Periodically, people notice that the concepts “racism”, “sexism”, and so on more or less describe reality; and then they say, “As it happens, reality is ‘sexist’ and ‘racist’. It’s a pretty good description.” I often make a similar observation myself; if you take apart what people mean by racism and sexism you will find that they have described reality, but they have done so with a frame that disapproves; they are horrified, horrified at what exists—and also deeply concerned.
In contemporary language, everything must be “problematised” and we must think again—perhaps even “think critically” about a subject. On close examination it always turns out that there is no argument and nothing to think critically about in what has been said. When it was first coined “racism” meant the scientific study of races and it also referred to the racial policies implemented in the fascist countries. The way it is used today is as an emotionalised overlay on almost any topic, from insults shouted on the street to research into genetics. When any critique against racism is launched you will usually find that the content represents reality; it is just delivered in a tone that disapproves or is upset.
Doctors who speak about the body as a country that has been infiltrated by disease, undermined by foreign agents from within, are, for example, seen to contribute towards populist reaction. Yet an alternative way to talk about infection is never proposed; and this is because the language matches reality: an infection does invade a body and undermine from within—and countries are also invaded and undermined from within. The alternative approach, new language, falters: “My body is in dialogue with cancer; we are in discussion as to the extent it will disable me, or whether it will kill me.” Yet nobody speaks that way, so contrived. When people say, “I’m in a battle for my life,” then it is usually true. “Militaristic language, aggressive metaphors that could encourage a populist mindset...”
The alternative is only ever to conceal and cover up. Real language must be forbidden as dangerous, the intensity level must be lowered. We can speak about these things, but we must speak in a tone that disapproves and in language that distances. This is pretty much all the leftist has; sometimes this is filtered through postmodern jargon, but many leftists—such as Susan Sontag—are experts at this with no reference to postmodernism at all; and they are experts because they are women. “Dude, you’re frightening the hoes.”
The temptation to say “I’m racist” or “I’m sexist” is quite high, since in a sense all the accuser has done is to describe reality with a sneer or accent; but it is a mistake, for it accepts the other person’s frame. As the PUAs observe, never accept the woman’s frame: make sure you hold your own frame. The desire to police the language used to describe reality is basically feminine—connected to an inability to tolerate reality; to police reality you have to describe it with a tone that disapproves. “Yeah, I’m racist and sexist.” There are some people who do this without much thought and so just adopt the devil’s role that has been prepared for them: they play up and into a caricature as to what a leftist expects a racist or sexist to be, or they indulge in every “forbidden” activity—“I’m so naughty, what will happen when mommy catches me?” This is an infantile position.
As a PUA would observe, this is also a losing proposition: you are owned, and if caught out will have to play on a field stacked against you. Western societies have become feminised. We live within a frame imposed by feminised men and women, but if you are in a discussion or negotiation with a woman you have already lost: “Considerate? Of course I’m considerate, I’ve done X, Y, and Z...She won’t listen to reason!” You cannot reason with emotion and will lose if you try.