Culture

4 Words To Start Fighting The Left’s Orwellian Rhetoric

209 Comments

Words have tremendous power, especially when it comes to the political landscape. Buzz words are thrown around, opponents are labeled as following a certain ideology, and the second that someone thinks you’re a “Conservative,” or a “Liberal,” they automatically assume a whole host of things about you as a human being.

The Left has been beating us at the semantics game for the past decade or so—they expertly use vague terms and words with multiple meanings so that they can weasel their way around logic by sneakily choosing whichever definition they see fit depending on the situation. Men, I propose that it’s time we start taking into consideration just how important words are.

I would like to implore the men of Return Of Kings to start using the following words, for several reasons:

  • Using these words will eliminate at least 50% of all conflicts
  • Leftists won’t be able to twist our meanings anymore
  • Our neomasculinity movement will gain more credibility

Just by using a few, well-selected words, I believe that we will drastically increase our ability to convince others of our opinions, and fend off most of the vicious semantics games that Leftists play.

1. “Misandry” in Place of “Feminism”

For far too long, have men in the manosphere used the word “feminism,” when really they’re referring to third wave feminism, or modern college campus feminism. Just this simple little word is, perhaps, the reason why so many women are vehemently against the manosphere.

Upon hearing that we don’t support “feminism,” what does the average American think?

  • That we hate women
  • That we don’t think women should be allowed to own property
  • That we don’t want women to have any rights
  • That we want to “oppress” women
  • That we’re “manipulative pickup artists“

What they don’t realize is that we’re talking about neo-feminism, which is an entirely different animal. The ideologues and proponents of neo-feminism have consistently shown us that they hate men, and want us to become castrated, weak little boys, who can be thrown into jail over a mere accusation. Most people, upon hearing what we ACTUALLY believe, would probably agree with us, or at least hear us out.

Just by using the term misandry, when it is appropriate, we’re clarifying our opinions. Most people don’t even know that there’s more than one type of feminism, so just by using the word neo-feminism, we’re automatically exposing them to a crucial distinction between actual early 1900’s feminism, and modern day safe-space, “rape culture” feminism.

2. “Regressive Left” in Place of “Liberalism”

It’s time that we call the “progressive left,” what they really are—regressive. They claim that they want equality, but what they really want is for everyone who disagrees with them to have their rights revoked. Obviously they don’t say this, but if you observe the policies that they advocate and put into place, it becomes abundantly clear. The common rhetorical games that the “regressive left” plays, are:

  • Calling you a racist, if you like Trump’s immigration policies
  • Calling you a sexist, for pointing out facts (such as how the wage gap is a myth)
  • Calling you hateful, simply because you disagree with them

The problem is, however, plenty of liberals do not in fact use these low-blow tactics—yet any time you say that you don’t like “Leftism,” you’re immediately ostracizing half of the population which tends to vote liberally. By stating the term “regressive left,” you’re making it very clear that your issue isn’t necessarily with moderate liberalism (although it very well may be), but that your main gripe is with hyper-leftism.

This simple distinction will make people more willing to hear our opinions—in a world where being “progressive,” is lauded as a virtue, labeling a group as being “regressive,” will immediately get social support. By using the term “regressive left,” not only are we speaking in a way that’s politically correct (because nobody wants to be regressive), but we’re calling them out for what they are.

3. “Pro-American” in Place of “Anti-Immigration”

If you ever take some time to look at the prefixes that people use to clarify their opinions, you’ll find that there’s immense power in simply saying that you’re “pro” whatever, and that your opponent is “anti” whatever. Most people are completely retarded, so any time they hear “anti” something, they assume you’re a horrible person.

It doesn’t matter if what you’re against is a bad thing—just the fact that you put “anti” in front of something is like a buzz word. The same goes for pro. When you put the prefix “pro” in front of something, people automatically assume that your cause is just. It’s high time that we start using these two little prefixes to our advantage.

From now on, anyone who wants to open the borders to violent immigrants and ISIS members is anti-American. No, they’re not pro-immigration, they’re anti-American. And us? No, no, we’re not anti-immigration. We’re pro-American. This subtle difference in framing the discussion entirely changes the outcome, because by saying that we’re pro-American (which we are), the debate isn’t so much about why we “hate refugees,” in the words of our opponents, but rather about why we value American interests first.

We’re not anti-neo-feminist, we’re pro-masculinity. We’re not anti-Hillary, we’re pro-Trump. We’re not anti-immigration, we’re pro-American. We’re not anti-gun control, we’re pro-gun rights. We’re not anti-censorship, we’re pro-freedom.

4. “Criminal Aliens” in Place of “Illegal Immigrants”

To be honest, it’s completely moronic that the Left would view these things as being different, but alas, the regressive left (see what I did there) is, in fact, completely moronic. Trump has been using the term “Criminal Aliens,” in place of “Illegal Immigrants,” recently, and for good reason.

