Leftists are bullies

The word “bully” has a rather curious history, for it is a word that—as with so many—has inverted and changed. Originally, “a bully” had vaguely positive connotations: a bully was a beefy man, often with a club, who would defend the theatre stage in Georgian England from audience incursions—the Georgians, unlike the dull and priggish Victorians, knew how to have a good time; and so theatres employed “bullies” to protect the stage from the raucous audience—a bully was basically a bouncer, just like the men who police Glastonbury or Coachella today. A bully was also a male lover, you would refer to “her bully-lover” and as late as the 1900s Theodore Roosevelt spoke about his “bully pulpit” that he used to convince people that his causes were righteous—similarly, there was, until relatively recently, a phrase in British English, “Bully for you,” that congratulated a person in a slightly deprecating way for their success.

It is this idea that the bully is a lover that is most relevant for politics. This was not just a reference to the “stage bullies” being well-built men who were attractive to women, although that certainly played a role; rather, it referred to seduction—as noted elsewhere, bullying is basically how you seduce someone. In fact, it is women who are the biggest bullies: women seduce men by blowing hot and cold; one moment they are soft and approachable and the next they are sharp and aloof. The dynamic is familiar in all human relationships, even friendships, to an extent: hit me – stroke me; just like the theatre bully with his club.

A woman seduces a man through alternation: affection and then aloofness—a slap and then a tickle, to deploy suggestive English slang. By contrast, men generally try to signal that they are dependable cooperators in order to work their way up a hierarchy. The hierarchy depends on stable and predictable cooperation; if a man is like a woman—changeable, blowing hot and cold—he will not really get respect from other men. They will view him with suspicion, “How can I work with him when he changes his mind every day? He’s so inconsistent, full of excuses one day and then in a raging temper the next.”

So men want to be like solid rocks, utterly dependable and predictable—whereas women are the tempestuous waves that break against them. We know this from the clichéd way we talk about marriage: “He’s my rock.” Women break men down through alternation, effectively through warm affection and then terror: “What will this crazy bitch do next?” thinks the man. The goal is to break down a man’s defences and make him dependent on the woman; the constant emotional changeability creates dread and also fascinates—especially if the man becomes drawn into the game, he falls into the lacuna created by the alternation and becomes dependent upon it; he falls into the mystery that is woman—a mystery that, as Nietzsche observed, is not even shallow. Effectively, the seduced man is bullied: he puts up with awful behaviour in hope that he will get a little stroke now and then—it is all part of the allure.

Bullies were men—just like PUAs today—who leaned how to “flip the script”; PUAs and bullies deploy feminine methods against women; so they stop being “rocks”, dependable men, and alternate warm affection with disdain towards women. In the process, they become attractive to women; now the woman is seduced, now she hangs on every text message and thrives on the drama—the little hamster wheel in her head spins away as she tries to work out if her “bully” really wants to commit. Whereas most men despair that their partners can never be rational and dependable, the bully himself becomes tempestuous and unpredictable—probably not a way to behave if you want to advanced in a corporation, but great in seduction. Notice that artists—in the broadest sense—tend to be more feminine, they tend to be tempestuous and unpredictable (not to mention narcissistic): being more like women they are attractive to women, if they are good-looking too then they are irresistible catnip.

This seduction dynamic—the bully dynamic—is not, notice, intrinsically about savage physical beatings or pushing people around, or anything that people commonly associate with the word “bully”; actually, you can bully a person without laying a finger on them. Bullying is much more about a break in another person’s psyche so that they become dependent upon you; they are constantly on their toes because one minute you might embrace them and take them to the most expensive restaurant in town and tell them they are the most important person in your life, although the next day you scream at them and smash plates on the floor and say you would have achieved so much more if only you were not chained in a relationship with them.

The point at which seduction becomes bullying is not always easy to establish; and, indeed, women bristle if men turn the tables on them—hence many PUA techniques are called “abusive” by women, since to treat a woman as women treat men, basically very badly, is regarded as cruel; and sometimes women can convince other weaker men to intervene on their behalf against “the bully”. So, in essence, “bullying” is a feminine activity; the bully seduces you, makes you dependent on them through alternated affection and terror, and then parasites off your resources—essentially, this is how women work; although female seduction is rarely true bullying because the man “puts up with it” in order to attain a child, the relationship is not parasitic—and also because women cannot generally engage in maximal physical intimidation with men.

