The leftist establishment, that still holds most institutions in the West, enforces serious double standards. Many of the norms and rules we follow are the result of said double standards—and of the left’s power to enforce them. Conservatives must be incredibly mild in order to be accepted in the world of media and politics, and, more often than not, must go through complex philosophical arguments to make even basic common-sensical claims, whereas leftists have an implicit right to being hysterical and hammering unproved points without ever being called out.

If you never confront openly these double standards, you let them pass unnoticed and let the leftist claim their artificial moral high ground. Once a leftist double standard is unearthed, it loses much of its grip, and the liberal will usually try to back it with another double standard… that you can call out as well.

Some of these double standards were mentioned last week. Here are some more.

1. The right to victimhood

“Glory to the vanquished”, Antonin Mercié, 1874 (copy)

“Glory to the vanquished”, Antonin Mercié, 1874 (copy)

Since the “most underprivileged” have been placed on the cultural altar, so-called minorities rushed to paint themselves as such and occupy the field. Being recognized as an undeserving victim has become one of the highest honours, one that allows for public funding, positive—i.e. positively biased and pre-programmed—attention, academic sinecures, cultural weight, ability to make emotional blackmailing without getting called out and so on.

So-called minorities are nothing more than a circle of authorized lobbyists that pretend to embody whole social categories, which is why I would rather call them minoritists than assimilate them to said categories. These lobbyists are responsible for the constant leftward drifting of Western culture. They occupy many, if not all, mainstream metapolitical fields, and if you try to step up on one of these fields, they will sense a danger to their State-enforced institutional position and try to knock you down.

Remember, the victimhood cake can only exist

  1. as long some groups are acknowledged as “true victims”, and
  2. as other groups must pay for the former.

If those who eat that cake sense you go towards the slightest victimhood yourself, no matter what actually happens, they will deny you the right to acknowledgement—thus only allowing you to produce silently and get your blood sucked by them.

2. The right to mention safeness or wanting to be safe without being called an –ist or a –phobic

The one on the left is allowed to be “triggered”, the one on the right isn't.

The one on the left is allowed to be “triggered”, the one on the right isn’t.

Feminists constantly talk about muh harassment. Likewise, minoritists make a great deal of so-called microagressions, which are mostly a fancy term to accuse the dreaded cis-white-male again and again.

But if Whitey dares to speak about black-on-white crime, and by crime I mean real offenses going from random physical threats to violent murder, then the minoritists yell “racism!” This also happens more insidiously to blacks that get murdered by other blacks and whom the mainstream media never speak of. They can accuse us of making them “unsafe” whatever really happens, but if we speak of having been assaulted or notice the pattern of actual crimes and ask for more safety, they will call for laxity towards criminal while shrieking at us.

In the same way, if we want to be safe of SJW mob harassment, they will say something like “it is normal that you are made to feel like a racist if you are one”—which means, in other words, “we have a right to isolate you, shame you, ruin your life and deprive you of your job, we have a right to decide absolutely on the norms and frames of polite society, now shut up and swallow whatever we’ll do to you!”

As our calls to safeness mean safeness from criminals and from the SJWs who at least indirectly support them, and as our calls to safeness conflict with that politically correct lead blanket they made especially to enslave us, they maintain a double standard that makes them able to create “safe spaces” inside places they already control while we are supposed to let them roam and harm freely anywhere.

3. The right to recognition as a right to empathy and public consideration

Jack, the man who can cry in thick man-boobs without being a wimp.

Jack, the man who can cry in thick man-boobs without being a wimp.

This one flows from the previous double standard. In a nutshell, if you are not part of an acknowledged protected group, you’ve got no right to empathy. Being part of the dreaded majority, you must be either the bad guy or someone who does not matter as there will always be someone who’s more of an acknowledged victim or more fashionable than you are.

As the Big Other is pedestalized, we are the actual Other in politics: the mainstream media always designates us in third person, sometimes uses the second—as in their ugly “dear white people…” pieces—, but never the first. We are definitely something else than their establishment. And thus, being the real “otherized” ones, we are those who can be excluded from all care or positive attention. Hence the feminist “male tears” meme: using it is tantamount to claiming they are vampires feeding off our sufferings, i.e. the very opposite of compassion.

Here, another double standard slips up: feminists who betrayed their own sadism through this meme have been lauded as subtle and ironic, whereas so-called right-wing trolls have been accused of being dark triad types.

