Counter-Currents
1,745 words
My previous post, “They are White Submissivists,” had so many responses that I believe an encore is called for. Most of these responses, appropriately enough, offered suggestions on damaging epithets we can use against the Left, some tried and true, others clever and original. It seems that the Counter-Currents readership and I agree that the Right needs to start scoring more points in the Great Shaming War by controlling some of the language that gets hurled about these days like so many Molotov cocktails.
At this point, the Left still has the edge. Sticks and stones may break your bones, but names from the Left can surely ruin you. As we all know, if any one of us were to get fitted with the white supremacist/White Nationalist label, our livelihoods, marriages, and social standing could fall into jeopardy. This is the very point of the shaming war: to win. Every punch the Left throws is aimed for the knockout, and there are no illegal blows. Not for them, anyway. The Paula Deen affair is an excellent example. Over thirty years ago, the poor woman referred to a black man who robbed her at gunpoint as a “nigger,” and she became the target of a merciless shaming campaign. She was called a racist and suffered serious career setbacks because of it, despite her profuse apologies.
This is the power that words have in our society.
Anyway, we are not at the point yet where an epithet from the Right can put the Left on the defensive, but that doesn’t mean we can’t fight back. Fighting back with effective language serves three purposes, as far as I can tell: it can raise our morale; it can embarrass and goad the Left into overreacting and making mistakes; and, most importantly, it can make us look good and the Left bad to the disinterested observer. The power to embarrass is truly palpable. Oscar Wilde knew this well, and so should we.
After going over all the suggestions, I still believe that “white submissivist” (or the similar “white submissive” or “white submissionist,” which were offered by readers) emerges as our best tack. But before I make my closing arguments, I will describe reasons why the other epithets, while potentially effective, ultimately fail to inflict maximum damage upon the enemy. Remember, the point is to be as quick and cruel as possible. We should make the Left objects of contempt and derision today, and social and political pariahs tomorrow. There can be no prisoners in this Shaming War. The Left is not taking any, but from some of the suggestions I’ve received, I get the feeling we still are.
Reason 1: We should never call the Left anything that they will gladly cop to. “Commie” and “Marxist” are suggestions that do just that. As much as we would like it to be otherwise, it is no longer the 1950s, and such epithets, for whatever reason, just do not carry the weight they used to. We can no longer shame someone for being a Communist, especially considering that a good chunk of the people we would be targeting were born after the fall of the Soviet Union. Communism as it once existed has no real meaning for these people. All they know is what’s in the mass media and what’s cool. Furthermore, calling a Social Justice Warrior a commie is like calling someone on the Alt Right a race-realist. We would just shrug our shoulders and respond, “So what?”
Reason 2: We should never call the Left anything they can construe as flattery, ironic or otherwise. When Hillary referred to the Alt Right as a “basket of deplorables,” you just knew that soon after, the word “deplorable” would become a badge of honor worn by the Right. If we were to call people on the Left the “liberal elite,” as one reader suggested, they would say thank you. Another suggestion, “white orc,” would have a similar flattering effect in that it paints the Left as something dangerous and powerful. It’s good to be dangerous and powerful to your enemies, isn’t it? If we tried “Untermensch,” “zombie,” or “flag burner,” as other readers suggested, soon there would be Facebook groups along the lines of “The Untermenschen,” “The Left-Wing Zombie Horde,” or “The Patriotic Flag Burners.” Whatever epithet we decide upon, we should make sure it’s hewn from such burning scarlet that no one would ever want to be branded with it.
Reason 3: We should never use an epithet that is too cute or clever. In such instances, the insulter is calling more attention to himself or the insult than the one being insulted. Nothing can take the wind out of an epithet’s sails faster than vanity. Three good examples from readers include “melting pothead,” “cuckasian,” and “wimp” (a combination of “white impotent”). One reader suggested that we not overthink this. These examples overthink the insult.
Reason 4: We should never resort to ad hominems. From a tactical standpoint, an ad hominem isolates the victim from the class of people we wish to impugn, thereby giving the enemy a pass for the victim’s bad behavior. We have to ding individuals because of their association with the enemy, not in spite of it. Ad hominems also distract from the reason why we are fighting the enemy to begin with. The person screaming obscenities at police before the Gavin McInnes talk at New York University last week is a performance artist who specializes in something called “lobster porn.” While it would not be inappropriate to call such a person a “moral pervert,” as one reader suggested, such an epithet never goes beyond its victim. Calling everyone on the Left “moral perverts” just because one of them has a crustacean fetish would be about as effective as calling the Alt Right a bunch of mass murderers just because Dylann Roof shot up a church in South Carolina. It’s hard to take such an attack seriously.
