*
The key to understanding the modern Left is that it is 95% destructive, and its positive 5% is continually rotating between (for example) the primacy of equality, anti-sexism, anti-racism, promotion of sexual inversion, liberty, the environment... and others.
Which means that, in practice, the Left is 100% destructive - because its positive agendas conflict and destroy one another, as they rotate.
The modern Left is thus, over the long term, a means of wholesale destruction.
*
The Old Left (Marxists, Communists, Socialists) was essentially about promoting economic equality - and this took priority over everything else - including the abolition of poverty, which was done much better by 'Capitalism'.
But economic equality was (at first, anyway) sincerely-pursued by the Old Left - even when it led to economic collapse, famine, racism, sexism, and wholesale environmental destruction.
*
Post the mid-1960s the Left transformed into an ever-expanding 'rainbow coalition' of interest groups - feminists, assorted economically-unsuccessful minority races and ethnicities, environmentalists, Human Rights activists, promoters of first sexual liberation then inversion of traditional sexual values, criminals, illegal immigrants, the permanently-economically-dependent, and so on.
Thus the Left become democratically-overwhelming; while at the same time it became ideologically-incoherent - indeed utterly self-contradictory.
The actually-existing New Left is a loose grouping of asset-stripping interest groups, whose alliance is merely a tactical agreement to gang-up-on and exploit (or simply destroy) the diminishing minority of non-Left.
*
So the modern Left has no overall, cohesive, explicit strategy because all its claimed positive strategies cancel-out - its true underlying strategy is therefore implicit and denied.
Anyone who really cares about any one of the Left's supposed priorities - whether that be economic inequality, the sociopolitical situation of women, or of a particular race - can see that the New Left damages all of these groups in real terms.
*
The New Left actually, really, overall and significantly promotes inequality, damages the interests of women and racial minorities, damages the environment - over a timescale of decades, the Left damages everything for everybody.
All winners are temporary - today's winners (e.g. the Proletariat - the native male working class labourers) are tomorrow's demonized losers - in rotation.
Why is this not more obvious? Two words: the Mass Media - to which the population is ever-increasingly addicted, and which defines reality as whatever is expedient for Mass Media purposes.
*
The Left is misunderstood.
The New Left, the modern Left of Political Correctness, is not a conspiracy of Men, it is NOT about promoting the interests of any particular group - overall and in the long term.
The Politically Correct Left is NOT about pursuing equality, fighting sexism or racism, saving the environment or anything else positive - these are merely tactical excuses.
*
The long-term reality is that the Left is negative, destructive; wholesale, all-round, and strategically.
And this is impossible to human agency: strategic universal destructiveness is only attributable to non-human, purposive evil.
*
This is why there is a fundamental and ineradicable conflict - indeed there is a war - between Christianity and the Left.
Good people, even real Christians, may for various reasons find themselves fighting on the wrong side in this war; but that does not affect the fact that they are objectively fighting on the wrong side.
At this point in history, where we are now; a Christian Leftist or a Leftist Christian is an oxymoron.
In war, everyone necessarily fights on one side, or the other: God or Satan.
*
This post touches on something I've felt for a long time. The modern Left is almost a perfect bell-weather for the most wrong-headed stance on almost any issue. On occasions when some conflict has arisen where, due to lack of information, it is difficult to know what side to take, I have found that an excellent heuristic is to observe the stance the Left adopts and know that, with a high degree of probability, that is the position that will ultimately prove the most destructive and harmful to ordinary people. For example, without the reliable-as-clockwork Left to rely on, my position on the legalisation of cannabis would be agnostic (I suspect it is more harmful than is commonly appreciated but I don't like the government telling me what I can and can't do either). However the fact that the Left wants to see it legalised gives me a working hypothesis that legalisation would probably be harmful. The additional fact that the Left is actually quite desperate on this issue further convinces me that the harm involved would probably be rather serious.
ReplyDeleteLikewise in any public scare story, as soon as the Left begins hyperventilating it is possible to conclude that the scare is either fabricated or over-blown or, at the very least, that the advocated response would be entirely counter-productive.
What we have in the Left is an almost perfect device for sniffing out evil in the sense of that which will be more harmful to our society as a whole and, in the medium to long term at least, almost every individual therein. It is in a sense the closest thing around to an (anti-) moral compass.
What you said: "The long-term reality is that the Left is negative, destructive; wholesale, all-round, and strategically.
ReplyDeleteAnd this is impossible to human agency: strategic universal destructiveness is only attributable to non-human, purposive evil."
Hence what John C. Write wrote (summarizing a piece by David Warren): "Progressives... are henchmen of the devil."
And thank-you for the link which you gave in one of your previous posts:
http://www.scifiwright.com/2014/02/david-warren-defies-the-empire-of-lies
@JS
ReplyDeleteThis is not a bad strategy at all. There's a local radio commentator that serves as my moral bell weather in the same way. If he takes a position on any topic - politics, sports, movies or social issues my instinct is to take the opposite view. He has never failed to be on the wrong side... If I had to classify his politics it would be decidedly liberal, snidely liberal.
Some say that cultural Marxism’s main tool was “critical theory” the tactic of criticizing everything that’s good, normal, etc. This sounds like a fitting tactic for a strategy of destruction.
ReplyDelete@BB - Maybe - but I tend to think that the sexual revolution, in is various unfolding aspects, has done most of the heavy lifting for Marxism in the past half century - each change leading on to the next, in a ratchet.
ReplyDeleteI would think that critical theory/culture of critique was important in bringing about the sexual revolution. I don’t know since I’m too young to have lived through it.
ReplyDelete