I capitalized the “Your” in the title. I’m in control of My Language.
That’s kind of a joke, but kind of serious.
When you call someone “left wing”, what does a third party listener get to do? He gets to fill in the blanks. He gets to imagine that the person you are calling “left wing” has something to do with yoga, kombucha, the city of Portland, green things and tax-funded medicine and unemployment insurance. If the audience is particularly dim, they may imagine this “left wing” person is somehow in favor of free speech.
Because “left wing” is a wildcard. The listener can imagine whatever they want with “left wing” because the salient features of “the left” are debated and disputed.
If you say that you are “right wing”, now the audience gets to decide what that means and what you are. Of course there is a certain range, but they can decide within that range. Perhaps “right wing” means that you’re for shipping jobs to the third world and lowering first world wages. Maybe it means you support all sorts of religious laws. Maybe it means you support a multiracial state with a legalized racial hierarchy.
Maybe the person who hears “right wing” will ask for clarification, maybe they won’t – it’s up to them if you use “right wing”.
Why would you do this? You would do this if you don’t have anything to replace it with. And that is why you need a term for yourself.
Alt-Right, Marxism, Randian Objectivism
This is what should have been done with “alt-right”. The words “alt-right” are fantastic, they catch on easily, and if they were defined from the outset, could be used as something people could point to and say “that’s us” without the vagueness of religious nonsense or lolberg economics.
The problem is that “alt-right” was not defined. And so it became like “anarchism”. The term “anarchism” is of course a mess in terms of meaning – originally meaning the abolition of private property / the state, then to some became the abolition of just the state and even greater power of private property, and to some just the abolition of private property and a total state, and to some it’s not about “the state” or “private property” but the elimination of hierarchy in any form, and these people reference the root words of an-archy.
Richard Spencer, the chief popularizer of the term “alt-right”, didn’t want to lay down a hard definition of it. He instead wanted to create an “idea space”. The result was predictable; loss of control of the term. Now “alt-right” means anything from The Daily Stormer to Milo to Mike Cernovich to Sean Hannity. It has ended up like anarchism. There’s a very vague idea of what it might mean, but at the same time it could include extreme multiracial absolutists who say “nazi” a lot.
“Alt-Right” as become anarchism. When it should have become marxism. There are two real models for how to advance a set of ideas that pop into my mind: Ayn Rand’s Objectvism, and Marxism.
Don’t misunderstand – people lie about Rand and Marx all the time. But with Rand and Marx, it is at least the specific doctrines of a specific person, and you can always point to a specific writing of Rand or Marx on whatever issues they addressed. It’s always there, and the words of Karl Marx will always trump anything else on questions of what is or isn’t Marxism, as with the word of Rand on Randian Objectivism.
The “alt-right” has nothing like this they can point to. And so is in the same position as anarchism.
One can question the success of these strategies, and perhaps say that “Objectivism” would have been more successful with more loose definitions. This is not a good way to look at it; yes, if “Objectivism” could be whatever you want, then all sorts of ideas, tagged “Objectivism”, would advance well past what Rand originally intended. But that doesn’t mean that the substance of what Ayn Rand meant by Objectivism would actually be going further.
Marx of course had a much bigger impact. But since his ideas were awful, the impact was awful. I simply look at Marxism as successfully propagating.
They’re not “Leftists” anyway
(Note: this section is all about white people who call themselves “leftists”. With brown people, that’s just them being brown people. It’s also not “leftist”, but there’s not really anything you can do about it and it’s simply their racial nationalism them calling it that. For brown “leftists”, just call them racial nationalists and you can basically use the same arguments when dealing with white “leftists” here.)
Take the environment. There are costs and benefits to environmental regulations. The people traditionally labeled “conservative” will support environmental regulation to a point, but then the costs are “too high”. Maybe that point is further along than what “liberals” would tolerate, but my guess is not; my guess is that, when an environmental issue (other than global warming) is explained to people, they will come to roughly the same conclusions. And that the “conservative” – “liberal” divide on environmental issues is really a function of preconceptions about what “environmental regulation”, in the abstract, is like.
But these “liberals” will then throw these environmental considerations in the trash as soon as brown people enter the equation. Mass immigration hurts the environment, but it’s more important to bring in lots of brown people than it is to help the environment. And so while they can imagine that they care about the environment, in practice, brown people come first.
Whites who call themselves “leftists” will also claim to be against superstition and religion. This is true until the religion in question is islam, hinduism, buddhism, sikkhism, native american religions, or anything else brown. Then they not only cannot be violated, but their symbols are used on their stuff, their quotes and beliefs are exhumed and treated as special wisdom. Even catholicism is given reverence when it’s brown people practicing it.
White “leftists” will of course say they support women’s rights and think that the anti-women practices in the islamic world are terrible. And they will tell you that when it comes up. But then, as soon as the “right-winger” stops bringing it up, it’s dropped and they go back to promoting the replacement of white Christians and atheists with brown muslims. So while they may in theory be against the practices of islam, even saying it’s not “true islam”, in practice, the domination of the third world over the first world takes priority. Third worldism trumps women’s issues.
And their belief in some mythical “true islam” that doesn’t go against the “liberal” ideas they have, that is a sort of idealization of brown people, a kind of worship. Instead of seeing them for who they really are, they invent an ideal. When an individual does this in a relationship, it only really harms them. But these people are dragging us into their fantasy, dragging us down a third world drain, and so must be stopped with malice.
