July 26, 2017

Take Control of Your Language

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.

Take Control

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.

Facebook Comments
  • David Hollizzle

    I agree with everything, especially the term third worldism. However I don’t think altright is as poorly defined any more. During the election it certainly was but Spencer’s notoriety and the Alt-Lite getting cuckier has remedied the confusion.

    The only people I personally see calling places like r/the_donald or Paul Joseph Watson “altright” are morons on reddit who are in fact using the term more or less correctly: they just think T_D and PJW are ethnonationalists

  • Riopel

    I call myself a White Nationalist because there are a few Asian countries that are part of the first world, yet I don’t want Asians flooding into my country.

  • chrism9

    Sloppy language leads to sloppy thinking.

  • Attila

    “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.”

    We have already poured hundreds of hours of thinking into this subject, and the answer we came up with is this:

    Socialism is a death cult.
    https://youtu.be/AXzJdn59QZg?t=17m59s

    Check it out, i fast forwarded to the relevant part. You can also upvote and subscribe, if you like.

    As far as the ideological direction or leading figure or guru of the Alt-right should be, the most straightforward answer to that would be Adolf Hitler. Everything else is just skirting around the issue.

    • Ryan Faulk

      Lots of problems with Hitler.

      Even if you say the holocaust never happened, or was something more banal and a result of war conditions or lack of institutional control and / or that the deaths were 1 million instead of 6, lets ignore that, make that a non-factor in this discussion.

      Lets even ignore the supposed atrocities within the USSR, chalk that up to the order to kill real bad duded in the communist party and the locals confusing that for killing innocents, German-speaking agents of Stalin going around and killing people to create the perception of mass killings, and the Germans’ lack of food supply to feed even their own troops and home population – let alone feed millions of prisoners.

      What are we left with? We’re left with a guy who really hated Eastern Europeans and had some notion of German supremacy over the Russians.

      Moreover, his racial ideas were just goofy, and what a lot of people don’t know is that the conventional anthropologists at the time were all what today would be called “race realists”, and they had conventions dedicated to saying just how stupid and wrong Aryanism and Hyperboreanism were.

      His views on race were retarded and inaccurate, and his focus was on German supremacy over the Poles and the Russians.

      I get that it’s unfair that Hitler has been made into a far more demonic character than he really was, and that his military actions were much more rational and not as belligerent as most think. Even the invasion of the USSR had to be done given the situation Germany was in; they couldn’t wait for the USSR to fill out and train their officer corps and reform their military.

      It’s one thing to revise a lot of the misinformation about Hitler and gain a new appreciation for the decisions he made, and how smart they really were, and how stupid many of the criticisms are.

      But to then say that the ideas of the Hitler regime should be embraced – that’s just goofy. Have you read the work of Madison Grant or Alfred Rosenberg? We don’t need that. And we don’t need to be anti-slav.

      But if you’re saying to embrace Hitler but not anti-slavic sentiment, or Aryanism or Hyperboreanism… well then what, besides the deeply pathologized imagery of the Hitler regime, is one even embracing? The specific military struggles of Germany from 1939-1945?

      That seems like a recipe to remain marginalized. Look, maybe marginalization is inevitable. But I see no point in identifying with a historical artifact of the Hitler regime. It has no significant value from either a truth standpoint or a propaganda standpoint. I get that some people have a desire to rehabilitate the most lied about man and regime in history, but that’s not what I’m here for.

      • Attila

        With respect, most if not all of Hitler’s views on eastern euros come from the so-called “Table Talks of Adolf Hitler”, that have been proven without a doubt to be a fake.

        http://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/10978

        All of the anti-slavic bias and quotes that I know of come from this forgery. Perhaps there are other sources, but i doubt it. (if you know them, you can share.)

        Surely, Hitler was a German nationalist, I think it goes without saying. He preferred his own people vis-a-vis every other people. That is why he is the ultimate nationalist blueprint. You just have to apply his worldview to your own people.

        Every European knows, that nationality trumps race a dozen times. Even religion does. Race is at third place at best. what i am saying is that a national identity is much more complex, and cohesive (and consistent) than racial identity. outisde america, the term “White” is rarely used. why? Because there is ethnic British, French, German, Italian etc identity instead. only murrigans use white, becuse american is not a nationality, but a hodge-podge of european ethnicities. it also follows that american identity is much more vague, shallow and empty than the european identities.