As I have noted ad nauseam, the left is feminine and the right masculine; hence, naturally, the left deals with political problems like a woman—except the left is mostly staffed by men, feminised men. In other words, the left seeks resources through alternated terror and sweet talk, just like some petulant woman. Think about the Obama era: Obama was upfront with sweet talk about a post-racial America and “Hope” and ice cream for all, whereas at the same time—particularly towards his term’s end—BLM, sponsored by the Democratic-NGO complex, appeared to burn things down for no reason at all. The seduction dynamic is also how terrorism works: the terrorist group alternates between random bomb attacks that seek to psychologically destabilise (pubs, clubs, trains) and diplomatic overtures from their political wing that highlight how their people suffer under supposed oppression.

Men occasionally acquire a girlfriend who is both hot and also “a crazy bitch”, a girl who alternates between accusations of rape and proclamations that she will love the man in question forever; such relationships sometimes do escalate to the stage where the woman will report the man for rape, especially if he is a high-value man the woman really wants to snag who has become indifferent to her. The more attractive the woman—the more narcissistic and conscious that men desire her—the more extreme her seduction dynamic, she knows she can get away with more because most men will tolerate her nonsense in the vague hope she will sleep with them. Hence people who are narcissistically overvalued are more destructive but also more affectionate than more stable and responsible people.

The situation is exactly the same with the left and the right. The right constitutes the productive middle in society: the right is composed from responsible people engaged with reality; being responsible, right-wing people develop regularity—responsibility is associated with the ability to make and keep agreements. Responsible regular behaviour leads to trust and productivity—it leads to wealth and non-coerced power. The left, being like an irresponsible woman on the hunt for a rich man to look after her, predates on the right; notice that when the right is led by a very responsible and successful man—someone a woman would really like to mate with—that the left goes bonkers, it accelerates the slap-stroke dynamic to fever pitch. Hence Trump was met with both appeals to be kinder and more “reasonable” (the feminists on their march in their pussy hats) and outright violence and terror, the 2020 BLM riots. The left wanted Trump very badly; and so they upped the seduction dynamic to a highly destructive degree.

The true bully gets inside you—gets under your skin—just like a woman. A real playground bully is not the person who bashes you on the head for your lunch money. The real bully offers you his orange juice and then, when you take a sip, flips his hand underneath so it spills all over you; then he says, “You should be more careful, mate.” As such, teachers are usually complicit with bullies—mostly being bullies themselves—and they will blithely tell parents, “I don’t see a problem, Billy and Simon seem to be great friends; they’re always playing together.” Real bullying is socially pathological because it destroys trust, and trust is how we cooperate to create value: the real bully is a person who alternately signals they want to cooperate with you and then betrays you again and again—just like the political left. Hence people who snap and stand up to bullies often end up in trouble, “Miss, he hit me for no reason; he’s psycho—he’s got mental problems!”.

Of course, what has really happened is that the victim has been seduced by the bully; when they finally assert themselves it comes out as an ultra-destructive explosion that appears pathological—similar scenarios are seen with long-suffering husbands who snap and beat their wives, having been provoked for years by passive aggressive attacks, who are immediately censured by a society that effectively endorses bullying. Unlike the man who just punches you for your money, the bully is more like a frenemy (a very feminine word); and the principal solution is to distance yourself from them; however, this is not always possible—especially since the ambivalence in the relationship is itself seductive. Man is sadomasochistic and the bully-victim dynamic is integral to friendship and sexual seduction, to various degrees.

The Western right is basically in a codependent abusive relationship with the left; and this is why it never wins, or rather why conservatives in particular never win. Notice that Kyle Rittenhouse, a young man who killed two BLM rioters, felt obliged as soon as he gave a public interview to say that BLM has legitimate goals and grievances. Now, Rittenhouse is a young man and perhaps has been advised, or spontaneously wishes, to signal that he is not a man with an unreasonable grievance against BLM, the left, or blacks; and yet, if you think about it, almost every BLM event turns into wanton property destruction, and even destruction of life—the pretexts are flimsy and “social justice” and “racial justice” prove, on rational investigation, to be illogical and detached from reality. The actual situation is that BLM is a state-sponsored paramilitary terror group; it is an offshoot from the NGO-education complex, and it serves the needs of permanent bureaucracy and the Democratic Party—the Labour Party in Britain. So why even pay lip-service to its goals and its “right to protest”—a “right” that turns out to be “a right to riot”, a right to kill and destroy?

