There has been a war on banter from the Left;1 to them, it is tantamount to bullying. In response, they have retreated into safe spaces to avoid hurt feelings. They have not understood the difference between banter and bullying. Below are my observations on the topics and a response to the war on banter and the willingness of the Right to be bullied by the Left. We must reject “strength through victimhood” because it is a game we can never win.
It is often said that banter becomes bullying when the recipient’s feelings are hurt. This is wrong and assumes that bullying and banter refer to acts and not the context of the acts. Both banter and bullying are the social contexts of the interaction I will call “domination” which has three arms: social, physical, and mental.
Social domination is temporary or total ostracisation. The fear of exile from a social group is an unshakable aspect of human nature. In pre-capitalist Feudalism, exile was used as an explicit threat against political dissent. Indeed, travellers were classed as foreigners if they entered a new town; conversely, if a man from Sacramento drove to San Francisco he would not be classed as a foreigner. This is because in a capitalist society, political dissenters are exiled from bourgeois life. In both cases the purpose is to isolate people from social life and their means of subsistence which relies on a social system, whatever that may be. Though not geographical, exile is still employed in the macrosocial. There are plenty of microsocial situations you have probably experienced that involve some form of exile from social life, whether in work, education, or neighbourhood life. Banter and bullying involve initial social domination.
The second domination is physical domination. This is an explicit and primal domination that can exist between two individuals, groups of individuals, or between the many and the one in both directions. Physical coercion is perhaps the most obvious form of bullying, being held upside down and having your lunch money shaken out of your pockets, etc.. The purpose of this is the emasculation or submission of the recipient to the acting individual or group.
Lastly; mental domination. Mental domination is similar to physical domination but relies on the willing submission of the recipient without physical coercion. This is most often used together with modern exile, and so social domination. This is a woman’s weapon since they lack the physical power to dominate men physically. Clytemnestra’s and Lady Macbeth’s domination of men is mental and not physical. Imagine a young woman says, “I don’t date Trump supporters.” This is mental domination through the threat of social domination: “If you are a Trump supporter then you are exiled from the group of people I deem as sexually desirable (social domination).” — this statement is mental domination by threat of permanent social domination. A nu-male hears: “Babe, I’ll break up with you (or withhold sex, or cuckold you, etc.) if you vote Trump.” and this is mental domination by threat of social domination which manipulates the behaviour of the man to either vote Trump and lie, stand with Her, or vote Trump and “ditch that bitch” (the madman actually did it!). The nu-males normally march to the drum of their girlfriends. The prospect of exile from the group — “sexual relationship,” or more widely, exile from the wider female population and so exclusion from sexual access to women — has been observed as a powerful example of mental domination since the days of Aristophanes and his Lysistrata.
An important distinction between these is that social domination requires a group, whereas mental and physical domination can occur between two people in isolation. Mental domination often uses the threat of permanent social domination to coerce. If a man says an incorrect word at work he’s dragged into Human Relations. H.R. mentally dominates him by threatening to fire him unless he changes his behaviour, since being fired can mean temporary poverty and exile from bourgeois life, or permanent exile — “I’ll see to it that you’ll never get a job in this town again!” The threat of social domination is a ubiquitous and sustained mental domination suffered by man in capitalist society. No more survival tickets? No more water. And this can only produce negative and self-destructive psychological effects.
2. Banter and Bullying
There are two stages of domination in group banter, temporary social domination of a group member and then mental or physical domination by the rest of the group. In this act there is first temporary social domination (not simply a threat) to individuate the recipient of further domination, creating an out-subgroup and in-subgroup within their own social in-group. Then, physical or mental domination is directed at the individual by the group. Humiliation and mockery is most often employed. One of the most significant properties of banter is that this social domination is temporary and the recipient is accepted back into the group after domination. This domination by the group bonds the members of the group, and this social domination is a form of group bonding for those in the in-subgroup. I have often observed that when strangers form groups for the first time, one becomes a temporary “whipping boy” and becomes the butt of jokes. If people have different interests and hobbies, they can still bond in the social domination and feel a sense of belonging to their in-group.
This is perfectly healthy if all members of the group are recipients of banter more-or-less equally. The entire group is strengthened by this process and it builds camaraderie between the members. The individual subsumes himself into the group, this is most acute in military hazing and banter. There is a division between military men and civilian men partly because military men experience a shared form of suffering, be this actual war or preparation for it. Banter is a socially controlled form of suffering, and people bond over shared sufferings — cancer support groups and military widows are some more examples. One friend may be held down, his head shaved, but in another week the man holding the clippers is ruthlessly mocked for calling his girlfriend “baby girl.” It’s all ribbing or banter in this context because it is implicitly assumed that banter is a reciprocation of domination. Woe betide anyone that can “dish it out but can’t take it” — they are often expelled from the group for abnegating the unspoken law of reciprocation (self deprecating humour and the ability to laugh at oneself is an acknowledgement of this reciprocation). A group member has no right to haze newcomers if they were not hazed themselves; a tribesman cannot lead a coming of age ritual if he has not come of age himself.
If banter is symmetric and reciprocated domination, then bullying is asymmetric and unreciprocated domination. The bully and the narcissist “dish it out but can’t take it,” there is no reciprocation of domination between the in-group and out-group. A classic archetype is Jock vs. Nerd: here we see two larger groups with asymmetric domination. The Jocks always dominate the Nerds. The Nerds are socially dominated and excluded from the college in-group by the Jocks, and then physically or mentally dominated. This is never reciprocated by the Nerds as a group and so the Jocks are bullying the Nerds.
