Yes, even if you are not a “gamer”, even if you despise videogames, still the “gamer gate” matters to you.
If you are familiar with GamerGate, you can skip this part and move below to the next section of this post, the “Pandora’s Box”. If not, the “GamerGate”, in short and admittedly with oversimplification, it is about the attempt by some people in the gaming ecosystem, to take over journalistic integrity and to introduce an ideological perspective into the gaming business. These ideologues stem from the belief that the gaming business, currently male “dominated”, perpetuates gender stereotypes, enables misogyny, and makes games hostile to potential female audience and developers. In essence, to them, female game developers are entitled to “free passes” in the gaming business, and games have to be scrutinized and reviewed by a feminist perspective.
When this stuff was first uncovered, many gamers, and even some professionals of the gaming industry, exposed the “conspiracy”, and the hashtag #GamerGate was born. The outrage was not only raised by the undermining of journalistic integrity, there was more. “Gamers” were painted as a sort of distributed group of psychopathic individuals, addicted to misogyny. They were not anymore the main stakeholders of the business, but a sort of social psychology target. Quoting the emblematic words of one of these ideologues: “gamers are over“. A superior ethical playground had to be deployed by Social Justice Warriors (SJW); crusaders waging a war under the flag, as it soon became clear, of radical feminism.
The “grassroots” of GamerGate, the gamergaters, grew exponentially; they exposed the lies, the non-sense and the inherent anti-male bias of the “conspiracy” plan. Some of them, saddly, decided to engage in a personal battle with the most prominent SJWs, and someone decided to address them also with “virtual” threats. A SJW, unable to grasp the relation between insulting hundreds of millions of people and getting back harsh reactions from a dozen of them, made even more clear her ideological standpoint; the problem was not the game but the dominant demographic behind the game:
We need to seriously address connections between violence, sexism and toxic ideas of manhood before boys and men commit more mass shootings.
Not a coincidence it’s always men and boys committing mass shootings. The pattern is connected to ideas of toxic masculinity in our culture.
The mass media, as expected, sided with the SJWs, hiding facts, twisting the real matter of concern of gamers, and giving unilateral “prime time” to Social Justice Warriors instead of hosting fair debates. The bias in media made clear, if ever needed, the intimate and suspicious relation between SJWs and the media.
This is, to make a long story short, the development of the GamerGate during the last two-three months.
Actually, to be even more accurate, the GamerGate started well before the fall of 2014, long before the hashtag was coined. Three years ago, already, some SJWs launched a campaign to tackle misogyny in multiplayer games; according to them, if a woman gets an occasional stupid or offensive comment in a multiplayer gaming session over the Internet, it is widespread misogyny; female gamers, naturally, deserved special protection rules on top of those already existing in gaming moderation for normal people. And just few months after that, a prominent SJW launched a campaign to tackle stereotypes in video games; games were, in her opinion, demeaning of female empowerment and they encouraged the misogynistic attitude of male population. This representation of “truth” came from a SJW who was neither a gamer or a game developer.
Now, you should have a wider, even if superficial, knowledge of the #GamerGate.
The Pandora’s Box
That being said, why should GamerGate matter to you, even if you are not interested in videogames? Even if you hate videogames? Even if you despise just the idea of a dude wasting time with a console?
Surely, you should worry about media corruption, because it is a thing, but there is much more than this. Gamergate is serious stuff because it opened the “Pandora’s box”; in the box there is much more than games, there is social profiling, social engineering, megalomania, and foremost, misandry.
Radical Feminism has taken over social studies in the academia, especially in the USA, becoming a cult based on the disdain of male identity. With a declared enemy: masculinity. Most of religions are based on a benevolent God; this cult is based on a malevolent one, an Evil, which embodies in male population in the form of “toxic” or “hegemonic” masculinity.
But do not be fooled; the “toxic” masculinity is just a moving target, to divert ingenuous people from the real declared enemy, the male identity. It is as simple as that.
Being male is the “original sin” of this cult; it is no wonder, then, to hear the male adepts often apologizing for their “privileged” status of heterosexual male; or even worse, “white heterosexual male”. It is the initiation ritual male adepts play to be recognized by the sisterhood; and it has to be periodically renewed, to confirm their belonging, to exorcise their demon inside.
This is a war on women in gaming waged by a group of sexist monsters. If you are not a horrible being, get out of #gamergate now
It is the reply by a SJW to a gamer. It is a war between monsters, or horrible beings, against humans. It is an ethical battle against the evil, a crusade; “either you are with us or you are the enemy”. At least to me, it reminds the words of Obama (and Bush before) sanctifying the crusade against ISIS for the sake of “our common humanity”. An epic battle between humans and not humans.