As soon as the Left hears the term “illegal immigrants,” for some crazy reason, they have some image of a poor, innocent refugee, who’s just desperately trying to escape his war-torn home. And while this is often times the case, as we’ve seen with the “refugee” crisis in Europe, most of these “refugees,” are anything, but. Most of them are fighting-aged men who’ve been raised in a barbaric homeland, where throwing acid on a woman’s face is a normal penalty for exposing her ankles.

By saying the term “criminal aliens,” we immediately bring up the issue: they’ve committed the crime of illegal immigration. This is why they should not be allowed to vote, and it’s why they should be deported—they have committed a crime. Again, I cannot emphasize how ridiculous it is that we should have to say this, but for some reason the Leftist’s brain can’t seem to process the idea of illegal immigration. Hopefully, by using slightly different rhetoric, we can get through to them and make a good case for our beliefs.

Read More: Words Like “Man” And “Chairman” Are Being Censored On College Campuses

209 thoughts on “4 Words To Start Fighting The Left’s Orwellian Rhetoric”

  1. Liberals have a point. We are so rich and fat and have so much space that it seems like we should be charitable with all that we have to spare. Where they go of the rails is when they demand everyone else pay for that charity with their blood and treasure.
    Regressive indeed.

    1. They want to legislate and control the individual’s personal, elective sense of charity. That is the disconnect.

      1. I truly believe the Lefties and normal folks are basically the same – they both want the poor and needy taken care of.
        The big difference is that the Lefty is both lazy and lacking in moral compass. While they want them taken care of, they don’t really want to be doing the helping (which takes work and/or money, for which they get no tangible compensation).
        Because people tend to project their own realities onto others, they assume no one wants to do the helping. If that’s the case, then everyone must be forced at gunpoint to do their “fair share” (another nonsense term – charity is a gift, not some scale balancing act).
        If they were emotionally balanced and morally guided like other folks, they’d do something to help when that inner voice says they should. And no one would have to be forced, because the whole notion of “doing your fair share” would naturally give way to “help as you can, according to your conscience and reason.”
        Lefties are very sick. We do them no favors by mollycoddling them.

        1. Exactly. They think “awareness” and “delegating” are their privileged purview. And that everyone else does the heavy lifting.

        2. They are simply naive. Pretending that avoiding issues, that would force them to grow up, is moral just because it feels good.
          Making meaningful choices that include pain is how a deep and guiding morality is born.

    2. I just call them Lefties.
      It doesn’t read like much, but I really pack the disgust and vitriol into that word. You know, like those Negro domestic terrorists do when they say “cop.”

  2. Replace homosexuals with sodomites, gender with sex, democracy with dictatorship of the majority, healthcare with sickcare, social media with mass hypnosis, mass education with mass indoctrination.

    2. Someone said “fudge packers” on here a couple days ago and that has become my go to name for fags.

        2. * craphole cosmonaut
          * sewer ferret
          * chocolate choo choo train robber
          * bunghole ape
          * kaa kaa eater
          * shit worshipper
          * lover of lake ponchatrain cajun catfish quisine
          * wrecked rectum retard
          * doo doo daddy cross breeding race mixer of some wishful future FECES SPECIES

      1. Communism is Dictatorship of the Weak. Democracy is Mob Rule. I think that drives the point home even more.

    5. There’s this Traditionalist Russian Channel I watch in which various Show Hosts always refer to LGBT crowd as “perverts”. Words are very powerful, they shape our attitudes toward subjects discussed.

      2. Very true! I refer you to the appendix to Orwell’s 1984 about Newspeak and Newthink. Consider it through the lens of Politically Correct speech. Let me know what you think.

        2. Oh, the shame of it!!!! May I suggest it? Sometimes the criticism of a book is as entertaining much more than the book is. If you read it, I would be pleased to hear your thoughts about it.

    6. Reprobate can also be used in place of “sodomite”.
      If you want to be more insulting, “queerbate” can also be used.

    7. How about the dictatorship of the bureaucracy? The dictatorship of the loudest? Or the richest?

  3. Ultimately what it boils down to is frame. We have this problem where we handicap ourselves by using their language and their interpretations of said language, which disadvantages our position.
    Words like “feminist” and “anti-feminist” or “SJW” and “anti-SJW” are symptoms of this. When you have an “anti-” position, you make it the abnormal opposition – it’s just how our stupid human brains are wired. For some reason, negatives just seem wrong to us.
    We must force them to embrace our frames, now. It’s not about feminism and anti-feminism any longer – it’s misandrists (or androphobes – many do seem to have an irrational fear of men) versus normal people. It’s not SJW’s and their opposition – it’s self-abasing, destructive, whiny loonies versus sane, laissez-faire people.
    Taken further, there is no alternative media (which implies that the fake news are the normal media) – there is only journalism and propagandists.
    There are no cis-people (which exists to balance the negativity associated with trans-people) – there are regular folks and loonies.
    Force them into our frames by rejecting the entire concept of their language and all it implies. When we bow to their madness, we lose our frame and all chances of dominating the discourse.