4. The right to recognition as a right to dignity and being respected

whitepride

The previous double standard was about being considered worthy of empathy or compassion. This one is about being considered worthy of respect or dignity. According to the narrative pushed forward through the Frankfurt school, Boasian anthropology, second-wave feminism, the third-worldism and many other faces, the Western world must be equated with imperialism and oppression, and Westerners should feel guilt for being what they are.

Before the culture wars, thinkers would meditate about values, merits, moral character, the weights and qualities of good deeds. All these were intimately tied with respectability. And they have been phased out by a perpetual agitation about “privilege” or “oppression” that negates how we built the country, are the living core of the West, both its substance and condition of prosperity.

As long as we are considered as having exploited some fantastical Other rather than having built and created things out of raw genius and work, this one will persist.

As long as those who get acknowledged as “oppressed” earn more respect than those who are truly worthy of respect, we’ll keep seeing porn actresses branded as “warrior grrls” or “courageous” professional victims like mattress girl Emma Sulkowitz promoted, race baiters like Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton lauded, outright liars like Walter Cronkite or Betty Friedan presented as heroes, nepotic job-stealers or cunning manipulators promoted.

5. The right to do identity politics

4

Who is part of “us” and who is not? Who are “we”? These questions are far from merely theoretical: if I want to be a normal person and part of the “we”, answers to these become norms I ought to follow. Whoever can define group boundaries and push norms along wields great power.

This power has been mercilessly used in the US since at least the end of the 1930s. Jewish lobbies then attacked Lindbergh’s pacifism by associating it with German interests—them. Eventually, supporting the troops engaged in Vietnam was not part of the “cool” liberal us and relegated to the dreadful status of uncool, hence a them. Leftist coolness and inclusiveness work along ideological lines to draw boundaries.

If people on the right, or what I would call normal people try to make identity politics, they get labelled “racists”, “xenophobic” and so on. Whites were trained to pretend being colorblind out of fear of being called racists—thus renouncing any right to set their own boundaries following racial lines.

On the other hand, the left continuously made boundaries: it created minority identities along a Marxist class model, i.e. separate group identities based on anti-majority resentment, and it single-handedly put the topic of race on the forefront in the 2000s. To us, identity politics has been a game we’d always lose, a dangerous game we’d be guilty to even think about, but to them, it has been an incredibly powerful instrument of ideological bludgeoning and norms-shaping through social destruction. No identity politics outside of the left meant no checks and balances.

Today, it is clear that professional victim groups overplayed their hands. They have no legitimacy, either to do racebaiting or wage sex wars, nor to reject our right to draw boundaries out of real differences or responsible free will.

6. The right to declare wars

5

In theory, declaring war is the exclusive prerogative of a sovereign State. In practice, all wars are not considered equal, and anyone who declares it cares much about present public opinion and how future historians will paint him.

Some may associate pacifism, the opposition to war in general, associated to progressives through secular saints like Albert Einstein or Gandhi. Yet neither the Left nor the mainstream discourse have been pacifists in all cases: the same who opposed the Vietnam wars were diehard warmongers when it came to attacking Germany in the 1940s. Now, the Vietnam war is often quoted as an example of “imperialism” and moral illegitimacy, but who dares to criticize the liberal choice of destroying European countries together with the Soviet Union?

This double standard—the left can declare wars and tout them as fair, the right cannot—is intertwined with another one, i.e. implicit and acceptable selective compassion. We have been widely exposed to sentimentalist propaganda about civilian casualties in this or that war, from Vietnam to the current conflict in Syria. Yet where were the bleeding hearts when Russian peasants were slaughtered after 1917, or when Western middle classes were targeted by Bolshevism soon after, or when thousand German civilians were atrociously burned in Dresden, 1944?

Every liberal has a very selective notion of compassion, but they’re too dishonest to assume it.

Conclusion

This list likely reminded you some particular examples, from particular news pieces or college classes to daily life occurrences. You may be tempted to shrug your shoulders like, yeah, so what?, as it may be seen as underlining ordinary stuff.

But this is exactly the problem—nothing mentioned here should be deemed normal or ordinary. These double standards have become commonplace, to the point of being still present in the back of many minds, due to a long “march through the institutions” and culture, but they ought not to be common any longer.

All these have to be called out when enforced, until they lose all legitimacy and undergo the same disgrace that happened to normalcy in the 60s.

Don’t miss the third and last piece of this series about Leftist double standards, and feel free to complete the list if you notice some I haven’t mentioned.

Read Next: 5 Examples Of The Mainstream Media Extreme Bias