They are White SubmissivistsSpencer J. Quinn
The Left is tensing up and bracing for a fight. We all know this. Brexit made them nervous. They find the Donald Trump presidency, with all its direct, masculine power, to be utterly intolerable. The burgeoning tide of nationalism in Europe, which is reawakening a long-dormant sense of white racial identity, frankly scares them. But what scares them just as much is that they never saw it coming. Few mainstream pundits predicted Brexit, and we all know the long odds these same pundits gave Candidate Trump last year.
Things are happening which they don’t like and cannot control. Very few of them are reconsidering their worldviews and core values. Even fewer are reconsidering those of their opponents on the Right. Most are lashing out, and it’s getting ugly. Remember the wave of anarchy and terror over a hundred years ago which resulted in the assassination of several world leaders, including President William McKinley? Yeah, that’s coming back. Only now, Leftists have become accustomed to power, and shepherding the inexorable progress of civilization through their kindness and wisdom is all that they know. So when the knuckle-dragging, atavistic Right threatens not only to stand athwart history and cry “halt!” but to actually turn them back, they can only respond with indignant rage.
When these people are lazy or ignorant, they refer to their Rightist opponents (including those of us on the Alt Right) as “Nazis” or “white supremacists.” We all know this to be false to the point of slander, but they, of course, don’t care. On the other hand, if they knew better, they would instead call us “white nationalists,” which is, for many of us, quite true. In either case, we should realize that these epithets have become the Scarlet Ws, if you will, of our age. By labeling us as such, our Leftist enemies are not simply trying to discredit us, but to completely ruin us: our careers, our families, everything. With toxic terms like “white supremacist” and “White Nationalist,” they hope to bring political death to us. Without our communities and and livelihoods, we would be brought to heel, or at least crushed under the Leftward progress of history.
Well, that’s the plan, anyway.
One effective counterthrust from the Right against this epithetical shaming is the term “cuckservative.” This is a great word, and folks on the Right should continue to use it. It’s great because it’s not crude, childish, or obviously insulting (like the nasty and tasteless “libtard”). “Cuckservative” is also not derivative. Equating a so-called conservative who pays homage to the very thing that victimizes him is very much like the cuckolded husband who stays with his faithless wife even though he knows the kids aren’t his. Furthermore, it is humiliating to be labeled a cuckservative. You become a laughingstock, and nobody likes that. I’m sure a squish like Jay Nordlinger of NRO wishes the term had never been coined.
Yet for all its effectiveness, “cuckservative” has its limits. It only works against middle-of-the-road conservatives and lacks the murderous intent behind the W words the Left hurls at us. After all, I am sure most of us would agree with Jay Nordlinger on many things. I personally enjoyed his “Carterpalooza” columns from way back, and I appreciate his devotion to classical music. If you think about it, only a white man can do what Nordlinger and other cuck writers do, namely adhering to a lofty, well-meaning, and intellectually demanding political ideology in spite of facts and history and a downright embarrassing losing streak and still remaining, well, a nice enough guy. (I actually get a weird sense of racial pride when I think about this.)
So when we call Nordlinger a cuckservative, I don’t think we want to ruin him and keep him from being able to feed his family, the way the Left wants to do to us. Rather, I have a feeling that behind all the snark and derision of “cuckservative” is the pull for him to come join us. If you will pardon the colorful language, perhaps if we cut his balls off, a bigger pair will grow back. Seriously, if Jay Nordlinger were to suddenly come to his senses and jump with both feet into the Alt Right, following his erstwhile NRO colleagues to VDARE or some such outfit, I’m sure all would be forgiven pretty quickly. It always feels good when the prodigal son comes home.
But could “cuckservative” ever work against the Left? Of course not. In the cuckold analogy, the Left is represented by the man who sired the cuckold’s children. He’s the virile, biologically successful winner who gets whatever he wants. Call him a cuckold, and he’ll just laugh at you. Despite the longshot victory of Donald Trump and Republican majorities in the House and Senate, the Left continues to dominate our culture from the top down. Pockets of resistance do remain, and President Trump certainly knows how to bolster spirits in those places, but, in general, the well-funded Left still has tight control over what most white people can get away with saying and doing.
