Hello there, fellow human beings! Welcome to my little space on the internet. As you can see here, this is NOT the average usual left or right wing or mainstream media person's blog. In fact, I intend to not only post some of my own views, but more importantly, challenge many of the views of both the left & right, do a little occasional philosophy, promote the truth, truth people, the alternate media, & above all, the values of liberty, peace, & prosperity, in that order.
With the amount of cheating and fraud that will be uncovered, not only will this force other swing states to do the same, but this might even be the downfall of the Democratic Party.
I’ll break this up into 5 parts, with the 4th one talking about solutions, & the 5th one talking about the left’s prejudice towards Jews. When reading, just change the word “Jew”/”Jewish” to “Muslim”, “Judaism” to “Islam”, “Talmud” to “Hadith”, “Gentile” to “Infidel”, “Israel” to “Saudi Arabia” or “Iran” & so on & so forth. Re-read what I have written. Play some devil’s advocate. You’ll understand what I mean. If you want the other side of the discussion, look elsewhere. I’m here to present my side of the case, specifically. And if you don’t agree with or believe be, can you not take several minutes to look at the source provided before coming to your conclusion? If Karl Marx said that the sky is blue, it does not mean that the sky is yellow. I say that to mean that just because you disagree with a source, even if it really had bad ideas, doesn’t mean that it is wrong.
Part 1: Israel.
These videos summ up the issue (if you’re not in a mood to watch them, scroll down & I’ll articulate in text);
What the Media Won't Tell You About Israel | reallygraceful
In late July of 2018, a bunch of White Helmets (who are just a supporting faction for the Syrian rebels) got up to Israel’s border. Instead of shooting or even blocking them at the border, what did Israel’s Government do? They let them in, not even arresting/detaining the rebels.
And more recently, Israel has fired missiles into Syria at an 40+ year old Iranian Air Force cargo plane… that is carrying troops & items back from Syria to Iran as part of the agreement that included Iran leaving Syria. Why did they do that? How are the Iranian troops you want out of Syria supposed to get out without their ride? The IDF didn’t even try to firing missiles at the Syrian rebels.
So there goes the “Israel is fighting terrorism” narrative. If you’re wondering why Israel is doing what it is doing in Syria, watch the documentary “Syria: Israel’s Covert War on the Levant”;
Part 2: God’s Chosen People, identity politics, & taking criticism.
Just as there are militant, fundamentalist Muslim bigots, there are nepotistic, tribalistic Jewish bigots. And there were actually anti-peace protests in Israel. Do they rightfully represent all Jews? Of course not! If not, then why does a single Islamist represent all or a strong majority of Muslims? The video How Calling People Islamophobic Actually Enables Bigotry explains what I’m going to talk about. Just change the word “Muslim” for ”Jew”, “Islamic” for “Jewish/Judaic”, “Islamophobe/Islamophobic” for “Antisemite/Antisemitc”, “Maajid Nawaz” for “Gilad Atzmon”, & so on & so forth.
Lots of you like to say “tragedy is not a contest”, “oppression is not a contest”, & so on & so forth. But why is it that Ben Shapiro (who identifies as being Orthodox Jewish) & Milo Yiannopoulos (who is part Jewish but makes a big deal out of it), who criticizes identity politics for everyone else practice Jewish-Zionist identity politics? Zionism is identity politics for Jews like feminism is identity politics for Women, the Black Power movement for Black people, etc. (Though ironically some Zionists actually didn’t care so much for Jews: History shows that anti-Semitism and pro-Zionism have never been mutually exclusive.) Shapiro & Yiannopoulos, if you’re reading this, just so you know, some people actually see right through this. They see your practicing of identity politics, which discredits your anti-identity politics message, & sometimes even push them into their own identity politics (ie White Nationalism). A case study for this is ramzpaul, though at least he is articulate in his criticisms in his video.
Ditto for Squatting Slav TV, who wasn’t worth getting into for being even less articulate than ramzpaul. You’re really doing the anti-identity politics crowd a disservice when you oppose identity politics for everyone except for your own (perceived) in-group. I myself am 1/8 Chinese. Does that mean that I should support China over India? No (I support India over China because they’re friendlier to the outside world, especially the West, & basic human rights is at least a concept, in contrast with China). Do I support China harassing & bullying other Southeast Asian countries becuase I'm part Chinese? No. Do I like big Chinese businesses buying up businesses in the outside world, simply because I’m part Chinese? No. Am I at all happy about the Communist Chinese persecuting Muslims & Christians, considering how I have more in common with the typical non-religious Han Chinese person than a Uighur Muslim? No. And that is considering how I, an atheist, would’ve been persecuted by Christians throughout history (&, to this day, in parts of Africa), & many Muslims would also persecute me. I have more Vietnamese (3/8) than Chinese (1/8) heritage in me. Do I hate or hold some grudge against Chinese people for what they historically did & are trying to do to Vietnam? No. Continued, there are other oppressed ethnic & religious groups in the world, & they don’t get their own countries. I think that identity politics & victim hood are equally wrong & stupid, regardless of who practices it. Also, just because one hates an ideology does not mean that they hate a person. Most of us agree that smoking, an action, is stupid. That does not mean that we think that smokers, who are people, are stupid. People who criticize Israeli policies are not hating on Jewish people. Even when that’s the case, the hatred comes from what hated group DOES, not what they are. I am concerned that what the Israeli government is doing & the constant conflation with the State of Israel with the Jewish people will create backlash against the latter, & the overuse of “Jew hater” accusations by partisan Israel supporters will not help this, & is crying wolf. Jews & Israelis shouldn’t shun criticism of their religion, culture, &/or actions any more than anyone else. How would any group or individual improve themselves if they do not listen to criticism? Similarly, if a business does not listen to the criticism of its customers, it won’t change its goods &/or services, & will be less successful. I see a parallel between (usually Zionist) Jews & Israelis attacking non-Zionist Jews such as Gilad Atzmon, Jeff Blankfort, Norman Finkelstein & many others while doing little to nothing to address their arguments & how proponents of Black victimhood attack Black American Conservatives & libertarians like Thomas Sowell, Walter Williams, Larry Elder, Taleeb Starkes, & Candace Owens, calling them names like “Coon”, “Uncle Tom”, “Sellout”, “Race Traitor”, & so on & so forth for challenging the Black victimhood narrative. Why does the “you’re only criticizing x because I’m Jewish” hold any more social weight than “”you’re only criticizing X because I’m black”? Are we not allowed to entertain the thought that a “Jew card” may exist like a “Black Card” does? I can’t be the only person in the world to see this parallel. I do see a kind of racism/faithism from Evangelical Christian Neoconservatives towards Jews, but unlike the left’s paternalistic racism towards Blacks & other minorities, type of attitude I see from typical Evangelical Neoconservatives toward Jews is favoritism, superiority &, especially, exceptionalism. Spend some time looking around conservative leaning sites & social media profiles, using the search terms “God’s Chosen People” & you should see what I mean (if not, ask me & I’ll show you some examples). A case study for how different standards are held differently by right when it comes to Muslims & Jews is Howard Stern, as talked about in the video ‘Howard Stern to the Woodshed’.
