Against the liberal propensity to push leftwards constantly, conservatives have spent decades emphasizing common sense and “values.” They derided liberal intellectuals for fetishizing language, thus losing track of seemingly evident realities and boundaries.
It may be true that at least a non-negligible proportion of liberals give an excessive importance to words, to the point where key concepts of life are considered as arbitrary “social constructions.” Yet, so far, the liberal approach has been more powerful. Libtards may be wrong on their explanations but they know how to manipulate, pressure, enforce boundaries, twist language, and further their own narrative in the process.
You likely already heard about frames: when approaching a girl, you may want to come across as playful and funny, and if she doesn’t turn you off, you will start escalating and sexualize the interaction. If you never sexualize, be it only through talking about relationships and sex, the girl will likely perceive you as asexual or shy—or of a low value—and put you into the dreaded friendzone. Bantering, negging, sexualizing are ways to frame the interaction so that you can lead it to a notch.
Frames matter in social life. They also matter in politics. Frames structure the thoughts and interaction. They draw attention on some aspects of life while letting other aspects ignored. If unconscious, and they are never more efficient than when unfelt, they lead to bias and implicit assumptions. Leftists know this, and this is why their whole school-media-culture machine is loaded with biased descriptions, unsaid taboos and hysterical denials.
This piece is the first of a series about concepts often used by Leftism to frame public consciousness and acceptable discourse and that need, as their own vocabulary says, some deconstruction. We’re starting with the insults.
1. “Far right”
According to them, that’s us. The manosphere is supposed to belong to the “far right.” Schematically, we are supposedly more on the right than the “standard right.” Said right has shown spineless, ideologically weak, ready to do various lobbies’ biddings and back down when SJWs attack. When you are aware of this, you can deduce that being considered more on the right is perhaps a sign of integrity—but the left eagerly denies the RINO’s mainstream “right”’s weakness in order to pretend they had an adversary.
The mainstream, that is, cucked culture, paints the “far right” through a rather negative light. The label is associated with Hitler, the Holocaust, and various sensations such as marching boots sounds and the sight of ugly skinheads, not to mention scary music. A lot of priming is going on here: when we were children, we could barely understand a thing about politics, but the teachers already ingrained us with what retrospectively seems crude war propaganda.
Indeed, the very Left that says any acknowledgment of human biodiversity is essentialist entertains itself an essentialist conception of the “far right.” The label denotes a kind of quintessential negative in politics, a perpetual villain that always threatens to swamp “democracy” or other positive buzzwords but is also defeated by heroic liberals—or cuckservatives if the “far right” appears embodied by foreigners.
In a blue-pilled mind, the “far right” label sparks a psychology of cleanliness. It is seen as ritually unclean, like a moral equivalent of feces, something dirty or infectious one would rather put aside than even try to understand. In 2002, when the National Front president Jean-Marie Le Pen reached the second round of the president election, journalists hysterically shouted: “Quarantine them off!” As if a legal political party embodied a kind of disease. Of course, when such a negativity is ascribed without reflection to someone, the “normal” have no problem throwing on him any negative epithet. Hence the conflation of anything the Left would shriek at with the arch-villainous Hitler. Doubts about feminism or immigration? That’s “far right”, and if it is “far right”, then Hitler!
When one enters the actual social or cultural milieu beyond the label, one quickly sees the falsehood of the leftist-essentialist view. Ideologies that were deemed progressive and left-leaning on their time, such as classical liberalism, end up labelled “far right” after the political mainstream kept drifting leftwards, thus abandoning those who wouldn’t drift. This is why the place is loaded with ideological diversity: everything labelled “far right” doesn’t share a common essence but have all been dumped there by the left. The enduring use of the expression among liberals merely shows how much they need to craft a bogey enemy to legitimate their own perpetual discontent and play on fears.
Everywhere there is a continuum, things or categories span from average to extreme depending on their relative position. Extremes tend to be more visible because of their sheer difference from the average or center. In politics, extremes are always relative to a particular Overton window and associated range of acceptability.
The so-called progressives have had their extremists. After 1789, secularist revolutionaries in France quickly drifted towards terror, massively using the guillotine against anyone straying out of their ideological path, massacring hundreds of thousands of peasants in Vendée. Likewise, Bolshevists gruesomely killed an untold number of people to build a “classless” society in Russia, before Maoists in China did the same at an even greater scale during the “Great Leap Forward.”
When confronted to noticeable extremists of its own, the left uses a variety of strategies. One of them is sheer self-complacent progressivism: what appeared extremist at moment A became normal at B and C because it was part of an intrinsic “progress.” The mainstream at A was simply less evolved than the mainstream at B and C, and the seemingly extremist became normal because it ought to.
Another strategy is the sophistication, mainstreaming, and de-responsabilization of Leftist extremism. The radical left—“radical” sounding better than “far”—is deemed interesting to study with high standards of charity and detail. It then becomes an object of culture, and turns mainstream. At the same time, so-called researchers start to deny the responsibility of extremists, blaming it on external circumstances, or flat-out denying that extremists come from the Left in spite of their paths and practices. For example, “Stalin was not a leftist” or “John Money’s experiences have nothing to do with gender feminism.”
