For a long time Moldbug has made a good point that I am only now getting. His point was: America has a solid communist tradition. As in, all the cool people in the twentieth century were leftists. As in, communist gatherings were hot and happening. And it has been like that for a while. Communism is as American as apple pie, says Moldbug.
It is an excellent point. Really, I think the same goes for Europe. I’m no historician, but I look around and I just plain see people having communist sympathies. Not the majority, but a decent minority. Some people are just naturally into that stuff. Whites are decently communist.
What does it mean to be a leftist, communist or progressive?
The correct definitions are as follows. Communism, like progressivism, is a subset of leftism. Leftism defines itself in mainstream discourse as something like ‘caring a whole lot about everything.’ Reactionaries however correctly define leftism as ‘pretending to care a whole lot about everything.’ A wide range of definitions for leftism is given by various reactionaries, all amounting to the same thing:
Molbug – leftism is rule by scholars; rule through religious scheming and walks through the garden of betrayal.
Spandrell – leftism is psychopathic status maximization; those seeking power for the sake of power, see Hillary Clinton
Jim – leftism is knocking over apple carts as to steal apples; climate commies don’t care about the environment, they care about carbon dioxide taxes.
Me – leftism is cheating by any means necessary. If you say you care a great deal about people far away, you can use that to screw over people nearby.
Like I said, pretty much different definitions of the same thing. Leftism is an ancient phenomenon, a side of humanity we’d rather ignore but can’t because the grander a civilization, the bolder its leftism grows. Leftists are the reducers, the parasites, bacteria and funghi that consume the dead and weak. With the industrial revolution came lots of wealth came lots of opportunities to loot that wealth. What cements Nrx’ place in history is that Nrx was the first internet intellectual fashion that correctly called out and defined this phenomenon.
With leftism defined, it becomes much easier to define two of its subsets, communism and progressivism.
Everybody knows communism. Jim’s definition is excellent: communism is the commie convincing the farmers with one cow to gang up on the farmer with two cows. Naturally, once they kill the farmer with two cows, the commies kill the farmers with one cow, and in the end kill each other. A very typical ending for any form of unchecked leftism.
Everybody nowadays also knows progressivism. Spandrell’s definition is excellent: progressivism is communism based on genetics instead of wealth; biological Leninism. Instead of hating the bourgoeusie, progs hate white straight men (although being leftists, plenty of hating the bourgeousie).
Progs have not yet killed as many people as commies, but it’s exactly the same energy. The point of central planning was never to plan better, it was to loot and destroy natural production. The point of diversity was never to end racism, it was to loot and destroy Christian society. Just like climate communism never intended to promote nature and beauty, it always intended to loot and destroy civilization.
Call it socialism, central planning, anti-capitalism, equalism, feminism, progressivism warmism, regulationism, bureaucratism, communism, or leftism, whatever you call it, it’s all different faces of the same thing.
Which is why at a certain point we’ve said everything that is to be said on the subject. Leftists of course love being the center of attention; hate ’em or love ’em, just don’t ignore them. I mean, I get it, the West is composed of leftist institutions, the deep state is deeply leftist, so all the talk of the day will inescapably center around the latest progressive madness.
But it gets boring.
That I think is all it boils down to. I myself have been blogging for, what, six years? I get the jest of what is going on. In order for any sense of sanity to return to public debate we have to re-establish what everyone once publicly knew, what they now only privately mutter: that some people are cheaters, rotten apples. If no one calls out the cheaters, the cheaters wreck society. Voila, our current predicament summarized.
Generally it is fairly easy to recognize a cheater. I’m sure you know at least one: he’s the guy who just talks out of his ass. Everyone knows a guy like that. Individually, their scams are perfectly manageable, sometimes even funny, but in groups, in power, they scam society. If Hillary was a suburban mother of one, she’d have told suspicious but harmless stories at parties about how she was under sniper fire during her last holiday. Hillary as a former first wive however…
Same with Dutch ex-minister of foreign affairs Halbe Zijlstra. Were he, I don’t know, a highschool teacher, he’d have told his pupils strange stories of how he shared a Datsja with Putin once where Putin said he intended to conquer the world. Suspicious, but mostly harmless. Make the same guy an important politician, and the stories become suspicious and harmful.
You talk to your neighbors, they agree with that. But turn towards any piece of information that has the state’s seal of approval, be it newspapers, academia, radio, politicians or even controlled opposition, and you will find an absurdly tilted ratio of cheaters telling you a never ending stream of lies.
So, turn it off. It’s repetitious and boring. They hate you and they hate me, and they can come up with a million reasons to justify their hatred. I get it. I will not pull a Moldbug and tell you to bend over backwards for power, but I do not see the use of needlessly provoking power either. Let them stew in their own soup.
We live in an era where cheaters have risen to the top echelons of power, because the generations before us were too busy smelling the roses. I don’t blame ’em: in our forefathers’ place, we’d have done exactly the same. Unfortunately, because there are not so many roses to smell nowadays, we are getting the short end of the stick, and the stick is getting shorter year by year. And that’s our current situation.
So we have to rediscover how to maintain a healthy society, and discover how to pull that off in a post industrial-revolution society. Can’t do the opposite of what the progs do, because the opposite of gobblygook is still gobblygook. So I think (I think!) we have finally reached the end of our leftism analysis.