  4. Why put a sugarcoated euphamism on the things that they want us to feel? Call them out on it, rhetoric or not. All the bumbling welfare slugs, all the chocolate prospectors, all the vile rainbow stoogies, and all the unauthorized butchers that roam the US streets daily need to be called out for the nefarious leeches that they are.

  5. Excellent Mr. Anthony. The left does this all the time. Time to start beating them at their own game. This is where the real fight is. There are probably more terms that can be added to your list, but this is a kick ass start.

  6. I’ve stopped many SJWs dead in their tracks, simply by asking them what the word “bigot” means. They have no clue, and they are shocked when they find out its real meaning, because they are the living embodiment of the word. It embarrasses the ever-loving hell out of ’em. I made the following and posted it a while back, but it pretty much spells this whole thing out (click to enlarge).
    https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/b0aeef6c3b8b6a7836118e15a67c17902293afc7c636fa3017f0e9ad888f5827.jpg

    1. “Well, well, the dictionary definition doesn’t mean anything because it was written by men and therefore it’s part of the patriarchy and misogynist.”
      That was a real comeback I got thrown, no lie, it’s like when I took care of people in a sanitarium, only those folks knew they were mental and shouldn’t be out and about in public.

      1. I’ve never gotten that one. Probably due to how I approach the situation. I’ve only done this maybe 10 times. Usually, it’s two chicks sitting at a table nearby, bad-mouthing men. They use the word “bigot”. After a while, I politely say something like, “I couldn’t help overhearing your conversation. My name’s Bob, by the way.” And then I smile broadly and demonstrate zero hostility. They typically tell me their names. So now we know each other. Then I ask them, “What does bigot mean?” And I ask it as if I am totally clueless. They offer up the lunatic’s definition. I have already pulled the definition up on my phone. Then I casually show it to them. They look at each other like…deer in the headlights. Usually shuts ’em up. Which is why I bring it to their attention in the first place – I don’t want to listen to their shit.

        3. Every woman knows the definition. But they are afraid AR15 will beat and rape them if they speak.

        5. Watching them try to define assault rifle is a thing of beauty. They end up embarrassed when I highlight their ignorance of fire arms.

  7. I’m not “pro-” any country, but I love this list. 🙂 Great job. The misandry one, I believe, will be especially potent.

  8. Spinster – that’s a word I want to see return
    I’m a huge fan of Slattern too.
    The old words have such artistry. They’re sophisticated and cheapening, and carry a surgeon-like dissection.
    You just FUCKING KNOW what these words mean.

      1. The old timers knew how to shame, and then some.
        Spinster is brilliant.
        In one word it carries the meaning of an old slut gone fucking crazy as a nut

        2. I’d guess the implication is that it’s a woman who has to spin because she has no husband to bring home the bacon.
          Even if not, it paints a picture. Some sad lady pumping the wheel for hours on end in the darkness because she can’t afford oil for her lamps…

        5. Actually it meant an unmarried woman relative living in your attic spinning wool to contribute to her upkeep.

      2. I adore reinvigorating terminology neglected in the contemporary Occidental parlance.
        Harlot, ne’er-do-well, and niggardly spring directly to mind in this conversation, though I do feel we’ve also neglected the art of the long-form insult.
        Why is it that the best I usually hear is, “Fuck you, motherfucker!”? I wish more people said things like, “Cataract in a mare’s eye, you’re not fit to fertilize the hayfield. May you live a thousand years and not enjoy a solitary second.”

        5. Go with Scots. My wife is a Kerr (Think Kerr-McGee). No one in the family takes exception to being notoriously cheap, in fact they are quite serious about any new ways to be cheap and often discuss the topic around their dinner tables.

        6. My husband is still adjusting to me being “frugal” and it has been over 30 years. I am 1/8th Scots, but apparently that is enough to keep the cheapskate gene active. If I can accomplish something w/o spending any money I don’t really care how stupid it looks. My husbands favorite example is that I cut cereal boxes in half lengthwise, glued them together side by side and they became eating utensil organizers. He tells me they make organizers and I tell him my organizer made from cereal boxes works and it was free to make.

        7. My wife has much in common with you. We have very nice incomes, but she still makes her own laundry soap.

        8. Shep, one of my daughters did the mail-in genetic testing. We knew we were Germans, but the family story was that we were English, too. Come to find out we are more Irish than English. My head is spinning trying to think that through.