So what do we call the Left? They’re the real enemy, not the Jay Nordlingers of the world. We need an epithet that is as damaging to them as “white supremacist” is to us. Right now we don’t have one.
I guess we could try “Stalinist” as a way to counterbalance their calling us “Nazis,” but most on the Left are ignorant of Stalin, and the ones who aren’t have done what they could to keep that ignorance quite blissful for the rest of us through our incorrigibly liberal public education system. Furthermore, Stalin killed more people than Hitler, so fewer people survived him long enough to write bestselling memoirs and screenplays about his atrocities (in English, at least). According to historian Robert Conquest, this may have been on purpose. Stalin has had little lasting cultural impact in the West compared to the enormity of his crimes, so calling a Leftist a “Stalinist” these days will evoke little more than a smirk or a quizzical, “Huh?”
Then there’s “Red,” “Commie,” or “anti-American,” which used to work, especially back when Joe McCarthy was clinging to his perch in the Senate back in the 1950s. But the power of those epithets has faded, perhaps because they carry distinct Cold War connotations. Calling a Leftist a “Red” in 2017 would be about as anachronistic as calling a modern-day New Yorker a “Knickerbocker.” I think the last nail was driven into the “Red” coffin when some liberal genius in the mainstream media decided to label Republican states “red” and Democrat ones “blue” during the 2000 election. Fifty years ago, calling a state deep red meant quite the opposite of what it means today.
And let’s not forget “ethnomasochist.” I can’t get too excited about such a term, even though I approve of the sting it attempts to deliver. First, when you say “ethno-” anything, you’re venturing beyond the understanding of most people. As a prefix, it is just not part of common usage. It is an anthropological term, slightly hoity-toity, and will force anyone lacking a graduate education to parse whatever comes after it. For that reason alone, it probably won’t score its intended hit. Secondly, it’s not quite true. A masochist seeks out or enjoys pain, often for sexual reasons. That’s not a very clean analogy for what the Left is trying to accomplish. People on the Left, in many cases, wish to ease their guilty consciences by righting perceived wrongs of the past. This is why so many of them invite refugees into their countries with such enthusiasm: they feel sorry for these people and they experience existential shame for what their ancestors may or may not have done in the past three centuries. This kind of stupid empathy does not quite fit with images of whips, cuffs, and black leather.
The final entry in the war of words that I have encountered is the plain vanilla (pun intended) “anti-white.” I have seen American Renaissance use this term to describe the Southern Poverty Law Center. While perfectly serviceable and accurate, this term just doesn’t carry much weight behind it. In fact, since the Left refuses to acknowledge all the good whites have done and focuses instead on the bad, many Leftists would gladly cop to such a charge. It has become their form of virtue signaling, and many of them actually mean it. It goes both ways as well. Imagine calling Sheriff Jim Clarke “anti-black” back in 1960. Would that have had any effect on him at all? If he was in an honest mood, he probably would have just smiled and said, “You got that right, boy.”
So, again, what to call the Left? How can we stigmatize them in the way they stigmatize us?
As I pondered this, I asked myself, “What do their anti-Right epithets have that our anti-Left ones lack?” The answer came to me: racism, specifically, the singling out of one race for a particularly nasty form of shaming. Although the following is not strictly true, it is true enough: only whites can be Nazis, White Nationalists, or white supremacists. These epithets are, before all else, racist digs at white people and were never intended to be used against anyone else. On the other hand, it is the case that anyone of any race can be a Stalinist, a red, a commie, an anti-American, an ethnomasochist, or an anti-white. Such attacks are just too broad or too clinical or too Marquis of Queensberry for its intended targets to take personally. That’s the thing. We need to make the Left take our attacks personally without resorting to childish or libelous ad hominems. This is what the term “cuckservative” accomplishes, and we need to unleash a similar giggling id monster against a far more deserving opponent in the Left.
