Agree & Amplify With Libs

Anonymous Conservative links to an article in which an editor of a left-wing news site is quoted saying that Sweden should be filled with Islamic terrorists so that anti-immigration, rural, working class Swedes are forced into exile. His observation of Leftists’ nature as reflected in that editor’s genocidal wish:

Leftists are designed to embrace the out-group, adopt its ideals and mores, embrace its culture, and turn on their own as means of facilitating migration to the out-group’s lands, should resources fall short at home. It is r-strategy 101.

What I have been wondering is, how could we present to leftists evidence that they are out-groups to their own lands, and we view them as our out-groups, as way of triggering these urges in reverse, so they will ally with their own nations? […]

We don’t rape, we don’t murder, we try to be reasonable and friendly, we don’t engage in violence, and so on. We talk about being different [from Leftists], but we don’t tangibly act different.

It makes me wonder if we created an alt-right subculture, obsessed with fight-club-like violence, with leaders picked through fighting tournaments, with celebrations of violence and misogyny, with a noticeable push to humorously break political correctness barriers, and so on, whether many leftists would embrace it due to their Stockholm-Syndrome-like urges being tripped.

He offers one example of such a subculture:

I was reading /pol and was struck by how many leftists post, saying they showed up there, and were initially shocked by the scene, only to have been fascinated and converted to alt-right red-pillers…

Given their psychological template, Leftists will side with a group that is even more frightening and alien than the non-Whites they are allied with. Their instinct compels them to seek out or invite, and then submit to, members of the scariest out-group.

For similar reasons, Weimar-era NSDAP, with its street-brawler reputation, recruited more easily from the ranks of rival Communists than from among conservatives.

I intuited this aspect of human nature immediately after Breivik’s raid. An NRx blogger wrote that Breivik should have recruited, not killed, the young Communists. In the comments, I offered the possibility that like it or not, the Norwegian’s boldness, combined with his iconically handsome photo, is a form of recruitment.

Telling Leftists that Che Guevara raped women, executed homosexuals, and most damningly of all, held blacks in low esteem (“The negro is indolent and lazy, and spends his money on frivolities”) only makes them admire him more.

But let’s come down to everyday applications of othering ourselves from Leftists to at least shut them up, if not recruit them. For example, if they bring up President Trump:

  • Leftist: “Trump’s a nahzee!”
  • Reasonable man: “You do know that his daughter is Jewish?”
  • You: [with a knowing smile] “Yes, he is.”

On the subject of Trump’s connections:

  • Leftist: “I hate Bannon. He’s a White supremacist.”
  • Reasonable man: “He headlined a fundraiser for black entrepreneurs!”
  • You: [with a gleam in your eye] “Yes, he is.”

Or fake news:

  • Leftist: “Assange is a Russian agent.”
  • Reasonable man: “Wrong! he released 800,000 files on Russia.”
  • You: [gazing beyond the horizon] “Slava Rossiyii. Urrah.”

***

CH2

Advertisements

18 thoughts on “Agree & Amplify With Libs

  1. I have this to be true. When accused of being a racist, I respond “And?”

    This immediately flusters the accuser. They cannot progress beyond this point in any rational way.

    The left knows only how to attack and their attack relies on shame. Without the ability to shame, they are disarmed.

    Agree and amplify!

  2. I liked this comment of his:

    “It makes me wonder if we created an alt-right subculture, obsessed with fight-club-like violence, with leaders picked through fighting tournaments, with celebrations of violence and misogyny, with a noticeable push to humorously break political correctness barriers, and so on, whether many leftists would embrace it due to their Stockholm-Syndrome-like urges being tripped.”

    Some of the strongest WNs come from the ex-Communist or hardcore enviro stains. I have found a few of them.

    I find the “leftist type WN” is superior to the trad path of WN, from conservatism to survivalism to MGTOW / PUA.

  3. Racist?

    Well that depends (smirk smile)
    If you’re a crybaby then, yes, it’s racist, because everything is racist to crybabies (big smile)
    But if you’re not a crybaby then it’s not racist. (dismiss smile)

  4. You can also counter by calling them ‘sexist’ right back. Use up some of their bad words ahead of time. Or go right to ‘neo-nazi pedophile’, then whenever they say something, just turn away and say ‘I don’t listen to NEO-NAZIS’, ‘shut up NEO-NAZI’, ‘hey everyone, this guy is a NEO-NAZI’ etc. Repeat until they melt down.

    Random name calling can be fun too; if you take this route it doesn’t really have to make sense. Mix bad words (“homophobe”, “rapist”) with good epithets (“globalist”, “antifa”), see if they get confused. Try interspersing ‘Israel lover’ now and then and see if that bites. (Could work well on latinx in particular.)

