For one kind of Leftist – the trendy — beliefs and slogans are mere talismans brandished in order to attract higher social status, like a Native American’s dreamcatcher is supposed to entrap spirits. A principle like “white guilt” isn’t believed in, it’s just deemed useful for getting ahead of other whites or at least maintaining enviable social rank.
There are of course other Leftists who sincerely believe what they profess, no matter how illogically or counterfactually, such as those who think equality is compatible with evolution because the latter is misunderstood in Lamarckian terms. The true believers misunderstand, but, unlike the subject of this essay, they don’t rationalize or otherwise self-deceive their way through their politics.
We take note of the kind of white leftist who does whenever we associate leftism with physiological traits. The mainstream and the alternative Right have noticed that many white leftists are what I will call subnormal for their respective sexes — that is, deficient in either masculinity or feminity. For instance, a man lacking in size, physical strength, psychological dominance, or competitive drive is likely a subnormal. His female equivalent is mannish or ugly in some other way.
That such unfortunates abound among leftist journalists, activists, or even your Prius-driving neighbor is cause for glee for the mainstream Right, which likes to brag that Fox News anchorbabes — and, more tellingly, Evangelical housewives and Young Republican co-eds — are far more attractive than the likes of Janeane Garofalo. This joviality distracts from the important, disturbing reality that innate, biological deficiencies of certain whites is a powerful inducement to radical politics, including the taking up of causes harmful to white interests.
The status quo, i.e. “the system,” works well enough for normal to supra-normal whites — women who are OK-looking to beautiful, and men who range manly enough to Adonis-like. Because it is standard for normals to be treated well, and for the very gifted to be treated very well, neither has the incentive to challenge prevailing ways or mores.
Subnormals’ lot — characterized by ostracization, loneliness, alienation, humiliation or involuntary celibacy — gives them the incentive to work against the “system” that enforces these indignities. This motivation persists even if the subnormal knows on some level that his defects, being innate, won’t be cured or alleviated by societal change.
In fact, it is this realization which fuels this kind of leftist’s fanaticism. The tragedy of reality is so severe that the subnormal is presented an unspoken choice: despair in objectivity, or, in the narrative of Leftism a vocabulary, theories, and moral principles with which he can banish the unhappiest of thoughts. The subnormal regales himself with a narrative which alchemizes despondency over his unchangeable condition into righteous anger against foes both personal and impersonal, and drives himself to distraction through concrete action against these adversaries.
Leftist theories about observable phenomeon happily sweep away darker explanations. It’s much more pleasant for a mannish woman to believe that men reject her because the “patriarchy” is “intimidated” by “strong, independent females” than it is for her to consider the truth: men are repulsed by those qualities which she can’t change.
While such a complete fabrication comes in handy , rationales which include part of the truth are valued more because they’re more persuasive. The subnormal male projects onto confident, successful businessmen the character of his formative years’ bullies, while the subnormal female sees in such villains versions of the guys who rejected her at prom-time, and continue to ignore or otherwise wrong her in her adulthood. Even if these resentments can be seen as pathetic, they don’t exactly upend reality — today’s CEOs and so forth often were yesterday’s jerk jocks and arrogant prom kings.
On the other hand, projection in the casting of the narrative’s victims is less tethered to reality. The subnormal sympathizes with the illegal alien or the non-white affirmative action beneficiary because he thinks he and they share an enemy in whites who are winning at life. He supports amnesty and affirmative action, even though both of which undermine his practical self-interest, and even though the beneficiaries of either don’t reciprocate his camaraderie, solely because these positions provide emotional uplift. In pressing for these policies, he can avenge himself on conventional white society and glorify himself as the enlightened, hip champion of The Other.
Whether an external enemy is disembodied phenomenon as in males’ alleged panic in response to females with PhDs, or a tangible entity like anti-immigration activists, activities undertaken in opposition to these threats, such as marching in demonstrations or delivering tirades atop soapboxes, get subnormals out of the house, into the sunshine, and into the company of sympathizers.
All of this amounts to Leftism as practiced by the unluckily endowed being symptomatic of mental illness, exactly as the rightwing conventional wisdom says. Just as the shy person doesn’t manifest their condition solely through the feeling of immense insecurity about socializing but also through the actions of avoiding of social contact and concocting rationalizations like professed superiority over others, the subnormal white’s symptoms begin with rage over physiological deficits and extend like the tendrils of a parasite into the rationalizations and distraction of politics in hostile opposition to the conventional white person society they feel mistreated by, often not unjustifiably.
Rightwingers — in fairness more so the pedestrian variety that gets Fox News airtime — are too often hostile to empathizing with the enemy. The boring Right wants to believe that winners and losers alike earn and therefore deserve their results in life, as opposed to accepting the unsettling reality that talent and beauty are inherited at conception and supply advantages unconnected to willful acts. The Right in general needs to do better than this conventional wisdom, which, even worse than being stupid and ignorant, betrays cowardice in the face of ever-growing knowledge about the vast biological component to human potential.
Empathizing with the enemy is putting ourselves in their shoes, even if only to gain advantage; it is not sympathizing with them, that is, acting on their behalf. While it’s pefectly justified to be annoyed at the bitchiness and misandry of the “horsefaced” Women’s Studies professor, and obligatory to be horrified at what she her allies have inflicted on our civilization, are you sure you wouldn’t act similarly if you we so accursed — not just with ugliness but with the mental torture that follows from it?
We can’t yet change human natures. We can’t turn a narrow-shouldered dork into a charismatic Adonis, but we can stop literally pushing him into lockers as a teenager, thereby figuratively pushing him into the welcoming arms and ranks of the race-traitors and Alinsky-ites later in his life. We can’t prevent most of the misery that an ugly woman will assuredly suffer, but we can choose to not worsen it by shunning or humiliating her.
We can’t hope to overcome the Left if we don’t understand the minds of its constituents. Empathy will allow us to peel from the Left those who don’t need to be in it, whose attraction to the ideology is significantly due to our efforts and lack thereof.
A society that’s kinder to the tragically abnormal is one that will produce less enemies of normalcy. Subnormals are Nature’s victims, but they need not be ours.