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.