“I want you to imagine what would happen if somebody said on the air, on a major syndicated radio show, if they said on the air, the following; "Kill the Jews! Kill them! Drop a nuclear bomb on them! Give them nuclear warfare! It's the only thing they understand like the bastards that they are! Drop a bomb on their schools! Five-year olds! Kill them all!" What really happened was that the crowd was bribed with a cake & candy to look like they were celebrating. The crowd was tiny. The entire street wasn't shown. And the footage was only 20 seconds long. Talk about something that was "out of context". See the double standards? How would Howard Stern probably feel if someone went around, collect racist things said by Jewish individuals, & uphold what they say to represent all Jews? I am aware of the fact that he himself is Jewish (not Evangelical Christian). If you want to stop anti-Jewish hatred, one way to do it is to stop overusing the “antisemite” & “Jew hater” slurs to try & shut down any discussion that does not go your way. That does nothing to change anyone’s mind, & wears out the stigma. You do not want to give merit to the saying “"To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize”. Instead of saying “Author of video x is wrong & thus an anti-Semite”, make your own response to that video, pulling it apart & showing why it is wrong. An article explaining my reasons why Jews should NOT be hated as a collective (which is also a punch at the Alt-right & related circles) will be linked later in this article. I love Israel - that's why I'm criticising it today Is it anti-Semitic to ask whether Israel has the right to exist?
"I am a Zionist but that doesn't mean I don't acknowledge Israel's faults. Israel is not above reproach. It is run by human beings who are not perfect. No country is above reproach. It's dangerous to think otherwise." - (((Melissa L))) @Agent99XXX
"I support Israel's right to exist. I'm a jew w/ family in Israel, but I have a question: What's the difference between Palestinian suicide bombers blowing themselves up, killing the innocent, and Israeli snipers killing unarmed women & children protesting? Just curious" - Brian Krassenstein @krassenstein
I can go on & on. Instead of screaming “ANTISEMITE!” & dropping the mike, respond to the content of the people that you disagree with (I will post links to sources that you can do this with at the end), & hold debates. Dialogue good: Ryan Dawson debating an American Christian soldier who has visited Israel;
Adam Green/Know More News debating with… Owen Shroyer of Infowars.
Zionist Shlomo Gordon.
Zionist Organization Of America's Antar Davidson
Ryan Dawson of the Anti NeoCon Report: Twitter Patreon Vk Facebook (Ryan Dawson gets regularly banned from Facebook, so better use his other social media) Adam Green of Know More News: Know More News | Contact Patreon Twitter Facebook Robert Inlakesh: AXIS OF RESISTANCE Patreon Facebook Twitter If you can’t get someone to debate, then why not at least create articles, audio &/or videos that actually debunk that your opponents say, such as what Ryan Dawson did with Alex Jones?
Part 3: Miscellaneous.