Reason 5: We should never be too off base with our epithets. It’s okay not to be technically correct, just as long as we’re in the ballpark. For example, the “white supremacist” insult sticks so well to White Nationalists and to people on the Alt Right not because we are white supremacists (we are not) but because we have something important in common with white supremacists; namely, a love for our own (white) race. But something coming from left (or, actually, right) field stretches things too far. “Class traitor,” “Leader’s lackeys,” and “white blackeners” are good examples. I’m sure many on the Left wouldn’t know what to make of these. Any insult that requires more than a nanosecond of thought to decipher should probably not be employed since they will more likely make the insulter and not the person being insulted the object of ridicule.
Reason 6: We should never use an epithet which can open us up to a swift counterattack. I really believe that the Left actually wants us to use such epithets for this very reason. They cannot wait to get their hooks in and justify their hatred of us. “Faggot” was floated in the comments and fits in here perfectly (despite also being an ad hominem). Even if the victim is a flamboyant homosexual, calling such a person a “faggot” because he/she is a rabid Left-winger will only open ourselves up to a torrent of well-rehearsed abuse and counter-shaming. Calling someone a “ziopuppet” or “ziozombie” or zio-anything will have the same effect. So will “negrophile” or any epithet which takes a dig at black people. Imagine a boxer aiming a wicked roundhouse at his opponent. The blow is thrown with murderous intent, but it’s a little wide, leaving our chin open for a quick counter. The Left knows the homophobic, anti-Semitic, anti-black punches are coming, and they can deal with them just fine. It’s what they do.
Reason 7: We should never use an epithet designed for more than one target. One reader suggested we refer to the Left simply as “cucks.” While I like this epithet because it’s swift and nasty and avoids all the pitfalls above, it is already in use against a very specific target: conservative liberals who pretend on be on the Right. If we start using it against the hardcore Left, we’ll cause confusion as well as weaken the epithet’s power against its original victims. Furthermore, “cuck” is short for “cuckservative,” which works in a way that “cuck-liberal” or “cuck-Leftist” quite obviously do not.
Reason 8: We should never hit them for things that they can change about themselves. Race is the big one in this department, since one cannot really change one’s race, therefore it’s their most sensitive spot. Some excellent epithets, therefore, don’t go as far as they could because they leave race out of it. “Ethnocuck” is an example I really like. “Stooge” or “ethnostooge” as well. Strong, but not quite as strong as they could be.
Aside from not falling into the above traps, “white submissivist” has the advantage of being racist, which stings worse than anything. It is a vicious, nasty weapon that will certainly leave a mark on any white Leftist it strikes. Further, most white Leftists wish to abjure their race out of a sense of guilt or shame. Constantly reminding them of the tribe to which they belong will hurt them even more. I know it may seem counter-intuitive that a site dedicated to the interests of the white race would promote any kind of racism against other white people, but we should realize that that’s exactly what white Leftists do to us every time they trot out the Scarlet W or call us Nazis. They are shaming us, first and foremost, for our race. That we are reluctant to respond in kind to our own kind may speak to our nobility of spirit, but it also gives the Left the advantage in the Great Shaming War.
We can no longer allow the Left to have this advantage. The Great Shaming War is the prelim for the real thing, which will likely happen in our lifetimes once the non-white portion of our population reaches a critical mass. By that point, whites will be fighting for their very survival, and, sadly, many of our most formidable enemies will also be white. Language which effectively shames such people in the present can be used to destroy them tomorrow, just like how the epithet “white supremacist” can destroy each and every one of us today.
Enjoyed this article?
Be the first to leave a tip in the jar!
48 comments
White Masochists / Jihad Sympathisers / Rape Enablers / The Fascist Left / Child Marriage Advocates / Sharia Sympathisers / Diversity Degenerates.
Oops, forgot one of the best:
LEFTIST RAT.
“Zombie” is indeed a good one.
How about “brown-noser?” It’s almost never used in its original sense any more, but it has the indications of both groveling to someone to the point of getting their feces on your nose, and recalling their grotesque relationship with brown people.
“Brown-licker” for a slight variant.
“Brown supremacist”
“Traitor”
“Left-slime” (usable as either a noun or an adjective — “we’ve got a bunch of left-slimes incoming” or “did you hear the latest about that left-slime judge?”)
“Left-scum”
“Left-trash” (pronounced as “leftrash” probably)
As the years go on I think the term ‘traitor’ will stand the test of time. Straight to the point, visceral,
and an entirely accurate description. Even their so called beloved allies of color will despise them.
I also don’t think they should be welcomed in when they decide to jump ship out of necessity in a few decades. That window is slowly closing…
The term, “traitor”, is the correct and entirely accurate description.
