attacks, and other members of the group hear about it. Nobody “issues” orders. It’s just a group that thinks the same way and acts the same way.

    Secondly, as an example of the “crazy thinking” of the SJW. Sarah Hoyt commented that a book won the Hugo because some of the SJW

    • Paul (Drak Bibliophile) Howard August 30, 2015 at 11:15 pm #

      Sorry, hit the Enter Button before I was ready.

      Sarah Hoyt commented that a book won the Hugo because some of the SJW might have voted for it because they thought the book supported the ChiCom (she used that term).

      Now ChiCom is a term used by the US Military to refer to Chinese Communists.

      One SJW decided that it was a “racist” term that Sarah had invented.

      It has nothing to do with racism and it’s only derogatory if you like communists. [Evil Grin]

      Well the SJW is currently making a fool of herself because she can’t admit that she was wrong. [Big Evil Grin]

      • Rob August 31, 2015 at 6:23 pm #

        Except that MRK publicly apologized two days before you wrote this comment. I am assuming you are talking about her. If I am mistaken in that assumption, then I unreservedly apologize in advance.

      • Dr. Mauser September 1, 2015 at 2:23 pm #

        Rob, MRK’s apology was not much of an apology in any sense of the word.

  2. James Stubbins August 31, 2015 at 3:44 am #


    In general, I agree with your viewpoint on SJW bullies, but you seem to have confused Michael Brown with Freddie Gray.

    Gray was minding his own business on a street corner in Baltimore while in possession of a small spring-assisted pocketknife, legal in Maryland but not in Baltimore, when he was arrested, handcuffed, thrown face-down into the back of a police van without a seat belt, and then taken on a fatal ride with a maniac policeman at the wheel making sudden turns and stops to throw him against the walls of the back of the van, breaking his neck.

    I carry a spring-assisted Kershaw pocketknife but am not black, so I do not fear the police or an unjustified arrest. I also can afford a lawyer and politely share that information with officers if it seems appropriate.

    Michael Brown was shot in Ferguson, Mo after robbing a store of a box of cigars and then refusing to walk on the sidewalk. He was a thug who died a thug’s death.

    James Date: Sun, 30 Aug 2015 21:40:48 +0000 To:

    • Dustin August 31, 2015 at 4:02 am #

      Indeed. Most of what Chris said was on point, but Freddie Gray did get screwed over and murdered by the cops. Michael Brown got what he deserved.

      • Dustin August 31, 2015 at 4:04 am #

        Eh, I may have been a little harsh. Nobody really deserves to die, but he brought what happened down on himself.

    • epobirs August 31, 2015 at 10:57 am #

      Freddie Grey did not die of a broken neck. He had a injury to his skull from an exposed bolt inside the van. Notably, he had a history of claiming injury while in transport after arrest. There is significant evidence he was seeking to do the same and underestimated the potential damage he was self-inflicting.

    • chrishanger August 31, 2015 at 2:21 pm #

      Drat – I meant Brown. Sorry for any confusion.


      My Site:
      My Blog:
      My Facebook Fan Page:

    • F you May 14, 2016 at 6:04 pm #

      A thug with an arrest record three pages long is found with a knife and resisted arrest. Boo hoo.
      Stop victimizing pieces of garbage. Grey was a piece of trash and deserved death.
      In my society he would’ve been castrated as to not reproduce more low IQ “victims”

  3. Muratcan SImsek August 31, 2015 at 8:11 am #

    First time I bought a book published by a writer of christian fiction. Let’s see.

  4. Anarchymedes August 31, 2015 at 11:46 am #

    ‘The bigger your market, Montag, the less you handle controversy, remember that! All the minor minor minorities with their navels to be kept clean.’ It’s amazing how Ray Bradbury could see it coming in his 451 Fahrenheit, as far back as 1953. This is why, IMHO, the so-called SJWs have so much power these days: because in order to avoid possible controversy and the subsequent costly legal issues, the system absolutely cannot afford not to take any of their raving seriously. How can any pathetic attention seeker whose only ‘achievement’ is to be born with [insert your distinctive feature here] let such an opportunity pass? Groupthink, bullying, and playing on common prejudices and emotions is how they work – not why. But behind it, I see the overwhelming temptation to exploit the system’s apparent weakness to boost one’s own ego. The same as with trolls, or keyboard warriors: easy to insult someone from the safety of your own office/study/whatever. Here is the question, though: how should the system formally draw the line between what should and what shouldn’t be taken seriously? For example, I know that removing Jack London’s South Sea Tales from print while the scholars debate whether he supported or condemned racism in them is a bit of an overkill, but that’s just me – and I’m white (shame! on your knees, bandit!) 🙂

  5. Booch Paradise August 31, 2015 at 1:22 pm #

    Just a side note, if you are looking to see further into the belly of the beast, MisterMetokur/InternetAristocrat on youtube is a great source. Particularly his themed stuff, like The Hugbox Chronicles, Tumblrisms, or on his new youtube channel, Hollowed Halls. And you probably won’t get as much from the streams.