Answer: the right has been seduced by the left, like a dependable corporate executive taken in by a sexy and tempestuous Tinder date—the left is “my psycho ex” to whom you keep returning, even though everyone tells you it will end in disaster. “How can I please her? How can I make the beatings stop and get more strokes?” This is how the right, particularly conservatives, thinks about the left; and this is probably due to their own attitude to women—they are too feminised. Remember: the right thinks in terms of responsible cooperation and negotiation. The left never thinks like that at all: the left, as with women, has a weak sense of self—it is narcissistic—and detached from reality through chronic lies; it pushes reality’s harshness away with reaction formation and temper tantrums.

“Make it okay, Daddy,” screams the left—and women are like that because when they were children daddy fixed it for his little angel and when they grew up, especially if they were pretty, guys would fall over themselves to “fix it” for them in the hope they would get sex in exchange. This is no exaggeration, I have seen attractive women showered with free coffees and flowers from guys desperate to get into their panties; and, of course, they secretly despise this weakness—just as the left despises the nice-guy conservatives who offer negotiation and “reasonable targets for progress on racial justice”. If you are in any doubt about this just look at Elizabeth Holmes, the fraudulent executive who amassed billions in investments for a company, Theranos, that was complete bullshit; it was all because she was vaguely pretty and so subservient investors fell over themselves to be taken in by her seductive lies.

This also explains why the left—apparently paradoxically—draws support from the upper and upper middle classes: children from wealthy and powerful homes are likely to be spoiled and indulged, and spoiled and indulged people are bullies—they learn to get what they want through tantrums or sweet talk. Parents with large resources can afford to “buy off” tantrums and allow themselves to be charmed by the sweet talk; there is no real incentive not to give into the child’s terrorist tactics. This is how we ended up with the ’68 generation and activists in the Weather Underground who were the sons and daughters to top bankers and corporate executives. They were counterposed to poor old Richard Nixon, a man who grew up in the lower middle class—helping out at the family gas station—who worked his way up to the presidency with help from his “iron butt” and ability to undertake diligent work.

Similarly, leftists are drawn from homes where the father is weak or absent. Although there must be a biological component to leftism—probably a predisposition to narcissism, to neuroticism that shields the ego from harsh realities with lies—the family situation must somehow exacerbate it. Women struggle to deal with reality; they push it away with lies and reaction formation: consequently, the child that is brought up by women will experience the world as arbitrary and violent. Women are basically emotionally labile and without male supervision jerk all over the place, alternate coolness and hotness—practice seduction, sometimes with their own children. The child who grows up in this environment will think that the world is arbitrary, untrustworthy, changes on a dime for no reason, and involves emotional coercion (if not physical coercion).

Such an outlook will predispose them to leftist views, since the left says that some people have more resources than others for arbitrary reasons: there is no just reason why some people are richer or more powerful than others, no justification—except the presumption that they achieved it through terrorism, since the child has grown up where “terrorism”, female seduction, represents a normal way to negotiate the world. Hence the increase in divorce and single-parents families was bound to make the left more potent, but I suspect—given that the left is older than mass divorce and single mothers—that ultimately there were always weak fathers who produced feminised male children, and they largely became leftists; they modelled themselves on their mothers, learned that female seduction-terror was how a person gains resources—not masculine responsibility and production.

This parent-child dynamic is important for the “Schlemiel game” described in my previous post on conservatives; basically, conservatives conceptualise their status as men by how much pain they can endure—a definite male trait, a trait exaggerated by Christianity and the need to be “Christlike” and crucify yourself. The left, like a destructive guest, destroys the conservative’s home and apologises as it does so (seduction: alternate destruction and apology)—the conservative gains narcissistic satisfaction from his ability to be restrained in the face of provocation. Hence they have no intention to stop the left; the more destruction the left causes the more manly they feel.