It is clear, then, that banter does not become bullying when the recipient of domination has his feelings hurt; his feelings are hurt in both cases. Banter becomes bullying when domination is not reciprocated and equally distributed.
3. Safe Spaces and the Submission of the Right
A space to protect feelings. After reading the above parts it should be clear how foolish safe spaces are.
The bullying on the Left occurs not within the safe space or B.M.E. group, but between the group and other groups. Minority groups wield strength though weakness, and while banter is banned within the group since it requires hurt feelings, unreciprocated domination of other groups is encouraged. In B.L.M. logic, it is impossible for a “person of crime” to be racist; however, even using the words “person of crime” as a white man is racist. This is asymmetric and unreciprocated mental domination which is really strength though victimhood. They say, “There is no reverse racism or sexism.” Note “reverse” which implies a duality. The general becomes specific and two racisms now exist: Powerful→Weak and Weak→Powerful. It follows that general racism is decomposed into two specific cases hinging on a caveat. The caveat “you can only be racist if you are in a position of power in a society” bares two specific positions, both racist in the universal sense but specifically either racist or not. Racism is not possible for the weak due to the caveat. And so the word racism is perverted from a universal morality into a specific truth that is sociologically subjective, and they construct their own truth. “Social Justice” similarly implies that there are different subjective Justices, and yet some can overrule others. Social-Justice, or Political-Justice are perversions of universal Justice because they are adding caveats to Justice so that it only applies in certain sociological contexts, or if it is advancing a particular political ideology.
The Left socially dominates dissenters, and either exiles them from bourgeois life — an outcome many confused professors (now ex-professors) have experienced — physically dominate them, or mentally dominate them. Most commonly, dissenters are mentally dominated with the threat of social domination. This is typical bully behaviour, and it is perfectly clear that these people cannot take jokes or criticism. A humourless, banterless wasteland.
This leads to a situation where people now add caveats to everything they say: “No offense, but…”, “I’m not racist, but…”, and feel ashamed for thinking incorrect thoughts. This goes even further, and liberals now wear shock collars. If they hear an incorrect or problematic word they feel a sharp shock and jolt a little, maybe grimacing or letting out a whimper. These once dominant groups are now being bullied by weaker groups. It’s a sort of revenge of the Nerds. The Jocks have been forced to take home-economics since childhood and contact sport is banned — no wonder they have become so weak. B.L.M. and other vanguard movements are whispering in the ear of normal people and manipulating them to submit mentally. I’m sure most unhyphenated Americans have subconsciously accepted that they will become a minority group.
This weakness is also on the Alt-Right in how they wheel out black conservatives to fight B.L.M. (e.g. Thomas Sowell). They have their own personal mandingos in reserve because they believe that having a black man support their arguments makes them innocent of any thought crime, but they accept the crime and so are being mentally dominated — the same can be said of Milo Yiannapolous‘ fans. The fact that Milo is a liberal Jewish homosexual with a fetish for black men is perceived as a form of armour in the Alt-Right. God forbid if a straight white traditionalist asserted himself, he’s totally exposed with no victim status. The Alt-Right has accepted the maxim of “strength though victimhood” and “weakness is strength.” P.E.G.I.D.A. view Europeans as victims, and even well known YouTuber Millennial Woes seems to be falling into the trap of “save the white race” nonsense.
We’re not an endangered species! We’re not victims! The far-Right is being mentally dominated by the Left and it doesn’t even realise it. There is no way whites can appear weaker victims than blacks or Muslims, and if the strength of Europeans derives from weakness and victimisation, they will always be dominated by minority groups.
Most importantly, the whole game is folly. It’s not possible to achieve strength though victimhood unless the group is a minority. Majorities cannot play this game and the fact that many on the Alt-Right do play this game shows that they have mentally conceded their majority position. I remember the tail end of Nick Griffin‘s B.N.P., and he was making arguments like: “The noble and heroic Abos were oppressed by whites and that was wrong, but indigenous Anglos are being oppressed too. We’re victims too!” What was his long term plan, reservations for indigenous Europeans? SAFE SPACES for whites?
4. No Bully Zones
Briefly, No Bully Zones are not Safe Spaces. In a public lecture it is tacitly accepted that the audience listen silently to the speaker and raise questions at the end by people raising their hands. Banning heckling and calling out in this situation is not an attack on free-speech (since the lecture itself is the assertion of free speech), nor is it a protection of the speaker’s feelings, but an enforcement of the social rules or institutions of that social context. Likewise, in a No Bully Zone, the social context does not allow the opportunity of reciprocation and so is not the right social context for banter. The motivation is not to protect people’s feelings, but to prevent disruption. In these situations the recipient has no ability to reply and defend himself, either because there is no time or he is not present, and so any domination would be asymmetric. Talking about people behind their backs is often met with the reply “no bully zone,” since the recipient has no right of reply and the domination is impossible to reciprocate. This is why people feel it is honourable to just “say it to their face,” and dishonourable to go behind their back. It is cowardly since those that go behind others’ backs shield themselves from the possibility of reciprocation. This could be applied to twitter trolling or anonymous funposting too.
5. The Necessity of Banter
Man is a social animal, and banter is an important part of a young man’s social development. If he is coddled and kept in a safe space mindset, all to prevent bullying, he will never experience banter and will live a humourless and stunted life. Young men need to build small social groups, and they need camaraderie; more so now than in previous decades. A war on banter is a war on men, it is a war on camaraderie, and a war on friendship.