        10. Good observations. She is a Foxfire kind of girl.
          ***
          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foxfire_(magazine)
          ***
          She thinks a lot about survivalism, but she doesn’t really live the lifestyle.
          ***
          She does encourage my son and I to maintain our skills.
          ***
          If dERp weren’t such an effin’ bitch, my wife would have a lot to share with her.

        13. I never understood that either. It’s not as if that has any impact on my life, or what I’m doing with it. You never hear anyone bragging about being related to Hitler or Stalin.

      3. termagant I like. Harridan isn’t as good, but people are more likely to know what it means.

    3. they react quite harshly to anything regarding cats…
      does ‘spinster’ carry the same weight? in conjunction?
      Even if a trogla-dyke?
      shrew

        4. Only when they’re the funny feminists – the ones of a particularly porcine persuasion suited for little else than wallowing in their own filth.
          And, you know, with hair the length and consistency of a sow’s bristles.

        13. There are some feminists I find absolutely hilarious. When I laugh at their obvious comedy, though, they seem to get really mad – apparently I’m a “misogynist shitlord” for laughing at their serious political theories.
          It’s not misogyny – I was laughing at the thought of how much her face resembled her forearms.

        3. Some of your comments amuse me much more than they should. I come from a Midwest “goat roper” family and husband is the epitome of California surfer type. For over 30 years he has been positive I make up words or speak an entirely different language that the rest of the U.S. Some of my favorites over the years have been flap jacks, muskmelon, chickpeas, goobers, calaboose, catawampous, twitterpated, catty cornered ……. I do know proper English, but the amusement using words that I learned from my Midwest Rodeo/ranch/farmer relatives is more entertaining since I married my husband. My southern grandmother taught me to say “Well bless your heart.” when someone says something that annoys me. Husband has gotten very good at the whole eye roll when I say anything off the wall now.

    4. less seriously, I always thought the description ‘woman of the night’ was rather poetic. Much prefer that too the romanticised ‘courtesan’.
      But how about a modern compromise: : a “Catesan’ – a slutty woman who keeps cats

      1. “Catesan” – good one…
        Read around these parts – somebody said to an annoying woman:
        “how many cats do you have?”
        I keep that in the quiver…

        2. I ran into a woman I once was acquaintated with 20 years ago at a dinner party not long ago and I haphazardly asked, “hows the dog?”
          “How did you know I had a dog?”, she asked.
          Me: “Shot in the dark.”
          As she was a friend of the hostess, I know it wasn’t taken well when it finally sunk in.

        3. ha. Well now Trumps in charge, you can follow up with ‘…and how’s your pussy?’

        5. well it’s certainly more subtle than my ‘your dusty old pussy is setting off my asthma’

        9. My latest favorite is telling these useless people, that the only time they pull their head out of their ass, is to use it as a cock holster… and when they’re done, they put their head right pack where it was.

        10. they might have pussies but the latter should only get to use the trans-ginger bathroom

        12. gingers shouldn’t get to use regular bathrooms. That’s why I support transginger bathrooms

        16. Learned that from a retired Sergeant. He got in a bit of trouble for trotting it out as a high school foot ball coach.

      2. I’ll use “Lady of the Evening” when I am being polite, and “street walker” when I am not.

    7. Strumpet is a favourite of mine-the misandrist hippos love tnat 😉

        1. Wench is way too positive. Everybody likes a good wench now and then. But no one wants a slattern.

      1. Absolutely, it may not be “nice” but it exists for a reason, as does its negative connotation. Bastards are more prone to crime, addictions, violence etc, and by a wide margin the unproductive members of society come from this group.

      1. Hi Momma,
        ***
        Just so you know, something is wrong with your disqus feed.
        ***
        If you have noticed that you aren’t seeing recent comments, go to your “following” list.
        ***
        Click on the green tab by each of your followers. It will turn blue. Click on it again to turn it back green.
        ***
        Now that poster should show back up in your feed. Now get back to work!
        *** https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/3809d29e0cb0bc07e4c229b162bf796683405b5d3b504a4ecfb88f5a68c7665f.jpg

  9. Reminds me of a couple weeks ago when Fox News reported an update concerning the Bradley Manning scandal. Only instead of calling him Bradley the anchors indulged his delusion by using the name of the “gender he chose to identify with” Chelsea.
    No, no, NO! Once we start using their terms they’ve already gained a small victory in changing hearts and minds. Don’t even give an inch. He was male on his birth certificate and he is male now regardless of all the drugs he needs to take to suppress his T-levels. He shall be known as and called Bradley unless he wishes to change it to another male name.
    It may not seem like much but it is; corruption of the language is always the first step.

