What is the Metaphysics of the Left? Part TwoCollin Cleary
Part 2 of 2 (Part 1 here)
2. A Will to Nothingness: The Essence of Leftist Metaphysics
We are now in a position to step back from these observations and draw some general conclusions about the metaphysics of Leftist ideology. I trust the reader understands, however, that I am identifying the metaphysics that underlies Leftist ideology. Not all the tenets of this metaphysics are explicitly espoused by Leftists, though many of them are. In some cases, I will identify implications of Leftist positions which many Leftists would strongly deny and recoil from. Nevertheless, I am confident that my observations correctly identify the deep premises and ultimate logical consequences of Leftist ideas. I should also say up front that I have found it impossible to disengage a discussion of Leftist metaphysics from a discussion of Leftist psychology. In this, I am in broad agreement with Nietzsche – as on a number of other issues, as the reader will shortly see.
In the foregoing discussion, we have seen two elements crop up again and again: (1) a radical, egalitarian denial of difference and insistence upon sameness (coupled, bizarrely, with a rhetoric celebrating difference); and (2) an insistence on the primacy of subjective states over facts. We can call these the first two “postulates” of the Leftist metaphysics. But what gives rise to these unusual “postulates”? I believe that the underlying reason for the attack on difference, and evidence that substantiates difference, is a rebellion against hierarchy. In other words, the Left is allergic to difference because recognition of difference leads to recognition of superiority and inferiority. In order to see difference, we must make comparisons – and a good deal of the time this leads to judgments regarding rank or worth. For example, that men have penises and women have vaginas is not (in the minds of most people) an issue of better and worse. On the other hand, if we (honestly) compare men and women as chess players, it is impossible to avoid ranking one group above the other.
To the mind of the Right-winger, hierarchy is simply a natural part of life. What could induce someone to deny it or rebel against it? This is where Nietzsche is most helpful to us. It was Nietzsche’s position that Leftist anti-egalitarianism arose from what he called ressentiment: resentment of the inferior against the superior. “Envy” would be another way of putting it. This theory is so well known to most of my readers I need not elaborate it in detail. The basic idea is that those who are somehow weak or inadequate in body, mind, or spirit tend to hate those who possess the virtues they lack. This hatred can express itself in many forms. One form is what Nietzsche called the “transvaluation of values,” in which “slave types” declare the virtues of their betters to be vices. In other words, the slaves deal with the fact that they do not (and perhaps cannot) possess certain virtues by declaring that, in fact, those virtues are vices.
Nietzsche is clearly onto something here, and his theory of ressentiment and “slave morality” does give us a powerful tool for understanding the Left. Many expressions of feminism, for example, seem to be straightforwardly moved by ressentiment. As has often been noticed, the tremendous irony of most forms of feminism is that they deride femininity and implicitly uphold masculinity as an ideal women should strive for. Of course, this is done while attacking masculinity at the same time. The Nietzschean psychology seems pretty obvious here: radical feminists regard their feminine sex as a kind of affliction and resent men for possessing qualities they can never fully or naturally develop. The same is true of effeminate, feminized, or simply insecure men who deride aspects of masculinity (e.g., the bookworm who disparages “jocks” but secretly envies them). Another obvious example is the recent phenomenon of fat people claiming that fat is beautiful (and even healthy!), and that “thin” is oppressive and hateful.
Where Nietzsche is absolutely correct is in linking Leftist ideology to weakness and insecurity. Virtually every doctrinaire Leftist I have ever known has been somehow lacking, physically or spiritually, in at least some of the qualities that make one well-equipped to deal with the challenges of life. This is also a subject with which my readers are already well-acquainted. It has been much discussed on the Right, often with a great deal of mirth. There have even been well-publicized scientific studies showing that Leftists tend to be physically weaker and less attractive than self-identified conservatives.
Of course, sometimes the weakness is not immediately apparent to the eyes. Virtually every Leftist I have studied up close, even if they were not visibly misshapen or unattractive, has exhibited high neuroticism, a tendency to recoil from some of the tougher facts of life, a squishy aversion to (other people’s) strong moral judgments, a tendency to over-empathize (often with those least deserving of empathy), a lack of physical courage, and (in the men) a lack of masculine self-confidence and capability. (If not all of these, then some combination.)