  5. “Given their psychological template, Leftists will side with a group that is even more frightening and alien than the non-Whites they are allied with. Their instinct compels them to seek out or invite, and then submit to, members of the scariest out-group.”

    To a neoreactionary, psychology has nothing to do with it. It is pure politics. The reason the Left likes Muslims is that they are using the “barbarians to control the barbarians” . The Left-Wing elite could easily be voted out of office and have their bureaucracy and media tamed if there was a “democratic reaction”; thus, the goal is to secure power by changing the electorate.

    Here is a prediction: The more “scary” the Alt-Right gets, the more “scary” the tools of the Elite Left will get.

    If Tony Blair was made supreme leader for life in the UK in 1997 and the only way he would lose power would be via a military coup or revoultion,all he had to do was make the country reasonably rich and happy, there would be no need to import (as he did) millions of “ringers” who would vote labor forever.

  6. Maybe put it this way: politics drives those at the top, while psychology is more relevant with “footsoldiers,” or common leftists one might get into a shouting match with.

  7. @PA

    Indeed. The theory that some of us in Nrx are developing is a “selectionist” theory. In short, those with power will select those with a certain “psychology” who successfully audition.

    Here are a few sources:

    https://thejournalofneoabsolutism.wordpress.com/2017/05/02/36/

    https://bloodyshovel.wordpress.com/2016/12/21/self-deceptive-status-filters/

    http://gablog.cdh.ucla.edu/2017/05/auditioning/

    Our own contribution:

    https://imperialenergyblog.wordpress.com/2017/09/19/the-steel-cameralist-manifesto-part-5-the-minotaur-of-war-the-power-selection-theory/

    BTW, enjoy the blog, have been reading every post for the last few months.

  8. Pingback: Agree & Amplify With Libs | Reaction Times

  9. R/K strategies are fascinating. However, I don’t really grasp the “migration to the out-group’s lands” concept.
    When we say resources are running low in this model, do we mean that these Rabbits are fearful of being put at the bottom of the list?
    The most troubling idea is that they are trying to worm their way into foreign societies. Why would that work? Does it ever work? It seems like the second Somalis gained power, the rabbits would be the ones first to die. That seems pretty damn obvious to me? If they can’t or won’t see that, then is there automatically a mental illness attached to the rabbit condition?
    These are sincere questions, not an attempt to refute R/K theory, which seems indisputably true.

  10. — BTW, enjoy the blog, have been reading every post for the last few months.

    Thank you very much!

    — R/K strategies are fascinating. However, I don’t really grasp the “migration to the out-group’s lands” concept

    Yeah, A.C. elaborates those finer points of r/K in various posts, takes a while of following the blog for the picture to crystallize. I’m not there yet. I think he’s talking about r-strategists’ pattern of overgrazing their habitat, with an eye on greener pastures. Like a warren of rabbits. And to facilitate future migration, they are adapted to blend in with occupants of those greener pastures. By corollary, they invite out-group members into their own habitat as competitors to their K-selected compatriots.

  11. — they are adapted to blend in with occupants of those greener pastures

    A while back, he had a post in which he zoomed in on Liberals’ enthusiasm for foreigners, specifically as expressed by the way they never miss an opportunity to sing their praises. I recognized liberals I personally know in those descriptions.

    For example, if you’re a K-selected person and you are studying a martial art, it would be proper to brag about having a Japanese sensei because that’s where the tradition comes from. But you wouldn’t see gratuitous associations with foreigners or exotic cultures as a plus in itself. For example, you wouldn’t make it a point of pride to tell everyone that your “best friend” is [of exotic culture]. You don’t have exophilia, you tend to see yourself connected to your own in-group writ-large, which is your own nation and culture.

    In contrast, the liberals I know gush with pride because their kid goes to school with Bengalis or whatever. They really do “like” Diversity. And I put “like” in quotes because it is more posture than sincere. They are following their programming of blending in with, ingratiating themselves to, and where necessary submitting to, outsiders. And betraying their own in-group by aiding outsiders in a “let’s you and him fight.”

  12. — Some of the strongest WNs come from the ex-Communist

    In general, 180-flip converts shouldn’t be trusted or put in positions of leadership. Best to harness their enthusiasm but keep an eye on them.

  13. Thanks for the clarification. “Let’s you and him fight.”
    That has to be the case, even if it’s at the subconscious level. It’s too perfect a fit for the leftists I know.

  14. Judging from personal experience: Depends. The general pattern is that it does work on the hotter leftist women, but not so well on the soyboys or the more hideous females.

  15. Re lib enthusiasm for foreigners – thanks to a recent ref at the Chateau, my go-to insult is now from Dr. William Pierce aimed at Murdoch Murdoch – “shut up you weebo faggot!”

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s