This is partly attributable to the fact that conservatives are quite feminised themselves; they already narcissistically care more about whether people think they can “take it like a man” than whether or not their home has been smashed up. While men should have a demonstrated capacity to endure pain, to endure pain to gain social gratification at your own property’s expense is perverse; it is possible that conservatives also play “potlatch”, they allow the left to smash everything up to demonstrate that they have resources to burn—as with old Indian chiefs, the conservative demonstrates his status and power by allowing the left to burn excess goods.

The game also depends on a parent-child dynamic: the child pulls mom’s hair on purpose and then the child says, “Sorry, Mom it was an accwedant.” “That’s alright sweetheart, I know it was an accident,” says mom. She knows it was no accident, so why does she say that? She says it because the incident is an opportunity for the child to model polite behaviour; at certain points, people are going to aggress against you but it is in your interests to endure the aggression without response because then the other person will look bad to other observers who will then sympathise with your position—so allowing you to build a social coalition against the transgressor.

The parent wants the child to learn to stoically endure abuse for social credit, so she sets this example: you pretend to be sorry, and I pretend it was an accident. Conservatives are people who learned this lesson very, very well; partly they concede to the left all the time because they see that the left is like the irresponsible child who needs to learn not to yank mommy’s hair; they will learn this is a sub-optimal strategy in polite society if the conservative provides a good model and endures the abuse.

The conservative is conscientious—anally retentive, in Freudian terms—and doubtless was fastidiously toilet-trained; they set out to show the left, constantly gleefully soiling themselves and smearing their ordure about, how to patiently wait to use the bathroom; they teach the left as they were taught themselves, through example—except they were not so narcissistic as to be unable to model their parents’ behaviour; the leftist parents inconsistently praised and blamed potty use—and now the left cannot learn from the rightist “parent”, they do not trust their parents as the right trust their consistent parents and so do not model the right’s behaviour; even though the right expects they will do so at any moment, just like they did—the left must eventually realise their strategy is self-destructive and futile…

The problem is that the superorganisms that are the left and right might manifest these individual dramas on a grand scale, but they will not learn like a human child. Hence the left has kept pulling “mommy’s hair” for decades; in fact, it has pulled her hair and done so unchecked to such an extent that she is bald and there is blood running down her head and into her eyes—stoically, the conservatives maintain: “At any moment, they’ll learn their lesson and become responsible. I just have to take a bit more abuse.” This is why conservatives, despite a constant tendency to lose, seem partially confident; they think “the kid”, the left, will learn any moment now; the problem is narcissists cannot learn, they cannot model behaviour like the conservatives did—they are not interested in mommy’s pain, for them mommy does not really exist; or only exists to gratify their needs.

So the right continues a futile exercise: they attempt to negotiate and cooperate with people who have no concept as to anything so sophisticated as cooperation and negotiation—the people on the other side only know how to get what they want through seduction (through bullying); for them, there is a pot of gold that some people acquired—presumably through sweet lies or threats of violence—and all the left has to do is use the same methods, violence and sweet lies, to acquire it for themselves. This primitive attitude is inherently feminine: women were basically taken as prizes by men for centuries, so they have been selected for primitive interactions based on violence and lies. The idea that value is produced through stable and trustworthy cooperation that originates in responsible behaviour does not occur to women or the left, both keep reality pushed away with narcissistic lies.

Hence the right is rather like the long-suffering husband who say: “I just don’t understand why she’s divorcing me. It makes no sense, I paid for her to go to university—I bought her everything she wanted…It makes no sense in the long-term.” And, of course, it makes no sense in the long-term: to live by threats, force, and lies destabilises everything and makes complex cooperation impossible. Women and leftists are inherently short-termists; the right makes long-term plans, it is strategic—a word that literally comes from the ancient Greek for “general”, a masculine profession—and yet they find themselves beaten down by short-term tactical attacks, short-term bullying that destabilises their emotional equilibrium.

