Thursday, 10 January 2013

Ending-up on the wrong side of litmus test issues


Just a comment on the corrupting effect of Leftism and the absolute necessity to expurgate Leftism from one's own perspective...

It has been and is a source of great dismay to me that so many people who - a decade or two ago - I used to respect for their stalwart work against some of the plagues of modernity such as short-termist expediency, bureaucracy, commercialism and the like; have ended up on the wrong side in the litmus test issues of now.

Issues like Climate Change in science, or Diversity in politics and public administration, or the Sexual Revolution in Christianity - so many erstwhile good eggs find themselves rotting on the wrong side; typically not just in one but all of these principal matters of public discourse.

It is, I find, embarrassing to encounter such people. They imagine themselves to have remained, as they once were, crusaders for truth, beauty and virtue - they may assume I regard them as such; yet my covert evaluation is the opposite: that they have become, by subtle and incremental stages, corrupted into enemies of the Good.


And the cause is always the same: Leftism. In its various forms. Attachment to the sacred concepts such as equality, socialism, democracy, individual freedom, feminism, and the rest of it.

It seems that bottom-line adherence to any one of these types of ideology will suffice to defuse resistance, subvert objections, facilitate acquiescence to the forces of darkness.

Capitulation may be grumpy, may indeed be characterized by extreme and public distress - but in the final analysis capitulation is preferred to the unimaginable alternative of becoming a real and thorough-going reactionary, outwith the acceptable bounds of discourse as defined by the media and implemented in politics, public administration, the legal system, and education.


Hence the primary value of being a genuine reactionary is seen not in what it achieves in terms of implementing its goals - which is usually nothing - but what being an explicit reactionary prevents in terms of the corruption of individuals.

Think of the example of someone like Don Colacho

His influence was negligible, but he personally remained essentially uncorrupted; and his work appeals to and assists those whose goal is likewise to avoid becoming personal instances of corruption: those who, if they cannot be a part of the solution - seek to avoid becoming (unwittingly perhaps) part of the problem.