Previously: 6 More Double Standards Leftists Enforce On Their Enemies

As the proverb says, when the tide is ebbing, the waste that remained hidden underwater appears and the boats of the careless get buried in sand. We are witnessing the same with cultural Marxism. After decades of pushing their agenda without a real adversary, establishment leftists have so much overplayed their hands they stirred a response they can’t control anymore, a response that is becoming a real threat to their grip over history. Dialectics doesn’t always lead to more leftism.

The response they can’t control is us. Baby-boomers could let themselves be rocked by agitators and pretend it was “progress.” We can’t. We are facing a wall of unprecedented despair in the form of a complete and quiet disenfranchisement, and our choice is to either break heroically from it or to get destroyed through work deprivation, race replacement, culture war, and so on.

As red-pill consciousness arises and the cultural Marxist tide ebbs, more and more of us have undertook the long-winded but necessary task of deconstructing leftism. This series of pieces aims at contributing to that task by unearthing the main double standards leftists perpetuate all the time.

1. The right to generalize

induction-deduction

Our particular experience, made of some particular cases, is conspicuously small compared to the vastness of the world. If we are to move with some decent preparation in unknown places or make even basic predictions—for example, that your neighbours won’t try to kill you if you meet them in the streets but will likely nod with a smile—we have to go beyond experience and decide upon general principles.

This is true for individuals and even more for politics. If you are a policymaker, you have to think about trends, shared interests, and social categories. You cannot care about every particular case at hand or you’ll soon be overwhelmed. You have to rely upon broad categories, general rules, and situational awareness.

Now the Left has taken over the right to generalize. If you’re on the Right, the least generalization based upon biology or patterns-noticing is “racist”—but the Left can speak endlessly about race, “oppression,” and such without limit. By confronting us on pseudo-fact checking or with complex arguments, they want us to struggle on details whereas they stay in control of the wider narrative.

2. The right to shape one’s own norms and discourse

rodinpenseur

Thus stated, this one can seem needlessly abstract, but it isn’t.

If you cannot speak about the crimes you witness or about what being displaced is like, if you’re forced into babbling around the totem poles of “emancipation” or “equality,” you cannot communicate efficiently about what you’re going through.

If you speak of globalization instead of globalism, you keep acknowledging that the offshoring of jobs and overrunning of white countries by swarms of immigrants is the result of impersonal trends, and thus you can’t name those who actually pursue these trends.

Likewise, if you bother with justifying yourself through egalitarianism or “antiracism” (remind the classic cuckservative “dems are the real racists” argument), you cannot admit that you want to care about your own and about those who uphold healthy values rather than parasites.

An important step of the Alt-Right, manosphere, neoRxn et al. effort has been the putting forth of a language of our own. We are talking about hypergamy, pussy passes, cultural Marxism, urban SWPLs or bobos versus proles, Jewish activism, or about George Soros because it is both true and relevant to our interests. Our awareness has already started to spill into mainstream conservatism.

3. Responsibility versus explaining away

obama

If you belong to a so-called “minority,” you have a right to bear no responsibility for your faulty choices. Black crime is because “structural racism,” “white privilege” and muh past slavery. Female hypergamy is because womyn were oppressed and keep trying to secure the resources men were unfairly holding from them. Nothing is their fault—no wrong can come from these holy creatures. On the other side, the dispossessed majority, cis-scum and other straight-white-males are held responsible for everything.

Time has come to reassert our non-responsibility on that big waste the West turned into, and our responsibility on what we consciously choose—not on what the Left’s accusatory narrative spews daily.

This double standard is a recurring one in the mouths of those who happened to “succeed” without taking the red pill and tend to stay inside the mainstream. These adhere blindly to the narrative and parrot it at every turn.

  • Got no job? Oh, that has nothing to see with the offshoring of jobs or with the increased competition—must be your fault.
  • Got no girlfriend? Nothing to see with how girls became addicted to entertainment, drama, unrestrained hypergamy, or being extra picky and bitchy—must be because you’ve got the “loser mentality” or something like that.
  • Mobbed by a BLM crowd? Nothing to see with the prevalence of black violence or with how the mainstream media excuses it—must be because “you look like a victim” or “you provoked them.”

4. Impunity

hillary

A consequence of the above-mentioned is a state of generalized anarcho-tyranny. On the one hand, chronic offenders like Alton Sterling (or Killary) are given a pass for their numerous crimes. On the other hand, the normal, average guy is overburdened by excessive taxes, divorce-raped in court, fined while driving two miles per hour above the limit, and has a SJW sword of Damocles above his head.

