Darkstream: The Concept of The "Right-Wing" SJW

I am totally unfamiliar with this blog. It seems to be dedicated to alternative comics, but this essay is excellent. I totally agree that the very concept of a 'right wing SJW' is an idiotic oxymoron.

From Vox Popoli

From the transcript of the Darkstream:

I don't know what "right-wing SJW" signals to you but what it signals to me is that the person who is talking does not understand what an SJW is. They do not understand that social justice actually means something. You know, it is a complete oxymoron. To use the term "right-wing SJW" is every bit as nonsensical as the term "right-wing communist"; there are no right-wing communists. Now, you can argue all you want about the Nazis being right-wing or left-wing; I think it's very obvious that the National Socialist German Workers Party was, like all socialist parties, like all workers parties, a party of the Left. I studied their ideology, and if you go over the 21 points of the Munich Manifesto, you can see that the National Socialists were considerably to the left of the American Democrats. That's why it's always been totally absurd to claim that Republicans or libertarians are Nazis, but there is enough common confusion on that score that you can understand where it happens.

And yet, you never see the same thing happen with communists, and nobody ever says, "oh, well, you right-wing communists", and so it's interesting to me to hear about that, especially in this recent run-in with the self-proclaimed moderates in the comics industry.  More than a few of them accused us, and me a particular, of being a quote right-wing SJW unquote, but if you understand what SJW stands for, if you understand what social justice is, then you realize that it's the same as saying you're a right-wing/left-wing warrior.

It's intrinsically nonsensical, and let me explain for those of you who have not read SJWS ALWAYS LIE, which is, as even people who don't like me very much will tell you, the go-to book on the subject. Social justice is about the convergence of all individuals and institutions towards what they consider to be the maximum possible justice for everyone,  and so "social justice warrior" does not refer to tactics, it does not refer to techniques, it refers to objectives. And the objectives of the SJW are absolutely antithetical to the right wing in general, and to right-wing extremists in particular

Alot of people don't realize that the concept of social justice goes back to the 1800s. That's right. A commenter said social justice is socialist justice. Many figures on the right have condemned it, probably the best example being Friedrich von Hayek. He wrote a really good essay on the subject back in 1971, so this is all going back much further than most people realize, and what we're seeing in the SJWs today is really just the ultimate realization of what John Stuart Mill was advocating back in, whatever it was, 1851. So if you look at what social justice stands for, it stands for the very things that we're now seeing from the tech companies, it stands for all of the corporations, all of the organizations, all of the Boy Scouts, all the churches, everything, being used to enforce the principles of social justice. Now, of course, what social justice specifically stands for has a tendency to mutate at any given moment. They used to be concerned about gay marriage, before that they were concerned about women in the workplace. They were concerned about black quarterbacks, now they're concerned about black coaches. The specific target frequently evolves, but the general objective of forcing everybody's opinion, and everybody's thinking, and everybody's actions to conform to the narrative, that is the primary objective.

Obviously that is not what we on the right wing support or stand for. We don't accept any of it. Social justice, and especially the convergence that it entails, is diametrically opposed to all of us who value Aristotelian logic, value Christianity and Christian morality, and so it is absolutely insane, it's nonsensical, to confuse the two or to conflate the two. Now, you can say quite reasonably that we don't want politics in our comics. I don't think that is very plausible for comics that are going to have any relevance to current events or to the interesting philosophical and ideological questions of the day, but that's not a nonsensical statement, it's just a self-limiting statement.