“I also don’t think they should be welcomed in when they decide to jump ship out of necessity in a few decades. That window is slowly closing…”
Hmmm… Flagrant, active, conscious traitors like the Clintons, Bushes, Bill Gates, etc. should obviously be executed. (After receiving a fair trial, of course. You know, like Nuremberg.) However, I think the proper prescription for the rank and file “liberals” is tough love and aggressive reeducation. When presented with the true facts of history, and the opportunity to connect the dots (and some persistent repetition of those facts under intense social pressure to understand them), many will come around. In my youth, I was a “liberal” (more of a sex, drugs, and rock n’ roll libertine), without even understanding where my opinions came from. I used to fancy myself a poet and an amateur philosopher, and I wrote “stream of consciousness” poems about things like “social entropy/equilibrium”, and had visions/fantasies about burning away all the national flags and religious symbols of the world. I was totally convinced that these were my own original ideas! Brainwashing is very real. Most “liberals” are victims, mental slaves who have absolutely no clue who or what they are serving. They are our kinfolk, and they deserve to be liberated, just as I was fortunate enough to be. Especially the ones with good genetics should not be written off or thrown to the wolves. We need to increase our numbers as much as possible. Allowing half the white population to continue collaborating with the enemy is a recipe for defeat.
Like I said, there is a window of a decade or so. That is being more than gracious in my opinion and a good time frame for those of both the left and mainstream conservatism to join us as comrades. It has to come from a real moral outrage at explicit anti-white maneuvers and not from trying to save their own skins and status as the tide rises.
Be careful thinking all white people are our “kinfolk”. They are not. People with white skin sold out their own to muslims, jews, amerindians, africans,mongols, turks, et, al throughout history and today.
Willing White Doormats.
Okay, I get that it’s good, confrontational, destructive, hateful fun and all, but I think the nature of the struggle makes a shaming war necessarily asymmetrical.
The left shames, shamelessly. Ipso fatso, the only way to shame a shamer is to go farther left, which we don’t. I mean we really can’t.
Asymmetry can open a lot more options.
In the following examples, imagine a bumper-sticker (not on my car, mind you, or even your car). Here, solidarity is expressed from to the Right to the Right, but within view of the left… maybe even on one of their cars:
DON’T APOLOGIZE.
THEY ARE NIGGERS.
IT IS WRITTEN.
or
DON’T BLAME ME –
I VOTED FOR
BARBRA STREISAND
Not feeling any tingle yet? Early days still.
How about — like mass immigration — just innocently undermine the very literary subgenre itself? Make shaming messages that are worrisome, unintelligible, and use bad spelling, grammar, logic, knowledge:
TRUMB IS FACIST (Birds, flowers)
PUT INTOLERENTS IN A OVEN
AFRICA MEN TOLD YOU UP
[Israeli flag] CELEBRATE DIVERSITY
WIF PRESIDING CUNTON (Flowers, birds)
TIE CLBGTV IVANKA PUSSY #JIGGABOO (Flowers, birds)
Ahem. Maybe someone you can take balls and running.
I have a problem with Reason 1.
For the same reason they are outdated, one can make an argument that nazi or neonazi should also be outdated. But they are not, and that tells me that they have the better propaganda apparatus. They have reeducated the masses, and according to me a holistic approach must be designed to counter educate them in the other direction.
Highly qualified task groups have designed all this nonsens for them, so on our side there should also exist a task group of highly qualified experts to design slogans in the opposite direction. It must be approached with some seriousness, and not left to amateurs.
That is the general direction I would take.
I am still reflecting on this topic – what can be done propagandawise against the left.
It just occurred to me that before the fatal one-man-one-vote elections in South Africa, the last white state president, mr. F.W. de Klerk, made use of the very best PR agency available, namely Saatchi & Saatchi to handle the ads for the elections campaigns, so as to convince/fool the white voters toward a handover to a black majority government.
Perhaps the design of a meme against the leftists should also be handled by an expert PR firm. After all, that is why experts are there. If there exists a white-friendly PR firm in the USA.
I’m an older fellow (70) and very much a traditionalist, race realist, etc. This name-calling nonsense is sophomoric and a waste of time unworthy of serious folks. The folks you abhor are childish, resentful and spiteful whiners; why not recognize that and leave it at that rather than waste time and effort on speaking and acting the way they do?
Thank you for the input. It is good to see that at least one of our elders has remained sane throughout all these decades of madness. I for one, long for the day when we return to a healthy societal structure, in which the older generations impart wisdom to the younger. Unfortunately, the only “wisdom” my grandparents can impart to me is that which they gleaned from 5 decades of sitting in front of the Talmudvision, watching game shows, sitcoms, and salacious exposés about the latest sexual assaults and murders, which is to say, no wisdom of any kind whatsoever.
That being said, I think you have failed to grasp the power of language, and specifically, the power gained by dictating terminology. We are in the mess that we are in right now, largely, if not almost solely, due to the use and constant repetition of one simple little word, “racist”. This was a clever bit of psychology that was used to stigmatize and pathologize a perfectly natural, healthy, and universal human collective self-defense mechanism. Through their control of media and academia, they were able to associate that word with images of degenerate, despicable, stupid, criminal, evil thugs. Then through constant repetition, they “educated” everyone against engaging in the “shameful” behavior known as “racism”. It is quite literally an incantation, a magic spell cast upon our nations that lowered our psychological defenses in order to soften us up and cause us to lower our physical defenses. And we see the bitter fruit of this today with the scourge of illegal immigration, the “refugee/migrant” crisis, miscegenation, etc. As Bob Marley and the rastafarians say “chant down Babylon”. The jews and their lackeys are literally bringing our empire to its knees primarily by repeating “magic words”.
Thanks!
You make a valid point about the power of language, although I like to believe I have some sense of it, given that I’ve been a paid professional writer for some 45 years now, heh heh. You’re completely correct about the word “racist”, which has been twisted into being synonymous with “bigot”.
Television… Yes, well, I haven’t watched television in 20 years now, barely watch videos; I’m more a reader and listener to music. My real pleasure, however, is reading aloud to my grandsons.
It will be difficult to undo half a century or more of quite successful indoctrination through the entertainment industry and the schools as carried out by the Europhobes among us. Those who have become their fellow travelers are in fact “quislings”, although one wonders how many under-50s know who he was and how his name became synonymous with a certain type of traitor/collaborator. If I had to choose an epithet for the enemies of those of us of European descent, I guess I’d go with “quisling”.
Amen, Montefrio.
I retract the flippancy of my comment about asymmetry, but not its gist.
While it is true that “racist” and “white supremacist” can destroy each of us, the durability of those terms is an open question. The power of an epithet resides in the context of the culture. Its power can be neutralized by effecting change in the context, in the particular culture.
It is important to keep in mind that current leftist “protest culture” is increasingly shallow and closed-minded. It admits no fence-sitters, no nuanced discussion, but it does admit self-absorbed and outright idiocy. Therefore, the left is talking to itself, while each individual adherent is basically preening in the mirror.
The “movement” is also quite headless. Its hierarchy is unseen, disavowed, and all the loosey-goosey participants hardly suspect just how unspontaneous it all is. (I refer to protests, not to institutions such as academia, government, media, etc.)
These basic facts betray inherent and exploitable weaknesses, one huge weakness being that the aimless protest of the left will be the author of its own marginalization… and possibly erode the left’s hold on institutional power, with our help.
But this doesn’t mean protest has no power — it is very powerful and very destructive. But the direction can be altered, manipulated (what the Russians regularly refer to as “Political Technologies”). Any signal can be jammed, small or large efforts can be confused, kettled, spun around.
It’s a self-defeating mistake to think we must meet protest head-to-head, on its own terms, and in anger. It seems likely the protest will more effectively advertise its own aimlessness, its inherent corruption, its idiocy, by not meeting an opposing protest. It will be much more alienating to decent-minded people, and the eventual, inevitable “clean-up” will proceed with little opposition. (And remember, any protest or counter-protest can be hijacked, thwarted from within, manipulated “Maidan-ized.”)
This is not a street battle, in other words, and should not become one… until and unless, of course, overwhelming force can be brought to bear. (Not to leave aside the question of an unclear objective: Why do we need to battle for “the street” in the first place? When the cameras are switched off, there is no “street.”)
This is a struggle for power. Neutralize, among other things, the power of leftist shaming — stealthily, asymmetrically, professionally — and you have made a huge step toward freeing white society from its most odious and most immediate threat.
Thanks! You’re quite right about the power of shaming, but the name-calling tactic is for me more suited to the resentful, spiteful and ultimately infantile power-onanists that wish to see Western culture debased and civilization destroyed. I favor persuasion through the power of example and try to live my life in accordance with that principle.
What’s perhaps ironic is that I live in South America and my grandsons are not racially “pure” (their mom has some Arab and Guaraní blood), although they’re both very fair-skinned (one blond and blue-eyed) and are being raised as upper-middle-class “white” folks are raised here. We live in a “tony” rural village, the boys will be going to the bilingual Cambridge Academy day school not far away and perhaps will go to the US for university if it’s for STEM studies; otherwise, no, not unless huge changes take place there over the next 15 years.
I sympathize with y’all’s situation up there, particularly with respect to race, because where I am, it’s not an issue at all, perhaps because the nearest Negro is about 150 miles from here and there are very few in the country in any case. The mestizos are nothing like those of Central America and there are no problems with them either, at least not in rural areas. I chose this place because it reminded me of 1950s USA and it still does; things change very slowly here.
White Uncle Tom.
Try it on a leftist. It’s like a button that freezes their brain and switches them off.
“Remember, the point is to be as quick and cruel as possible. We should make the Left objects of contempt and derision today, and social and political pariahs tomorrow.”
Indeed.