As with all victims in co-dependent relationships, the right has been broken at a deep level—it thinks it is the victimiser; it is so broken that it accepts a great many premises put forward by the left—hence even though BLM is in no way an organisation you can stably negotiate with, the conservatives continue to make overtures in hope that there will be a negotiation. The radical right calls conservatives “cucks”, but this is not true in the sense that they enjoy what happens to them, as in some sickly pleasurable perversion; the conservatives really suffer, but they are basically so broken from long-term bullying that they cannot even articulate why it hurts anymore; probably, some assume, it is because they are not being helpful or kind enough—meanwhile, the demon child gleefully and self-righteously runs about the house with clumps of mommy’s hair in its hands.

As with all bullies, the left claims that the right abuses it when in reality the right does nothing; the less the right does the more the left complains—as with a woman who longs, as CG Jung observed, for a beating or a rape to correct her abominable behaviour. Hence the left complains that the right “gaslights” it all the time; of course, it is the left—the rhetorical side—who specialises in gaslighting. If a rightist asserts that the native European populations will soon be displaced by mass migration they are told they have elaborated a “conspiracy theory about the so-called ‘Great Replacement’” and condemned as literally Hitler—spreading false news to promote racial mass murder; simultaneously, leftist publications openly celebrate that Europe will soon no longer be white. This is classic gaslighting.

Naturally, the side that is more dependable, conscientious, and consistent engages in less gaslighting; to gaslight effectively you have to be caught up in narcissistic lies where victimhood is high status and you are always the victim—and this is how women, the weaker sex, operate; they know that they can easily play the victim and leverage other men to come to their aid by playing the victim—and they play the victim most when they are well-treated. Hence the “nicer” conservatives make society the more complaints the left finds; in fact, it complains that the right gaslights it and plans to kill it—the latter being the ultimate female fantasy, to be cut up into pieces and packed into a trunk.

We are back to the hapless husband about to be divorced: “But I’ve done everything she asked…and she’s still not satisfied…She says I’m abusive, it’s outrageous; I never touched her.” Of course, it is impossible to negotiate and stably cooperate with women—with narcissistic and irresponsible people—and yet the conservatives, caught up in their own narcissistic delusions, think they can make a deal and negotiate with the left; time and again the left laughs at this weakness and burns them.

Leftists are primitive people who only understand the stick; the right refuses to use “the stick” because they know it is not optimal to resolve disputes with violence, so the left burns down the house and claims they did so in response to non-existent rightist abuse—as with all bullies, they venerate victims and victimisers and so they obsess over Hitler’s holocaust because their fantasy is to become a victim or victimiser; they are the ones who desire to establish a victim-victimiser dynamic.

Men mostly just want to undertake autonomous action on terms beneficial to them; if someone steps on their toe, they tell them to get off and disengage with them: they do not want to launch campaigns to force everyone to be friends with them—yet the left wants that, being feminine narcissists they fear to be alone and only feel vaguely secure when they are the centre of attention; the attention pushes away the feelings of worthlessness and emptiness they have inside; and playing victim is a great way to be the centre of attention, the terrorist is the ultimate victim-victimiser. All terrorists simultaneously act as victimisers to create victims and claim that this is permitted because they themselves have been victimised.

All leftist organisations work this way, from trade union strikes to climate change activists to the Provisional IRA. The Extinction Rebellion activist says, “Do what I want—restructure society—or everyone will die in a climate disaster.” In other words, they say everything is a zero-sum game—all or nothing—and that failure to do exactly what they want means everyone dies. This is terrorism, as surely as a bomb in a pub or a woman who threatens to tell all your colleagues you raped her when you split up with her.

Notice that the left has become less interested in the Jews as they have become less easy victims, as they established Israel and became stronger—the Jews became less like the harmless scholar-merchants they were before and the left dropped them; they prefer the Palestinians now, since the Palestinians can be victimiser-victims: weak people who create victims through pointless rocket attacks that will never grant them victory over Israel. The more rocket attacks, the more the Jews fight back: the more victims on all sides—the more the left is satisfied. In short, left-wing politics—in whatever iteration—always constitutes terrorism; and you should never negotiate with terrorists, because once you have conceded to the dynamic you are caught in the abusive relationship—kiss me, hit me—and eventually will come to enjoy the whole destructive affair.