Both of these positive reinforcement strategies have a reversal with negative ones geared against us. We are supposedly conservative or reactionary—categories deemed uncool, unfashionable, barely tolerated at the wrong side of the system—and aren’t considered through an intellectual charity principle but rather as metapolitical scoundrels who can be freely amalgamated with other intellectual scoundrels, be them Margaret Thatcher or Hitler, without possibility to appeal.
We are “extremists” when seen through the lenses of a distorted, degenerated standard. What is the legitimacy of a cultural world that deems Maoists scholars “normal”, immigrant rapists “victims”, and shrieking obese women heroic, whereas patriots, fathers and blond families are labelled extremists?
According to the accusatory Leftist narrative, we, straight-white-males—it is supposed to be a social identity—are alleged to have been dominating the world through “oppression.” Incidentally, “the world” quickly becomes synonymous with “minorities”, a concept used to create class identities from very different and previously unsuspecting social categories.
Women, although they are more numerous than men, are deemed a “minority.” Patriarchy is understood as “male supremacy” over women. Is that really so? Actually, a patriarchy means complementarity and natural harmony: men and women, having different abilities and different needs, also have different social roles and sets of responsibilities. This existed in all civilizations for thousands of years. The very late charge of “male supremacy” aims at making women willing to be men and dissatisfied with their natural condition.
The “supremacist” label also appears associated with “white.” Then, I ask, supremacy on what? If “white supremacism” denotes wanting to remain the majority and in control of the lands of our ancestors, in a civilization built by our ancestors, then “white supremacism” is exactly what the left supported for other peoples: a right to self-determination and autonomy, emancipation from invaders and unwanted immigration, the recovering of sovereignty.
More than often, the desire for holding again the reins of our own civilization is associated with the defence of reciprocity—which contradicts “supremacism.” Most of us, I think, would be OK with Muslims practicing their religion on their own lands and refraining from invading ours. Respect entails reciprocity. The Left constantly ignores this and pushes baseless accusations in order to paint us as perpetual villains. Also, the left’s very intolerance to intellectual diversity allows to speak fairly of its only too real ideological supremacism.
One of the main totem poles in colleges these days is the “X privilege.” White privilege! Male privilege! Check your privilege! I’m miserable because I’m oppressed by you! I may be a millionaire actress, I’m still oppressed by the mere existence of cishets!
Two things ought to be noticed. First, the notion of privilege as used by leftists opposes both merit and fair inheritance. Merit stems from ability, work, choices. Someone who worked hard and skillfully to answer a particular need deserves his reward. Likewise, inheritance is what maintains an identity beyond generations and motivates to work. For example, I want to hand down at least some of my books to my children at a later age, and I haven’t been “privileged” to get them—I scanned the market and pondered before buying this one and letting that one to someone else.
“Privilege” implies that individuals are all equal, all the same. They were simply born in different situations. They would have no merit, no right to inheritance, no genuine identity or vocation. They only live in a situation painted as unfair. Thus, those who are lucky enough to be recognized as “underprivileged” are not to be judged according to their peculiar abilities or choices—everything is blamed on the environment and then on us, even though we have already been much dispossessed for decades.
Second, the Leftist narrative and corollary accusations ignore actual privilege. I mean, pseudo-rights that are undeserved, untied to deep identity, wholly created by Leftist managers such as being handed a job from affirmative action, pussy pass, or having a high sexual market value with scant or no effort.
This one is mostly used as an imputation of intention. If you are labelled a troll, you are accused of willfully trying to disrupt a previously equilibrated and peaceful social exchange. It is highly ironical when media and liberals accuse us of trolling whereas they have been playing on emotional rhetoric and pushing for disruptive “causes” for decades. Some researchers tried to psychologize and essentialize the “trolls” as Dark Triads, a maneuver implying a clear double standard, as we can be deemed psychopaths through a biased and uncontextualized study while noticing the lower IQ or impulse control of a well-known ethnic group is deemed unacceptable. Of course, we’ve got no excuse for trolling (if we are really trolling once), it is all our fault with no external cause—the exact opposite of the minority-are-responsible-for-nothing view.
Trolling is real and complex. It can be interpreted as art. It can also be explained by political correctness—some of us needed to troll because they couldn’t identify with what the social world had become, or clumsily tried to rid themselves of ingrained Leftism. I suspect some people became real trolls because they were labelled as such and unduly punished by Leftist with authority positions.
Everything proper to the Cathedral’s narrative and viewpoints ought to be sifted. A neotraditional or neomasculine perspective associated with the use of a critical viewpoint is a winning combination.
Negative buzzwords crafted against us, beside their immediate relevance, give a window into the wider conceptual universe of libtards. Some of the suspicious concepts raised here along the way will be considered later. Stay tuned.