Tuesday, April 21, 2009

Left vs Right: An Easter Egg Hunt for Historical Truth

Trying to summarize for myself the difference between left and right, here are some ideas I came up with.

The difference between left and right is the question of the right of the struggle for existence to exist. (source: a Soren Renner speech). More precisely, it is a debate of the proper boundaries in which this struggle should be contained.

Both left and right can be broken down into two camps: principled devotees and unprincipled devotees. Either side could be said to have a principle around which it is organized.

The principle of the right is: life is necessarily a struggle to exist.

It follows from that that no intervention is necessary to change that reality. It is the prerogative of the family to ameliorate that struggle - not of the state. The right would merely retain the struggle for existence within it’s ancient boundaries, pre-nation-state. Some exponents of rightist thought would use the state as a means to further pursue the conflicts inherent in this struggle (i.e. the ones the left is seeking to ameliorate).

The principle of the left is: life is either unjustly or unnecessarily a struggle to exist.

It follows from that that intervention is necessary to change that reality. The nearest available mechanism to accomplish that intervention is the modern nation state, and it is the prerogative of the state to ameliorate that struggle - not the prerogative of the family (i.e. citizens and ethny left to themselves). The left seeks to contain the struggle for existence, so that inequality and competition between groups, ethnies and families or classes is contained by the “balancing” (leveling) action of the state.

The Superstate, the Welfare-state, the Command economy, are the result of this principle.

Either group has principled devotees and unprincipled devotees. Principled devotees are followers who adhere to either leftist or rightist politics on the basis of a theoretical understanding of the principle in question - which demands a world-view radically different from the status quo - since the status quo was established against a historical backdrop in which these questions could only be answered ambiguously. (Our ancestors presumably were torn between the struggle-filled reality they perceived and the ameliorating world-historical vision of Christianity).

One’s understanding of either principle goes from practical to theoretical when it is abstracted repeatedly from various historical experiences (readings of history) - which gives one’s understanding of the principle a force which it cannot have for those who haven’t studied it and encountered it cropping up time and again on the historical stage.

Leftists reading history will encounter again and again the evils of racism, oppression, war, and inequality. They can find it everywhere, but principally in western histories. From the Crusades, to the founding of the Anglosphere nations, to the Third Reich - their narrative can conjure quite easily a picture of suffering which demands state-intervention in the name of equality. So long as they can maintain a passionate motivation in alleviating another man’s suffering, the modus operandi of their philosophy remains legitimated and reliably gives the appearance of possessing ultimate truth.

Rightists reading history will encounter again and again the struggle to dominate as a decisive motor of human existence, competition and struggle for excellence as producing progress, and the victories of people who do not need help or handouts, who make it by dint of will and hard-work, requiring nothing from the benevolent/paternal State.

This is why principled adherents tend to be the most radical exponents of a political philosophy. One’s desired vision of the future, thus one’s political will, changes decisively when one arrives at a deeply-felt answer to this question. The tendency to extrapolate from these understandings and press them to their extremes is also ever-present, which tends to radicalize people still further.

Unprincipled adherents grasp opportunistically to these philosophies - they do not attempt to solve “the greater question” but look merely to the facts of their own lives: at some point, each of us was an unprincipled adherent of leftist or rightist thinking. Whether an unprincipled adherent - i.e. someone who has made no study of history and hasn’t considered the point philosophically on his own - tends to grope rightward or leftward typically depends on their experience of life as struggle.

There are many (unprincipled) rightists whose adherence to rightist viewpoints is based entirely on their viewpoint of their life-as-struggle. No historical or philosophical considerations enter into it. The viewpoint is essentially thus:


“Look, my life is a struggle. The life of my family is a struggle. The state’s levelling tactics are unfair to me, since it takes away from my life or does not give to me equally what it gives to others. Insofar as I have affirmed my willingness to struggle, the State mocks me by proclaiming this unnecessary, ridiculing the culture and mores I draw upon to accomplish this, and simply giving out to people the fruits of my labour who themselves could never earn it.”

Likewise, many (unprincipled) leftists adhere to leftist viewpoints based on their disbelief in life-as-struggle. This corresponds to the fact that leftists are known to predominate in university settings and amongst the rich elites: places where enormous pecuniary and institutional “head-starts” were part of their inheritance.