  6. James May August 31, 2015 at 1:35 pm #

    Who are the SJWs? I’ve said it a billion times. There are only 2 people I know of offhand who’ve done a comparative analysis of gay radical feminist rhetoric circa 1970 and what we are seeing today: me and Robert Stacy McCain at The Other McCain blog. He has concentrated on college campuses, I on SFF. The rhetoric is a perfect match. Rape culture, the white male gaze, the colonial gaze, endemic misogyny, the patriarchy, the Bechdel Test, compulsory heterosexuality, binary gender as a fake construct to oppress women, privilege theory, irrational suspicion of men, intersectionality – all taken as a whole have only one single source in American culture: gay radical feminism. That is the ideology SFF’s social justice crusaders have adopted as their own and made orthodoxy. The fact the majority of them don’t even know who Robin Morgan and Mary Daly are or the origins of their cult means nothing to me and instead is a perfect pointer to how hate speech can be mainstreamed as “social justice.” Google those two names and add “quotes” and then marvel at how much their hateful and bizarre quotes are interchangeable with SJW rhetoric.

  7. Bob G September 1, 2015 at 1:20 pm #

    Chris, You perhaps should provide an Amazon purchase link with the review.

  8. George Phillies September 1, 2015 at 6:24 pm #

    If the police had the duty of shooting for jaywalking “refusing to walk on the sidewalk”, the Boston Police (oldest police force in America, 400th anniversary coming up) would run the country out of ammunition. If Scottish police shot someone dead for jaywalking, there might be some questions raised, wouldn’t there be?

    • David Damerell September 1, 2015 at 6:50 pm #

      Don’t forget he also stole a box of cigars. Doubtless the USA would collapse tomorrow from anarchy brought about by cigar heists if the police were not always ready to respond with lethal force.

      What I find remarkable about this little screed is it’s a pack of lies about me. I guess mendacity is a universal vice.

      • Dr. Mauser September 2, 2015 at 2:59 pm #

        Of course, punching out a police officer sitting in his car, and then trying to steal his gun pretty much sealed the deal.

      • Paul (Drak Bibliophile) Howard September 2, 2015 at 4:06 pm #

        You’re Ruining The Narrative!!!!! [Evil Grin]

  9. Dennis the Menace September 1, 2015 at 8:25 pm #

    “It is no surprise, therefore, that most of the one-star reviews on Amazon are insults directed at Vox Day personally, rather than the book itself.”

    And w/o actually looking it up first, I am willing to predict that the nasty one-star reviews are by people who haven’t even purchased the book (Amazon tells you) and many of them were posted BEFORE the book even shipped. I base this prediction on many other books I have seen this happen on Amazon so much that it is established SJW MO.

  10. Dennis the Menace September 1, 2015 at 10:29 pm #

    Also, a LOT of these SJW idiots go way overboard where what they say/write easily enters into the land of Defamation of Character. We need to SUE the crap out of them. Hell, we need a legal group that simply sues on behalf of their victims even if there isn’t really any case to be had in court — just to use Lawfare to harass the SJWs in the pocket book as they will have to hire lawyers and that can add up with all kinds of deposition hearings, etc. before they even make it to the judge, per se.

  11. Michael September 1, 2016 at 4:29 am #

    This being the same Vox Day behind such lovely pieces as “Why Women’s Rights Are Wrong” and other things, I don’t think everything said of him is defamatory. It’s much the opposite from your own view in Schooled In Magic, for instance. Thus your positive view seems a bit strange.


  1. “one of the most important books you will read” | Neoreactive - August 31, 2015

    […] (VD) Chris Nuttall, an Amazon Top 100 author and contributor to Riding the Red Horse, reviews SJWs Always Lie: Taking Down the Thought Police:In the current climate this book may have a fair claim to being one of the most important books you […]

  2. SJWs Always Lie | The Sun Also Rises - August 31, 2015

    […] The answer, of course, is quite simple. The USSR was a prison camp above ground (and a mass grave below); the inmates – sorry, the population – were conditioned not to resist authority, even when authority was brutal, capricious, untrustworthy and quite thoroughly hypocritical. – Review […]

  3. Cuckservative: How "Conservatives" Betrayed America | The Chrishanger - January 30, 2016

    […] the runaway bestseller SJWs Always Lie (reviewed here), Vox Day tackles two subjects that don’t, on first glance, seem to go together. On one hand, […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: