What is the left’s endgame?

the_inevitable_end

When witnessing the latest insanity from the left, and trying to ignore the sinking feeling in one’s gut that suggests society is tearing itself apart, it helps to consider what the leftist endgame might be. In other words, what do they want, and how does this eventually come about? When they “win,” what does the result look like?

To analyze this, we have to look into the psychology of leftists and the difference between what they claim they want and what their actions indicate they want. In theory, the left believes that history was a horror, commerce is corruption and that we — collectively, We the People — must unite on the idea of egalitarianism to make life fair and end these injustices.

From an outside perspective, it is clear that this is Utopian thinking. To insiders, not so much. In their view, they are correcting error, rather than perfecting society. However, to those with a broader view of history, what leftists see as error to be correct is in fact the normal course of history, which needs to be guided (requiring leadership) but not eliminated (as is the goal of leftist ideology).

Thus we have to look at what the left desires, rather than what they think will implement it, since it seems there’s confusion there. At its core, leftism is formed by people who are outraged by the modern world; however, like most emotional reactions involving a victimhood concept, it ends up affirming its putative abuser.

The left fundamentally believe that commerce as a guiding principle of society is a wrong-headed idea. Having watched industry consume any open land or decent concept (and a few musical genres) that it has encountered, I have to agree, but with a twist: commerce without leadership and culture is as reckless a force as any uncontrolled impulse. The problem is that the leftist solution to commerce is that which creates societies where commerce is the only viable form of self-government.

Commerce is not a “thing” like Godzilla. Rather, it is an event like an algal bloom. Many people come together and have needs, thus creating an opportunity for a product to be sold. At some point, the sellers realize they can expand this opportunity with advertising, lobbying for change of laws, or other forms of social engineering. The crossover between the left and commerce is that both believe in egalitarianism, and both believe in social engineering as a method of perfecting it.

Thus while the left thinks they are taking a stand against commerce, they in fact have been subverted by commerce. Worse, they are the mechanism by which commerce takes over from culture and leadership by decent people with depth of intelligence. The more leftists rage against commercialization, the more they insist on egalitarianism as a solution to it, which in turn empowers it by removing any kind of values above the level of the individual that might hold it back.

Even better, commerce isn’t stupid, because it uses us against us. Our best people go to work for it. They then find ways to subvert the left further. What they discovered in the 1980s was that they could make the 1960s ideology into a business. Suddenly, you could buy the regalia and symbolism of the sixties anywhere. The music was used in commercials. And these commercials advertised products that were “ethical” but branded to demonstrate higher status. Thus you could make liberalism into a lifestyle: see, I’m hip and with the young kids, but I’m also successful and important! Look at me!

No one told the 1968 types — and they were too hostile to facts to research it — that everything that was endorsed in 1968 had been endorsed by the French Revolutionaries. They weren’t the new, fresh, hip kids with radical ideas. They were the latest generation of sad solutionless people banging the same tin drums because otherwise, they had no place in life. Ordinary existence did not suit them; without ideology to give them purpose, they would have been more anonymous people adrift in a society where nothing had any particular relevance to anyone.

This is why liberalism follows population growth: conservatives found a society, make it successful, then the population swells, then cities are formed, and in the anonymity of the cities liberalism ferments as people find that having a job and drinking habit alone does not fulfill them. Thus they want some reason to be a big cheese. Their reason is ironism. Whatever everyone else is doing, I’m not — I’m different, unique and against all of that. Contrarianism disguised as self-deprecating wry humor is the basis of this new population, and since the dawn of time there have been people like hipsters, liberals, radicals, anarchists, etc. who adopt this viewpoint as a method of social coping. It allows nobodies to be somebodies, just by pulling off the stunts of language and outrageous behavior required to draw attention to themselves in the anonymous crowd.

It’s hard to know how to cure this situation. Some people will say that both the political parties are bunk, so cut and run and head off in some “new” direction or to some other “radical” idea. But these people are doing the same thing the liberals did, and for the same profit motives. Visit my blog! Read my book! Buy my videos! Even when they claim to be conservative or more extreme, these individuals are ultimately cultivating social and commercial groups for themselves, not refuting the problems of our society at their core.