Since they achieve an acceptable standard of living purely on the basis of parental momentum, there is a sense in which they do not know the life-as-struggle paradigm. They tend to view the necessities of life as things gifted by higher powers, which one receives by luck of birth rather than through work. University students likewise mature in an arena of sanitized leisure where all their needs are met - in a setting where hundreds of years of western technological progress has created a haven of comfort and ease of life. The benefits of civilized life - they are also convinced - are a gift granted by higher powers. It follows from this that material advantages and the means to live a civilized life are just randomly distributed gifts - some people having been ‘luckier’ than others; the distribution of these things is viewed as unjust, hence redistribution is called for. The only power capable of redistributing is, of course, the state.

It follows from this that leftists are keen on ‘giving away’ things to others - be it foreign aid, or raising adopted foreign children - both of which are famous pastimes of various pop-stars and movie-stars. They exist in a world where the only resource still to be secured is status; the shedding of various ‘baser’ material resources allows them to procure this higher commodity, by showing their big-heartedness.

In a way, both groups are projecting their view of their own experience onto the world-historical reality.

The leftist scheme is not self-sustaining because it is only possible in the presence of the rightist scheme: namely, in order for leftism’s benevolent expropriations to be possible, someone has to have accumulated the wealth to be expropriated. If no one has labored (struggled) to produce something of value, there is nothing to give away.

Leftists can only give away civil rights because white men struggled to establish the modern, (formerly) democratic nation-state. Leftists can only give away citizenship and have it be worth something because successive generations of men labored to build the polities where life is seen as desirable. Leftists can only give away computers to poor school districts because generations of inventors have labored to make semi-conductors smaller and computers more affordable.

One can define three important currents of leftist thought, looking at their origins:

Life-as-a-gift-from-above leftists, typically white and rich, or Christian.
These people are typically useful idiots, indoctrinated rich whites, or those with a deeply Christian worldview. The young, the stupid, and religious people tend to fall in this category. These are people who genuinely want the struggle for existence to be abrogated, but principally they are concerned with being nice and achieving status.

Jewish leftists
These people are advocating state intervention in mediating struggle between groups - because they believe that the natural tendency of whites would be to persecute and exclude them. Paranoia based in Jewish historical experience is the basis for their assertion that although they often acknowledge the realities of life-as-struggle, the struggle of whites, insofar as it is against them, is illegitimate and (eventually) criminal.

Non-white leftists
These people advocate leftism because they use it as an avenue of struggle against the white man’s predations, firstly, and eventually against his status and even right to exist.

For non-whites, the central fact of their collective existence in western polities is their conflict and competition with the white majority. Delegitimizing the white majority’s struggle to exist is therefore in their interest, and constitutes the great effort of their own struggle to exist. Non-whites’ struggle to exist could be seen as being diametrically opposed to that of whites - since we are in competition for nearly all the same resources.

Thus non-whites’ support of leftism could be seen as originating not from a philosophical repudiation of struggle, which is what pure leftism avows, but simply from a repudiation of whites’ struggle to exist, and thus as an affirmation of theirs.

It follows from that that for a non-white to take a leftist stance, is philosophically rightist. They are not working out of confused largesse, knee-jerk niceness and a desire for status - or a belief in the ultimate resolution of all suffering through the interventions of the state, which is the leftist’s dream in its unadulterated form.

No, the non-white leftists out there who are marching under the banner next to the white idiots and early-20’s girls are the mirror image of the very patrons of this board: the only difference being that they are swarthy. They too look out for their own self-interest, they too want to make a claim, they too think of their own and are interested more in taking than giving.

This has real-world ramifications for the future of leftism as we approach parity, or as near as we can get to parity, with the third-world invaders who have taken up residence in our nations. Plainly stated, giving more rights and concessions will not result in them accepting their new elevated state - as all readers here no doubt intuitively know - they will continue to agitate for new concessions, will continue to ethnically cleanse us, and in general will continue to struggle against us even when they must violate the same leftist social contract which they made use of on their way up. They will become more virulent, until leftism is no longer able to plausibly contain their ambitions.

Yet there is a bigger question.

