top of page
Search
  • 738

Bullies



Bullies are degenerate. The reason is as follows: a bully is someone who exploits a power asymmetry—in the classic case, an older boy who menaces a younger boy; though it could equally be a highly educated person who makes a less educated person feel small or a rich person who humiliates a poor person over money. Bullying, in fact, hurts the bully: it orientates him to what is lower, not what is higher, and hence he does not advance—it also hurts the victim, since it retards his development. All bullies are cowards because they fear to lose—yet if you do not risk loss, you can never improve.


To take an example outside the “school classic”: you are in a fencing class; in this class, a person with level 6 épée decides to only fight beginners—naturally, he beats them every time. This is an analogue to bullying, it is bullying: the result from the power asymmetry is that the superior player does not improve, not being challenged, and the beginners become demoralised and give up. “Yeah tough shit, only the hard survive in this fencing school. Uh-huh.” The problem is that even if one beginner survives, levels up to the challenge and eventually beats the level 6, all that will have happened is that he will have been perverted—he will have learned how to bully, how to fight at the wrong level.


Egalitarian social structures facilitate bullies: this is because if people are not segregated by ability you will find that the bullying dynamic quickly emerges—the older cowards tyrannise the youngsters. A healthy social organisation has people orientated to challenge the person just above them, so as to improve—with everyone orientated to a challenge just slightly beyond their current ability, so as to be stretched, but not so far advanced as to be unobtainable. People should move up the hierarchy and the goal should be for everyone to find their level, to advance as far as possible and then come to rest with people with similar ability. Bullying organisations invert this structure: everyone is orientated downwards to what is easy to defeat—and so the weak become weaker and the strong decadent and complacent.


Without hierarchical levels, you see a situation similar to all-day nurseries where children come home with bites and scratch marks—all the children are shoved into a common play area to fend for themselves, since their mothers and fathers are at work. The all-day nursery is an analogue for the Soviet Union—and, indeed, the all-day nursery was pioneered by the USSR (it was free—if that is any compensation for the teeth marks). This is why Robinson Jeffers referred to the USSR as “the Communist rat fight”.


Bullying is also feminine, somewhat surprisingly—although it makes sense when you realise left-wing policies facilitate bullying. Pictured above is the fictional character “Flashman”: originally, he was the school bully in Tom Brown’s Schooldays; he was the villain in this Victorian boarding-school yarn. In the 1960s, in a postmodern move, he was placed in a revisionist fictional context by the novelist George MacDonald Fraser in which, per false framing documents, “Flashy the cad” became an anti-hero—a sort of Victorian James Bond, a diamond in the rough or a heroic rotter.


Although neo-masculinists and rightists sometimes bruit the MacDonald Fraser stories as being a paradigm for masculinity, Flashman is in fact a hero for girls. Indeed, the only person I have ever met in real life who read Flashman novels was a girl; and this is because the very term “bully” comes from the 18th-century stage, from men who would beat the raucous regency audience into order—and from this initial use it became “bully-lover”. Per PUA lore, girls like to be bullied—to be teased, to be, frankly, beaten. Hence Flashman, the great womaniser and coward, proves to be the ideal model—the bully-lover who threatens and cajoles women. What this proves is that bullying is definitely a social dysfunction—it is to act in a way that women enjoy; it is to orientate towards the lower, towards a woman’s ideal of a man—i.e. a thug.


The “cry-bully” is a particular feminine sub-category of bully: the cry-bully spends all day sneering at and insulting another child, then, when the other child snaps and lashes out, runs to the teacher and has the other child disciplined as the aggressor—as “the bully”. The left often does this in politics; for example, take the British grooming scandal: move another racial-religious group into the country where, due to different sexual mores, they victimise local girls; then call anyone who points this fact out “racist” and claim that they victimise the novel racial-religious group.


This is a typical cry-bully tactic, and you see it all the time on the left; basically, it inverts reality so the aggressor—usually a subtle aggressor—is seen as a victim, whereas the victim who acts in their own defence is seen as the aggressor. In this case, the power asymmetry is not physical—it relates to verbal and mental agility, so that the people who enacted this policy on the working class were middle-class and upper-middle-class ideologues who used superior intellectual facility with dubious concepts such as “racism” to suppress the truth.


Rightists sometimes celebrate bullying, say that “it’s good to bully people” and “everyone needs to be bullied”—what they are really doing is countersignalling the mushy wet left, they want to demonstrate they are “tough realists” not “namby-pamby cry babies”. Signalling aside, bullying is pathological—and it is actually the left that facilitates bullies, at all levels, because they smush everyone together into a giant “king rat” wherein bites and kicks are administered in an irrational and perverse way and the ape with the biggest dong wins (female teachers will, in fact, protect the bully—excuse him—because he is their little Flashman, their little Flashy sans moustache). Bottom line: Tom Brown, good; Flashman, bad.

140 views0 comments

Recent Posts

See All
Post: Blog2_Post
bottom of page