Ironically, IRAN, itself a hyper-authoritarian hellhole, does a better job at protecting Christians in the middle east through supporting Hezbollah & the secular Syrian government than Israel, not that it’s something to brag about (Iran is doing what it’s doing out of self-interest, not out of the good of its heart, of course). 'They Accept Us as We Are;' Christians Join Forces With Muslim Group Hezbollah to Fight ISIS in Lebanon Christians Threatened By ISIS In Lebanon Turn To Hezbollah For Help Lebanon finally elected a president — a Christian ally of Hezbollah If you’re an (Evangelical Christian Conservative) Israel supporter who seriously cares about human rights & doesn’t follow John Wick morality (at least John Wick doesn’t harm innocent people), if this doesn’t make you reconsider your beliefs, I do not know what will. And almost no one other than Evangelical Christian Holy Rollers & the like really care about Biblical prophecies. Jim Lobe On Antiwar Radio with scott horton part 2 of 3 Seriously, lay off John Hagee & Pat Robertson. The End Times Predictions are just delusional. You really cannot complain about Muslims using their religion to justify what they’re doing if you use your religion to justify what you’re doing. No one else wants to be involved in your “Holier than thou” p*****g match with Islamists & religious groups that are not your own. I can go on, & on, & on for hours on end about what Israel’s government & its partners have done. But, instead of listing their wrongs here, I’ll link to sources to listen to. I’ll lead a horse to water. I can care less what religion you practice. But please, follow a political philosophy that excludes religion. Identity politics is wrong & stupid, Jew or Gentile. I’d still definitely prefer a Jewish libertarian over an atheist Authoritarian (& I say this as an atheist) or Muslim Authoritarian etc, any time. Oh, & remember the rift between Obama & Netanyahu that I mentioned? Netanyahu hated Obama because he’s actually a racist (according to Ryan Dawson, that is), which is plausible; Netanyahu openly boasts of Israel's war on Africans Netanyahu's racist mudslinging against Arabs
This is because, under a one state solution, Palestinians would be offered to emigrate (leave), become a permanent resident or full citizen, & at the same time Israelis can go into the West Bank & even Gaza without fighting with the Palestinians so much, making the issue of settlements a moot point, & there are less divisions in society. What I have just said was inspired by something Ryan Dawson said in one of his late 2018 podcasts (forgot which one exactly. If any one of you know what I’m talking about, please let me know in the comments). I do not want a situation like former Rhodesia, now Zimbawe, or South Africa today where people are having private property taken from them, with terrible economic & other consequences. Not to mention how unethical it would be to force people who have already been living in some place for a long time out of said place. If you’re not going to go ahead & implement a One-state solution, remove the settlements from the West Bank, allow the West Bank to trade with the outside world more, & do the same by ending the blockade of Gaza. Stop shooting people simply for being close to the border without actually crossing (at least). Stop harassing & persecuting people in Israel proper. Put the IDF & Border Police on the border where they should be. As mentioned before, even some philosophical Zionists support this.
Part 5. Is the left antisemitic?
I challenge you to share this article with progressives & ask then “do you think this article is antisemitic?” Many on the left do see Jews as white , & Israelis as white people of the middle east. But criticizing Jewish culture &/or Judaism is off-limits, or they at least shut up when someone screams “antisemite!” at them. (2:14 - 4:41) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QkRAKOP3kFw I’m guessing that they actually can’t really make up their minds on the issue. ———————————————————————————————————————— Rules when responding to this answer: Do not bother calling me or anyone else an “anti-Semite” or otherwise try to derail, sidetrack, or divert the discussion. If you need to say that to me, do it here (my comments sections are always open. I even allow spam comments); The Jewish Question, the Alt-Right, & authoritarianism; my most nuanced article yet? I have never advocated anti-Jewish hatred or blamed all or even a simple majority or Jews for any problem. I am mainly talking about a minority within a minority. I’m done explaining that I do not hate Jews as a collective, & why. My thoughts & opinions on Jews not what the answer is really about. Israel & powerful & influential Zionists is more what this answer is about. If you wish to discuss rather or not nepotism explains Jewish over-representation in media, business & government, comment on We need to talk: Adressing the myth of Jewish nepotism & the Zionist Occupation Government conspiracy theory
If you wish to discuss issues within Judaism & Jewish culture, comment on this article. I do this because there is a lack of discussion, let alone anything well-informed or even truly nuanced on the topic (I don’t want literal Neo-Nazis to dominate the discussion). I do believe in the saying that “sunlight is the best disinfectant”.
Racist Neocon now trying to smear my podcast guests.
You can avoid that by simply directly listening or reading to whoever you have a disagreement with, ie actually taking what your opponent has said & directly respond to what they have said. You can thank other Israel supporters I’ve dealt with for making these commenting policies, considering how much they use character assassinations (which is pointed out in the two documentaries about the Israeli lobby). I am done with that. I will not allow this comments section to become a character assassination range.
Soon, I will come up with an article that will be called "Debunking and refuting intersectionality once and for all". It will feature points from videos in the playlist Debunking and refuting intersectionality. This article can also function as a comments section and forum to discuss how "Industrial Society and Its Future" critiques leftism. Without further ado, here are the relevant excerpts of his manifesto, "Industrial Society and Its Future". 1. The Psychology of Modern Leftism (2:21) 2. Feelings of Inferiority (10:21) 3. Oversocialization (9:07) 4. Surrogate Activities (5:41) 5. The Danger of Leftism (17:25) The full manifesto, including notes THE PSYCHOLOGY OF MODERN LEFTISM 6. Almost everyone will agree that we live in a deeply troubled society. One of the most widespread manifestations of the craziness of our world is leftism, so a discussion of the psychology of leftism can serve as an introduction to the discussion of the problems of modern society in general. 7. But what is leftism? During the first half of the 20th century leftism could have been practically identified with socialism. Today the movement is fragmented and it is not clear who can properly be called a leftist. When we speak of leftists in this article we have in mind mainly socialists, collectivists, “politically correct” types, feminists, gay and disability activists, animal rights activists and the like. But not everyone who is associated with one of these movements is a leftist. What we are trying to get at in discussing leftism is not so much movement or an ideology as a psychological type, or rather a collection of related types. Thus, what we mean by “leftism” will emerge more clearly in the course of our discussion of leftist psychology. (Also, see paragraphs 227-230.) 