How leftists take over: ignore excellence, reward obedience


The formidably insightful Bruce Charlton asks How could English genius apparently disappear between the 1960s and 1990? Answer: it was the ability to recognize the products of genius which disappeared at that time:

Even despite all this; the abruptness of the collapse of genius was still too rapid to have a biological basis in terms of the actual production of potential geniuses.

So I assume that the problem was not actually in the production of genius people but in a collapse in the ability to recognize the products of genius – the failure to perceive and to use genuine breakthrough ideas and products – and that this was substantially due to very rapid social changes happening in England through the 1960s through 1980s.

What happened, I think, was that the production of geniuses declined rather gracefully, gradually, incrementally – but that it was that the ability to evaluate and recognize major work of genius that collapsed abruptly.

What he’s noticing is one prong of the leftist strategy of thought control in public media.

The first prong is to define acceptable beliefs, and to ignore anything outside of those beliefs.

The second is to praise any plausible candidate with those beliefs, claiming it is “genius.”

We can see the clearest example of this in literature. In the 1990s, the MFA-to-novel pipeline stopped accepting stories that did not have a politically correct (PC) premise.

Thus if a genius were to write a novel, and it did not have a PC premise, the novel would never be published. The genius would never be recognized.

This leaves an ugly choice: either twist the story to include a PC premise, or don’t publish.

Music also reveals the same pattern. Tell them what they want to hear, or all the intermediate A&R and promotions people will simply ignore you.

Journalism also provides an example. Stories that do not conform to the narrative get marginalized, leaving only the conservative news outlets to cover them.

In all of these cases, an underpaid and under-experienced staff makes initial decisions and thus acts as a filter implementing the desires of higher-ups. There is plausible deniability. Best of all, the staff might simply be considered incompetent, having gone from college to these cushy but non-lucrative jobs without having experienced much of life outside the Ivory Tower.

The flip side of this is that obedience gets rewards. If you are preaching the right doctrine, doors open. People will arrive to help shape your film, music, novel, essay or news story into something that is technically well-executed.

However, technical execution is a surface trait as punk music taught us 30 years ago. A truthful, insightful and relevant piece of art will strike a chord even if it is technically less than ideal; however, technical sophistication without underlying content is empty like other products of an industrial society.

Technical sophistication without some underlying purpose or insight is purely functional, more like decoration than art or informative experience. To the leftist, this isn’t a problem, because the underlying purpose is always the same: demonstrate unity with the hive-mind and its leftist beliefs.

The result of all of this is that we have as a society systematically excluded genius and even insight from culture and media, and replaced it with propaganda.

Not surprisingly, this has turned people off of culture and media, which has allowed more leftists to surge into the gap and create an echo-chamber in the void left by absence of good people.

Our renewal begins when we reclaim these institutions and restore them from within by crowding out the insane leftists and resuming the practice of recognizing profundity and value, not obedience.

Tags: , , , , , , ,

16 Responses to “How leftists take over: ignore excellence, reward obedience”

  1. njartist49 says:

    I would go deeper in the causes of the disappearance of genius. The progressive movement has destroyed a significant part of the structure genius requires: the family and education. I would even go further and state that the destruction of moral behavior and removing God from the public square reduces the ability of people of genius to rise to find a spiritually stable place to stand.

    Genius is the manifestation of the human spirit; destroy the environment which supports genius and you will destroy the occurrence of genius.

  2. Hauer says:

    When I was in my early teenage years, I went through a phase where I just flat out stopped listening to music. I had realized the vapidity of popular music but I had no idea that other forms of it existed.

    I can’t look back at that part of my life without think how much of it was a waste. I can’t help but think what I could have been listening to during those years. So many great things went unappreciated.

    We all lose out when genius is squelched.

    • The “equal people” (those who must be made “equal” by law, because they naturally can’t keep up) do not understand higher culture. Thus from a perspective of getting votes, it’s not a worthy pursuit.

  3. crow says:

    The emergence of the drug culture had all its adherents assigning profundity to every garbled blurt mouthed by its members.
    You could say absolutely anything, and follow it up with “jer no wot I meen?”
    And of course, in the elite world of druggies, everyone did know, lest they be thought-of as being ignorant.
    Thus did anything of import come to be replaced with subhuman grunts.
    Know what I mean?

  4. josef H says:

    “technical sophistication without underlying content is empty like other products of an industrial society”

    i know exactly what you mean. Dream Theater, right?

  5. Peter Connor says:

    There isn’t much less than 40 years old that can be listened to, and novels worth reading are pretty much confined to self published ebooks, so I think the real repression started in the mid-70s. It also parallels the declining level of general intelligence in the west, a major Charlton topic and subject of outlaw research in the UK.

    • The mid-70s was when the loonies behind 1968 and their masters — descended from 1930s Communists — were able to gain significant power at entry-level and high-level academic jobs respectively.

      Communists, leftists, progressives, liberals, Socialists, internationalists… all the same thing, all the same mental dysfunction, and they all act like suicide bombers against culture, the family, love, honor, decency, intelligence, compassion and art.

  6. Robert Rizzo says:

    Everything you have stated here, is fact. Leftism is in itself, an umbrella term to describe ideologies that all share the common factor of “Ignore excellence, reward obedience”.

    Whether its moderate to far left ideologies, they all wish to advance the individuals/groups with the lowest level of quality, a process that requires the extermination of the idea of higher quality. Left wing politics are “Anti-Hierachial” ( as if everyone doesn’t have a boss, who has a boss, who has a boss, who’s bosses boss, is the boss) which proves irrational, and irrelevant to reality.

    This is the main goal if you ask me: To eliminate quality directly; via war etc. and indirectly by, “rewarding obedience”.

    They reward obedience because they are of low quality themselves thus, if everyone is on board with the “Eh, were all the same, lets just let the kid getting stoned while working at mcdonalds, earn the same amount of capital as a doctor who spent 8 years in secondary school, so no one feels bad” philosophy, they themselves will be made equal to their superiors.

    Leftist psychology follows an order that can be dissected and described as clear as day. They start as individuals who are weak. They are driven by their feelings of weakness to start/join collectives. Thus, the generation of ever evolving Left Wing Politics, which never stray from the idea of prioritizing weak individuals, and trying to give them the same status as strong individuals, when it has not been earned. They then reward obedience to their ideals to maintain their position, which in itself proves the unreasonable “anti- hierarchal” ideologies to they are all so adjusted to, irrational and incorrect.

    Leftism is a cop out. Nothing more than justification of laziness, and not giving a shit.

    • They reward obedience because they are of low quality themselves thus, if everyone is on board with the “Eh, were all the same, lets just let the kid getting stoned while working at mcdonalds, earn the same amount of capital as a doctor who spent 8 years in secondary school, so no one feels bad” philosophy, they themselves will be made equal to their superiors.

      This is the psychological essence of the impulse toward leftism. Well-described. “I want to have low standards, but for me to not suffer for them, everyone else must have low standards forced upon them…”

  7. crow says:

    On the island where I live, one of the two weekly ‘newspapers’ is up for sale. I kid you not, the blurb reads:
    “The paper is for sale to a socially responsible, socially progressive buyer”.

    Darn. I guess that rules me out.

    • Doesn’t human progress generally occur by casting aside illusions and acting on truth? Sounds like you are “progressive” in that sense to me. But I imagine the paper is created by its audience, so what they’re doing is warning you about what you’ll have to write about to keep the local zombies reading.

Leave a Reply

XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>