A More Complete Understanding of The Modern Left

[rainlead]

In arguments, I have noticed a sort of algorithmic pattern of behavior from leftists. We've been analyzing the ideas and environmental factors associated with the modern left, but we need a deeper understanding. It has been one of my greatest intellectual challenges to unravel the most fundamental emotions and motivations of their ideology.

Disclaimer: I will be broadly generalizing in my descriptions. 'Leftist' is a broad term with variability in its definitions which is used to describe millions of people who are all different.

Existential Anxiety and Fear:
There are a great many threats in the world, and most people are aware of more than a few of these threats. Our fear and anxiety comes from an ancient part of our mind, one equipped for immediate threats and unfamiliar situations. Human beings are in a unique position of feeling our 'primitive' fear and anxiety in response to every threat imaginable.

And, we can imagine so many existential threats to our lives, and to our well-being. We can also imagine threats to our ideology and mental continuity, which is an important element in this description. You may have observed someone become absurdly upset in response to an idea. New ideas can be perceived as an existential threat; a threat that was not anticipated and is not fully understood. The idea is not just a group of words, it is a gateway to an abyss. It is an implication that one is misguided, ignorant, stupid, poorly equipped for life, and/or doomed to suffer and die.

The Abdication of Personal Responsibility:
It can be a great relief to reject personal responsibility. It dispels anxiety, guilt, and shame. It means not having to work harder or to improve oneself. It means not having to change or to annihilate parts of oneself in order to become better.

Determinism:
Perhaps determinism is rational, even scientific, but that is not the main reason the modern left favors it. The modern left favors determinism because it allows them to abdicate personal responsibility, something they value far more than scientific rationality. Scientific rationality could not be their highest value because they reject the scientific claims that conflict with their ideology.

Unhappiness:
Let's face it: most people are unhappy most of the time. Happiness is not a common or sustainable state. "Life is suffering." We live in an era of unprecedented affluence and luxury, but people are still unhappy. The modern left has a specific response to suffering in life.

Because they abdicate personal responsibility, the modern left must blame environmental factors for their suffering. Therefore, to diminish suffering, the environment must be altered. It is the only real conclusion that can be drawn from these elements. Of course, altering the environment usually means using state power.

Faith in Government:
It is a common response to fear and anxiety to put faith in a 'higher power' in hopes of receiving some protection from the existential threats. Just considering potential corruption in the government is frightening. Not only that, the idea of government corruption could return the onus of responsibility to the individual.

To them, government is the most powerful tool we have to alter society in order to reduce suffering and make people happier. Faith in government reduces fear and anxiety, relieves personal responsibility, and it can be used to alter society and environmental factors.

Idealizing Society:
Instead of idealizing potential characteristics of individuals, the modern left must idealize potential characteristics of society. This too, is caused by the abdication of personal responsibility. Because suffering and inequality cannot be the result of individual inadequacy, suffering and inequality must be caused by environmental factors. Therefore, environmental factors must be changed. They pursue utopia.

With these elements in mind, the political beliefs of the modern left don't just make sense. These factors make their political beliefs inevitable.

[Siegfried von Walheim]

1 hour ago, rainlead said:

In arguments, I have noticed a sort of algorithmic pattern of behavior from leftists. We've been analyzing the ideas and environmental factors associated with the modern left, but we need a deeper understanding. It has been one of my greatest intellectual challenges to unravel the most fundamental emotions and motivations of their ideology.

Disclaimer: I will be broadly generalizing in my descriptions. 'Leftist' is a broad term with variability in its definitions which is used to describe millions of people who are all different.

Existential Anxiety and Fear:
There are a great many threats in the world, and most people are aware of more than a few of these threats. Our fear and anxiety comes from an ancient part of our mind, one equipped for immediate threats and unfamiliar situations. Human beings are in a unique position of feeling our 'primitive' fear and anxiety in response to every threat imaginable.