8. Even so, our conception of leftism will remain a good deal less clear than we would wish, but there doesn’t seem to be any remedy for this. All we are trying to do here is indicate in a rough and approximate way the two psychological tendencies that we believe are the main driving force of modern leftism. We by no means claim to be telling the WHOLE truth about leftist psychology. Also, our discussion is meant to apply to modern leftism only. We leave open the question of the extent to which our discussion could be applied to the leftists of the 19th and early 20th centuries. 9. The two psychological tendencies that underlie modern leftism we call “feelings of inferiority” and “oversocialization.” Feelings of inferiority are characteristic of modern leftism as a whole, while oversocialization is characteristic only of a certain segment of modern leftism; but this segment is highly influential. FEELINGS OF INFERIORITY 10. By “feelings of inferiority” we mean not only inferiority feelings in the strict sense but a whole spectrum of related traits; low self-esteem, feelings of powerlessness, depressive tendencies, defeatism, guilt, self- hatred, etc. We argue that modern leftists tend to have some such feelings (possibly more or less repressed) and that these feelings are decisive in determining the direction of modern leftism. 11. When someone interprets as derogatory almost anything that is said about him (or about groups with whom he identifies) we conclude that he has inferiority feelings or low self-esteem. This tendency is pronounced among minority rights activists, whether or not they belong to the minority groups whose rights they defend. They are hypersensitive about the words used to designate minorities and about anything that is said concerning minorities. The terms “negro,” “oriental,” “handicapped” or “chick” for an African, an Asian, a disabled person or a woman originally had no derogatory connotation. “Broad” and “chick” were merely the feminine equivalents of “guy,” “dude” or “fellow.” The negative connotations have been attached to these terms by the activists themselves. Some animal rights activists have gone so far as to reject the word “pet” and insist on its replacement by “animal companion.” Leftish anthropologists go to great lengths to avoid saying anything about primitive peoples that could conceivably be interpreted as negative. They want to replace the world “primitive” by “nonliterate.” They seem almost paranoid about anything that might suggest that any primitive culture is inferior to our own. (We do not mean to imply that primitive cultures ARE inferior to ours. We merely point out the hypersensitivity of leftish anthropologists.) 12. Those who are most sensitive about “politically incorrect” terminology are not the average black ghetto- dweller, Asian immigrant, abused woman or disabled person, but a minority of activists, many of whom do not even belong to any “oppressed” group but come from privileged strata of society. Political correctness has its stronghold among university professors, who have secure employment with comfortable salaries, and the majority of whom are heterosexual white males from middle- to upper-middle-class families. 13. Many leftists have an intense identification with the problems of groups that have an image of being weak (women), defeated (American Indians), repellent (homosexuals) or otherwise inferior. The leftists themselves feel that these groups are inferior. They would never admit to themselves that they have such feelings, but it is precisely because they do see these groups as inferior that they identify with their problems. (We do not mean to suggest that women, Indians, etc. ARE inferior; we are only making a point about leftist psychology.) 14. Feminists are desperately anxious to prove that women are as strong and as capable as men. Clearly they are nagged by a fear that women may NOT be as strong and as capable as men. 15. Leftists tend to hate anything that has an image of being strong, good and successful. They hate America, they hate Western civilization, they hate white males, they hate rationality. The reasons that leftists give for hating the West, etc. clearly do not correspond with their real motives. They SAY they hate the West because it is warlike, imperialistic, sexist, ethnocentric and so forth, but where these same faults appear in socialist countries or in primitive cultures, the leftist finds excuses for them, or at best he GRUDGINGLY admits that they exist; whereas he ENTHUSIASTICALLY points out (and often greatly exaggerates) these faults where they appear in Western civilization. Thus it is clear that these faults are not the leftist’s real motive for hating America and the West. He hates America and the West because they are strong and successful. 16. Words like “self-confidence,” “self-reliance,” “initiative,” “enterprise,” “optimism,” etc., play little role in the liberal and leftist vocabulary. The leftist is anti-individualistic, pro-collectivist. He wants society to solve everyone’s problems for them, satisfy everyone’s needs for them, take care of them. He is not the sort of person who has an inner sense of confidence in his ability to solve his own problems and satisfy his own needs. The leftist is antagonistic to the concept of competition because, deep inside, he feels like a loser. 17. Art forms that appeal to modern leftish intellectuals tend to focus on sordidness, defeat and despair, or else they take an orgiastic tone, throwing off rational control as if there were no hope of accomplishing anything through rational calculation and all that was left was to immerse oneself in the sensations of the moment. 18. Modern leftish philosophers tend to dismiss reason, science, objective reality and to insist that everything is culturally relative. It is true that one can ask serious questions about the foundations of scientific knowledge and about how, if at all, the concept of objective reality can be defined. But it is obvious that modern leftish philosophers are not simply cool-headed logicians systematically analyzing the foundations of knowledge. They are deeply involved emotionally in their attack on truth and reality. They attack these concepts because of their own psychological needs. For one thing, their attack is an outlet for hostility, and, to the extent that it is successful, it satisfies the drive for power. More importantly, the leftist hates science and rationality because they classify certain beliefs as true (i.e., successful, superior) and other beliefs as false (i.e., failed, inferior). The leftist’s feelings of inferiority run so deep that he cannot tolerate any classification of some things as successful or superior and other things as failed or inferior. This also underlies the rejection by many leftists of the concept of mental illness and of the utility of IQ tests. Leftists are antagonistic to genetic explanations of human abilities or behavior because such explanations tend to make some persons appear superior or inferior to others. Leftists prefer to give society the credit or blame for an individual’s ability or lack of it. Thus if a person is “inferior” it is not his fault, but society’s, because he has not been brought up properly. 