top of page
  • Writer's picture738

Why conservatives always lose; or, conservative Schlemazls and leftist Schlemiels

Updated: Nov 20, 2021

In my previous post, I noted that the left is basically criminal in nature, being interested in how to legalise property theft; so why do the people who purport to oppose the left—the conservatives—always give way to the left’s demands? Anyone who scans the right—even cursorily—will find that rightists are generally quite miserable and pessimistic; the left seems to advance over them virtually unimpeded, granted moments of resistance here and there; and this is true: conservatives always lose, and they know it. Sometime ago, I noted that conservatives are masochistic; but there is a further factor—conservatives like to play what the psychologist Eric Berne called “Schlemiel”, a psychological game that grants satisfaction to the party that “loses”.

To return to my perennial point: the left is feminine and the right is masculine. The left functions—again, as noted in my previous post—through alternated terror and sweet talk; and this is also how women operate. A woman will alternate hot and cold on you; and this is why many men feel frustrated with women and their moodiness—interestingly, children deploy the same strategy. Although this might be connected to a general female lability and “her hormones”, it is also a very effective technique to gain compliance from other people; indeed, if a man applies the feminine techniques women use to seduce men to women he is called “abusive”.

PUAs merely instruct men to act like women—blow hot and cold—in order to seduce a girl; they call this “flipping the script”, a term that itself owes something to Berne’s Transactional Analysis. Men generally aim to be stable “rocks”, but the PUA tells them to be kind and then cruel to a girl—or talk to her a lot and then go silent for weeks. These are all tricks women use on men to make them fall in love with them; it creates anxiety, mystery, and dependence—whatever will she do next, that impossible girl? The PUA approach also owes something to esotericism; it asks men to embody the feminine in the masculine and so take on the feminine’s watery and liquid powers.

This is what the esotericist Julius Evola called being “bitten by the dragon”, as opposed to the traditional route of slaying the dragon; it is to take on the feminine’s power within yourself—also a Taoist notion; for water can be both hard as a rock and soft as silk, just like a woman. Men, by contrast, tend to be a rigid rock that is worn down by the feminine waters.

So just like a woman—or a confidence trickster—the left alternates sweet rhetoric (Obama) with violence (BLM and Antifa) to gain compliance from the right. So, in a sense, the right is seduced by the left; conservatives are not very effective against the left because they are masculine—and so they are seduced by the left, taken in by a confidence trickster or pretty girl who will burn them time and again. One moment the left will blow hot and make conciliatory overtures, and the next they burn down the city. “What can you do with a girl like that?” says the hapless conservative; if only she were more rational—except by nature she cannot be. Esoterically, this implies that only men who have reconciled the feminine principle and the masculine within themselves can face the left and not be seduced.

Concretely, this seduction dynamic is sadomasochistic; it follows a typical pattern found in romantic and non-romantic relationships alike: stroke me - hit me. Hence conservatives will treat leftists as if they are rational responsible actors and attempt to negotiate with them; and then claim to be surprised and disappointed when they are inevitably betrayed—betrayed by people who live by irrational irresponsibility. Yet, as Eric Berne would quickly point out, the conservatives know they will be betrayed really; they are gratified with the result—they get a psychological “payoff”, in Berne’s jargon, from the encounter.

For Berne, man’s social life is mediated by games where what we say and do is not always the terminal point of the interaction. This is most easily exemplified by flirtation; in flirtation everything we talk about is sexual but the art of the “game” is never to use explicit sexual language—if you do so, you ruin the game and lose the seduction. Of course, there are many non-sexual ways people seduce each other and seek an emotional payoff; one such game is called “Schlemiel”.

In Yiddish, “Schlemiel” means “cunning”—a feminine quality—and, indeed, the Schlemiel is the person who plays a cunning game with an interlocutor. Here is the game exemplified, with slight modifications from Berne, so you can see what I mean:

1: At a party, Mr. White carelessly spills a White Russian on an expensive dress—a birthday present from her husband—worn by the host’s wife.

2: Mr. Black, the host, is angry at first; but he realises that if he shouts at White then everyone at the party will see him as petty and look down on him for spoiling the mood—therefore, White would win overall despite being in the wrong. So Black restrains himself and reassures himself that his self-control is a victory—people will say, “It was outrageous what White did, but Black was so collected and courteous.”

3: White says, “Sorry, mate.”

4: Black offers muttered forgiveness, his forbearance is another “victory” in his mind. He is magnanimous, even though he is wronged.

5: White begins to break things around Black’s flat; he drops guacamole on Black’s books, drops ash from his joint on a curtain and burns a hole, and generally messes the place up. White’s latent childishness is thrilled at these activities because he is “forgiven” them all—Black cannot now easily reenter the game angry, having established a transgressor-forgiver dynamic. Black, who does not want to end the friendship, also benefits because he can demonstrate to everyone his forbearance and forgiving nature; so both men get a payoff—even as the flat is wrecked.

I think you can easily see that Mr. White is the left and Mr. Black the conservatives; unlike White, the left is a little more consciously malevolent—yet the dynamic is the same: naughty “child” and “parent” or, in a more sexual iteration, a woman who flirts with other men in front of her husband to provoke a jealous reaction. The conservatives play this game with alacrity because they pride themselves on effortful control and demonstrated restraint; so the more the left messes up society, the more conservatives restrain themselves and feel proud about it. Naturally, they tut-tut somewhat, but fundamentally their self-conceptualisation and the values they compete with each other over lead them to do nothing; if they did something, it would be extremism—completely unacceptable, loss of self-control and forbearance with the women and children.