In order to produce the most force with the least effort, we should explicitly limit our attack to white Leftists in the same way the Left limits its attack to white Rightists. According to the Left’s own lights, whites are the only people who are fair game when it comes to racism, so by singling out whites, we wouldn’t be breaking any rules. If anything, we’d be using the Left’s rules to our advantage. This will allow us to be as racist as we want to be. And racism, if anything, hurts.
My suggestion is to turn the Left’s biggest weapon right back at them and shove it down their scruffy throats. If they want to call us “white supremacists,” fine. In response, we should call them “white submissivists.” In fact, we shouldn’t wait for them to call us anything. We should lead with “white submissivist” and see how they take it. The term is new and still relatively obscure; I have only seen it in a few comments and twitter feeds. It rolls off the tongue well enough. It’s a mean-spirited personal attack that doesn’t single anyone out. It keeps all the shaming and ridicule behind “cuckservative” and places it on a much bigger stage. And, most importantly, it fits. Everything white Leftists do today strips power and freedom from whites and awards power and freedom to non-whites. This is beyond dispute. White Leftists may see such behavior as a badge of honor . . . until we call their manhood into question over it . . . until we laugh at them for being the cowardly cucks of non-whites . . . until we show them what they really are.
At that point, they may argue that they are pursuing equality and righting past wrongs or whatnot. But at least they will be arguing, and from a defensive posture at that. The Left is not accustomed to being on the defensive. Regardless of how well they argue, this new epithet threatens to put the Right on equal terms with them. In the past, the “white supremacist” epithet was enough to end the conversation. Now, with “white submissivist,” it’s just the beginning.
They are white submissivists.
Who’s with me?
Notice: Trying to get property 'ID' of non-object in /home/clients/030cab2428d341678e5f8c829463785d/sites/counter-currents.com/wp-content/themes/CC/php/helpers/custom_functions_all.php on line 164
Four syllables makes it cumbersome. Would “white submissives” work?
I was going to say that very thing. I think “White Submissive” has the same punch, and meaning, but rolls off the tongue easier.
I appreciate the sentiment, but I think ‘commie’ is going to be our most effective word against leftists. It has some big advantages:
-It is short and “spitable”
-It is a 1-1 sub for “nazi” so anything yelled at you by a leftist can be turned around without thinking
-It doesn’t require any education, everybody knows what a commie is
-It is already woven into the memetic fabric of America, there is lots of cultural ore to mine around it (see the “punch a nazi” memes being used against Spencer: punch a commie vs punch a white submissive, it’s not even close)
‘commie’ is the meme to go with.
hmm, try saying “you are submissive to the mainstream media. you are submissive to the government education state. you are submissive to the marxist multicultural entertainment & advertising complex. you are submissive to the current zeitgeist that makes you think you’re enlightened. you are submissive to ZOG. you are submissive to leftist influence.” hmm. too much to remember. how about “submit to allah” 🙂 nahh. i like “you are under the thrall of mainstream media news!” maybe just call them “mainstreamers!” (they’ll hate that!)
How about, ‘lamestreamers’ or ‘lamey lefties’.
“Commie” works for me.
Just go with “cuck” or “cucky” without the -servative part. After all, that’s what you mean by submissive.
Libs = cucks
“Conservative” NRO types = cuckservatives
I would call them “white submissies”.
I’ve been wrestling with the exact same issue. I’ve considered white inferiorist, traitorist, self-hater, crypto-racist and white uncle tom.
They’ve all got enough sting to hurt leftists, but white submissivist has that added psychosexual twist that coul make it the next cuckservative.
Even as we stand among the ruins of the GOPe, few of us fully appreciate how powerful that one word was or the scale of the devastation it left in its wake.
