Do not worry, this isn’t going to be the millionth rant on how the left is no longer liberal! This is an oft-attributed notion that gets a lot of attention from normiecons (they like gotchas), but all-in-all provides no cutting to the core that we all desire when approaching the topic of totalizing leftism. The term “the left” of course originating in none other than the French Revolution, attributed to those who opposed the monarchy and were in support of a brave new future for France who sat on the left of the aisle in the French legislative assembly. The culminating totalitarianism that arose in France not a decade afterwards resulting in the deaths of thousands of innocent civilians and priests, would be a reminder what forms these brave bourgeois Jacobins seated to the left reincarnated into throughout other periods of leftist technical evolution.
When encountering the question of drag queen story hour, free speech, or the spiritual state of the average American, the inevitably invoked left emerges as a go-to scapegoat to describe a phenomenon of people that are resoundingly, though broadly, mocked and accused for all ails of the condition of the American state. For populists, boomercons, elite theorists, paleolibertarians alike the ultimate enemy, when not mocking one another, is the issue of degenerate leftists, or if that is too spicy, it’s big government leftists or “cultural marxists.” The blame is all the same. However, the left is no longer clearly defined, and the perception these rightists have of leftism in the modern day is heavily outdated; dangerously so. Who are these leftists? Well, at this point, the resounding gong of agreement is they are subtle groups of elitists that control the narrative through propaganda neatly groomed with a fine-tooth comb, oozed out by the mainstream media, and absorbed by news-addicted, or simply macrosocially-apathetic masses. This isn’t particularly wrong, we know narratives are crafted, refined, and churned out based on mostly half-truths and occasional (albeit mounting) lies. The issue the (dissident) right has, which has contributed to its continuing identity crisis, is realizing that the left they perceive is not a political movement, but a technical development evolved from what Karl Marx accurately-predicted - the tendency for development in political propaganda techniques to shape the way masses thought. In a broader and simpler way of explaining: the more technology evolves and standardizes, the more it becomes captured by the state and centralized, and the more massified people become.
Let us try to understand the leftist, as he is today versus how he was yesterday, and why modern perception of leftism has absolutely nothing to do with the way history treated leftism. This is extremely important, because it will impact the way we understand who the enemy is, what he wants to do, and why he is teleologically orientated to act in such evil ways:
Today, the leftist of 2022 is a broad identifier for many types of people, but from a reactionary perspective (me, and probably you) can be summarized as follows:
A morally neutral person who takes a philosophically materialist objective approach to reality, believes that the totalizing tendency of technology and neutral government systems are beneficial to society, and his driving force is seeing society becoming utterly massified.
He is irreligious; agender (or even a gender-bender); has no continuity in character; treats historical science as a mythologically and teleologically-driving force for which he derives all of his beliefs on being, existence, and meaning; his understanding of love and simpatico between his fellow man is therefore purely transactional and regulated by social systems which dictate how he is supposed to act; sees social taboos and traditions as obstacles to progress; and beyond all of this, is driven by the development of technology to further strip him away from his own sense of spirit, pain, and consciousness of mortality. It isn’t how technology is, innately, but how he perceives it, that becomes so totalizing.
He is utterly massified and his own perception of individuality is purely derived from brands and socially-regulated acceptable forms of pleasure. Pleasure is his life, and he sees no value other than what he is told to value.
Now, before we evaluate why this leftist is not really a political animal or even really a leftist, but something much worse and beyond what we discriminate and want to “destroy,” which we call “liberalism,” we must look at what the leftist was a hundred years ago (1922), then a bit about what he was a hundred years before that (1822).
The leftist of 1922:
A classical progressive who believed in the value of free enterprise and capitalism, but righteously understood the evils of unabated neutralist philosophical approaches to land management, social constructs, and identity, and how they shouldn’t be uninhibitedly derived from advertizing and the perceptibly totalizing nature of capitalism.