Another thing that you may have picked up on is that they are “feminist” and oppose male violence, but only among white males. Bands of black males with guns are revolutionary and romantic; white males with guns are backward, belligerent, and need to be stopped. The reality, the statistics on race and crime don’t matter. They’re not anti-gun, or anti-male aggression, they’re just against white male virility and strength.
Sure, the story they tell will be about “historical context” and all the oppressions. And sure, that is an explanation that works, but the explanation that they are just anti-white third worldists ALSO explains their behavior.
So we can take several things where so-called “leftists” and “liberals” take puzzling stances on issues, that seem inconsistent, but have two explanations that explain the inconsistency.
Claiming to love the environment but supporting mass brown immigration:
- Explanation 1: the environment matters, but the lives of poor people around the world matter more.
- Explanation 2: they are first and foremost third-worldists and anti-white, and that trumps the environment.
Claiming to be anti-religion, but only being anti-christian, while engaging in apologetics for islam, and embracing the symbols and “wisdom” of other brown religions:
- Explanation 1: islam is really just like them, but has been distorted. While Christianity is uniquely evil, oppressive and violent.
- Explanation 2: they like brown people religions because they’re practiced by brown people. They hate Christianity because it’s associated with white people, unless it’s brown hispanic Catholics, then it’s okay.
Claiming to be anti-gun, but supporting armed bands of black males while opposing armed bands of white males:
- Explanation 1: bands of white males are actually more dangerous (false) and/or the blacks are revolutionaries against historical oppression
- Explanation 2: these people never advocate the use of guns for their own political action, and really just oppose white armament and white strength and power, while promoting black power
Claiming poor whites are still the beneficiaries of “white privilege” and just failed in spite of it, and wealthier blacks deserve more affirmative action than poor whites
- Explanation 1: there really is a deep, omnipresent but undetectable mist of “white privilege” that even whites born into piss-poor families that are endlessly shat on by comedians and given no help from government and very little from charity or the array of programs designed to help the “poor”, or government and firm diversity quotas and school affirmative action, still somehow benefit from it.
- Explanation 2: they really just fucking hate most white people, and aren’t all that hot on “their own” “liberal” whites, and promote brown people, championing all of their causes and grievances.
It can be really complicated to try and figure out these things if you take what the “liberal” white tells you at face value. It’s a mess. But once you realize that it’s all about race, and that they are on the side of the third world, it all just flows together.
No need for hours of complicated theory or explanations of all of these seeming contradictions; they’re not “liberals” or “leftists” or any of that crap. They are third worldists. They may have this or that belief about the environment or about women or about guns, but when push comes to shove, the domination of the third world over the first trumps all of that. They have even gone so far as to say that if you are white you literally cannot deny any grievance that any other group has against you.
They conflate third world genetics with third world beliefs: opposition to free speech (the invention of “hate speech” to that end and soon they will move to outlaw “fake news”), extremely authoritarian views of knowledge where you must have XYZ funny hat or nothing you say is true, and all grievances are to be believed.
They also conflate first world genetics with first world beliefs, saying that free speech, anti-authoritarian and argument-based views of knowledge, and avoidance of grievance politics (sometimes unwisely called “identity politics”) are quintessentially white. Some of the dumber “leftists” will even say that facts and evidence are a white male construct, that they wield to dominate other groups. Oddly enough, they’re kind of right, but not in the way they think.
The social pressure within their groups is totally about race. LGBTQ is easy to mock because it lacks social currency, and within their groups your can get away with some skepticism of gender-sex weirdness. You can even argue against environmentalism in specific instances. But you can’t get away with any doubt about black grievance. That is the nerve, the center. You cannot say, “hey, we have X values. Muslims, by and large, don’t share these values. Lets keep them out so we can preserve X values”. Or even “you know, white Christians are actually really nice” will, while not resulting in excommunication, will get some blowback.
They are third worldists. It is an appropriate way to describe them. Don’t let them call themselves “leftists” or try to say they support anything other than the replacement of Europe – warts and all – with Africa – warts an all.
Anything else is just dancing around in a world of forms. If they start floating off into the world of forms about all the neat little policies they think they support (lolbergs will do this too), bring them back by asking them about WHO supports these ideas and what are their stances on immigration? What is Colombia like? What is Egypt and Algeria like? What is Niger and Congo like? If they bring up LGBTQ or freedom from religious indoctrination, ask them about what those things are like in Africa, India and the Arab world and what their stance is on immigration from those places. Bring it all BACK TO REALITY.
If they say they oppose mass immigration, ask them why that isn’t more salient? Why isn’t that the primary issue they have? Because while sure, you can value various things, if your politics are run by Africans and Arabs, none of that’s going to happen, and never will happen. So the first priority, if you value anything nice even by old-school “leftist” standards, is to keep the third world OUT of the kind of European countries where these nice things have any chance of happening.
Take control of the argument, and it starts by taking control of your language. If they support open borders, or effectively open-borders, then that is the first and the last of what they are. Everything else they say they support becomes a little sentiment they personally have which is subjugated to the will of the brown horde.
Call them THIRD WORLDISTS. This won’t free you from arguing about all the things (slavery, segregation, colonialism, race and IQ and first-world traits and their heritability), but it will at least focus the arguments on what’s actually happening. And it will polarize the “discussion” to being about race, and put the centrality of race in everything they think on full-display, and anyone watching will see that it’s all about race, and it’s all about hating whites.
Also you should call yourself a First Worldist, if that is indeed what you are. If not, I would highly recommend you not call yourself “right wing” or any other label that you don’t have control over.