Finding the anti left equivalent is our holy grail.
I like ‘pre-opt trans’. Way back in third wave feminism, they said that men could not be feminist. Then they said only lesbians could be feminists. So don’t you think these people who are submissive secretly want to be in the female role and have women rule them? After all, Christians are in the submissive role in relation to God. (don’t tell them, they will get angry) I am thinking of a certain Justine Trudeau actually.
I like “ethnomasochist” because while it *technically* gives one cover in the sense that it’s always pathetic – regardless of its victim’s race or ethnicity – it’s direct enough to point shame at a particular target in an argument. Not to mention its connotation of psychopathology. But this cuts deeper with “educated” people; I guess that simple Leftists driven by more primal motivations would be more taken aback at a term (like “submissivists”) that impugns their manhood or basic dignity.
How bout -“Faggots” or “jews”
Faggot or jews – in my opinion the second best option. One has to think international, something that works for the whites worldwide, for one has to think in a world wide solidarity setup, just like the Komintern (Communist International) and the Bolshevists did.
Jew will get you locked up in Germany and other European countries, faggot does not translate into German or other language in the same way, it has a slightly different connotation on other languages.
One most probably has to obtain the expertise of a top notch marketing expert for a suitable word.
Re: Supremacy and/or Submission:
If an individual is indeed superior in any particular skill than another individual; that is a fact, and facts – among individuals who value facts as the basis for their relating – are simply that: facts, neither good nor bad; simply reality.
Some individuals who are superior to others in any particular skill; can choose to use their skill for the benefit of a better future world of justice for all; and others can use their superiority in a particular skill to enslave others of a particular race or religion.
Everyone on the planet consciously or unconsciously submits to cultural, religious, racial values. Individuals can choose to submit to racial, religious, gender or cultural values that are based on factual scientific reality; or not.
A soldier, or general, in a war that does not discipline himself to submitting to confronting reality as it is – namely confronting the facts of the battle before him, as they are, not as he wishes them to be – will be outflanked and may lose the battle or the war.
Any biological species that lives in a finite resource environment, that does not submit itself to procreating and consumption of resources below ecological carrying capacity limits, shall venture into ecological overshoot, and ecological collapse.
Any biological species that lives in a finite resource environment, that pretends to itself to be capable of logic, reasoning and problem solving, that accumulates sufficient power to be able to implement a legal social contract that requires all the members of its species to procreate and consume resources below ecological carrying capacity limits; and does not do so; allowing the population it is in charge of leading to massively overconsume and procreate; has no reasonable justification for whining about the resource conflict consequences of its failure of leadership.
Supremacy and Submission are simply two abstract concepts. Without discipline to submit to following lawful orders, no armies in the world would exist, or accomplish anything. An army that does not have the discipline to submit to the rules that govern how it functions, for what strategic purposes and for whose benefit; is simply a resource thieving culling mass murdering mob of hitmen. Armies, like individuals, who do not discipline themselves to confronting reality as it is; particularly resource reality – which is the foundation for the energy for their tanks, or steel for their swords, or water for their horses, or arable land for their tribe’s food – are not armies who have learnt to discipline themselves to submit to confronting reality.
Allegedly, the essence of every religion, is to seek the truth about reality. Why are we here? How did we get here? Who are we? Who do we want to be? How do we want to live?
If one of the most valuable commodities for an army to do an effective job of protecting its tribe, is accurate information; an army that does not demand that its tribe’s scientists or truthseekers and truthtellers, be able to provide the tribe with buck stops here accurate information, no matter how offensive to the political, academic or religious leadership of the tribe; it is not doing that tribe any favours in protecting the tribe. The more an army allows the silencing of its truthteller scientists, the less honest and accurate information it shall have; and the less capable it shall be from dangers, its truthseekers attempted to warn it about.