And, we can imagine so many existential threats to our lives, and to our well-being. We can also imagine threats to our ideology and mental continuity, which is an important element in this description. You may have observed someone become absurdly upset in response to an idea. New ideas can be perceived as an existential threat; a threat that was not anticipated and is not fully understood. The idea is not just a group of words, it is a gateway to an abyss. It is an implication that one is misguided, ignorant, stupid, poorly equipped for life, and/or doomed to suffer and die.

The Abdication of Personal Responsibility:
It can be a great relief to reject personal responsibility. It dispels anxiety, guilt, and shame. It means not having to work harder or to improve oneself. It means not having to change or to annihilate parts of oneself in order to become better.

Determinism:
Perhaps determinism is rational, even scientific, but that is not the main reason the modern left favors it. The modern left favors determinism because it allows them to abdicate personal responsibility, something they value far more than scientific rationality. Scientific rationality could not be their highest value because they reject the scientific claims that conflict with their ideology.

Unhappiness:
Let's face it: most people are unhappy most of the time. Happiness is not a common or sustainable state. "Life is suffering." We live in an era of unprecedented affluence and luxury, but people are still unhappy. The modern left has a specific response to suffering in life.

Because they abdicate personal responsibility, the modern left must blame environmental factors for their suffering. Therefore, to diminish suffering, the environment must be altered. It is the only real conclusion that can be drawn from these elements. Of course, altering the environment usually means using state power.

Faith in Government:
It is a common response to fear and anxiety to put faith in a 'higher power' in hopes of receiving some protection from the existential threats. Just considering potential corruption in the government is frightening. Not only that, the idea of government corruption could return the onus of responsibility to the individual.

To them, government is the most powerful tool we have to alter society in order to reduce suffering and make people happier. Faith in government reduces fear and anxiety, relieves personal responsibility, and it can be used to alter society and environmental factors.

Idealizing Society:
Instead of idealizing potential characteristics of individuals, the modern left must idealize potential characteristics of society. This too, is caused by the abdication of personal responsibility. Because suffering and inequality cannot be the result of individual inadequacy, suffering and inequality must be caused by environmental factors. Therefore, environmental factors must be changed. They pursue utopia.

With these elements in mind, the political beliefs of the modern left don't just make sense. These factors make their political beliefs inevitable.

A bit off topic, but are you a psychologist or sociologist? Adding these things together, I can't imagine a better breakdown of the Left, aside perhaps a more depth reason as to why someone would have these individual characteristics. 

Not all these traits are necessary for one to become a Leftist--I used to be a Communist when I was in early High School (I'll state I am 19 to give you a better idea of me)--, as I was far from deterministic (though I was highly inclined to rob others of personal responsibility, and had the awful tendency to assign to myself more responsibility than I actually had) and did not, at the time, fear anything beyond myself. My biggest preoccupation was securing a guaranteed safety net and becoming a Far Left political leader, which in itself was due to my desire for power which I wanted because I felt powerless in my own life and upbringing. 

I have also had a tendency to pursue "the extremes"; I was never a "moderate" Lefitst: I desired a totalitarian dictatorship with the idea it would create a long-lasting utopia and a self-correcting system. When I converted to NatSoc (arguably another form of Leftism) I went full-throttle into the conspiracy theory, at least at first. When I left the Left and joined the Right as a "blank-slate White Nationalist", I was far more skeptical of ideologies as well as my own personal susceptibility to the drama and allure of "edgy" and "utopian" dogma; in particular how easily I fell for Socialism, and when I learned of the Islamic Invasion in 2015, NatSoc. It was not until I heard from Stef that I started criticizing these ideologies in depth and more especially, criticizing myself and my motivations and why I have them. If there wasn't an internet, I'm fairly certain I'd have been easy prey for the warmongers and power-seekers, for I don't think I would have "fixed myself" without the indirect intervention of Stefpai. 

Rightism has its own characteristics, although I haven't tried to establish a list of general traits a Rightist might have, which are distinguished and in many ways positive compared to the Left. Easy examples being individualism and a sense of Free Will, which is important for any real personal and societal development. 

I'm curious as to for what purpose you have compiled this list of traits common to the Left. Is it a "Know mine enemy" sort of thing? Perhaps it's academic or purely intellectual? Is it personally important? Or are you an activist of some kind? 