    1. Obama would not have commuted Bradley Manning had HE, Bradley, not changed HIS name to Chelsea. It was a nauseating, deliberate last-minute propaganda piece by Obama for the tranny lobby.
      I was wondering if The Don got rid of the tranny bathroom at the White House yet I hope?

      2. If I ever go down for some horse shit like that I’m going tranny and fuck everybody. Make toilet wine and preside over the inevitable fights.

    2. If someone says “gender” I say “biological sex” and then say you cannot change it.

      1. I maintain simply that there is no such thing as gender outside of linguistics. In biology there is only sex, and that, in humans, is unchangeable.
        Refuse to discuss their imaginary subjects like “rape culture” “gender” etc, shift to real things.

      2. Yeah, that’s another example of corruption of the language. “Gender” used to exclusively refer to words in languages, “la tour,” “el burro,” etc. Transferring these terms to refer to people is a category fallacy and nonsensical.

  10. good —
    misandry not mainstream — but will use it…
    Have been using iLL-Liberals that somebody here suggested..
    Has a nice ring to it..

  11. The most important thing to remember when arguing about immigration matters(whether it’s how many to accept, amnesty for illegals, how much assimilation is expected, etc) is that Leftists will immediately shift the goalposts and act like you’re 100% against any movement of people across borders. Immediately call them out on it.

    1. Except I am 100% against more people moving within our borders – unless we are bringing in whites being persecuted in Africa or elsewhere.

  12. I would go with “Oppressive Left”. Regressive surrenders the narrative to the Opppressive Left that “progress” necessarily means what they define it as.
    The Oppressive Left thinks that progress is necessarily a rejection of anything that came before. This is a fallacy: simply because it was done before does not make it wrong.

    1. I use the term “militant American hating leftists” in most posts. A little too much but it gets the point.

  13. May I request an article on how to get paid to troll (if such a thing actually exists)? That would be an awesome job and this article could serve as a good reference point.

    3. I don’t think there are nearly as many of those troll jobs available with the Obama’s leaving the White House and the decline of the ACA.

  14. Regarding #2, I prefer to call the left’s ideology “childish utopianism.”
    And I point out that the Alt Right, if they would listen to me, should emphasize the adult nature of their world view. It just makes you sound wiser to talk about your tragic view of man.

    1. You do realize that the entire concept of civilization goes completely against “the tragic nature of man,” yes?

      1. don’t civilizations usually fail in the (literally) final event? Doesn’t the experience of Babel always with human’s over-reaching? We seek to perfect ourselves and with it society, and we end up falling flat on our faces

  15. It’s like Trump’s executive order on immigration was nothing about religion. The mainstream media was the one that called it “Muslim Ban”. Sickening.

  16. The meme with Ben Affleck caught being a mega-douche is regarding him being an Islam apologist while arguing with Richard Dawkins and Bill Maher about Islam’s evil deeds, under the false pretense of trying to reframe Islam as a race and not an insane bloodthirsty cult.

    2. Dawkins and Maher with their superiority complexes are just as big douches as Arselick……how is Maher dealing with Trumps ban on rapefugees and gimmegants? Don’t watch him out of principle…..

      1. (((Maher))) is a Zionist mouthpiece that wants us to hate Islam enough to support international Zionist meddling and Israeli war crimes in the middle east and then in complete contradiction demands white nations embrace these people championing diversity and multiculturalism.
        Not for mother Israel ofcourse. Typical Jewry.

  17. Black History Month: Strangely enough, only made possible by White people’s money, creativity, virtue signalling, and success.
    The West, including Canada and America, is not and never was intended to be, a place for “all races and nations”. To claim that it is, or was, is a direct attack on the identity, legitimacy, and existence of the Western people.

  18. I agree with everything in this article except for one caveat.
    “crucial distinction between actual early 1900’s feminism, and modern day safe-space, “rape culture” feminism”
    Feminism (I mean Misandry) has always been about more stuff for females at the expense of everyone else.
    Read some of the writings of Ernest Belfort Bax.
    His description of 1st wave -misandrists- are virtually identical to those of today.
    “It would seem impossible for the unhallowed hand of man to touch their sacrosanct if riotous persons without setting their sexual imaginations at work.”
    https://www.marxists.org/archive/bax/1909/05/anti-suffragist.htm

  19. I’m against women voting as it is something it should be left to property owning males. I guess its okay for women to own property; no practical way around this one.

    1. Simple, women should not be allowed to vote until they are required to register for the draft and have to prove it before being able to apply for federal financial aid for college, just as men are REQUIRED.
      Also, no more gender assigned work. Women have to dig in the ditches on road crews and lift concrete bags at the hardware store, just like men do.
      It’s reasonable common sense EQUALITY, fair is fair.
      Misandrist hypocrites disagree.

