Breaking Taboos
and Freeing Minds for Good
Herbert Marcuse, the father of the “new left,” and Frankfurt School Marxist academic described how to go about implementing his strategy to destroy the west as a necessary breaking down of the ties that bind us, and of the taking over of cultural institutions by infiltration. He wasn’t shy in his ambitions to make life so intolerable for everyone that they would choose to affect a Communist revolution rather than continue on miserable, hungry, and tribalistic.
Marcuse also described how he would go about neutering the opposition such that this revolution could be completed relatively unopposed through the colonization of the oppositional mind with cultural taboos that would affect a self-imposed “pre-censorship” of conservative thought. Eventually, he thought, it would become so discomforting to even think the strategies, and words necessary to oppose the Marxists that the opposition would trip all over themselves coming up with indirect, and ineffectual strategy, and eventually settle for the revolutionary position. He was right (looking at you, David French). This is how conservatism has come to conserve nothing at all: self-enforced censorship. We have lost the ability to speak uncomfortable truths to the spirit of the age.
Consider how difficult it would be to tell a crowd of unknowns that “trans men are women.” This is a biological reality. It is in accordance with everything we know to be true, yet many of us cannot summon a confidence voice to utter it. It is these cultural taboos that are infecting our minds. We must learn to assert truth at all times to defeat this both on a personal, and on a cultural level. We must steel ourselves.
Currently yet another item is being actively tabooed before our eyes in real-time: the burgeoning anti-white racism in America. We have no problems calling out anti-black racism. We regularly comment on the state of anti-Asian racism in America: in both street assaults, and institutionalized manners. Anti-Semitism certainly has no home on the right. But we are told we cannot mention that some ideology, or practice, or incident is anti-white. I won’t play coy by pretending I don’t know why this is. We’ve all had a collective guilt beat into our heads so deeply, and for so long that we genuinely fear touching on any topic that is even remotely associated with a white racial consciousness.
On one level I actually understand this thinking. Racial consciousness isn’t a particularly good thing. It leads to tribalism, and ultimately to warfare. But to call out anti-white racism when we see it is not to assert, nor to promote a white racial consciousness. On the contrary, it is intended to condemn a racial consciousness that led to the racism in the first place. Here, the corollary to not being able to mention anti-white racism is that we’re also not allowed to mention racist tendencies among many black Americans (polling demonstrates an overwhelming in-group preference among young black men) – despite the alarming rise in black racial consciousness now driving very much of the racist violence across America.
The only consistent, and moral position to hold against a white racial consciousness is to also be against black, or indeed any racial consciousness. It is, in fact, this glaring double standard among those seeking to quash any mention of anti-white racism that truly serves to create the type of backlash against hypocrisy that could see a movement for white racial consciousness gain traction. I do not wish to see this.
This refusal to call out anti-white racism is an example of Herbert Marcuse’ “pre-censorship” of words that threaten leftism, as calling things by their proper name is at the heart of our overarching struggle. The pseudo-reality cannot abide assertions of reality that do not accord with its dogma. So, speak the truth. Don’t self-censor. Speak truth with your chin up and your shoulders back. Speak it to yourself in a mirror until you can say it confidently. Speak truth that those who malign you for speaking truth are doing great evil. Say it out loud when it matters. Assert real morality and reclaim your ability to feel and project righteous anger. Get mad when you should and let them know about it. Let people see your justified anger and they will feel it too because real justice is contagious. Speak truth into the world until reality is reasserted and we might just win this thing.
Yes, but we need to agree where our "defensible ground" is. Taking "transwomen are men" for example, I'm not sure I want to defend that. I take it as undeniable that there exists both biology and society, that humans have both immutable characteristics based in their genetic code at birth, and also social characteristics based on how they fit into society as a whole.
With regard to sexual dimorphism in humans, there is the biological reality that 99% of humans are either purely male (XY) or purely female (XX), but it's also undeniably true that the social roles, mores, customs, etc., around what it means socially to be a male or a female differ quite a bit depending on the particular society. If you don't have a way of distinguishing between biology and society, then I don't think you've come close to creating a language that can accurately describe the world as it is (and by the way, the far left pushing this transgenderism crap obviously does not have such a language).
But semantically, I think the best solution is to consider that "male" and "female" are immutable biological categories, and that "man" and "woman" are social constructs that are largely but not entirely based on those biological categories. You could just as soon reverse the terminology if everyone agreed on that, it doesn't really matter. But in my opinion the right is buying into the far left's frame if the position is that society plays no role in determining what it means to be a man or a woman. The far left says that biology plays no role in, and then the right says that society plays no role. Stupidity all around, though admittedly, the far left "started it".