19. The leftist is not typically the kind of person whose feelings of inferiority make him a braggart, an egotist, a bully, a self-promoter, a ruthless competitor. This kind of person has not wholly lost faith in himself. He has a deficit in his sense of power and self-worth, but he can still conceive of himself as having the capacity to be strong, and his efforts to make himself strong produce his unpleasant behavior. [1] But the leftist is too far gone for that. His feelings of inferiority are so ingrained that he cannot conceive of himself as individually strong and valuable. Hence the collectivism of the leftist. He can feel strong only as a member of a large organization or a mass movement with which he identifies himself. 20. Notice the masochistic tendency of leftist tactics. Leftists protest by lying down in front of vehicles, they intentionally provoke police or racists to abuse them, etc. These tactics may often be effective, but many leftists use them not as a means to an end but because they PREFER masochistic tactics. Self-hatred is a leftist trait. 21. Leftists may claim that their activism is motivated by compassion or by moral principles, and moral principle does play a role for the leftist of the oversocialized type. But compassion and moral principle cannot be the main motives for leftist activism. Hostility is too prominent a component of leftist behavior; so is the drive for power. Moreover, much leftist behavior is not rationally calculated to be of benefit to the people whom the leftists claim to be trying to help. For example, if one believes that affirmative action is good for black people, does it make sense to demand affirmative action in hostile or dogmatic terms? Obviously it would be more productive to take a diplomatic and conciliatory approach that would make at least verbal and symbolic concessions to white people who think that affirmative action discriminates against them. But leftist activists do not take such an approach because it would not satisfy their emotional needs. Helping black people is not their real goal. Instead, race problems serve as an excuse for them to express their own hostility and frustrated need for power. In doing so they actually harm black people, because the activists’ hostile attitude toward the white majority tends to intensify race hatred. OVERSOCIALIZATION 24. Psychologists use the term “socialization” to designate the process by which children are trained to think and act as society demands. A person is said to be well socialized if he believes in and obeys the moral code of his society and fits in well as a functioning part of that society. It may seem senseless to say that many leftists are oversocialized, since the leftist is perceived as a rebel. Nevertheless, the position can be defended. Many leftists are not such rebels as they seem. 25. The moral code of our society is so demanding that no one can think, feel and act in a completely moral way. For example, we are not supposed to hate anyone, yet almost everyone hates somebody at some time or other, whether he admits it to himself or not. Some people are so highly socialized that the attempt to think, feel and act morally imposes a severe burden on them. In order to avoid feelings of guilt, they continually have to deceive themselves about their own motives and find moral explanations for feelings and actions that in reality have a non-moral origin. We use the term “oversocialized” to describe such people. [2] 26. Oversocialization can lead to low self-esteem, a sense of powerlessness, defeatism, guilt, etc. One of the most important means by which our society socializes children is by making them feel ashamed of behavior or speech that is contrary to society’s expectations. If this is overdone, or if a particular child is especially susceptible to such feelings, he ends by feeling ashamed of HIMSELF. Moreover the thought and the behavior of the oversocialized person are more restricted by society’s expectations than are those of the lightly socialized person. The majority of people engage in a significant amount of naughty behavior. They lie, they commit petty thefts, they break traffic laws, they goof off at work, they hate someone, they say spiteful things or they use some underhanded trick to get ahead of the other guy. The oversocialized person cannot do these things, or if he does do them he generates in himself a sense of shame and self-hatred. The oversocialized person cannot even experience, without guilt, thoughts or feelings that are contrary to the accepted morality; he cannot think “unclean” thoughts. And socialization is not just a matter of morality; we are socialized to conform to many norms of behavior that do not fall under the heading of morality. Thus the oversocialized person is kept on a psychological leash and spends his life running on rails that society has laid down for him. In many oversocialized people this results in a sense of constraint and powerlessness that can be a severe hardship. We suggest that oversocialization is among the more serious cruelties that human beings inflict on one another. 27. We argue that a very important and influential segment of the modern left is oversocialized and that their oversocialization is of great importance in determining the direction of modern leftism. Leftists of the oversocialized type tend to be intellectuals or members of the upper-middle class. Notice that university intellectuals [3] constitute the most highly socialized segment of our society and also the most left-wing segment. 28. The leftist of the oversocialized type tries to get off his psychological leash and assert his autonomy by rebelling. But usually he is not strong enough to rebel against the most basic values of society. Generally speaking, the goals of today’s leftists are NOT in conflict with the accepted morality. On the contrary, the left takes an accepted moral principle, adopts it as its own, and then accuses mainstream society of violating that principle. Examples: racial equality, equality of the sexes, helping poor people, peace as opposed to war, nonviolence generally, freedom of expression, kindness to animals. More fundamentally, the duty of the individual to serve society and the duty of society to take care of the individual. All these have been deeply rooted values of our society (or at least of its middle and upper classes [4] for a long time. These values are explicitly or implicitly expressed or presupposed in most of the material presented to us by the mainstream communications media and the educational system. Leftists, especially those of the oversocialized type, usually do not rebel against these principles but justify their hostility to society by claiming (with some degree of truth) that society is not living up to these principles. 29. Here is an illustration of the way in which the oversocialized leftist shows his real attachment to the conventional attitudes of our society while pretending to be in rebellion against it. Many leftists push for affirmative action, for moving black people into high-prestige jobs, for improved education in black schools and more money for such schools; the way of life of the black “underclass” they regard as a social disgrace. They want to integrate the black man into the system, make him a business executive, a lawyer, a scientist just like upper-middle-class white people. The leftists will reply that the last thing they want is to make the black man into a copy of the white man; instead, they want to preserve African American culture. But in what does this preservation of African American culture consist? It can hardly consist in anything more than eating black-style food, listening to black-style music, wearing black-style clothing and going to a black- style church or mosque. In other words, it can express itself only in superficial matters. In all ESSENTIAL respects most leftists of the oversocialized type want to make the black man conform to white, middle-class ideals. They want to make him study technical subjects, become an executive or a scientist, spend his life climbing the status ladder to prove that black people are as good as white. They want to make black fathers “responsible,” they want black gangs to become nonviolent, etc. But these are exactly the values of the industrial-technological system. The system couldn’t care less what kind of music a man listens to, what kind of clothes he wears or what religion he believes in as long as he studies in school, holds a respectable job, climbs the status ladder, is a “responsible” parent, is nonviolent and so forth. In effect, however much he may deny it, the oversocialized leftist wants to integrate the black man into the system and make him adopt its values. 