Perhaps a more helpful question for you and your tribe may be: Do I have the courage and discipline to submit to telling myself the truth? Do any other members of my tribe have the courage and discipline to submit to telling ourselves and each other the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
A submissive is a person a person lacking balls, meek and obedient to the point of surrender. The leftists aren’t submissive, they are highly energized in seeking our submission, surrender and eventual extinction.
In a way ‘white submissivist’ is just another variation of a clapped-out ‘cuck’.
Of course it is correct the leftist are submissive to a dangerous philosophy, but it is a political system they have actively chosen despite all the historical evidence which would cause a mature person to rethink.
THAT “IS” GOOD!!
One reason the Left gets mileage out of “Racist!” is that egalitarianism is the law of the land, and culture. Every major institution in the USA (government, corporate, academia, media, religious) promotes civil rights. “I am not a racist” is a standard mantra across the spectrum, including conservatives trying to gain cred in the mainstream.
The dilemma comes down to finding some word which would have similar opprobrium for Leftists while gaining the support of mainstream culture. “Trotskyite wrecker?” How many people would get it, or even care? “Sub” instead of “submissive?” It’s one syllable and can be conflated with “sub-par,” or perhaps after the target has been taken for a helicopter ride, they will be “submarine.”
Here’s one I have seen work:
It’s one syllable, easy to say and hard to mangle. And it gets the point across universally. We stand for the Man who symbolizes White resurgence. For the mainstream, “Trump” represents civic nationalism and talking back to political correctness. There’s the bonus play on words in proclaiming the Right will “trump” the Left.
Chant “Trump!” and chant it proud.
Drown out the Left.
Create solidarity across the Right.
As the situation dictates:
Self Hating White(s)
Just call them what they are. “Flag Burners”. Don’t over think this.
Why not wimp? Short for: White Impotent?
Well first I think the term should be White Submissionist. But I think it’s only effective as a counter to accusations of White Supremacy. I just prefer to call them liars and/or traitors. It’s pretty effective. I also call them racists. Not the Dems are real racists thing where some RINO squish says the Leftists are the one who are really racist against the POCs. I say they’re racist against Whites. That pushes them back on their heels too. I also use the term White Uncle Tom. That screws with them as well.
Have a month of food stashed and a couple of rifles n handguns around.
The Summer of Love is a few months away.
No normal man wants to be called a cuck, so this slur will never lose its power. You will indeed come across some cisgender males who are immune, but we don’t really want to convince them either way.
Leftists are not susceptible to the charge of submissiveness for the following reasons:
1. The only people susceptible to the insult of impotency are those who still somehow, somewhere seek their pride in being a strong white man: the cuckservatives. White leftists have no such aspirations.
2. In fact, for leftists it is precisely a source of pride to be submissive to non-whites! It is their way to attone for the imaginary sins of ‘those people’, i.e. ‘bad whites’. So to call out their submissiveness to non-whites only strengthens their idea of self-worth.
3. In the struggle where we might hurl this insult towards them they are in fact not being submissive at all. Towards US, the bad whites, they are in fact extremely militant. They see themselves as heroes, even while limp-wristed. So the insult is refuted by the very situation it is used in.
There is truth in the saying that the left thinks the right is evil, while the right thinks the left is stupid. But what the right does not normally understand is that the stupidity of the left is not a fact of nature. They are full of ‘protective stupidity’ because they have been brainwashed.
Let us quote George Orwell: “Crimestop means the faculty of stopping short, as though by instinct, at the threshold of any dangerous thought. It includes the power of not grasping analogies, of failing to perceive logical errors, of misunderstanding the simplest arguments if they are inimical to Ingsoc, and of being bored or repelled by any train of thought which is capable of leading in a heretical direction. Crimestop, in short, means protective stupidity.”
In other words: leftist stupidity is sinister.
How can we express the sinister, evil aspect of their stupidity? The perfect word would be ‘golem’, because of its Jewish associations. Richard Spencer used it quite correctly in his now infamous NPI speech. However, this word requires to much background knowledge.