  20. Good suggestions. But we should consider dropping nukes.
    They frame the debate as Liberal / Progressive vs Conservative / Reactionary. How about Progressive / Marxist vs American. They demand we not use “blood and soil” to define nationality, to use the “America is an idea” definition instead. Very well, so what “American” idea does any Prog support? Odds are they are on record as hating the Founders, the Constitution, the idea of meritocracy, the Rule of Law, negative liberty, etc. So deny them the fig leaf of claiming kinship or even being fellow citizens. Outgroup the crap out of em.
    When they protest and start defining “their America” as Cultural Marxism do not yield, call them on that and remind them that this ain’t the old Soviet Union. Force them to either admit they reject America as originally defined and have no claim to the word “American” or to be really flustered and dumb enough to claim to be American by birthright; i.e. force THEM to invoke blood and soil to avoid being outgrouped. Either way, hilarity should result and Kek will be pleased.

  21. some suggestions to use during arguments :
    replace western civilizations by progress bearers
    anti gay by pro natural instinct
    sjw by degeneracy promoters
    fat positive by obesity mongers
    anti islam by pro liberty
    racist by white race defender
    diversity by gene vomit
    bigotry by higher moral
    liberalism by tyranny of the weak
    ugly feminist by cat matriarch
    edit :
    any leftist protesters : soros’s suckers (SS)
    any leftist politician : soros’s bitches
    migrants/refugees : clandestines
    antifa : closeted fascists
    the left : self claimed goodness party
    vegan : vegetables wanabees
    liberals : liberetarded

    1. Dynamite list. I’m using these to bludgeon regressive leftist misandrist beta cucks.

  22. I understand, and applaud, the intent and intelligence of your article; it being a very subtle, but powerful way of undermining the thought speak so common these days. I have to respectfully disagree with this approach, however, for several reasons.
    Firstly, compromise in our culture is weakness. If you give an inch they take a mile. Even though we have a president who is beginning to work for us, we are not the majority and introducing these sort of “comfortable” phrases will work against the return of masculinity.
    Our community believes in the things that we do because they are meant to strengthen our masculinity and, in turn, our culture in the long run. Take feminism, for example. Any man who desires the return of masculinity in the form of neo-masculinity should take issue with all forms of feminism for the simple reasons that feminism and masculinity cannot co-exist culturally and that once feminism started in the first wave it did not stop growing and ended up supplanting our masculine culture. When a man considers the damage inflicted on society by even first wave feminism, one cannot use the word misandry to reject third wave feminism thereby giving first wave feminism a pass. Feminism is bad, first wave, second wave, and third wave, period. We cannot budge from this stance for to budge only serves to weaken us.
    I have been called a misogynist many times. I own the title, I have no choice, it does not matter that I do not hate women, because I abhor feminism and that is enough for them to label me an enemy. When I am pushed on first wave feminism and the women’s right to vote I point out very simply that this privilege has been abused by women long enough and needs to end. I could write pages on the destruction to western culture that began with women’s suffrage. I would hope I would not need to for this community.
    The above holds true for all words that you are attempting to soften. Don’t give “lite” liberals any wiggle room (save perhaps true classical liberals), don’t hesitate to denounce illegal immigration, don’t balk at using the phrase anti-immigration, these are all designed to be uncompromising because they are designed to push our culture towards masculinity and replacing these words with softer, more compromising words is, itself, a reflection of the feminist, liberal culture that dominates our western world.

    1. Feminism is anti masculinity. The question to pose is WHY the feminist gurus were CIA assets. It was to give them immunity from being quickly destroyed and to guarantee them a platform. They became like hollywood celebrities with their free thinking wild notions showcased. If they deviated or renounced their stand against the trad family in favor of hailing the family patriarch as a hedge against state control, their billionaire foundation fundies would have pulled them off the shelf and whacked or suicided them alongside other hollywood whistleblower/name dropping outcasts.

  24. Orwell was a liberal. He despised Communists because they were unprincipled – he fought for the POUM – the anarchists – in Spain. He had a low tolerance for cant and ‘alternative facts’ wherever they came from. He would certainly be strongly opposed to most of the views expressed here.

    1. I don’t know about his “strong” opposition to views expressed here. After his stint in Spain, don’t know if you read Homage to Catalonia, on the side of the Republicans he became disillusioned with most politics. His youthful flirtation with socialist/anarchist ideologies came to an end after this period in his life.
      From the books I have read, I like Orwell, I would gather he was more for personal freedoms and abhorred the idea of big governments (1984) and that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely (Animal Farm). I would agree that he more than likely wouldn’t agree with every idea expressed here but it would be a lively discussion.

    2. Orwell was a Socialist. He had not so much of a quarrel with Communism, as he did with the extreme violence and oppression associated with the Marxist factions.
      ***
      Had the POUM been on the prevailing side, Spain would have been a Communist country.