The right managed to pull itself together somewhat in the 1980s; why? Because in Britain it was led by Thatcher, a woman, and in America by Reagan—an actor, a feminine profession. When the right was led by feminine people—natural narcissistic bullies—it suddenly started to score dunks against the left; the conservatives even enjoyed Thatcher’s bully-seduction techniques when deployed against them, more sweet masochism for those naughty boys on the Tory front benches (“Spank me, nanny!”). The left became very upset at this situation, almost hysterical when it received a taste of its own medicine—as bullies always are; then, for about thirty years, the right went back to being a dutiful and abused husband; and this only changed when Trump arrived.

Trump was not a conservative and so had no investment in the masochistic game; he had not been bullied and gaslit for decades. Trump measures his manhood in manhood’s other dimension, not how much abuse he can take but how much he can give out—this amounts to how much you can win. Unlike conservatives, Trump had a novel strategy: to win, not to be a virtuous long-suffering loser—as it turns out this was wildly popular with the Republican base, who were energised by the prospect that they were no longer going to be bullied and take it and, worse, be proud they took it. Professional conservatives, being invested in their narcissistic co-dependent relationship with the left, did everything they could to stay in the abusive relationship and frustrate Trump—a man who was uncivil. Was Trump more uncivil than BLM when they trash a city? No; but when BLM trashes a city, in the conservative mind, it is done by women and children who will eventually learn not to do that if only we show forbearance and provide a good model; hence, to maintain civility, we must do nothing, absolutely nothing—except guard against the “fascist” threat from the right.

Of course, professional conservatives were fascinated by Trump because—like the left—they were really in love-hate with him, this man who embodies the feminine in the masculine and bullies the bullies; actually, he gave the left what they secretly desire—to be told that they are resentful losers and blatant liars (“More, daddy, more!”). Trump provided truthful stable consistency, a real fatherly role and this is actually what children from feminine-dominant homes crave; however, they misinterpret genuine masculine power as entirely abusive—when it is the opposite—and project their violent fantasies onto their opponents. This is why the left secretly loved Trump; here was a father, at last—the people who truly despised him were the conservatives, Trump exposed them as weak and inept fathers; for all their rhetoric about masculinity they did not know how to aggress against violation, they only knew how to take it.

Clearly, so much fun and joy could not be allowed and so Trump was banned, from Twitter and—through a fixed election—the White House. So now, conservatives hope, they can go back to the miserable and resentful act where they are abused and take it, and once again futilely negotiate with people who will burn them again and again (“She’s no good for you, bro. She’s a whore! Don’t trust her!” “I can’t help myself. I love her!”). Hence even rightists, such as Tucker Carlson, who are called “white supremacists” will concede, reasonable as always, that there is a problem with racial injustice or between the sexes—as will young men, teenagers being inherently narcissistic, such as Rittenhouse, who are still worried about whether everyone likes them, as opposed to whether or not they are effective.

So, to conclude, leftists are bullies: they are feminised men, and when men act like women they bully—they are emotionally manipulative and alternate threats and affection to get what they want; and they do so because they are irresponsible narcissists who are insulated from reality by lies, often facilitated by unearned wealth and status, and so think the only way to stop people from leaving them is to emotionally manipulate them—cooperation through lies and coercion, not voluntary association; and they think all value is stolen, as in primitive times.

Conservatives are somewhat less narcissistic but are still narcissistic enough to be bullied; they do not have healthy boundaries and fear what other people think, a middle-class vice—they think they can shame the left into acceptable behaviour if they consistently model stoicism and forbearance so that third-party observers come to disdain the left and freeze them out; but they are merely abused and taken advantage of time and again, since the left cannot learn—it is too narcissistic to do so, even if, as a superorganism, it could learn.

This unhealthy dynamic was briefly interrupted in 2016 by men like Trump, Farage, and Cummings who came from the outside and so were not caught in the abusive codependent relationship—notably Cummings has washed his hands of the British Conservatives because, really, they do not want to win. Since then everything has been in turmoil, but the fundamental dynamic remains: the mob loves a bully, and democracy is rule by the mob—the mob is feminine; it follows that the West, now fully democratised, will be ruled by bullies until democracy is terminated and responsible government is restored.