30. We certainly do not claim that leftists, even of the oversocialized type, NEVER rebel against the fundamental values of our society. Clearly they sometimes do. Some oversocialized leftists have gone so far as to rebel against one of modern society’s most important principles by engaging in physical violence. By their own account, violence is for them a form of “liberation.” In other words, by committing violence they break through the psychological restraints that have been trained into them. Because they are oversocialized these restraints have been more confining for them than for others; hence their need to break free of them. But they usually justify their rebellion in terms of mainstream values. If they engage in violence they claim to be fighting against racism or the like. 31. We realize that many objections could be raised to the foregoing thumbnail sketch of leftist psychology. The real situation is complex, and anything like a complete description of it would take several volumes even if the necessary data were available. We claim only to have indicated very roughly the two most important tendencies in the psychology of modern leftism. 32. The problems of the leftist are indicative of the problems of our society as a whole. Low self-esteem, depressive tendencies and defeatism are not restricted to the left. Though they are especially noticeable in the left, they are widespread in our society. And today’s society tries to socialize us to a greater extent than any previous society. We are even told by experts how to eat, how to exercise, how to make love, how to raise our kids and so forth. SURROGATE ACTIVITIES 38. But not every leisured aristocrat becomes bored and demoralized. For example, the emperor Hirohito, instead of sinking into decadent hedonism, devoted himself to marine biology, a field in which he became distinguished. When people do not have to exert themselves to satisfy their physical needs they often set up artificial goals for themselves. In many cases they then pursue these goals with the same energy and emotional involvement that they otherwise would have put into the search for physical necessities. Thus the aristocrats of the Roman Empire had their literary pretensions; many European aristocrats a few centuries ago invested tremendous time and energy in hunting, though they certainly didn’t need the meat; other aristocracies have competed for status through elaborate displays of wealth; and a few aristocrats, like Hirohito, have turned to science. 39. We use the term “surrogate activity” to designate an activity that is directed toward an artificial goal that people set up for themselves merely in order to have some goal to work toward, or let us say, merely for the sake of the “fulfillment” that they get from pursuing the goal. Here is a rule of thumb for the identification of surrogate activities. Given a person who devotes much time and energy to the pursuit of goal X, ask yourself this: If he had to devote most of his time and energy to satisfying his biological needs, and if that effort required him to use his physical and mental faculties in a varied and interesting way, would he feel seriously deprived because he did not attain goal X? If the answer is no, then the person’s pursuit of goal X is a surrogate activity. Hirohito’s studies in marine biology clearly constituted a surrogate activity, since it is pretty certain that if Hirohito had had to spend his time working at interesting non-scientific tasks in order to obtain the necessities of life, he would not have felt deprived because he didn’t know all about the anatomy and life-cycles of marine animals. On the other hand the pursuit of sex and love (for example) is not a surrogate activity, because most people, even if their existence were otherwise satisfactory, would feel deprived if they passed their lives without ever having a relationship with a member of the opposite sex. (But pursuit of an excessive amount of sex, more than one really needs, can be a surrogate activity.) 40. In modern industrial society only minimal effort is necessary to satisfy one’s physical needs. It is enough to go through a training program to acquire some petty technical skill, then come to work on time and exert the very modest effort needed to hold a job. The only requirements are a moderate amount of intelligence and, most of all, simple OBEDIENCE. If one has those, society takes care of one from cradle to grave. (Yes, there is an underclass that cannot take the physical necessities for granted, but we are speaking here of mainstream society.) Thus it is not surprising that modern society is full of surrogate activities. These include scientific work, athletic achievement, humanitarian work, artistic and literary creation, climbing the corporate ladder, acquisition of money and material goods far beyond the point at which they cease to give any additional physical satisfaction, and social activism when it addresses issues that are not important for the activist personally, as in the case of white activists who work for the rights of nonwhite minorities. These are not always PURE surrogate activities, since for many people they may be motivated in part by needs other than the need to have some goal to pursue. Scientific work may be motivated in part by a drive for prestige, artistic creation by a need to express feelings, militant social activism by hostility. But for most people who pursue them, these activities are in large part surrogate activities. For example, the majority of scientists will probably agree that the “fulfillment” they get from their work is more important than the money and prestige they earn. 41. For many if not most people, surrogate activities are less satisfying than the pursuit of real goals (that is, goals that people would want to attain even if their need for the power process were already fulfilled). One indication of this is the fact that, in many or most cases, people who are deeply involved in surrogate activities are never satisfied, never at rest. Thus the money-maker constantly strives for more and more wealth. The scientist no sooner solves one problem than he moves on to the next. The long-distance runner drives himself to run always farther and faster. Many people who pursue surrogate activities will say that they get far more fulfillment from these activities than they do from the “mundane” business of satisfying their biological needs, but that is because in our society the effort needed to satisfy the biological needs has been reduced to triviality. More importantly, in our society people do not satisfy their biological needs AUTONOMOUSLY but by functioning as parts of an immense social machine. In contrast, people generally have a great deal of autonomy in pursuing their surrogate activities. THE DANGER OF LEFTISM 213. Because of their need for rebellion and for membership in a movement, leftists or persons of similar psychological type often are unattracted to a rebellious or activist movement whose goals and membership are not initially leftist. The resulting influx of leftish types can easily turn a non-leftist movement into a leftist one, so that leftist goals replace or distort the original goals of the movement. 