He was likely a Christian (in a general sense), and was likely a universalist in many ways with approaches to women’s rights and negro rights as something to clamor for, though he perhaps thought of this as out of the question or simply against his beliefs. If he was a Marxist in the traditional sense, his prime directive would have been the “worker” and if he was a Western unionist he would have probably been in favor of women being at home. Regardless of his approaches to social issues, he quite clearly saw social constructs as essential. (We won’t deny that, in the long run, the more universalist types were sorely mistaken in their beliefs).
He was a collectivist in a moderate nationalistic sense and believed in breaking up big companies for the sake of the small guy. For all intents and purposes, the average American was a small guy and wasn’t a deracinated mutant trapped on the internet (a big downside to the modern “leftist”).
Okay, we’re starting to see the origin points. What about the 1822 leftist:
He perhaps called himself a liberal. We would call him a classical liberal. There’s a good chance he was in a big city, had an educated background, and had a critical approach to mercantilist commerce (pretty much phased out by then), absolute monarchies (phased out or losing traction), and certain social constructs, especially institutions like slavery, as passé or crimes against humanity.
He was maybe a deist, but likely a Christian and some of his peers even devout. He was a clamorer of evening out the odds in society to bring about easier ability for trade, travel, technological development, and the ability for the poor and grandsons of former serfs to have a shot at moving up in society just like any other upper-class gentleman.
He was a critic of castes and the snobbiness of the rich (of which he was likely apart of), but did not view the poor as somehow superior. He would have likely agreed with Benjamin Franklin’s assessment that giving the poor free stuff only traps them further in poverty. He was a free market capitalist, before it was a thing. He believed in a divine sense of “freedom.”
It seems the trend of liberal tradition, albeit different in England, France, and later America, went from genuine beliefs in the concept of individualism and liberty as holy ideals, to a massified unit in a bureaucratized society. Why is that the case? How did this become the end-product of liberalism? It’s really quite simple: Liberalism was the sequel to Christianity post-enlightenment as technological and technical development evolved passed the point of Christianity’s ability to inhibit its cancerous growth. This resulted in the rise of philosophic materialists who believed in a vague sense of freedom, democracy, and equality between men (in the sense we should all be given a fair shot), which culminated in the destruction of taboos, traditions, and cultures as the necessitation of furtherance of freedom became the mission to make man into God. Man’s approach to the concepts of the spiritual and etheric became extremely adolescent and primitive as he threw the baby out with the bathwater; searching for an eschatological tied knot to the myth of progress, liberty, technology - in an effort to make himself God.
Now what form has this taken? We saw the rise of the Jacobins, the liberals in Britain and America in the 19th century and first half of the 20th century that believed in the myth of progress, but it wasn’t uninhibited nor without purpose, as they still had aesthetic reflecting an inner beauty of culture and religion. Now that the massification of efficient systems and technology has turned society into nothing but chasing efficiency for efficiency’s sake, we have encountered the leftist we have today. A leftist who only knows what is good for the furtherance of the efficient system. He wants to broaden all techniques and all technology so that it is all-encompassing: the internet of things where all appliances and electrical systems connect to one electronic brain - systems for which only certified, licensed, permitted, credentialed technicians should work on, a government that more and more is overrun with technical bureaucrats who perfect political technique (in specific - propaganda).
The modern leftist seeks an instantiation of the machine in all aspects of life. Why? There is no why. They don’t need a reason why. Have you ever talked to a atheist leftist? They’re “why” changes every second. Their ugly faces and bodies are outer-representations of chaotic, meaningless minds. They live their lives as customizable characters representing brand that is against evil old taboo and choochooing further on the train of progress.
Yet we connect these people to liberalism, somehow. We associate them with a skin they shed long ago. We associate them with a vain “love” for the worker? We know that’s a joke - they don’t give a shit about the worker. If they did, they wouldn’t be wearing clothes, using technology, and eating soy products all tangentially or directly produced by slave labor. They would be in favor of a national identity. They would have a sense of volk. They don’t. They have embodied the totalizing state - the machine - and are no longer representing people, but whatever they are puppeteered to act as to keep the dopamine hits rolling.
