In recent years, many writers have focused on what impacts, influences, or shapes a person’s political views. Anonymous Conservative has championed the theory that conservatives and liberals evolved through an R-select or K-select reproductive strategy.
I want to explore something a little different: the strategies employ in promoting and advancing their views, depending on their political ideologies, as an extension of their psychological mindset.
An easy way to identify person of the Right is that they tend to act and think directly rather than indirectly. To quote St. Francis, they seek to understand as to be understood. This does not mean they’re contemplating a change of heart and convert to the Left; they simply want to know what their enemy thinks for the same reason Sun Tzu advocated it, to achieve victory.
They do not pretend to be an ally when they are an enemy. They prefer open confrontation over deceit and subterfuge.O’Sullivan’s Law is founded on the premise that the natural state of things has the Left infiltrate the Right, not the other way around. Right-wingers have no interest in joining and ultimately undermining leftist groups. They want to either convert or destroy them in a traditional manner by external assault.
Within the context of the modern war on language, Right-wingers don’t destroy the meaning of words, at least not with the same zealotry as the Left. They tend to speak frankly, almost to a fault, and if there is perceived confusion they are eager to clarify what they meant. They do not want anyone, ally or foe, unsure where they stand.
Try asking anyone in the Alt-Right such as Vox Day what they think or what they want. You may not like what you hear, but you won’t walk away with uncertainty or suspect they’re being duplicitous.
I call this the Prussian Strategy; matter-of-factly, direct, stoic.
In contrast, the Left typically engages in a dualistic strategy a la Dr. Jeckel and Mr. Hyde, which brilliantly shields them from potential criticism by constantly reframing. This political dualism allows them to switch between the role of the victim and the oppressor while remaining the accuser and prosecutor in the court of opinion. It presents the visage of a debate or discussion. It is a clever tactic to confuse and distract their political opponents who voluntarily embrace the reframe.
As the Left would have you believe, either they are the victim or they will be unless you agree to their demands.
Ironically enough, even some liberals are troubled by this line of reasoning justifying attacks on Alt-Right men such as Richard Spencer. (h/t Vox Day).
It was an eye-opening reaction. The reason I penned the tweet was because I thought the liberal consensus that serves as the bedrock of the American society was intact. I had this whole spiel planned about how if we as a society endorse violence against one Nazi, we’re responsible if it leads to worse violence, maybe even murder, where do you draw the line, blah blah blah. I thought it was more or less self-evident that you don’t murder people on the street for expressing views you don’t like. I thought we were all the same page, and I was wrong.
What was most depressing is that the pro-violence responses came almost uniformly from liberals. I suppose that isn’t that shocking: 51% of modern Democrats believe the government should ban hateful speech entirely. The more intelligent responses phrased it this way: Nazis are so violent, so dangerous, so outside the mainstream, they don’t deserve the usual protections afforded to political speech, including protection from violence. Still, it is sad to see so many liberal Americans abandoning one of the founding suppositions of liberalism at the dawn of an administration where it will be more necessary than ever before.
The hypocrisy is blinding. Nazis, you see, are fascist, jackbooted thugs who suppress others’ liberties and murder those they find despicable. To stop this threat, we must become fascist, jackbooted thugs who suppress others’ liberties and murder those we find despicable. The cure isn’t worse than the disease, it is the disease. (And yes, this all comes after Donald Trump was rightfully savaged by the same people for openly calling for violence against protesters)
Even if you buy the lesser notion that Nazis deserved to be punched in the face, who decides who the Nazis are? Spencer swears up and down that he’s not a Nazi. That’s obviously a questionable claim. But the number of people in American politics who are called Nazis or racists and protest that they aren’t is… well, everyone at this point.
Going by many people’s judgment, Donald Trump is a Nazi. Before he was a Nazi, Obama and Bush were the Nazis, Reagan was a Nazi, William F. Buckley was a crypto-fascist as I recall. Today, dozens of people have called me a Nazi.)
I challenge you to read any leftist writing justifying censorship laws or anti-freedom of association policies such as forcing Christian bakers to make wedding cakes for same-sex couples. Whether it’s combating racism, sexism, homophobia, their fundamental rationale is that not allowing them the perceived legitimate power to coerce others is a de facto endorsement of oppression against them. This ties in with the sociopathic concept of property rights; what’s mine is mine, and what’s yours is mine as well.
Translated into Orwellian parlance, not endorsing their actions that violate the rights of others is a tacit approval for others to violate their rights.
This was clear to me even during my days as a mainstream conservative. In my discussions with leftists, I repeatedly suggested that we simply leave one another alone and allow individuals to decide what to do with their lives regarding the specific matter at hand. I cannot recall a single leftist ever agreeing to that proposal. One might as well suggest a Catholic deny the immaculate conception of Mary. To live and let live would deprive them of their ability to claim victim status as the justification for state intervention.
The Left will never entertain a fight, whether literal or figurative, in which the victim/oppressor strategy cannot be employed when necessary, because without it their source of power is removed.
This victim/oppressor tactics is evident whenever you see leftists protesting at an event and targeting opponents, whether it be online or in real life.
Having said that, consider this essay written by a leftist on the need for a left-wing gun culture to replace their victim culture. Although my political views are diametrically opposed to theirs and find their world view removed from reality, I respect the author’s desire for empowerment instead of vulnerability and weakness.
However, I strongly suspect few leftists will heed the writer’s advice and rush to the sporting goods store to purchase a firearm. Once they arm themselves, they cannot pretend to be helpless because now they can protect themselves, placing the onus of responsibility for their safety on them. Therefore, they lose the ability to claim victim status and the entire dualistic strategy collapses.
I was writing up the draft for this essay when a friend sent me this Twitter exchange; it is a literal exhibit of this dualistic strategy.
Look at how quickly the leftist pivots from the oppressor to victim role as soon as someone challenges them and calls out the double standard employed. The is a textbook example of why right-wingers should never try to demonstrate the fallacy of leftist logic by applying it to them – they will interpret it literally or lie about the clearly ironic intent.
This behavior spills out into the physical realm. It is very common for leftists to agitate and intimidate with the intent of provoking someone to violence. This is done by creating the impression of an imminent attack (oppressor) with the plausible deniability of simply exercising their rights (the victim) should that person react violently.
The goal is to step as close to the line legally as possible before they face arrest or the person they harass have grounds for legitimate force such as “stand your ground,” while also providing them the opportunity to attack if possible.
Again, recent events provide case-studies of this practice.
Notice how the man hits the reporter, and then immediately flees into a crowd of fellow leftists more than happy to shield him.
It is a win-win strategy; if their opponent does nothing, eventually leftists can get in close enough to commit actual violence and then flee – rarely do the police make an arrest and even rarer does the attacker face significant jail time. However, if that person is sufficiently harassed to where they lash out, the leftist can promptly turn around and claim victim status. If they’re being filmed by a comrade, they will conveniently edit out the 99 percent of the footage showing them as the clear instigator. The remaining one percent provides them with an effective propaganda tool to trick normal people into thinking they are saints fighting sinners.
Libertarians need to realize this when they oppose leftists in the physical world. It is why I do not go to rallies anymore or any event where leftist protesters are likely to come. These people will do everything possible to harm you while creating ambiguity as to whether you are legally justified defending yourself. Even if you avoid arrest, your reputation and livelihood can be destroyed by a misleading video splashed across social media.
Be a Prussian and know your enemy. Do not fight on ground of his choosing.