After mulling over your excellent arguments (and having worked in internet marketing for years), I would submit “White Cockroach”, contracted in “Whiteroach”.
A cockroach is instantly, instinctively and universally associated with something loathsome, an invasive vermin, a disgusting parasite that serves no purpose and can only consume and destroy.
Is that not a perfect description of today’s Left?
Maybe if the cockroach felt virtuous and pure in destroying your pantry…
A cockroach is a simpler, more rudimentary life form, one which – as opposed for example to butterflies – nobody likes.
Snowflakes are pretty, zombies are cool, orcs are strong. Cockroaches are just disgusting. And if you think of a WHITE cockroach, it looks like an albino or a diseased one. It is even more disgusting. And that is what we want: to lower their status as much as possible, and instantly frame them as “the enemy” for fence sitters on a gut level.
If quick and cruel is what we’re after, “Whiteroach” is a lot quicker and more cruel than “white submissivist”. Again, it engages the GUTS as well as the mind. It is accurate, encompassing, and sincere; so far, I think it is the word that best of all expresses our emotions towards these people, which are disgust, contempt, frustration, and worry.
We see them as something vile, inferior, abnormal: Untermenschen indeed. “Whiteroach” conveys all that, and it is much less likely to be turned into a badge of honor.
Finally, if it ever takes off, it has awesome combo (cUckroach, zioroach..) and meme potential (think of a picture of armed police using a water cannon against antifas). Much more memable than “white submissivist”, and much more versatile too.
It is, of course, a lot more low brow; but then, we need spiked baseball bats as well as inlaid rapiers, don’t we? I would keep them both for different contexts and occasions.
I had the same thought. “Cockroach” was also the term Hutus used to genocide Tutsis.
I also like “the ugly,” “the rejected,” “the insecure,” and the “unloved.”
I understand where you guys are coming from, but we need it to connect with what White liberals, etc. actually do. Unless the epithet has some hint of why they are low and disgusting, just using a generic disgusting word (“cockroach”, etc.) will seem like irrelevant name-calling.
Compare that to “Cuck” for cuckservative, which has specific racial connotations (Jew porn magnates often prefer Blacks to be the cuckers in cuck porn) and generically denotes people giving resources to non-kin, often under duress or deception.
Likewise, whatever the unweildiness of “White submissive”, at least it humorously highlights the fear White libs have of offending Blacks et al in any way and their general caving in to Black crime, demands for dem po-grams, etc.
Likwise, “Parasite” is fine for Jews (once you’ve explained to your audience how Jewish banking, warmongering, mass migration, race-denying, media-control, etc. scams work) as it illustrates their behavior–because they literally live parasitically off hosts while poisoning their minds the way some parasites inject neurotoxins to keep the host from fighting them off. Ditto using AIDS/”pozzed” to describe our infected culture, which can’t fight off various threats (dindus, Allah Snackbar, etc.) because its immune system is dead from White Guilt.
I propose we put our heads together and make a more accessible verison of “White Submissive” our new epithet of choice against the enemy. I really think the author is onto something.
Since we are on the topic of epithets and terminology; I think I floated this one in a few places before, but I haven’t seen anyone pick up on it yet. Replace “homophobic” with “homocritical”. Personally, I think that is quite a strong substitution. First, it completely disarms the weaponized, no-win suffix “-phobic” (if you admit to being “homophobic”, you are admitting a phobia, i.e. a mental disorder; if you deny being “homophobic”, are you admitting to being “homophillic”?). Then it substitutes an accurate, rational, and somewhat “inoffensive” descriptor for the way most of us feel towards homosexuality, simply “critical”. (Well, maybe certain homosexual behaviors inspire more intense reactions than criticism, but that is beside the point.)
I think “homocritical” should go viral amongst the right, but seriously though, whatever you decide to use, STOP saying “homophobic”. Absolutely stop it, right bloody now. Never utter or type that word again. It is one of the most ingenious, diabolical, carefully crafted, and highly weaponized words created by our enemies, right up there with “racist”. That should be obvious to you all by now so please, for the love of God, stop using it.
HOMOCRITICAL
There are different levels of legitimacy of this social/moral causes new gramcist left monopolize for themselves. Homossexual issues is one of the most legitimate advocacy as well non-human animal rights. Indeed little different than racism homo”phobia” has been rampant, constant, quasi-omniscient in western society, as well in most of human societies and by no really rational reasons and without any humane/rational solution for it.
Basically most westerners has discriminated homossexuals because a jewish supremacist god tell us it’s right to do.
Homophobia look bizarre because most people don’t feel fear about homossexuals but repulse and confusion. So homo-aversion is a good start. homo-critical is a good one too. Indeed most people who are labelled as racist, homophobic, xenophobic, anti semite even speciecist are indeed those who are more critical than aberrantly positive (hide the defects and sins of protected groups)
The problem with “submissive” is that it’s not considered pejorative by many/most of the enimy.