 

 

 

[Erwin]

1 hour ago, rainlead said:

Existential Anxiety and Fear

Not sure I'd call leftist sentiment anxiety nor fear. Those words imply that their grievances are rational.

What they are fearful of is climate change. That's phobia.

What they are anxious of is racism (and you can't see racism just because it's "systemic", "internalized", and "institutional"). That's paranoia.

When you look at how removed they are from reality, why not simply call it psychosis?

[rainlead]

I'll break down the 'Existential Anxiety and Fear' a bit more.

With the possible exception of sociopaths and people with a rare brain disorder, everyone feels fear and anxiety. I think one of the most fundamental aspects of person's personality is how they manage their fear and anxiety. Putting trust in god or in the state is a very effective way of managing terror, and that is what most people choose to do. But if you also wish to abdicate personal responsibility, you must choose the state. That's because God demands virtue and sacrifice.

As for Siegfried's questions; I am a private intellectual, and I just love a good intellectual challenge.

[Goldenages]

Hello rainlead,

 

very good summary.  I might add that lefts, since they consider themselves on the "good" side, have no limits in using coercive power or even force to pursue their goals.  The use of force is justified by alleged higher moral values (humanity, mother earth etc.).  So there is no reason for lefts to argue with opponents, an opponents view is per definition immoral, reason for disgust, and reason for more state power.

regards

Andi

 

[Dylan Lawrence Moore]

After getting splattered in the head with paint by Antifa, I have concluded that these "leftists" are parasites lacking the proper brain functioning for rational thought.

[RichardY]

Gradually it has become clear to me what every great philosophy so far has been: namely, the personal confession of its author and a kind of involuntary and unconscious mémoires; also that the moral (or immoral) intentions in every philosophy constituted the real germ of life from which the whole plant had grown. Indeed, if one would explain how the abstrusest metaphysical claims of a philosopher really came about, it is always well (and wise) to ask first: at what morality does all this (does he—) aim? Accordingly, I do not believe that a "drive for knowledge" is the father of philosophy; but rather that another drive has, here as elsewhere employed knowledge (and mis-knowledge!) as a mere instrument.

In the philosopher conversely, there is nothing whatever that is impersonal; and above all his morality bears decided and decisive witness to who he is—that is, in what order of rank the innermost drives of his nature stand in relation to each other.

You want to live "according to nature"? Oh you noble Stoics, what deceptive words these are! Imagine a being like nature, wasteful beyond measure, indifferent beyond measure, without purpose and consideration, without mercy and fairness, fertile and desolate and uncertain at the same time; imagine indifference itself as a power—how could you live according to this indifference? Living—is that not precisely wanting to be other than this nature? Is not living estimating, preferring, being unjust, being limited, wanting to be different? And supposing your imperative "live according to nature" meant at bottom as much as "live according to life"—how could you not do that? Why make a principle of what you yourselves are and must be?— In truth, the matter is altogether different: while you pretend rapturously to read the canon of your law in nature, you want something opposite, you strange actors and self-deceivers! Your pride wants to impose and incorporate your morality, your ideal onto nature, even onto nature, you demand that it be nature "according to the Stoa," and you would like all existence to exist only after your own image—as an immense eternal glorification and universalization of Stoicism! For all your love of truth, you have forced yourselves so long, so persistently, so rigidly and hypnotically to see nature falsely, namely stoically, that you are no longer able to see it differently—and some abysmal arrogance finally still inspires you with the insane hope that because you know how to tyrannize yourselves—Stoicism is self-tyranny—, nature, too, lets itself be tyrannized: is not the Stoic—a piece of nature? ..... But this is an old, eternal story: what formerly happened with the Stoics still happens today, as soon as any philosophy begins to believe in itself. It always creates the world in its own image, it cannot do otherwise; philosophy is this tyrannical drive itself, the most spiritual will to power, to the "creation of the world," to the causa prima.

