2,009 words
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?