      1. You are right he was a socialist, I said liberal because in the US the terms are pretty much interchangeable. But he did particularity despise the Russian Communists and the 3rd International. This came from his experiences in Spain and the lies published by the Communists. You can see this in Homage to Catalonia, but also in Animal Farm and his collected essays.
        POUM could never have prevailed alone, but only as part of coalition of left factions. So essentially you are right.

  25. I’ve been using REgressive for about 10 years now. Believe me, the left doesn’t like it.

  26. Remember that this is the front line assault that is available to the Left. They can shout and roar these terms over those that oppose them (I’m not going to use the term “right”). Their words will incite their minions dressed in black… Berkeley last night. It is up to the opposition to soak up the vitriol to the last minute, the last second. Of course show them up to be lunatic lefties with derision and broadcast their childish behaviour to the great “unwashed”. But no violence. They will have their hissy fit for a few weeks yet and if it doesn’t burn itself out and keeps upping the anti it will be like the scene from Braveheart with the English cavalry charging and at the last minute they are impaled on the long pikes of the Scots.

  27. Been using “regressive” already. Liberal hardly describes them either. It’s like the so-called Jews calling themselves Jews, when really they’re a synagogue of Satan. Liberal comes from liberty, right? Liberty from government rule — so why do they seek so many laws on this and that? Seems to be the opposite of liberalism, according to the true sense of the word. Instead of liberal, they should be called “anti-liberty cheese-dicks.”

  28. This article is written from the standpoint of the Left being able or willing to have a reasoned discussion. They’re people who will not be swayed by information, because if they were, they would not be the Left. Slut shaming, fat shaming and other shit works, because it _hurts_ them. And that’s they only way they can learn anything. You have to hurt them.
    Using correct terms to “reframe” and to have a discussion is what the cuckservatives have tried for the last 50 years and failed.

    1. Take it a step further… they know that the right is changing and adopting their same practices, and as a result they’re becoming more embolden in using other forms of arguments to make a point.
      Look at what happened at Berserkly last night.

      1. Yep. They’re starting the fight, adamant that they can beat us into submission just like they shamed so many into submission. The problem is that while we didn’t start this fight, we will end it.

  29. I think for regressive left, most people wouldn’t know what regressive means. A more accurate term these days is “fascist left”. They are the ones trying to overthrow legit elections and close down free speech – and all in the name of tolerance.

  31. Who are you, claiming to be defenders of western civilization? Are you Christians? What is the moral underpinning of western civilization, and do you obey it? and what is liberty? Does western civilization have any higher aspirations? Islam wants you to cover your women, protect their chastity, and lead them along with your children.

    1. And behead any of them that tend to the garden outside without a male escorting her. Oh, and also, religious police basically running you through with swords if you don’t fall on the prayer rug fast enough in public. That and of course the endless internecine wars between various factions that the rest of the world’s religions grew out of long ago. Not to mention the hordes of unemployed, wifeless young men sitting around looking for reasons to shoot people because, hey, there’s nothing else to do.
      Yeah, Islam; Is there nothing it can’t do?

      1. Well so you think all these wifeless western millennial men are just going to go quietly into the night?

      2. And no religion is more fractured than modern Christianity.. it’s so fractured it’s turning to dust

        1. I’m pretty sure your Moslem friends are involved in most of the intra-factional con-religious wars on the planet at the moment.

        2. My Muslim friends are pretty much all getting married and starting families now. The problem is my non Muslim friends, who are all pretty much f’ed in the head, unable to find meaning or purpose to their lives, let alone a significant other.

        4. Congratulations on having just made your 30th post.
          ***
          Smells like dirty socks in here.
          ***https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/9a9deb0f151370ad510eb19b30870092bd1e2b271009e92c8323c713136b5a1c.jpg

        6. It is. Ridiculously so. However, none of that makes islam look any better for the comparison.

        7. Really? Tell me the five biggest issues facing western civilization and I will tell you how Islamic thinking will help solve them.

        9. I am not too sure about other countries’ politics because I’m an American concerned about America. Imagine the red pill were a religion. Would it be a religion of peace? Well it’s adherents would probably say so- it’s aim is the proper functioning of society in a way that nearly guarantees long term stability of the family and society in a manner that accords with human nature. However, some could also claim that it is not a religion of peace- its goals are quite revolutionary compared to society as it exists currently, and it is in fact interested in making a change in the society itself, therefore some could claim that it is political more than religious. And how would red pill goals be achieved? Via loving sjws? By loving single mothers? if we only love single mothers more, we will achieve world peace?? We all know that is not the answer.

        11. Ok the first on my list is that the koran itself has in excess of one hundred verses exhorting muslims towards acts of war and terrorism against unbelievers for the sake of islamic rule.
          Go ahead and tell me how the existence of this garbage in the koran will be nullified through islamic thinking.
          I’m going to get some popcorn.