A word that is much better known, and which also expresses sinister stupidity is ZOMBIE. A zombie doesn’t know better, he is dead, brain dead, commanded by sinister forces, rotting, anti-life, deranged, against the order of nature, against beauty, against nobility etc. etc. This fits the leftist perfectly.
What to call the left?
Perhaps use exact the same term one-to-one in the opposite direction, e.g. Neo-Nazi=Neo-Marxist/white supremacist=black supremacist. Something that will weaken the effect of their slogans. One has to take the unique psychology of them into consideration. One for the older instigators, one for their mislead followers. At the end of the day the prime target should be the ringleaders, if you neutralize them, the followers will fade away.
So Cold War-ish? If used often enough, it will slowly gain acceptance (that is how their words became accepted) and become mainstream again.
Communists, the ANC, black Nationalists, Marxists/Cultural.Marxists – everybody in South Africa knows these words and they have not become outdated.
At the end of the day a distinct repulsive enemy image understandable by the masses must be embossed – psy-ops technique right out of the Cold War! One must use those experiences gained out of that period.
What I am saying/writing is, why does “Nazi” (not from the Cold War, but from 70 years ago out of World War II) still work, but Communist, a curse word from just a little longer than only yesterday, does not work anymore. The only conclusion I can draw is that they have the better propaganda apparatus.
In Germany the Right should revive this word “communists”, walk around with flags reading “anti-communist” and a line through the hammer-and-sickle, put older symbols on the backburner for later, and walk around with hundreds of posters with pictures of the murdered white South Africans for the shock value, and mixed German/English posters. For the press will make photos that go around the world. If one reads Palestine posters, one can understand zero, one just sees strange signs. But English is a language that is known in critical white countries.
It always was a problem for outsider to understand what exactly was happening inside South Africa, for the real true unassailable reports and messages were overwhelmingly in Afrikaans, which hardly was understandable for the world outside South Africa. Language is a national thing, and one wants to protect an grow your language, for language is identity, but if it comes down to survival, one must try all avenues to survive. In military terms this would be called asymmetrical warfare, or unconventional methods. You have to think outside the box, and for that you most probably need some military and/or marketing background.
You cannot easily make Nazis out of South Africans, they were on the side of the Allies and Churchill during WW1 and WW2. There were attempts to connect South Africa to Nazis, but that will not work so well today. And a new generation of youngster have grown up, who do not have the same connection to events that lie more than sevety years into the past. These youngsters will be the leaders and adult of tomorrow.
Quoting Buckley (“standing athwart history”) is an example of cucktural appropriation.
I vote for “cuck,” A short, hard word that retains the harsh sexual insult. It applies to the white liberals who have been cucked by another and tougher group. As for those who are cucking the cucked, Goebbels famously said that any insult slides off them like rain off a duck, except one:
Simply name them. Watch the face of that Trump protester with the “White Men Against Trump” sign crumble before your eyes when he is simply called out for who he is.
Most Leftists baulk at the suggestion that they are Jewish stooges and are therefore employed by the tribe murdering the Palestinians they so love. Hence may I offer:
“Zionist stooge”, “Soros whore”…
In addition, the Left recoils at accusations meant for us. And so:
“Imperialist”, “moral pervert”, “immoral supremacist”, “destroyer of difference”
My personal favourites which I used at university to defend against their clichéd accusations were:
“Silly little girl” (use especially against male Leftists. This one crushes them and shows you don’t even seriously consider them)
“Class traitor” (they really do think they represent the working class, and this one really hurts
“capitalists’ boot boy” (again, they think they are anti-capitalist but are inadvertently defending this the polity)
“You are to the System what whore is to pimp”
Some of these are excellent, zionist stooge, and class traitor especially.
I like ‘Characterschwein’ and ‘Untermensch’
Zombie is possibly the smartest suggestion so far. What the left has an individualist way of seeing things, being as it is an 18th century enlightenment’s creation. Perhaps attacking this sense of uniqueness would be most effective. Snow flake and zombie do this, I also notice they use “basic bitch” that can be easily adapted to basic lefty bitch or basic pinko.