If you want to know why I tend to scorn third position, neoreaction, Dark Enlightenment, etc. “new” movements, this is the fundamental reason: their ideas aren’t new, but are camouflaged versions of older ideas; these “new” ideas are being promoted not because they’re correct, but because they draw attention to the person speaking. They are attention whoring because they want to claim their space in commerce, and their place in the liberal hierarchy, not refute it. This is why the only radical reaction is to choose conservatism at the most basic level, which is a fundamental philosophical shift, and is why many conservatives are religious or something similar.

The right message for our time is not Revolution. We’ve had enough revolutions to know that no matter what flag you wave, all revolutions result in the same conditions, which is a liberal type republic. You cannot achieve consensus among revolutionaries except on dislike of what is, but the primary gripe is usually disenfranchisement of the revolutionaries in the system as it was, not with the design of the system itself. Most so-called underground conservatives — the ones who smash the mainstream conservatives the loudest — would if given power essentially recreate society as it is, except with themselves and their peer group on top. This is the psychology of the human in a political context.

Because I am a blockhead who thinks with his plodding gut and back brain, not his electric forebrain and its witty social awareness, I have never claimed for myself the type of brand or revolutionary cred that might make me a best-seller among the dissident, dropout and reactionary types. Instead, I have advocated a simple policy: conserve what is good, and reclaim what is not. Thus if the Republicans are mentally obese, the solution is not to stage a revolution and throw away the Republican party, but to reclaim it by working within it. Redefine what it is, instead of redefining who you are. If it doesn’t represent the right issues, take a place in it and demand those issues be brought to the forefront.

Fragmenting the vote — and the power of people in focused groups — helps no one but our enemies. We don’t need a third political party, and we don’t need new philosophies. We don’t even need conservatism, just the principles behind it: pay attention to reality, keep the good and toss out the bad, and thus, aim for something higher in quality with every generation. This is in contrast to the quantity-based revolutionary mindset, which thinks that it can overthrow a system and replace it with a different one, or in other words to have two systems instead of one and thus solve a quality problem with quantity.

All of the problems of our age result from the revolutionary mindset. Because we are egalitarians, we are forbidden by social rules to differ in any fundamental way; this converts everything to image, not substance. The basis of political correctness is this social concern for image. When we are shocked by some large system like commerce, our solution is to be more egalitarian (quantity, not quality) and thus to replace one evil with another, which since it never was centralized but is implemented by humans, promptly takes over again but with greater strength as we’ve thrown out all the social institutions that could oppose it. The source and perpetuation of our downward spiral is this revolutionary mentality.

So what is the liberal game? I confess: this was a trick question. There is no endgame because there is no actual purpose or goal to liberalism. Rather, liberalism is the end result of people trying to define a social identity based on not being the same as everyone else. It causes them to want to destroy standards in common, thus they bond together — anarchists unite! — to crush any standards. What’s left at that point is every person doing what is convenient for himself, which causes seemingly opposition philosophies to unite.

We the People wants commerce and consumerism, but also wouldn’t mind some Socialist subsidies and free bennies. It wants equality, but if there’s a chance for it to purchase better than equality, it wants that too. Liberalism is perpetually incoherent and inconsistent because the ideology is a coverup for the fact that liberalism is basically a squabbling crowd, each person wanting to be more important than the next, each demanding whatever it sees that its neighbor has and all trying to demonstrate how unique, ironic and “different” they are.

Thus, whatever liberals suppose their own endgame (Utopia) is, the actuality is different. Their endgame is the same as their method. Their method is the same as their assumptions when they started out. It is a perpetual state of individuals being individualistic and asserting control on that basis, thus unraveling civilization from within. Thus civilization grows like an obese cancer, expanding to cover everything with more quantity, because we have alienated ourselves from quality, values, choice and anything sacred in our misery.

12 Comments

  1. crow says:

    If the left has anything like an endgame, it is nothing more complex than total judgement of any and all other humans. I engaged one, yesterday, for the umpteenth time, and observed him standing somewhere behind his own head, looking at me, while judging and judging and judging.

    I suppose if one is sufficiently insecure, then one must manufacture a sense of utter superiority over everyone else, by way of compensation.
    Ironically, embracing one’s own inferiority could be one’s salvation. Recognizing that one is – in fact – inferior to a good many things, one might then set about becoming less-so. And thus become more than one was.

