Journal ︎

Considering one's self a victim of another in and of itself has no political leaning. It doesn't exist in a void, but a liberal can see themself as a victim, as can a conservative, a communist, an anarchist. Anyone of any political group can consider themself a victim. What carries the political connotation is *who* and *what* is victimizing them.

A communist may see themself and the proletariat victims of capitalism, of unfair labor laws that do not adequately protect laborers, of monopolies that restrict any actual choice, of political systems relying on the notion there are only two options, of being told you *must* choose or you will die. A liberal may see themself as a victim of conservative politics, of being unable to initiate any actual change (and yet supporting a socio-economic system that is meant to enforce this). A conservative, however, may see themself as a victim of shadows projected on a cave wall; of socialism, of changes in the status quo, of social progress.

In those last aspects, most liberals and conservatives are the same; they exist and live only to enforce the status quo. Any and all change or progress that isn't supported by neoliberals is subject to at best, suspicion and at worst, total destruction or an attempt at it. However, modern Usamerican conservatives tend to take it an extra step; by losing or refusing to wear any veneer of respectability.

Conservatives have a dual mindset: they are strongmen who are convinced they're doing the right thing and will triumph no matter what, and at the same time oppressed by a liberal deep state intent on keeping them underfoot. That dual thinking is mirrored in who or what they consider an enemy: jewish people are seen as equally weak-willed and the most powerful group in the world - for communism, it is equally a system unable to ever work and yet it's the biggest threat to the United States besides jewish people. The enemy itself may change, but the notion of it being both weak and strong will remain.

The victimization of conservatives appears moreso when they're focusing on the "strong enemy" aspect of dual thinking. In the United States, a main talking point in mainstream far-right circles is "traditional living" being under attack by "evil leftists", however in reality, it's conservatives attempting to destroy any and all forms of social progress. By making themselves' the victims, conservatives are able to whip up people into moral panics. The transgender bathroom panic itself was discovered to have been invented by far right groups to begin splitting LGB people from trans people as a form of divide and conquer.

Without solidarity, class consciousness and ideological discipline, the far right will continue to whip up panic through it's self-victimization and demonization of any minority groups attempting to push a broken system further left. The answer isn't to try and placate these people as some have done (democrats, "drop the T", detransitioners), but through building a vanguard party that upholds the three vlaues above. Feeding into their self-victimzation merely wins people over to the far right.

Ever since making a website on neocities, a part of me has been struck with finding the worst of the worst: those who consider themselves "blackpilled", incels, femcels, the works. I always considered it to be that old adage, "opposites attract" but more in an intellectual way. What drives these people outside of hatred, for themselves and for others? Unfortunately, the further I dig, the more I read their manifestos against race mixing, transgender panics and their belief gay people are "degenerate", I come up again and again with nothing, which I suppose is my answer. Their hate is illogical.

However, despite understanding that notion: hate as an emotional concept that drives them, I still wonder, how did they become this way, when I didn't, despite also feeling socially isolated for a period of my life? A dear friend told me they believe it's due to these people never outgrowing the "ironic bigotry humor" of being a middle schooler. I'd like to believe most people do, though considering where I grew up, I know this is false. Most don't outgrow it, but a social support system of friends and family usually prevents people from going down the dark path that is online white nationalism.

I wonder sometimes why I myself had avoided that, but social isolation is merely one factor that creates these circles. One must consider the politics held beforehand. Were these people "apolitical", a thought that, despite its name, is inherently political, as neutrality only ever aids the oppressor and not the oppressed. With that, they were always conservative-leaning. Maybe their family was, maybe they grew disillusioned with the failings of capitalism and neoliberalism, something I myself became disillusioned with at 16. I theorize that, rather than questioning everything as I had done, including McCarthy-era red scare lies, these people instead chose William F Buckley, Stephan Bandera, Theodore Kazynski and other far-right-but-not-quite-nazis, simply because the anti-communism and hatred of non-white people was just so ingrained in their minds. Coupled with isolation, of course they seek out others like them.

There comes a point when these thoughts develop into something far deeper that leeches at the psyche, the hatred of other people turns into the desire to invent new concepts to despise ("Neo-Obscurantism" anyone?) and "warn" others about. This isolation begins to eat at the mind of the one isolated. Think of it like a dog straining against a leash tied to a fence post or a tree. The dog is reinforcing the negative emotion by straining, barking and snarling at anyone that comes by in an attempt to help. People who succumb to reactionary ideology through isolation are simply reinforcing their bad habits, thoughts, beliefs, simply because they've deluded themselves into believing there is no chance of, or desire to, change.