Musings on leftwing thought

Guest Post

Many commentators have puzzled over the development of leftwing thought and behaviour over the last 100 years. The movement has morphed seamlessly from one crusade to another, with seemingly little ideologically in common – from economic class warfare, onto anti-colonialism, apartheid campaigning, LGBT rights, multiculturalism and today’s social justice. They’re all leftwing.

What is the common thread in these campaigns? Each cause has had various justifications promulgated by the usual academics and activists, but such explanations are typically vacuous, with no greater context or meaning other than emotion, catchphrases and fashion.

Here’s what I think.   

In our Judeo-Christian culture, there is a strong (but not absolute) correlation between things that are unpleasant or hurtful and things that are morally wrong. Violence, with its implication of pain, is bad. Peace is good. Jesus, the epitome of good, healed the sick, brought the dead to life and was (mostly) peaceful.

As our society has moved away from actual faith, many people have sought to maintain their moral systems by finding patterns in traditional morality, then stripping away the supernatural. This allows them to claim they are living a ‘good’ life without the troublesome element of faith.

Unfortunately, finding patterns to accurately describe traditional Christian morality is exceedingly difficult – dare I say impossible. Some decided that inflicting all harm on living things was bad, leading them into vegetarianism and pacifism, both distinctly un-Christian ideas. Others concluded that pain itself was the great moral ‘bad’ and therefore, minimising all pain was the great moral ‘good’.

I think it’s this last mistake that lead to the most destructive ideological movement of the past 100 years. Because, sadly, the feeling of being inferior or unequal – while completely meaningless to Christian morality – is also, in our natural modes of thought, one of the most painful sensations humans can experience.

Across the Western world, generations of people have poured their lives into eradicating inequality, convinced that the elimination of this social, psychological pain is a moral crusade equal to the elimination of injustice. Even those who do not experience inequality themselves have committed to eliminating it; our middle-class white liberals, convinced by the false prophets of agnostic morality that they are actually doing ‘good’.

Of course, the fight against inequality, like any fight against reality, is a losing one. This explains why the causes the left has espoused have changed so radically over the years, depending not only on fashion and activist whim, but on the response to each successive defeat. As the economic class war began to falter in the 1970’s, the focus pivoted to anti-colonialism and apartheid; with the collapse of the communist dream in 1990, the left moved onto social justice and white privilege.

The common thread throughout is the rejection of inequality as a natural, healthy, reality. Even leftwing causes like multi-culturalism and open borders, which have no direct link with equality, are actually weapons in a campaign to level human existence. To a mind which conflates inequality with evil, the peace and prosperity of North Americans, living nearby to violence- and poverty-stricken Latin Americans, is something to be destroyed at all costs. It is emotionally painful for the Latin Americans: and emotional pain is morally wrong.

Interestingly, even proponents of this belief system are sometimes sufficiently self-aware to recognise the repellent nature of their conclusions. We know this because they hide them. Multi-culturalism and diversity, for instance, are tools to reduce the inequality amongst nations and peoples, by mixing more-successful peoples with less-successful ones. Thereby, it is hoped, the poor will be elevated, at the expense of the wealthy.

But diversity is often sold by leftwingers as a tool for the benefit of everyone. The globalist and leftwing internet abounds with articles claiming that workplace diversity enhances productivity. And so it does – diversity of thought – but that’s not what they want. Diversity of thought doesn’t help reduce inequality, so they really want diversity of background: more Muslims, Blacks and other ‘oppressed minorities’.

Anyone who has had to interact with a deliberately diverse government department has discovered what effect this diversity actually has on productivity.

I mentioned globalists. Who are these people, and how do they relate to the equality crusaders? Globalists certainly aren’t leftwingers, but anyone who keeps an eye on comments sections knows they are at least as much an enemy of the conservative grassroots as leftwingers are.

Indeed, globalists are currently allied with the classic left, but it seems to me this is a coincidence of causes driven by very different motives. The essence of leftwing thought is moral obligation – based on flawed morality – but moral obligation nonetheless. Many leftwingers are prepared to sacrifice personally for their cause.

Globalists, I believe, are basically the class of people who benefit from the low wages driven by open borders, and the political weakness of diverse, fractured populations. The essence of their position is not moral at all – it is self-interest.

Surprisingly, they don’t admit this. Globalists like Mitt Romney take pains to point out that their support of open borders is driven by the same concerns as the left; a moral position. A position instantly disproved when they refuse to take refugees into their own palatial homes.

Anyway, that’s my quick analysis of the forces arrayed against those of us who want to save our civilisation. What can we take from it?

I firmly believe the primary cause of our problems, social, political and otherwise is the abandonment of traditional patterns of Christian faith. This has created the need for innovative ‘intellectual’ models of morality, which have led to destructive behaviour due to their poor correlation with reality.

Even those many leftwingers and globalists who don’t actually share or understand the motives described above, but are simply following fashions, have been made vulnerable to such groupthink due to the destruction of the traditional anchors of Western thought.

But if a return to faith is our goal, how? It may not be possible. If it does happen, I doubt it will be due to anything that could be done in the political sphere. Maybe a disruption to our pleasant, vacuous Western lifestyles would help. Maybe a war really is coming. Maybe it is time.

 

– Deplorable HungarianPhrasebook


Do you want:

  • Ad-free access?
  • Access to our very popular daily crossword?
  • Access to daily sudoku?
  • Access to Incite Politics magazine articles?
  • Access to podcasts?
  • Access to political polls?

Our subscribers’ financial support is the reason why we have been able to offer our latest service; Audio blogs. 

Click Here  to support us and watch the number of services grow.

As much at home writing editorials as being the subject of them, Cam has won awards, including the Canon Media Award for his work on the Len Brown/Bevan Chuang story. When he’s not creating the news, he tends to be in it, with protagonists using the courts, media and social media to deliver financial as well as death threats.

They say that news is something that someone, somewhere, wants kept quiet. Cam Slater doesn’t do quiet and, as a result, he is a polarising, controversial but highly effective journalist who takes no prisoners.

He is fearless in his pursuit of a story.

Love him or loathe him, you can’t ignore him.

32%