Which of these principles is a correct reading of the human experience? Is life a struggle where one benefits from facing it and understanding it as such? Or is this struggle amoral and unnecessary, and continued sharing enforced by the state - of everything, including genes - will ultimately resolve all conflict and remove the need for struggle?

Unfortunately there is no way to answer this question without attempting a synthesis of vast amounts of human experience (i.e. reading history), enlightened necessarily by one’s own experience of life. This philosophical quest is beyond the reach of the average person and most can only participate in it vicariously through a structured Easter-egg-hunt type intellectual game rigged by a higher mental authority. In this case the “Parent”, (Adorno, Erich Fromm, Ayn Rand, Sumner Redstone, et. al) distribute a series of Easter eggs ("realizations") throughout various print media and television programs. The “child” (the average white person) goes on a hunt for these eggs during school, college, and in his free time as a television viewer. As he finds the eggs, he eats them ("understands them") and puts together in his mind a visualization of what history looks like.

The narrative of the last 50 years, promulgated mostly by TV but also by the leftist class of intellectuals and talking heads, looks like this:

“We assume it is part of [your white] human nature to persecute foreigners and minorities. Therefore, at every signal of you attempting to enforce any standard or articulate any critique or voice any displeasure against a foreigner or minority, we will consider you guilty of the same thought patterns that Hitler used. We will imply that this will destroy (y)our civilization and render you barbarians. We will impute to you moral callousness and insensitivity and all manner of meaner motives. Every action or thought that can lead - however indirectly - to thoughts of this sort will be considered a slippery slope. Henceforward begins for you a period of self-denial and self-censorship.

The state needs to be called in to reign in your racist impulses, white man.”

This is a narrative of history with a leftist endpoint. The struggle for existence as a group is seen to be repudiated - it needed to be constrained first by culture, then by the state, in the name of ameliorating suffering that would otherwise be caused by group conflict. Otherwise: Adolf Hitler.

I consider this one of, if not the, most epic, monumental swindle in the history of the universe. In the history of lie-telling, this is one of the most audacious lies ever to be promulgated.

4 Opinion(s):

Viking said...

This is a great article. I found the difference between "principled" and "unprincipled".
I have always thought the difference between left and right is philosophical - the leftists believe mankind is inherently evil, hence the need for 'guidance' and constant interference from all-knowing righteous leaders; while rightists believe man is inherently good, and so hold that his basic impulses are correct and helpful in the daily struggle, and most importantly, that the instincts of the crowd is usually correct.

The author's hostility to Christianity is unfortunate - as it is that lobby in the United States which protects many conservative values.

Doberman said...

@ Viking. I thought so too. I often envy people that can suck out that little extra nuance from a point that makes the difference between a good read and a sparkling read. This one had it all. Pity, yes, about knocking any religion but it seems Christians are fair game any time.

Dachshund said...

@Viking and Doberman:

So why has Christianity become fair game?

Because it's been been watered down and manipulated by people with different agenda. "The poor will always be with us." That's a statement of fact, not an opinion. Why will the poor always be with us? Because they don't know or don't want to know how to look after themselves.

It doesn't mean, "The poor will always be with us, and it's YOUR FAULT."

"The poor will always be with us," implies an "us" as distinct from "the poor". There is no mention of a future utopia on this earth where everyone will be on the same financial or spiritual level.

Jesus said you should give away all your earthly goods and follow him if you want to be his disciple i.e. IF you want to follow a religious life. A religious life is not desirable for everyone, as religious communities usually depend on donations from those who earn a living in the world. Religious communities can do a great deal of good. The principles espoused by both Christianity and Judaism are designed to preserve the moral values which allow people to exist within a legitimised social framework. You don't sleep with your sister because your children will become retards. You don't steal because that would mean that you don't respect someone else's efforts at creating wealth.

Christians need to stand up for their values and what they really mean. Being a Christian does NOT mean, "I will put up with your demands for hand outs because you are too weak to fend for yourself." Being a Christian or Jew means saying to others, "Look, we are the civilisation that created wealth for ourselves, and we can extend that wealth to you if you are willing to participate on an equal basis. If you prefer to try to rob us instead, we will vigorously defend ourselves."

Viking said...

Well said, Dachshund.