214. To avoid this, a movement that exalts nature and opposes technology must take a resolutely anti-leftist stance and must avoid all collaboration with leftists. Leftism is in the long run inconsistent with wild nature, with human freedom and with the elimination of modern technology. Leftism is collectivist; it seeks to bind together the entire world (both nature and the human race) into a unified whole. But this implies management of nature and of human life by organized society, and it requires advanced technology. You can’t have a united world without rapid transportation and communication, you can’t make all people love one another without sophisticated psychological techniques, you can’t have a “planned society” without the necessary technological base. Above all, leftism is driven by the need for power, and the leftist seeks power on a collective basis, through identification with a mass movement or an organization. Leftism is unlikely ever to give up technology, because technology is too valuable a source of collective power. 215. The anarchist [34] too seeks power, but he seeks it on an individual or small-group basis; he wants individuals and small groups to be able to control the circumstances of their own lives. He opposes technology because it makes small groups dependent on large organizations. 216. Some leftists may seem to oppose technology, but they will oppose it only so long as they are outsiders and the technological system is controlled by non-leftists. If leftism ever becomes dominant in society, so that the technological system becomes a tool in the hands of leftists, they will enthusiastically use it and promote its growth. In doing this they will be repeating a pattern that leftism has shown again and again in the past. When the Bolsheviks in Russia were outsiders, they vigorously opposed censorship and the secret police, they advocated self-determination for ethnic minorities, and so forth; but as soon as they came into power themselves, they imposed a tighter censorship and created a more ruthless secret police than any that had existed under the tsars, and they oppressed ethnic minorities at least as much as the tsars had done. In the United States, a couple of decades ago when leftists were a minority in our universities, leftist professors were vigorous proponents of academic freedom, but today, in those of our universities where leftists have become dominant, they have shown themselves ready to take away from everyone else’s academic freedom. (This is “political correctness.”) The same will happen with leftists and technology: They will use it to oppress everyone else if they ever get it under their own control. 217. In earlier revolutions, leftists of the most power-hungry type, repeatedly, have first cooperated with non-leftist revolutionaries, as well as with leftists of a more libertarian inclination, and later have double- crossed them to seize power for themselves. Robespierre did this in the French Revolution, the Bolsheviks did it in the Russian Revolution, the communists did it in Spain in 1938 and Castro and his followers did it in Cuba. Given the past history of leftism, it would be utterly foolish for non-leftist revolutionaries today to collaborate with leftists. 218. Various thinkers have pointed out that leftism is a kind of religion. Leftism is not a religion in the strict sense because leftist doctrine does not postulate the existence of any supernatural being. But, for the leftist, leftism plays a psychological role much like that which religion plays for some people. The leftist NEEDS to believe in leftism; it plays a vital role in his psychological economy. His beliefs are not easily modified by logic or facts. He has a deep conviction that leftism is morally Right with a capital R, and that he has not only a right but a duty to impose leftist morality on everyone. (However, many of the people we are referring to as “leftists” do not think of themselves as leftists and would not describe their system of beliefs as leftism. We use the term “leftism” because we don’t know of any better words to designate the spectrum of related creeds that includes the feminist, gay rights, political correctness, etc., movements, and because these movements have a strong affinity with the old left. See paragraphs 227-230.) 219. Leftism is a totalitarian force. Wherever leftism is in a position of power it tends to invade every private corner and force every thought into a leftist mold. In part this is because of the quasi-religious character of leftism; everything contrary to leftist beliefs represents Sin. More importantly, leftism is a totalitarian force because of the leftists’ drive for power. The leftist seeks to satisfy his need for power through identification with a social movement and he tries to go through the power process by helping to pursue and attain the goals of the movement (see paragraph 83). But no matter how far the movement has gone in attaining its goals the leftist is never satisfied, because his activism is a surrogate activity (see paragraph 41). That is, the leftist’s real motive is not to attain the ostensible goals of leftism; in reality he is motivated by the sense of power he gets from struggling for and then reaching a social goal. [35] Consequently the leftist is never satisfied with the goals he has already attained; his need for the power process leads him always to pursue some new goal. The leftist wants equal opportunities for minorities. When that is attained he insists on statistical equality of achievement by minorities. And as long as anyone harbors in some corner of his mind a negative attitude toward some minority, the leftist has to re-educated him. And ethnic minorities are not enough; no one can be allowed to have a negative attitude toward homosexuals, disabled people, fat people, old people, ugly people, and on and on and on. It’s not enough that the public should be informed about the hazards of smoking; a warning has to be stamped on every package of cigarettes. Then cigarette advertising has to be restricted if not banned. The activists will never be satisfied until tobacco is outlawed, and after that it will be alcohol, then junk food, etc. Activists have fought gross child abuse, which is reasonable. But now they want to stop all spanking. When they have done that they will want to ban something else they consider unwholesome, then another thing and then another. They will never be satisfied until they have complete control over all child rearing practices. And then they will move on to another cause. 220. Suppose you asked leftists to make a list of ALL the things that were wrong with society, and then suppose you instituted EVERY social change that they demanded. It is safe to say that within a couple of years the majority of leftists would find something new to complain about, some new social “evil” to correct because, once again, the leftist is motivated less by distress at society’s ills than by the need to satisfy his drive for power by imposing his solutions on society. 