In our inverted world, a black murderer, an illegal alien who commits real rape or a professional feminist are more highly regarded than a white entrepreneur accused of –ism or –phobia. Things are now going so far that media want pedophiles to look worthier of sympathy than people who basically want to save their race and civilization from dissolution and live in peace, the latter being now labelled “racism.”

5. Precautionary principle use

blackswan

In a nutshell, the precautionary principle is a rule of thumb that says the following: if an action or policy has a suspected risk of harm, then the burden of proof that it is not harmful (or that potential benefits outweigh the risks) falls on those willing to take the action.

This principle has been widely used to slow down technological innovation or market evolutions because of potential harms. It has also been extensively quoted by the Left as a brief justification for their “no-platforming”—censorship—policies: “if we let ‘em exist, we could go back to the 30s’ and stuff!”

Actually, the precautionary principle is not bad in itself: GMO, exhaust gas and the like are a risk to health and the environment. The slippery slope is not (always) sophistry. No—the problem here is that although the principle has been very much used by establishment bureaucrats against some technological innovations and against us, it has conspicuously not been used to ponder tremendous societal changes such as massive immigration, gay marriage, wide-scale economic planning and other imposed “social experiments.”

The double standard behind this rather disturbing use—and lack of use—of the precautionary principle is analogous to the difference between the total pussy pass for girls and the burden of taxation and micromanagement on small companies: just as the latter is based on a liberal prejudice that favours womyn while being defiant to entrepreneurs, the former has no other justification than a massive liberal bias.

6. The right to identify conspiracies (and to be taken seriously)

illuminatisigncelebs

Any honest and non-naïve person knows that influence-peddling exists. All those who have an agenda are trying to push it, more or less subtly, more or less efficiently. The advertisement research has been all about “selling” not only products but also ideas and behaviours to the unsuspecting masses. A cursory knowledge it, or of the Cold War intelligence history, obviously show how much deception and manipulation can matter in power plays.

If we stopped at this point, many liberals would probably agree. The Left has a long intellectual history of suspicion. Campuses have no problem teaching about the so-called “philosophy of suspicion” of Marx, Nietzsche and Freud. Official academics routinely spread ridiculous stories of how “genders” were constructed by a millennia-long conspiracy of males. We are also witnessing these days the rise of a big conspiracy narrative against Russia, as if the Lying Crooked and globalist establishment had no responsibility in The Donald’s election.

However, it is clear that only the Left has the right to mention (or invent out of thin air) secret plans. When people on the Right do, they get labelled “conspiracy theorists” and derided by the MSM. I remember SJWs attacking us as “tinfoil hats” when we mentioned that George Soros was financing coups masked as colored revolutions or how the Western corrupt elites were indirectly supporting ISIS. Well, all this has been proven true—and the “conspiracy theory” labelling has been a way to hide inconvenient truths by making them ridiculous and taboo.

Conclusion

When it comes to unearthing the true workings of Leftism, one could write a whole library. To focus on double standards, I could have dug on

  • how their intellectuals benefit from comfy academic sinecures whereas righters like Sam Francis or Peter Brimelow are persona non grata among the cowardly cuckservatives,
  • how liberals tend to think that their issues can only be discussed through painstaking detail—“you can’t talk about feminism if you dunno XYZ stuff about the second and third waves!”—whereas ours can be dismissed through mere narrative-parroting and insults,
  • how they constantly assume we have bad intentions and illegitimate interests but ours suspecting the same about them is offending or defaming,
  • or how the minority-baiters have every right to pour oil on fire but we should always tread carefully, and even then, accept to be held responsible of everything that goes wrong…

All these double standards, and many more I haven’t mentioned, are theirs. They are conspicuous, roam behind the explicit overbearing liberal discourse, create discomfort and the vague sensation that something’s wrong to the mind of the to-be-redpilled listener.

As we put forth our issues, concepts, and relevant but willingly ignored sides of the truth, we must also make direct attacks on the leftists’ double standards. Bludgeon them with the inanity of their own norms and pre-conscious choices. Even if they clinch and flee from the smaller concession, they should experience cognitive dissonance, and their whole Weltanschauung shall melt down while we occupy the ground and become the new mainstream.

Read Next: 4 Reasons Why Leftists Are Clinically Insane