Mongoloigul
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Oct 4, 2024
Psychoanalysis of the Chudjak: The chud soyjak (hereby shortened to Chudjak for the sake of brevity) is emblematic of the Right's ability to co-opt and take that which was originally design to mock them, and ultimately repurpose it to suit their own ends. But what most people who see this caricature fail to do beyond this plain observation is actually analyzing what this memetic image truly mean from a psychological perspective, that is for those who use the Chudjak mockingly and for those who self-identify with it.
For context, the chudjak was originally created by /leftypol/ users to mock right-wing /pol/tards based on their (supposed) common phenotype which was most notably shared by infamous mass happener Patrick Crucius. In it's original form, the chudjak is a being of pure malice, something that's whole existence revolves around the mockery of the political enemy by relying on the ancient human subconscious bias of equivalating ugliness with evil. In this form, the chudjak is more or less a memetic weapon, no different to 'Big Red' or 'soyboy lefty' on the Right.
Now, background aside, we will began by dissecting chudjak's usage by those who use it mockingly (mostly by leftists, but sometimes also used by rightists as an uno reverse card/gotcha against the left). Those who actively engaged in chud-mockery are more or less prevailers of the most common of human prejudices, the prejudice against the ugly. In all of human history, ugliness has always been (consciously or not) associated with evil, from the common criminal to the highest echelon of elite corrupter and tyrant, ugliness has always been a common denominator levied against these villainess archetypes by those who critique them. What is (un)surprising about this specific usage of chudjak however is the fact that it is inherently reactionary, in the sense that it is actively punching down on a whole group of people based on their physical appearance and physiology, something usually done by the Right to obfuscate any actual discourse behind a rhetorical wall of mockery which silences debate with a hail of laughter. It's main usage by the left is what makes it so unique but unsurprising given it's origin in the famously anti-PC and chan-based culture of the /leftypol/ imageboard, however it does not excuse/removes the inherent right-wing element which dialectically exist in chud-mockery.
The left insults the right by taking the right-wing format of making fun of groups of people for how they look and placing the right-wingers in the role of the groups that they mock, reversing the role of hunter to prey, but ultimately much like how reversing the hunter-prey dynamic still results in a hunt, the mocking of right-wingers WITH a right-wing format still fundamentally result in a reactionary mindset by which people are evaluated by looks and judged pre-emptively. From this we can fully ascertain why and how this meme got so easily co-opted by the Far-Right, even in it's original leftist form it was still based on an inherently right-wing premise, tactic, and weltanschauung. Those leftists who use this meme to mock the right still befell into reactionary thinking unbeknownst even to themselves regardless of progressive intent.
What is so ironic about the dual use nature of the chudjak is the fact that the Right's latter usage of it as a form of self-identification and insertion is actually the most progressive of the two. By embracing and glorifying the ugliness present in the chudjak through self-identification with it, the Right posits themselves as belonging to a historically and presently marginalized and ostracized segment of society, which instead of feeling ashamed for being part of are instead openly prideful of it. The mentality of those who self-identify as chuds is one of an inherently progressive nature, despite the chudjak being a symbol of reactionary politics, those who embrace him as being a mirror image "literally me" caricature of themselves actually participate in progressivism eternal quest of acceptance of things that one cannot change, most importantly in this analysis: one's looks.
