The problem of passive aggression in far right personalities


Of the various forms of far-rightist, a personality type keeps emerging. It is not inherent to rightism, but rather to any marginalized belief that is also messianic.

In this personality type, the mind becomes fixated on a perceived truth, for example the notion that The JewsTM control the world and are behind the downfall of the West. What becomes important then is bringing this idea to others. So important that all conversation must relate to the idea.

However, the idea is chosen in part because others cannot accept it. It is hopelessly divisive. This serves the purpose of the person speaking it, as they are able to act out a familiar pattern: tell the “truth,” have others recoil in horror, and be ostracized and thus retreat in justifiable alienation.

This keeps the idea-teller in a position of perpetual victimhood, and simultaneously gives them a reason to believe they are being martyred for truth. They told the most important idea; it was rejected, thus it was the fault of others for being weak (“wake up sheeple”) and the idea-teller is the messianic figure who sacrifices all to tell this truth.

For such a person, the ideal conversation is drive-by. “Your toaster failed? It’s the Jews. What, you don’t believe me? You’re just not ready for the truth. Nevermind, I understand; you’re weak. You just don’t want to accept the obvious. But me, I need to tell the truth as it is, so I hold myself to a higher standard than you.”

Where did they get this idea? From liberalism, perhaps, but it’s older than that. Even mothers use this idea with their children as a form of manipulation. “Son, you need to study more. You reject this? It’s because you’re immature. Never mind, I tried to tell you.”

An additional benefit of this approach is that no one is required to do anything. The far rightist comes in, says his or her piece, and then retreats to glorious victimhood. But, since the “sheeple” are unreceptive, nothing more can be done so the retreat is all that happens. This enables the far-rightist to go find some like minds, hoist some beers and listen to some droning angry punk music.

If I were opposed to right-wing ideas, I would endorse as many of these people as possible. I would give them money and keep them out of jail. I would get them housing in hip and happening urban areas. They are excellent marketing against right wing ideas because their goal is always to alienate other people and then be unreasonable.

They convert more people from vaguely right-wing positions to liberalism with their behavior than could be done with a million Superbowls of ad coverage. The only possible solution is to legitimize far-right ideas by removing them from the messianic approach and transferring instead to a more workmanlike offshoot of regular conservatism.


  1. crow says:

    I’ve sometimes wondered if you have any workable substitute for a sense of humour. I’d say this essay is about as close as it gets :)

  2. LoreTek says:

    Good essay, it’s true, of the vocal “conservatives” out there, there are more people that give it a bad name by calling themselves conservative than there are that help it.

    How would I avoid this pitfall when talking to people about points like the ones made on this site? Are they not a perceived truth I put blame on, isn’t it the same thing to say that it is impossible to talk to a liberal?

    I often get the same null reactions from people when I say liberalism, radical individualism, crowdism etc. Even more so if I were to mention the Enlightenment might not be a divine good.
    - Although, I have had some luck with crowdism. I feel people like to hear they don’t need the crowd and tend to connect more one on one after I say it.

    Even though it’s hard to believe that there is not someone knowingly perpetuating these ideas, as there is so much to be gained by doing so, and so much evidence (commercials, an entire political party, another party that is falling to it) It is enough to make you ill, so I don’t blame them for thinking there is a shadowy figure somewhere, even if they have it wrong.

    Do you just avoid any mention of a ThemTM?
    Ie do you operate under the assumption that it is all a symptom of the mindset and that no one specifically is pushing it along; that is to say, pushing it along in spite of knowing the ramifications?

    On the same note, how would one attack liberalism/individualism/crowdism without alienating the modern person who “lives in America and can do what they want”?
    How can you then be reasonable? How can you help them?
    You have, after all, just named their perceived truth as the fiction.

    I know that’s a lot of questions, but they all boil down to:

    How do you avoid becoming what you described, just for a different truth, when the average person is as unresponsive to the above claims as they are to the blaming of the JewsTM?

    I don’t think I’m being clear, but I’ll post anyway.

    1. The “Them” is an idea. That’s why it’s so hard to knock out. That idea licenses a certain kind of behavior that leads to civilization downfall. We’re like a man on PCP and bath salts, cutting off his own penis to remove the demons.