        When it comes to Nationalism, Hitler is the ultimate example. but of course, spencer (who doesnt have anything even remotely resembling a leader in him) is identitarian, he wants an European superstate, only “pro-white”. that state would be anti-nation, because nations have differing interests, and that illustrates, how stupid this notion of identitarianism is, and how it will never lead anywhere. A French and German identitarian can be friends and comrades, until the very moment they touch upon the subject of Alsace-Lorraine, or Elsaß-Lothringen. Then they become enemies.

        Only in america does the term “white” makes sense. when you are German, French, etc, you are White, and much much more. History, language, religion, culture.

        I think a pro-white movement in murriga can ascend to power without uttering Hitler’s name once. communists dont refernce marx either, yet they do what he advocated. by the way, this is from engels, who caled the serbs the basques and the scots highlanders racial trash:

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UmI7_SWBUK4 Marx wrote about the “dirtyness of the slavic people” lol. but yeah, they are all given a free pass.

        i am not for advocating belief in Hitler. I am for advocating what Hitler believed in.

        You mention that all ideologies have personality cults, Marx and Rand for example. what if we come up with a personality cult of our own? Then he (the new leader) will set the new standards. And with that, we decouple the issues from Hitler, and advocate it as something else, thereby neutralizing a lot of enemy attacks that seek to label us as nazis. (But we are gonna be called nazis, no matter what, that is just the name of the game, you cant avoid that entirely anyways.)

        • Jeff

          If you think that we can somehow rehabilitate Hitler, you are delusional. Most socialists today do not embrace Stalin, and those who do are considered to be a joke and pose no threat to anyone. Leave your silly nonsense about Hitler behind and the pro-white movement will have a much better chance for success.

          • Attila

            If you had read what i actually wrote, you would have known that i have never uttered a word about rehabilitating Hitler.

      • Attila

        “But to then say that the ideas of the Hitler regime should be embraced –
        that’s just goofy. Have you read the work of Madison Grant or Alfred
        Rosenberg? We don’t need that. And we don’t need to be anti-slav.”

        The NS regime, as far as i know, never had a unitary racial ideology. Therefore, it comes down to cherry-picking, which part do we accept, which parts do we reject.

        By the way, saying that whites and only whites created the most advanced civilization of all (which is true) is already advocating white supremacy, in disguise, and there is nothing wrong with that.

      • Riopel

        I don’t recall seeing much, if any, anti-Slav bias in NS writings, at least no more than anti-English or anti-American bias. Considering the numerous divisions of Waffen-SS that were comprised entirely of Slavic volunteers, I don’t think it played a major role in the ideology.

        There was a specific disdain for Russians, but it was not based on racism. Rather it stemmed from the fact that Russians had succumbed to bolshevism and were little more than cannon fodder for jewish commissars. Still, there were plenty of Russians who welcomed the Germans as liberators and there were Russians who served in both the Wehrmacht and Waffen-SS.

  • Attila

    The “third world” only plays part because it helps to destabilize and long-term destroy the host societies. The more imigrunts you bring in, the better you fare in destroying the host society.

    But for example: homosexuals, transgenders and sexual deviants, also feminists dont fit the bill. they are not third-worlders, yet they are core leftist lieblings.

    The ultimate picture here is the destruction of the host society. That is why they are ultimately on the side of death.

  • Martheric Sherwood

    They are whatever is politically best against white men being white men. At one moment, they’ll espouse the virtue of environmental conservation. They’ll create groups dedicated only to this. Then support them financially. If you bring up the contradiction, they’ll back off and then let a friend come along who is only dedicated to immigration and defend their position. This way, they shut up and never have to take responsibility for the other person and what they say, but instead focus it on how you respond and what you stand for. The purpose it to make it so you’re in the hot seat and not them, at all times. This doesn’t need to happen where the bias and narrative flipping appears obvious – it only needs to happen across different people; all of which are considered, of course, part of your own people. What black person would listen to a white person who says they’re being racist? Same thing with white people. They will not ever care about what non-whites think in a racial sense, only what whites and crypto-whites think. But, the point is to make sure white people are so feminized and weak and castrated so any potential racially motivated movement is toothless in the future.

  • Sam Cru

    I don’t think they are necessarily third-worldists. I think they are anti-civilizationalists. They are destroyers. They are an inevitable manifestation within advanced civilizations that the civilization must combat and overcome in order to survive.