I like terms that rip existing memes. For example, Race Denier. Picking up on Holicaust Denier, much as the climate change crowd uses Climate Change Denier to lump skeptics in with Nazi’s.
Also a fan of referring to someone as, “self hating whites” I’ve heard non- zionest Jews called self hating Jews.
For what it’s worth, I like the term “submissive” unmodified by “white.” It already has appropriate meaning given to it by our degenerate culture. I also like “submissivism” meaning advocating ideas appropriate for or springing from submissive personalities. Might not be quite as cool as “deviationism,” but we are just getting started.
As the years go on I think the term ‘traitor’ will stand the test of time. Straight to the point, visceral, and an entirely accurate description.
“Traitor” also has the advantage of being two syllables, thus being easy to chant. Consider the impact of a cadence of trai-tor, trai-tor!
Now at this point a leftist might stand up and say, “I am proud to be a traitor, especially a traitor to the White race.” And there will be a small percent out there who will be similarly proud. But for most people, leftists who declare their status as traitors will be alienating. This can drive a wedge between the hardcore left and the moderate liberal sector. We might also note for the long run the usual fate of those guilty of treason.
In any event, the only way to see what works is to take this into the real world and start calling leftists names, then evaluate the results. It’s unfortunate that things have degenerated to the point of name calling, as if we are in some playground spat. But the left started this fight, so White Nationalists might as well finish it.
Any insult that requires more than a nanosecond of thought to decipher should probably not be employed since they will more likely make the insulter and not the person being insulted the object of ridicule.
“Quisling” does not require much time to decipher, at least not for leftists.
Leftists know exactly what it means without having to process it. It must hurt to be called that word no matter who it is (rightly or wrongly) applied to. It is not so much namecalling as classifying. Everyone else – I don’t care if they get it or not; they can look it up in the dictionary.
The only reason people on the right don’t like to be called “white supremacist” or “nazi” or any of those epithets is because of the consequences attached to those labels, not because of the word itself. The reason “Nazi” still stings and not “Communists” is because one will get you fired, the other won’t. So unless a label carries with it consequence then people won’t ever really fear being called it. It may work as a witty insult but nothing more.
Also there usually isn’t much intellectualism behind these kind of things. They just kind of happen. Someone uses a term and and if enough people like it then it spreads like wildfire. The term “cuckservative” wasn’t really thought out, most of the thinking about it came after it had already become a popular insult. If “white submissivist” doesn’t become popular it was doomed to fail regardless of how much thinking was put behind it.
What happened to Cuckold?
I grant that the case for ‘white submissivist’ is strong, but it seems a little too difficult to understand for ordinary people. And I do not think a leftist can be shamed by naming any sexual roles. They have nothing to defend in that area.
Why not change it into ‘self-hating white’? You annoyingly remind them of their race, and that it supersedes class, that in fact that they are NOT really different from the ‘deplorables’. Furthermore, the expression references the so-called evil of ‘self-hating Jews’, it uses the word ‘hate’, which has become itself a kind of evil thing, and it has the connotation of psychopathology.
There is a method used from advertising to agitprop: convene members of the target audience and have them provide information. Find some former leftists of the PC variety who can provide input on what words would be zingers.
What about white extinctionist? Eurocidals, whitenocidals…etc.
It puts the focus on the immediate problem, though of course they won’t even know what you’re talking about. But the great thing is truth is on our side, and you can (attempt to) show them what they’re doing is directly or indirectly supporting cold genocide, and is absolutely evil on their own terms. Only the most utterly twisted can proudly own up to being genocidal, yet alone to their own people, yet alone in this sociopolitical climate.
“Oh OK, so you are an EVIL white extinctionist!”
“Tell me, how did you become so whitenocidal?”
As I said before, I’m fine with the idea, but “white submissivist” sounds artificial and forced. It just doesn’t roll off the tongue well, or even tolerably. And frankly, it doesn’t even sound like a genuine English word, but a try-hard response. It’s the overflow of S’s that ruin it, I think.
“White submissionist” is indeed a bit better, though still a lot of syllables. But I could live with that, though I still prefer my own suggestion, which at least shaves off one syllable, which is “white submissive.” That, at least, sounds like a real word.
I see no reason for the “ist” endings, but if you really want them to play off the “ist” in racist, then at least go with “white submissionist.”
Heard an interesting one just for Australia the other day: Pluto Pup.
A Pluto Pup is traditionally a greasy, nutritionally dubious snack bought at carnivals and country shows. I think the US equivalent is a corn dog.
Applied to the hipster left, it’s an abbreviation of Plutocrat’s Puppet.
Given the Left’s fondness for open borders and globalism generally, this seems quite apt.
.