-------------

Thought of the above passages of Beyond Good and Evil as relevant. The Left; which I perceive to be equated with the unconscious masses rather than Radical, Reformist, Progressive or any other nondescript adjective. A person does not have to be anxious or fearful to be on the Left, they may in fact be a figure more like a King Leah or Marcus Aurelius(stoic), a useful Idiot. They may also be hyper rational and violent, like a Caeser. "The human livestock managers"(no morality,"Enlightened Individuals"), contrasting to a recent video by Stefan. Concordantly another Youtube video "Intro to Systems Thinking" is the manifestation of such a phenomenon imho.

"Large organisations tend to drift to the Left" I remember Stefan saying this a long while ago.

In contrast someone on the Right would be more like a Cicero. The disadvantage to the Right being the lack of individuated conscientious people.

As for the Modern Left, I guess one way of perceiving what is in fact "Modern" and not a repetition, some link to the past is required as well as distance from society. "Modern Man in search of a Soul" touches on the idea of what is modern, somewhere towards the end of the book.

 

 

 

[rainlead]

17 minutes ago, RichardY said:

A person does not have to be anxious or fearful to be on the Left, they may in fact be a figure more like a King Leah or Marcus Aurelius(stoic), a useful Idiot.

I'll say this one last time.

With very few exceptions, everyone (left or right) feels some level of anxiety and fear. We live in a terrifying world and the threats to our existence are practically infinite. If we felt no fear or anxiety it would be more of a disorder than any absurd political ideology.

The difference is how they respond to fear. The left abdicates personal responsibility, and puts faith in the state. These are effective ways of managing terror. That's part of what leads them to their political perspectives.

[RichardY]

1 minute ago, rainlead said:

I'll say this one last time.

With very few exceptions, everyone (left or right) feels some level of anxiety and fear. We live in a terrifying world and the threats to our existence are practically infinite. If we felt no fear or anxiety it would be more of a disorder than any absurd political ideology.

The difference is how they respond to fear. The left abdicates personal responsibility, and puts faith in the state. These are effective ways of managing terror. That's part of what leads them to their political perspectives.

Pfttt, how do you know? By your own admission you contradict your first assertion. And If you already know why are you even posting. How do you know what people feel? If you are inferring, other examples such as, Human wave attacks (Zulus), Young children on rollercoasters,  go against what you assert. If you believe something with certainty and haven't left the Island(Paradise, or going to) why would you fear. You use collective pronouns to describe "they, we, their" and are committing the same hypocrisy.

[rainlead]

10 hours ago, RichardY said:

If you believe something with certainty

I don't believe anything with certainty, at least not with absolute certainty. I could add qualifiers to my every statement in order to illustrate my uncertainty, but it would be tedious to write and tedious to read.

Are you trying to make the point that fear and anxiety has little or nothing to do with leftist ideology? If you want to make a case for that, I'd like to read it.

[RichardY]

Quote

If you believe something with certainty

7 hours ago, rainlead said:

I don't believe anything with certainly, at least not with absolute certainty. I could add qualifiers to my every statement in order to illustrate my uncertainty, but it would be tedious to write and tedious to read.

Taken in full context the statement is Indicative Conditional and not Accusative. As for certainty, I've been thinking about metaphysical premises. Haven't grasped the full implications, though from listening to various philosophical works Spinoza, Marcus Aurelius and Hegel, seem to me, to be more on the "Left" and absolutist. Not looked much into Descartes Hyperbolic doubt or Kant's works yet.    

9 hours ago, rainlead said:

Are you trying to make the point that fear and anxiety has little or nothing to do with leftist ideology? If you want to make a case for that, I'd like to read it.

No, and at no point was that my intention. I will however circumvent your presumptions and make a case for where, when, how and why it is the case. (mostly to expand my own ideas/cultural references, and perhaps have them weighed by others)

To begin with what is actually meant by Left and Right Wing. Google has Left wing: listed with nondescript adjectives such as "Radical", "Reforming". Right wing:" Reactionary""Conservative". But reforming in what, reactionary in what. Instead I propose that Left and Right wing are merely levels of consciousness. As society becomes in general less conscious, generally expressed in the decline of culture with more base and less complex expression, Society and Government inevitably moves towards the "left". The reasons for becoming less conscious are varied but in the short term may involve various narcotics including alcohol, but may also involve entertainment in the general culture and more crucially the undermining of morality explicitly(Postmodernism), but mostly implicitly(Taxation is theft, "Schooling", No Natural Rights).