        13. Okay. Imagine your role model is Robert E Lee and you are reading his writings to understand who he was and how to be more like him. Since his occupation was a war general, the majority of his writing were about tactics and strategies to defeat the North. However, if he said, ‘Kill the northerners whenever you find them,” would you take it literally and start going around killing northerners in 2017? No, of course not. That would be stupid, firstly, because Lee was not a war mongerer, he was a general whose interest was ending the war while obtaining his objectives. Also Lee was not a terrorist, because he did not end his life as a suicide attacker, and neither did Muhammad pbuh. A rational person would understand the context under which those writings were written, and ponder how such a man would face the challenges of today, not take them literally.

        14. :You are totally marinated, overdosed and punch drunk on that coolaid, aren’t you lauren?
          The natural comparison and contrast to what you are trying desperately to prop up here, is actual Divinely inspired writings.
          The first thing you will probably note when you start to read them is that none of them are handed down by any murderous illiterate war lord and none of them even barely hint of killing any enemy once you get beyond the Old Testament.
          I’ve got news for you lauren. mohammad was and is to this day no more than a thug who whipped up a bunch of gullible stupid people into following him for his own pursuit of riches and glory. It is only natural that his followers would respond positively to the lowest brutish instincts of conquest. murder, rape, plunder and slavery, because it is the lowest common denominator mentality of fallen mankind. mohammad propped himself up with a made up deity in order to build a cushion of authority behind his cult leadership position. He spawned fourteen centuries and counting of gullible beastial murderous brutes controlling larger masses of gullible sheep in a cult that is directed to take over the world by stupidity and by the sword.
          By contrast, actual; real -Divinely inspired writers needed no force of blade or intimidation to spread a message of love resulting in a magnificently improved living mindset for countless billions over the past two thousand years.
          True Christianity and Islam are as different as day and night; heaven and hell. mohammad plagiarized some of Judaism and a very tiny bit of Christianity in a vain attempt to prop up his cult with the specter of credibility. However, the bad news for islam is that many of us are waking up and can see right through it.

  32. I’ve been dong stuff like this for years and never really noticed it.
    Here’s one I hate: homophobic. It implys a pathological fear of fags. I for one am not afraid of fags in the slightest. Maybe homoapathetic would be more appropriate.
    For that matter, I never called poisin oak/ivy by its name. I refer to it as simply “the oak” or “the ivy” I never wanted to give it any more validation than it needed. Sometimes I got it, most of the time I didn’t.

  35. T H I S
    I S
    A N
    A W E S O M E
    T H R E A D !
    ***
    @disqus_XD3VbE8Uv5:disqus
    @mommaderpyeagle:disqus
    @disqus_KWTd99f9Xf:disqus
    @cletusbneckbeard:disqus
    @bruisedorange:disqus.
    @disqus_10qzl2Svkt:disqus.
    @rozyredtoes:disqus
    @cwgf:disqus
    @Sam_Oh_OH_OOOH:disqus
    @No2Guns:disqus

    2. Your comment was at the top of the thread, making me wonder what had gone before. The headline grabbed my attention.

  36. “Both sides are stupid.” Those 4 words manage to p*ss everyone off equally, however IMO it is true. Both sides tend to get caught up in proving they are correct and it ends up a p*ssing match to see who can p*ss the furthest. All that either side accomplishes is making everyone around them wonder why the U.S. has the most childish political arguments. Apparently I am not alone in my opinion as several countries have recently said they are done with the antics of U.S. politics.

    1. Maybe but several other countries have painfully cuckholded political debates. Check out white country politics, shit is painful toisten to. People have absolutely no idea what a fucking FREAK Trump is.

  37. I find a good backhand accompanied by a “Shut up, cunt!” works well in all these cases.

  38. Good list and good suggestions. One term that really bothers me is “gun violence.” It is intentionally used in an attempt to place the focus on guns, inanimate objects, rather than on criminals, who are really the problem. The term “criminal violence” or simply “violent crime” is preferable.

  40. Hi, I would like to say – there’s a lot of us who are against “neo-feminism” AND all other waves prior to it as well

  41. The Leftist press have been using the term “Undocumented Immigrants” rather than “Illegal Immigrants” to confer some sort of legitimacy on them. Right, so next time I get pulled over driving a car with no license, I can say to the cop “That’s OK officer, I am merely and undocumented driver, totally legit. You can let me go about my business.”
    George Orwell called it “Doublethink-Doublespeak”. Trump Rules!

  42. “Most of them are fighting-aged men who’ve been raised in a barbaric
    homeland, where throwing acid on a woman’s face is a normal penalty for
    exposing her ankles.”
    You sound like you have a really firm grasp on reality!

Comments are closed.