The autor says ~”we should not overthink it” and then proceeds to overthink it /duh and in the process basically disqualifies 95% of insults we can invent. “The Leftists” are morons, idiots, retards they ARE dumb people, throwing well crafted thought out epithets at them will just leave them scratching their head.. the simpler the better and don’t worry about the exact word you use to insult them it’s not the words that insult it’s the INTENT to insult that insults.. so call them whatever you like just make it nasty and on a 5th grader level so they can understand it.
Hit leftists where it injures their ego the most. Impugn their intelligence, their moral/intellectual integrity, or their cultural relevance. Here are some humble suggestions along those lines.
For those who deny the existence of race/differences between races: “racetard”, or “race surrealist”
For gay marriage / gay rights advocates: “fecalitarian” (This one has evidently been used online before. Although most gays themselves may be unashamed of their preferred orifice, the derisive ring of this term may be enough to embarrass more than a few gay rights advocates.)
For those opposed to the Muslim ban, or in favor of Muslim immigration: “jannissary” (Not as strong as the above suggestions due to being an imperfect metaphor and a bit obscure but, has the strength of embarrassing a liberal’s knowledge of history.)
Trained bitches
Domestic/house slaves
Western mujiks
Mongopolitan
Snow frogs
White submissives (submis-sivists look very long)
”YOOOOU ARE A WHITE SUPREEMACIST”
….
”YOOOOU AAARE A WHITE SUBMISSIIVES”
OR
”YOOOU AAARE A WHITE SUBMISSIVITITIVZ”
it’s don’t work.
Call someone losers is one of the most effective psychological mechanism.
The problem is that
conservatives are not unite, militant and en blóc to fight this cultural wars as leftoids usually are, so whatever the name calling, without a constant, organized and massive attacks and well done will not have any great effect.
Deplorable and hypocrital or liar are negative adjectives with the same level of psychological impact, the difference is no the word you are using but the impact of this word and conservatives tend to be less politically engaged so the echoes of their attacks tend to be quite unimpressive.
This days you are showing how demographically dominant you are for example the number of dislikes to the video ”Dear white people”. You have great potential power but you are terribly politically apathetic and you still have those retarded pro-zionist christians.
The one epithet I have noticed some sensitivity to is ‘victim’, to which they self-identify as ones who are acted upon. Applies to all categories of intersectionality and seems to hit home. Their standard response is to say “but aren’t you are a victim, too?” to which you just say “no, I act/ have agency/am an agent, not a victim”.
Another possibility is ‘vector’, for spreading the disease of leftism.
VECTOR:
3.Biology.
an insect or other organism that transmits a pathogenic fungus, virus, bacterium, etc.
Both simple and effective
We are white supremacists. Are not the Japanese supreme in Japan? White supremacy means high trust low crime white society with law and order thrown in for the criminal outliers. Looking at past footage and photos of our expunged majority white civilization can one not help thinking, “The glory of white supremacy how we miss thee”?
Before adding thoughts to this, let me say Mr Quinn, how much I admire your thinking and writing. I look forward to your posts with the same anticipation I have for reading Gregory Hood, Lawrence Murray and Greg Johnson. Your Open Letter To Jonah Goldberg is so well done it should be included as standard issue in any kits assembled for the purpose of gently easing people skirting the edge into a bit more realism. Really, well done. And thanks going forward.
While understanding the intent in these two posts, nothing so far offered has the magical click of instant, sound recognition that, for example, “cuckservative” did—it’s possible derision is more effective than shame. “logarithm” touches this in his suggestion to simply drop the White. Unfortunately I have no terms to offer in this regard. But it’s worth noting Norman has touched on something interesting and possibly effective: Asymmetry.
Rather than merely going with a tit for tat name shaming option, perhaps it comes down to messages having an effect which is challenging to identify immediately. Call it Loaded Ambiguity.
Here’s an example for consideration with a little backstory:
A year or so back a couple friends and I were exploring breweries in Greater Denver. At the time a local brewer had a second “secret” brewery for wild ales referred to as The Black Project. (Since launched formally.) We joked to ourselves what “The Black Project” could mean and goofed around formulating tag lines such as “In your heart you know it’s time.” This was eventually refined simply to You Know It’s Time.
Imagine seeing that on a bumper sticker. Or scrawled somewhere. Over and over. To Norman’s earlier observation, that sort of messaging, with its loaded ambiguity, casts multiple signals: Disquieting to some. Intriguing or engaging to others.
This doesn’t mean the pursuit of a term or terms like the ones you’ve put forward or those put forward as responses by your readers should be dropped. But perhaps the pursuit should be widened to include that destabilize and stabilize simultaneously. Just a thought.
PS: Here’s an amusing bit of loaded ambiguity from Sam Hyde and MDE https://goo.gl/H9jDPT
This was eventually refined simply to You Know It’s Time.