      1. LoreTek says:

        Haha, interesting. If it is truly just a mindset then it has gone much deeper than I could have imagined. For all the effects to exist – commercials, modern politics, business management – the mindset would have to be almost automatic now.

        However, it being only a mindset and not a Them, does make it a lot easier to fight .

        I feel humor and reasoned explanation can fix a mindset where they would not be able to thwart a “Them”, and certainly heated one-off rhetoric may combat a Them but it will only strengthen the mindset!

        Perhaps there is hope yet! Thank you for clearing this up for me.

      2. Lord Mosher says:

        I don’t know Brett.
        I assume you’re referring to the guys at The Occidental Observer right?
        You said that if tomorrow all the Jews would disappear from the world, all our problems would still remain.
        By extension, I suppose you would claim that had the Jews never arrived to the USA, everything would be exactly as it is today anyhow, right?
        The writers at The Occidental Observer promote three points:
        1.- Jews are agents of destruction
        2.- They destroy to preserve their tribe
        3.- Fighting the symptoms of decay will inevitably lead to fighting the Jews directly regardless if they are the cause or not.

        1. I am not referring to anyone directly. If anything, this is an aggregate of social media experience.

          Let’s look at these:

          1.- Jews are agents of destruction
          2.- They destroy to preserve their tribe
          3.- Fighting the symptoms of decay will inevitably lead to fighting the Jews directly regardless if they are the cause or not.

          #2 contradicts #1, since there’s a clear purpose to alleged Jewish activity by #2 which makes #1 an extraneous motive.

          Then we consider #3; if #3 is true, then there’s no point attacking Jews since attacking the symptoms of decay (or better, the decay itself) will lead to that conflict anyway.

          I think that list boils down, at its heart, to #1, which is not true of the Jews I know. At least, not any more than your average population. Many if not most people are casual, passive and incremental agents of destruction. A good many of the Jews I know are agents of order and attempted goodness. As with many Christians and liberals, their interpretation of goodness is not always my definition. But they are trying.

          1. LoreTek says:

            How much of the problem do you think stems from media itself?

            By media I mean the TV-station / news -channel parent companies, Hollywood, and advertisement firms, more so than the general mass of facebook/youtube/twitter users that propagate information.

            Or is social media where this stuff is born and bred and actual media just picks up on it because it sells?

            It’s really a question of the chicken or the egg.
            Is the insanity born in the town square or by the town crier.

            Obviously they feed off each other once the feedback loop starts, but if your trying to be reasonable, who do you try to stop?

        2. thordaddy says:

          1.- Jews are agents of destruction
          2.- They destroy to preserve their tribe
          3.- Fighting the symptoms of decay will inevitably lead to fighting the Jews directly regardless if they are the cause or not.

          #1… This only means anything if man has genuine free will… WNs, “racial purists” AND strict materialists deny man’s genuine free will.

          #2… Again, this only has meaning because there is an unspoken assumption of Jewish free will that doesn’t really exist according to the Jewish self-conceptualizations. See #1 above.

          #3… Again, there is an assumption of free will that is implicitly denied as even existing and so one “fighting” anything is nonsensical. At best, one can say he simply acts equal to individual Jew as both lack genuine free will…

          What’s the real take-away here?

          Radical liberationists of all persuasions need to be infused with genuine free will so that they may be accountable for their actions.

          In the WN/Jewish debacle, neither side acknowledges a genuine free will and neither side is held accountable for their actions.

          A symbiotic regression.

  3. thordaddy says:

    It is easy to be a liberationist and call yourself a “conservative, white supremacist, right-winger” and the like for the sole purpose of destroying these things. In fact, this “way of life” is a path to radical liberation and radical autonomy.

    The passive-aggressive you see amongst “white” liberal males is easy to pinpoint…

    “White” male liberals face a constant demand to self-annihilate (deracinated, dispirited, homosexualized) and it is TABOO (the only actual taboo in liberated society) for them to strive towards objective Supremacy (and thus be self-evidently understood as white Supremacists). So “white” liberal male is in a no man’s land. The “dark enlightenment” has “arisen” to fill the “void” and young white boys will once again be led astray.

Leave a Reply

37 queries. 0.651 seconds