In Freudian terms, the conservative is anally retentive—highly conscientious—and so he embodies the self-restrained Black; the heroically self-restrained Black, in his own mind. The left, by contrast, cannot discipline its bowels; it *craps* everywhere, messes up the flat—and hopes that dad will forgive it; indeed, it enjoys being forgiven.

For the conservative, a man’s job is to stoically take it and forgive, especially regarding children and women; and I think this sometimes combines with Christian ideas about forgiveness and Christlike martyrdom—since conservatives are more likely to be residually Christian and to compete between each other as to how far they can express their Christian values, to be crucified and forgive like Christ.

This is why some on the radical right call conservatives “cucks”—cuckolds; actually, the dynamic is not quite cuckoldry since that would be another game. However, it is conceivable that the game could advance to the stage where White would sleep with Black’s wife and Black would do nothing because he was locked into the transgressor-forgiver dynamic. “He took it so well, never said anything (and he was proud about that; he is not some wild emotional woman, after all).”

Note that the real payoff in the game is forgiveness: White (the leftist) receives gratification from the destruction he causes but he mainly enjoys the fact that *daddy* forgives him—pleasant psychosocial relief. Black (the conservative) receives a payoff from being the forgiver—he literally gets to play God; no matter what you do, He will forgive. This is a heady status rush; and I think it ties up with Christianity, masochism, masculinity-as-self-control, and sacrifice. Conservatives, unfortunately, literally think they are God almighty Himself—perhaps they are used to forgiving their wives and daughters their little fits—and so they generously forgive transgressions against themselves, even as society itself collapses.

Notably, Berne says that if Black refuses to play from the beginning and chastises White for the spillage that White will react with resentment; in other words, so long as the left apologises (uses occasional sweet rhetoric and conciliatory language) the conservatives will let them destroy things—if the conservative objects, even slightly, the leftist rage and riots arrive. In short, the confidence trickster or female seduction act: blow hot and cold so you get what you want.

The “anti-Schlemiel” occurs when Black does not forgive White—aka Donald Trump. White says, “I’m sorry,” but Black does not mutter forgiveness and instead becomes what Berne—very revealingly—calls an objective adult (i.e. a mature person) and says, “You insult my wife, trash my flat, but don’t give me this ‘I’m sorry’ bullshit.” In other words, Black takes responsibility for inviting White in the first place. Berne notes that if White has been playing this game intensively—as the left has been for decades—then their reaction will be “quite explosive”.

This explains 2016, Donald Trump arrived and took responsibility; he cancelled the game and said, “You’ve messed up the country! No more apologies. Let’s sort it out.” A massive explosion then occurred, and not just from the left—the conservatives became distressed because Trump ruined their sadomasochistic transgressor-forgiver game; in other words, he stopped them from playing God. As Berne says, “One who plays anti-‘Schlemiel’ runs the risk of immediate reprisals or, at any rate, of making an enemy.” Well, that sums up the Trump experience all over; he ruined the game—and the players were outraged.

So conservatives are locked into the Schlemiel game; they are the mark for a confidence trickster—yet like all marks at a certain level they want to get played; they want to be “the Schlemazl”, the patsy. Perhaps this comes about because anyone who gets into politics—whatever their stated reasons—is already narcissistic and irresponsible; hence the conservative’s narcissistic fantasy is to play Christ or God—crucified, misused, and yet always, always forgiving; and always coming back for more. Perhaps they have already played out this dynamic with their wives and daughters; never laying down the line and then saying, down the pub, as daughter or wife burns their hard work, “What can I do, you have to forgive them don’t you?”

Responsible people—objective adults—want no part in this ridiculous game; not all “games”, in Berne’s sense, are destructive, but this one certainly is so—it literally kills people, and it will eventually kill the West itself if it carries on much longer.

As an appendix, here is Berne’s barebones outline for the Schlemiel game. You will notice that gratifications from this game include “I am blameless”, “avoids punishment”, and “enhances status”; irresponsible status enhancement. In other words, the left—if not politics in general.

Thesis: I can be destructive and still get forgiveness.

Aim: Absolution.

Roles: Aggressor, Victim (colloquially, Schlemiel and Schlemazl).

Dynamics: Anal aggression.

Examples: (1) Messily destructive children. (2) Clumsy guest.

Social Paradigm: Adult-Adult. Adult: ‘Since I’m polite, you have to be polite, too.’ Adult: ‘That’s fine. I forgive you.’

Psychological Paradigm: Child-Parent. Child: ‘You have to forgive things which appear accidental.’ Parent: ‘You are right. I have to show you what good manners are.’

Moves: (1) Provocation-resentment. (2) Apology-forgiveness.

Advantages: (1) Internal Psychological – pleasure of messing. (2) External Psychological – Avoids punishment. (3) Internal Social – ‘Schlemiel.’ (4) External Social – ‘Schlemiel.’ (5) Biological – provocative and gentle stroking. (6) Existential – I am blameless.

283 views1 comment

Recent Posts

See All
Post: Blog2_Post
bottom of page