And yet the conservatives seem to be representing leftism in a way it used to be, which brings us to #MAGAcommunism, yet another cringe, but this time true, potentially ephemeral internet meme. I will not approach this as if it is a real aesthetic, just as the likes of “Dark MAGA” being nothing more than sad NEETs making memes to pass the time pretending like they are accomplishing something. MAGAcommunism hits at a very simple concept that the populist movement just can’t hide: The average MAGA Republican and/or conservative is a reincarnation of worker struggle communists in the most traditional sense, and will continue to gain traction in a completely deindustrialized America whose government seeks to further marginalize and destroy them.
It’s simple:
Who is the most marginalized and disgruntled group in America? White conservative men who are either blue or grey-collar (people forget about us greys).
Who is marginalizing them? A cult that is running the nation that is in a state of complete psychosis and cannot snap out of it. It is a system that is utterly ingratiated to the continuation of unrealistic technological developments (wind turbines, electric cars, and other such fantasies) and the totalization of all of society to be at the whim of a univocal state (the machine).
How is the dialectic going to shift for MAGA cons if they hope to make rapid takeover of the narrative and power (covertly, for the most part) to benefit working and middle class high school grad white men? Utilize the state to fund these men’s ability to work jobs that pay them well while not benefiting illegal immigrants, gays, lazy bums, or racially idolatrous POCs.
I’ll just mention really quick - I predicted this - though I said it would be more multiracial than it seems it will incarnate as. Not that it won’t be, as there are plenty of Mexicans and Blacks who are riding the anti-immigration, pro-we want jobs train just as much as whites. Society wants order, and that is what Republicans will have to bring, and they will utilize every bit of the classically progressive, trade unionist, and socialist narrative that they can because they are slowly realizing the sources of power must be used for their voters. This is what will rapidly induce a lot of forward motion for the new (public) right wing.
This will specifically be seen in industrialization, if these types are successful. Rapid industrialization and jobs programs will be essential, and Republicans will have to hop on this train before the totalizing “left” keep pushing them back further and further. The aim will be at heightened hostility towards the alphabet gang, immigration, and internationalist corporations. Not that this will be an irreligious movement, but as I said before in that video, Christianity will be used, if at all, in a mobilizing, morale-building, destiny-building way. Not as the centerpiece by any means.
The dissident right, however, will have to start realizing what it is specifically aiming its disdain at. It doesn’t realize that industrial society and the totalizing state is its enemy. MAGAcommunism, and sensationalist attempts (no matter how successful) on the part of modern political conservative movements doesn’t solve the issue of the totalizing state and standardized society. The society that thinks it killed God and is replacing his throne (what’s more satanic that this?). The forest must be burnt down in order for it to replenish the soil for future thriving forests. How is this not the case for the equivalence in human society? How is the bloatation of industrial society not a cancer on the ability for man to enrich his spirit like he did before the standardization of modern society through technicized bureaucratized processes? It seems if the Will of God is to be represented in any kingdom of man, no matter how small, it must be with the rejection of modernity entirely - not in the mechanisms of technology as universal enemies to Good, but in the treatment of efficiency for efficiency’s sake as a cancer on the spirit of civilization.
If we are to move forward, we must reject industrial society as it is, not simply take the form of yet another failed political aesthetic that reflects nothing but an empty shell of our confused, chaotic civilization. This is why, other than in the utilization of institutions for the furtherance of dominant, parallel Christian societies that are strong, sturdy, and built on a foundation of stone, the endless ruminating on villains and allies is going to be made irrelevant in the initiation of Praxis of communitarian societies. Societies that have an emphasis on gatekeeping, Christian theology, and rejection of the totalizing state and technique as the milieu at which society should be founded. Christians did this for a thousand years, and it arguably brought about some of the most wholesome societies and Godly aesthetics in history.
It can be done again.
“Every example throughout the history of humanity shows that only deprivation and struggle create a human life worthy of the name.”
Pentti Linkola