Feminism’s adepts have being operating for decades, unchallenged, in the academia, in the media establishment and even in many national and extra national organizations, such the UN.
As the group identity of feminism developed, masculinity became an enemy far beyond the battlefield of games. The “idealization” process of the “masculine” evil has grown hyperbolically; it is worth to quote a statement form an EU research on Social Science and Humanities dated 2004, a work realized by feminist scholars and financed by the EU commission, titled “The Social Problem of Men“:
The EU can be understood as a project devised to reduce men’s historical tendency to nationalistic conflict and war, and so achieve relative stability in Europe. There is indeed increasing recognition of the central place of men and masculinity in the collective violence of war.
Masculinity is not an enemy, it is THE final enemy.
This crusade is beyond insanity. It is megalomania. It is about a pervasive social conditioning of men and boys. It is about psychic manipulation of infants with the introduction of the “gender ideology” during the early stages of education. It is about manipulating minds and criminalizing natural tendencies, in order to stimulate a self-inhibition. Brainwashing children outside the reach of the family; a family already framed as an adverse institution that poses the risk of replicating gender roles, and facilitating the contagion of the “toxic” masculinity.
At the root of sick forms of social engineering is the natural tendency of people in position of power, to project own personality and experience into others; it is egomania. When these people with high decisional (financial, academic, political) power endorse an ethical doctrine, chances are that their egomania will translate into megalomania.
The megalomaniac process of social engineering follows four stages; it starts with social profiling of adults; then it moves to indoctrinating young people, thus to brainwashing children, and finally to the non-yet born people, with adoption of bio-genetics or selective reproduction.
It is a path which, ultimately, leads to eugenics.
History repeats itself, cyclically, in different yet similar forms, simply because the engine that moves individuals and groups, at the core, does not change. Eugenics was widely adopted in Europe and USA, less than a century ago (abolished in Sweden in 1974). It was legal because it had both “ethical” and “scientific” support. The road of “ethics” idealizing a society with “better people” crossed the road of science busy in defining relations between “unwelcome social traits” and biological factors; at the crossroad, it was “selection of the species”. Minorities and people affected by hereditary diseases were profiled and brainwashed to lead them on the way of “spontaneous” sterilization; a “compassionate” way of preventing the sufferings of unwelcome new-borns. The “evil” was not intentional; to eugenicists it was all about avoiding the suffering of “inferior” beings in a society designed for others. It was sincere kindness, in sick minds.
If we cannot modify society, maybe we can modify the people; why not? Quoting once again a passage of the EU research mentioned above, “The Social Problem of Men“:
Changing and improving gender relations and reducing gender inequality involves changing men as well as changing the position of women.
A very telling mission statement, aiming to change the position of women and, emblematically, assuming the possibility of changing men; “beings” reduced to disposable matter, to be customized in order to fit a society tailored on a gynocentric order.
Eugenics is on the horizon.
Most likely you do not see this horizon approaching. We are all good people, we do not do such kind of things, except we already did them and we do them, and always for apparently good reasons, because we are good people.
Let’s go back 20 years ago, and imagine someone making the prediction that in 20 years schools would being teaching little kids that young males are not necessarily “boys” and young females are not necessarily “girls”; and family members opposing to this, threatened with allegations of “hate speech”. Would have you bet on this prediction?
Now let’s fast forward a couple of decades, and let’s imagine that “science” should tell us that the “gene” of violence has been identified and we have enough knowledge and technical means to intervene on that. How many will stand against it?
Scan the horizon.
Does gamergate itself deal with eugenics? No, of course not.
Do the Social Justice Warriors advocate for eugenics? No, of course not.
Do the feminists at the EU parliament, believing that masculinity is correlated to Climate Change, advocate for eugenics? No, of course not.
Do the feminist scholars aiming at “changing men”, advocate for eugenics? No, of course not.
Do the radical feminists dreaming of a reduction of male population, advocate for eugenics? Well, maybe they do.
Psychopaths apart, most of them are just “good people” who want to “manifacture” even better people. Some are stuck at social profiling, others proceeded to the next stages of social engineering; brainwashing and indoctrination. But they all, in good faith, do not realize the misandry of their argumentations. Not even the megalomania implied by their intents.
In a way, they just manifest a radical expression of a wider social trend; our “western” enlightened society is gradually shifting towards a new idolatry, based on the projection of a human kind gifted with “superior” ethical values.
It is the old recurring dream of a life in Eden. Except that the new “all mighty” to be worshipped, to many, has the appearance of a Goddess.