I still like zombie the best, it’s effective but it still retains that certain vagueness of every good insult
Jews: just “jew” will do.
Non-whites/Non-Christians: ZIOPROXY; in bigger numbers: ZIOARMY. They’re the Jews’ proxy armies against whites.
White libs: ZIOPUPPET and ZIOZOMBIE are my favorites. Nobody likes to think of themselves as lacking autonomy. And the vast unwashed masses of libs are just conformists; they’re too dumb to have ever thought about Jews in any serious way. It’s an insult that can also kick-start an education.
For the more educated lefties, they tend to be critics of Israel, and the use of “zio-” as opposed to “jew” entangles them in the anti-Semitism vs anti-zionism web.
The political cuckold is a white male. He is submissive. Some submissives are masochistic, others are not. The liberal is a masochist. He is knowledgeable of his condition but enjoys the humiliation. The cuckservative is a submissive who feigns ignorance of his condition. The liberal is a cuckold. The conservative is a cuckservative. The bull in the relationship is a (((bull))) or a monstrous, non-white golem conjured from mud by a (((pimp))) to protect him from the latent anti-semitism of politically cuckolded white males.
Read about the golem, esp., The Golem of Prague:
I’ve witnessed this stuff over and over and over from these people and all I can realistically do is pity them. I know they are too far gone….
Just saw Vox Day using “melting pothead”.
This is the way forward. Ridicule. Cuckservative had this key ingredient and it’s what made it so successful. White submissive can be funny in certain contexts so it has potential.
For great ridicule!
So what do we call the Left?
Call them when? During outdoor “protests”? In polite letters to the editor? Anywhere inbetween?
For tweets and letters and blogs, etc. all suggetions I’ve heard here are suitable.
For a screaming outdoor fuss, it has to be short and sweet. Commie is still good.
– Negrophiles, rhymes with necrophiles
– Ethnocucks, I get the argument with the word “ethno” but we need to educate people
– ZombiLeftists, putting zombie in front is kinda redundant but it brings the point across
– MarxistPig/Dog, as opposed to “Capitalist Pigs”
– Muddippers, look up “mudshark”
Maybe something short and very demeaning and damaging to one’s ego and intellect. How about just calling them “children”? When you engage one on one call him/her “son” or “young lady”. When I speak to a feminist, I call her “doll, bird, sweet heart,”: anything that asserts male dominance or patriarchy. They hate that.
How about Islamophile, Christophobe, Globalist Stooge, Globalist Scum, Islamic Supremacist, Obamnunist, Islamocuck, Neo-Marxist, Islamic Apologist, or Europhobe?
“Stooge” is great. Short & sweet. Nobody wants to be considered a stooge. You want to hurt them.
I like to refer to these people as “white orcs” because they are destructive.
When I encountered Marxian Liberals during my participation in various protest marches in the past, I called them Marxian Liberals, Marxist brain ‘deads’, Marxist walking ‘deads’ and Marxist morons.
I found that some reacted defensively to being branded Marxist, oddly enough. When accompanied by a further slur word(s), they tended to display a kind of wounded demeanor and seemed to find the labels impossible to ignore. Some even denied they were Marxists.
Some of them behave like immature children. In a employer-employee setup, one would manage them in the manner of someone with a low job maturity (“cannot do the task/no motivation to do the task”). Close supervision, autocratic management style. The unruly behaviour of some of them, in my opinion, cannot be corrected with logic. The correct way would be to apply some form of immediate pain – arrest, fine, lock up in jail. In the military they would be marched off to the detention barracks. That is how one deals with animalistic people, not by trying logic or buzzwords on them. The insight just is not there. You only gain respect with these kind of people by enforcing respect. Listen, don’t backchat, follow the instruction or face the consequences.
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.
Edit your comment