After a traumatic incident consciousness is often lost, although a person may act conscious i.e respond to questions when asked and have no memory of the event when asked to recall later, there is no continuity, the same thing may occur when people are drunk, partially asleep or leftists. A young Capitalist has no heart, an old communist no brain. Conversely the lack of stimulus or the ability to recognise abstract counterfactual statements may delay the development of consciousness. 

Considering psychological countermeasures a few thoughts came to mind, not fully coherently formed but I think relevant. Jacob's Ladder between Heaven and Hell both the movie and bible. The Greek God Iris(messenger between Heaven and Earth) with hetrochromia. Josephs Technicolor dreamcoat. The movie 28 Days Later(inspired by Day of the Triffids) and it's sequel 28 Weeks Later involves the psychological phenomenon of dualism, the main actress in 28 Weeks Later is resistant to the Rage virus(though a Carrier) controlling her behaviour, due to her hetrochromia(or dualism). In the land of the blind, the one eyed man is king.

At the end of LOTR ROTK just before the Ring is destroyed in the movie. Frodo puts on the Ring and becomes "invisible" Absolute Power involves the loss of identity(a hollow man). Anyway Gollum bites Frodo's finger off and gets the Ring, ends up being pushed into the volcano. Once the principle of an Absolute controlling Power is destroyed, the army of Mordor feels fear and runs. Likewise in Starship Troopers the ordinary Bugs don't feel fear only the Brain Bug. The mobile infantry in contrast is shitting their pants initially in the movie, Child soldiers may not feel fear if indoctrinated and sometimes chemically drugged. 

As for Leftist Ideology how many leftists have actually read Das Kapital? There's probably more Libertarian scholars that have. Instead the idea of the influence of Cultural Marxism and Feminism is pervasive at least on the Internet. Why try to influence people intentionally towards the left? Unconscious people easy to exploit if not "triggered". 

 

Is there Life on Mars?

 

 

[rainlead]

11 minutes ago, RichardY said:

Instead I propose that Left and Right wing are merely levels of consciousness. As society becomes in general less conscious, generally expressed in the decline of culture with more base and less complex expression, Society and Government inevitably moves towards the "left".

You may be conflating consciousness with conscientiousness. There is a strong correlation between conscientiousness and conservatism. Conscientiousness is also associated with personal responsibility.

[RichardY]

1 hour ago, rainlead said:

You may be conflating consciousness with conscientiousness. There is a strong correlation between conscientiousness and conservatism. Conscientiousness is also associated with personal responsibility.

You can be consciously Evil. Why does Evil have to be accidental? Besides if you're atheistic even more incentive. Know you are personally responsible and cover up the crime(an admission of responsibility). Besides if you have high level of conscious you can run a simulation(daydream) of say chopping people up or play GTA or DOOM, watch SAW, FURY or that new play with Trump in it. In contrast if your not conscious, what's stopping you from acting out demonic unconscious desires and having them perhaps in part tamed. I think a lot of people seem to be more in line with the Randian Sub-conscious mind (Tabula Rasa), probably because their unconscious desires are repressed. Take the Japanese, Germans, Scandinavians, Americans, British or Mongols for example, high levels of consciousness(High deferral of Gratification) capable of extreme brutality. Maybe not acting in Europe because they want epic bloodshed, at least a part, especially with stored up resentment. Why go for small-scale bloodletting or rubbish leftist plays, why not wait do nothing and have fountains of blood. Can just then say well that's war and abdicate personal responsibility later, "I know nothing Mr Faulty". I was working contributing to the economy, didn't bother counting demographics besides think of all those high-tech Arab and Sub-Saharan Companies out there with there skilled workers etc.