While not an invective against the Left, this would serve to rally the Right. And it’s a pointed message that the clock is running out on the Left (and its globalist backers). There are also echoes of a specter haunting the forces of globalization, that of nationalist revolution. And yes, it can mean many things to many people, which makes it work.
There was a slogan I saw a few years back:
We are awake;
A storm is coming
It’s to the point, evokes revolutionary-apocalyptic goals, and fits into the Matrix-Fight Club ethos which appears in much of the Alt-Right; e.g., Red Pilling, an esoteric mannerbund bringing down the established system.
Consider such slogans disseminating over the Internet; spraypainted on freeway overpasses; inspiring the lyrics to underground songs; plastered as stickers over university commons; chanted by thousands of people in the streets; and eventually becoming national anthems.
Am I too simplistic or cocksure or whatever else? But why do I really believe I can call the leftist liberals every name (including those deemed less desirable and ineffective by the author of this great essay) and make it effective and potent with a few words of argument and take whatever name the enemies may throw at me and still emerge standing and intact? I also believe I can defend myself successfully from the worst and most horrible epithets the author fears that the enemies will use to impugn me e.g. White supremacist or even Nazi, indeed not only defend and exonerate such terms effectively but also make them look righteous, admirable and glorious, though it may take me two minute time and a few extra words to do so. 🙂 In another thought, perhaps I am being overconfident and overoptimistic, having not experienced or navigated the treacherous social, political and cultural waters of the West in person and unable to fully grasp the depth and scope of the complex, anguishing and transfixing realities as an outsider.
This is a question of discourse first and the signifier second. The public discourse is controlled by multicultural ideology; it is multicultural discourse. Like any good authoritarian discourse, it has control words that incapacitate its enunciating subjects (“racist!”, “white supremacist!”).
Our discourse is different, therefore our control words (yes, we do want control and power) can operate according to different rules. A discourse that is peripheral can definite its own semantic universe. We should not try to play by their rules by avoiding calling them “Commie!” and “traitor!” When our paradigm takes hold, we redefine the terms, and even fix floating signifiers like “freedom” and “truth.”
I think the author is really on the right track. We want something that can trigger the “five moral tastes” of healthy White people, to borrow from the decent Jew psychologist Haidt.
Group loyalty: “traitor” is obviously the best. Then, we can point out how (((Noel Ignatiev))) promotes “White Treason”. However, since most of the normies we’re trying to reach don’t feel part of the White whole (claiming “not to see race”, etc., especially with their “proposition nation” nonsense), this might not resonate as well as it could have 50 years ago.
Disgust/sanctity–“cockroach”, and even “submissive”/”submissionist”/”submissivist” (yeah, the latter two aren’t real words, but Millenials might not know that “submissive” can be a noun) and “masochist” can trigger that. The sexual connotations of the latter two certainly give the insult sticking power.
Fairness–no obvious trigger here, though “treason” sounds underhanded.
Authority/subversion: “submissive” certainly sounds wrong, a warrior’s abandoning his duty to guard his tribe and instead letting himself be buggered
Care/harm–“submissive” suggests some empathy for the submitting person. Indicating that our White enemies are often just brainwashed or perhaps even legitimately angry at their White parents, rather than true dyed-in-the-wool enemies. Also, this would be yet another reason we should never use “White submissive” to refer to a Jewish enemy (who pretends to be White a la Tim Wise)
Let’s experiment with this epithet and see where it takes us. Theorizing will only take us so far.
How about this: use “White submissive” only when dealing with White men who are passively cucked rather than actively deceiving.
NEVER use “White submissive” with a White female–she may have false notions of Blacks’ alleged alphaness reinforced with this (especially if she agrees, “Yeah, I’m a White submissive, I like submitting to Black men”. Any White guy who says this will probably have his testosterone plummet a la Scalzi, which at least makes him less of a threat, though doesn’t bring him back into the fold)
And let’s think of a more virulent descriptor for those (especially Jews) who are actively peddling submission. Something to frighten them, perhaps, or illustrate their unfairness/hatred of us/disgusting practices/subversion of our order/treason (in the case of non-Jews), as per the “five moral tastes theory” I mentioned in my previous comment.
Just saw this at alpha game:
PROGLODYTE
I think it has potential; it could be the next cuckservative. Also been having success with white submissivist. It works very well when concatenated with other labels. Example:
Oh he’s a typical proglodyte.
A what?
You know, a brown nosing white submissivist.
What’s that?
He thinks we should import all the brown people we can in order to worship them as gods. Importing them is brown nosing and worshipping them is white submissivism.
Comments are closed.
If you have Paywall access,
simply login first to see your comment auto-approved.
Note on comments privacy & moderation
Your email is never published nor shared.
Comments are moderated. If you don't see your comment, please be patient. If approved, it will appear here soon. Do not post your comment a second time.
Paywall Access
Lost your password?Edit your comment