221. Because of the restrictions placed on their thoughts and behavior by their high level of socialization, many leftists of the over-socialized type cannot pursue power in the ways that other people do. For them the drive for power has only one morally acceptable outlet, and that is in the struggle to impose their morality on everyone. 222. Leftists, especially those of the oversocialized type, are True Believers in the sense of Eric Hoffer’s book, “The True Believer.” But not all True Believers are of the same psychological type as leftists. Presumably a true-believing nazi, for instance, is very different psychologically from a true-believing leftist. Because of their capacity for single-minded devotion to a cause, True Believers are a useful, perhaps a necessary, ingredient of any revolutionary movement. This presents a problem with which we must admit we don’t know how to deal. We aren’t sure how to harness the energies of the True Believer to a revolution against technology. At present all we can say is that no True Believer will make a safe recruit to the revolution unless his commitment is exclusively to the destruction of technology. If he is committed also to another ideal, he may want to use technology as a tool for pursuing that other ideal (see paragraphs 220, 221). 223. Some readers may say, “This stuff about leftism is a lot of crap. I know John and Jane who are leftish types and they don’t have all these totalitarian tendencies.” It’s quite true that many leftists, possibly even a numerical majority, are decent people who sincerely believe in tolerating others’ values (up to a point) and wouldn’t want to use high-handed methods to reach their social goals. Our remarks about leftism are not meant to apply to every individual leftist but to describe the general character of leftism as a movement. And the general character of a movement is not necessarily determined by the numerical proportions of the various kinds of people involved in the movement. 224. The people who rise to positions of power in leftist movements tend to be leftists of the most power- hungry type, because power-hungry people are those who strive hardest to get into positions of power. Once the power-hungry types have captured control of the movement, there are many leftists of a gentler breed who inwardly disapprove of many of the actions of the leaders, but cannot bring themselves to oppose them. They NEED their faith in the movement, and because they cannot give up this faith they go along with the leaders. True, SOME leftists do have the guts to oppose the totalitarian tendencies that emerge, but they generally lose, because the power-hungry types are better organized, are more ruthless and Machiavellian and have taken care to build themselves a strong power base. 225. These phenomena appeared clearly in Russia and other countries that were taken over by leftists. Similarly, before the breakdown of communism in the USSR, leftish types in the West would seldom criticize that country. If prodded they would admit that the USSR did many wrong things, but then they would try to find excuses for the communists and begin talking about the faults of the West. They always opposed Western military resistance to communist aggression. Leftish types all over the world vigorously protested the U.S. military action in Vietnam, but when the USSR invaded Afghanistan they did nothing. Not that they approved of the Soviet actions; but because of their leftist faith, they just couldn’t bear to put themselves in opposition to communism. Today, in those of our universities where “political correctness” has become dominant, there are probably many leftish types who privately disapprove of the suppression of academic freedom, but they go along with it anyway. 226. Thus the fact that many individual leftists are personally mild and fairly tolerant people by no means prevents leftism as a whole form having a totalitarian tendency. 227. Our discussion of leftism has a serious weakness. It is still far from clear what we mean by the word “leftist.” There doesn’t seem to be much we can do about this. Today leftism is fragmented into a whole spectrum of activist movements. Yet not all activist movements are leftist, and some activist movements (e.g., radical environmentalism) seem to include both personalities of the leftist type and personalities of thoroughly un-leftist types who ought to know better than to collaborate with leftists. Varieties of leftists fade out gradually into varieties of non-leftists and we ourselves would often be hard-pressed to decide whether a given individual is or is not a leftist. To the extent that it is defined at all, our conception of leftism is defined by the discussion of it that we have given in this article, and we can only advise the reader to use his own judgment in deciding who is a leftist. 228. But it will be helpful to list some criteria for diagnosing leftism. These criteria cannot be applied in a cut and dried manner. Some individuals may meet some of the criteria without being leftists, some leftists may not meet any of the criteria. Again, you just have to use your judgment. 229. The leftist is oriented toward large-scale collectivism. He emphasizes the duty of the individual to serve society and the duty of society to take care of the individual. He has a negative attitude toward individualism. He often takes a moralistic tone. He tends to be for gun control, for sex education and other psychologically “enlightened” educational methods, for social planning, for affirmative action, for multiculturalism. He tends to identify with victims. He tends to be against competition and against violence, but he often finds excuses for those leftists who do commit violence. He is fond of using the common catch- phrases of the left, like “racism,” “sexism,” “homophobia,” “capitalism,” “imperialism,” “neocolonialism,” “genocide,” “social change,” “social justice,” “social responsibility.” Maybe the best diagnostic trait of the leftist is his tendency to sympathize with the following movements: feminism, gay rights, ethnic rights, disability rights, animal rights, political correctness. Anyone who strongly sympathizes with ALL of these movements is almost certainly a leftist. [36] 230. The more dangerous leftists, that is, those who are most power-hungry, are often characterized by arrogance or by a dogmatic approach to ideology. However, the most dangerous leftists of all may be certain oversocialized types who avoid irritating displays of aggressiveness and refrain from advertising their leftism, but work quietly and unobtrusively to promote collectivist values, “enlightened” psychological techniques for socializing children, dependence of the individual on the system, and so forth. These crypto- leftists (as we may call them) approximate certain bourgeois types as far as practical action is concerned, but differ from them in psychology, ideology and motivation. The ordinary bourgeois tries to bring people under control of the system in order to protect his way of life, or he does so simply because his attitudes are conventional. The crypto-leftist tries to bring people under control of the system because he is a True Believer in a collectivistic ideology. The crypto-leftist is differentiated from the average leftist of the oversocialized type by the fact that his rebellious impulse is weaker and he is more securely socialized. He is differentiated from the ordinary well-socialized bourgeois by the fact that there is some deep lack within him that makes it necessary for him to devote himself to a cause and immerse himself in a collectivity. And maybe his (well-sublimated) drive for power is stronger than that of the average bourgeois.
Posts
_-_NH_42989_-_cropped.jpg){kind=link}