    Alas, instead of that, a majority of people choose to do what they do best, and hate the thing that makes them feel inadequate: their own inferiority. But, unable to hate anything about themselves, they redirect their hatred outwards, at likely targets, who then stand-in as surrogates for their own hated selves.

    I get the feeling, sometimes, that all a leftist really wants is endless praise. And this would not be a hard thing to simulate. Except that, having done so, the leftist would then merely feel empowered to sink to even greater depths of abstraction.

    1. Hauer says:

      There is no endgame for leftism. The ‘utopia’ they speak is nothing more than a afterimage. It is a projection of his desire for change.

      The progressive ‘knows’ there nothing wrong with him. He rationalizes that it must be something else. If it isn’t his friends or family, it must be the society/country he lives in. Change thereby becomes his path to for seeking power, praise, and prestige. It is the method to his madness.

    2. NotTheDude says:

      Sadly, few will heed what you say as you are philosophical and the Leftist cannot tell Philosophy and Religion apart. And Leftists hate Religion. Come to think of it, they hate both as it speaks truths, which discredit their worldview. The last few posts have been gems, worthy of a wider readership. What a shame there is no market for it.

      1. crow says:

        There’s more market than you think. It’s just not a mainstream one.
        That’s the price you pay for not scaling for popularity.

      2. Better to go to one’s forefathers with honor than bring them credit cards ;)

  2. NotTheDude says:

    My last comment was directed at ‘Crow’ but the quality of the comments on here is outstanding. I’m thinking and learning a lot.

    1. crow says:

      Don’t think too much. Seriously. The best stuff isn’t a mental process.
      Which is why the left doesn’t – and can’t – get it.

  3. Tony says:

    Great post and was already going to comment also on the quality of the comments on this one, even before reading NotTheDude’s comment above.

  4. LoreTek says:

    Like my Father says when we are looking at something together, humans never made anything better. Some may argue that we do great things, that its ignorant to think we don’t do anything good for the world. Others argue that we are unjust and we bring pain to so many other people or that we ruin nature wherever we go. Some of the points are even absolutely correct, like we are overpopulated.

    There are simply too many people in the world, no doubt about it. Most of the surface problems of civilization stem from that fact. Too many people, not enough meaningful positions to hold, delusion spreads and we go deeper down the rabbit hole. It doesn’t explain how we got there though, why we are willing to expand, to build more, create more, destroy more.

    While that argument continues to rage, and it always will, I weep. Not because we are destroying mother nature, but because I realized recently what he meant. It goes against everything both sides of the argument want to believe. That humans never made anything better than nature.

    Something that only makes sense when you look out at the stunning parts of the world that do not have civilization. In those moments you forget who you are, you can feel it, as you stare at a crashing ocean or over a rolling desert at a mountain in the distance, or as you look down at the intricacies of DNA; as you look up at the stars.

    And the debate will continue, without it’s most meaningful argument.

    A truth that will be forgotten, buried under Utopia.

    1. 1349 says:

      There are simply too many people in the world, no doubt about it.

      China is empty. (Some of its areas are densely populated, others are empty. A couple of nuclear strikes on its western coast and there’s no Chinese people.)
      Russia is empty.
      Canada, too.
      Australia.
      Antarctica.
      Greenland.
      The Moon.
      Mars.
      Jupiter II.

      Excessive population is hardly the root of all our problems.

  5. Tony 1 says:

    The lefts endgame is their believe in American (insert country) Exceptionalism. Americans are indoctrinated into thinking that their country is the best place in the world, simply because that’s where they were born. This is the neoconservatives version of Hitler’s declaration that the German Nation was exceptional and therefore, above all others. The hubris and arrogance that arises from Washington’s belief that it is the government of the “indispensable and exceptional nation”.
    There is none so blind as those that will not see.

  6. Stuart L says:

    This site has inspired me to learn more in-depth history as my current knowledge (like the vast majority of people in general I suspect) is sorely lacking.

    I’m currently reading “The Era of the French Revolution” by Leo Gershoy.

    Stuart L

Leave a Reply

38 queries. 0.972 seconds