Ressentiment is not always obvious in these Leftists. But it is usually there, simmering beneath the surface. And how can it not be? Leftists always do make the sort of comparisons between individuals that they explicitly condemn. (Making such comparisons is simply an unavoidable facet of human nature.) And they find themselves wanting. Thus, to return to our original question, the Leftists’ denial of difference stems from an aversion to hierarchies, which in turn stems from their (conscious or subconscious) recognition that they have everything to lose when hierarchies are recognized. And at least some of their compassion for others is an expression of the fact that they have a tendency – owing to their own deep-seated sense of inadequacy – to identify with misfits, underdogs, rejects, and even wrongdoers.
To Nietzsche’s theory I would add one other observation. In notes to myself, I have formulated a theory I like to call “the unbearable aloneness of the white race.” This is a cumbersome designation for a still-rather-inchoate theory, but I can’t find a better way to sum it up. It refers to a tendency I have noticed in white liberals. When the subject of racial and national differences comes up, some seem to be moved by a peculiar desire to believe that their own nature is the nature of all. This is, of course, in direct tension with their claims to celebrate “diversity,” as well as their self-proclaimed “critical distance” from their own whiteness. But the truth seems to be that many Leftists, at some deep level, want to believe that underneath surface differences everyone is really the same – which works out to meaning, in effect, that everyone is really white.
One sees this in the dogged, optimistic faith with which white liberals hold on to the ideal of multiculturalism – which would only work if all peoples exhibit a typically white, Western devotion to tolerance, the rule of law, religious freedom, and other ideals. It is also apparent in the faith they exhibit in the never-ending, highly expensive efforts to “raise up” blacks into being simulacra of whites (though, of course, it is never put this way). The idea that differences between peoples might be radical, and that whites might be very much alone in certain respects (unique, in fact), seems to be absolutely intolerable to these Leftists. It is this tendency in white liberals which leads me to call Leftism, as I noted earlier, “the last gasp of Western imperialism.” This time, the imperialism is re-branded “multiculturalism”: all peoples will be converted to white, Western ways not by exporting those ways, but by importing those people, who will then manifest their inner whiteness and happily live together ever after. If one considers this point carefully, it is hard to escape the conclusion that, ironically, it is Leftism that is the real white supremacism.
Needless to say, the denial of difference and hierarchy is not a tenable position. The evidence against it is too abundant. As we see all the time these days, Leftists try to deal with this fact by dismissing the evidence against their views, and by intimidating critics into remaining silent. This is not a very effective strategy, however, since the evidence is still out there. And so Leftists have developed an ideological response to the problem posed by the fact that their views do not accord with reality. Their response is to deny that there is any such thing as reality. Here we arrive at the further postulates of Leftist metaphysics.
The “reality” denied by Leftists would better be described as “nature.” For our purposes here, we can define nature simply as that which exists independent of human thoughts, intentions, feelings, and beliefs. (I am not suggesting that there is nothing “natural” about human subjectivity; I am simply distinguishing what exists from what we think exists, or hope exists.) It is this reality that is, for all intents and purposes, denied by the Left. I once had a conversation with an academic feminist who did indeed claim that there is no such thing as nature; that nature is a “construct.”
Leftists do not deny nature or reality in the manner of phenomenalists or Berkeleyan idealists: they do not literally deny that something is out there, something of which we are aware. Rather, they deny, in effect, that what is out there possesses identity. (I am tempted to say “fixed identity,” but this is actually redundant.) Everything that exists possesses identity, in the sense of having certain traits and not others. Things can acquire new traits (or lose ones they already have), but this is because their identity includes certain potentialities and not others. It is the possession of definite identity that, in fact, makes things real. The very distinction between what is real and what is imaginary (or a creation of human subjectivity) is formed from our encounter in infancy with what resists our intentions, because it possesses an identity we cannot completely manipulate or control.
Leftist metaphysics is the most extreme expression of the general metaphysics of modernity, which holds that everything is wholly manipulable by human beings. As another Counter-Currents author has put it:
Nature seems unreal to moderns because to them it is unfinished: it waits upon us to put our stamp upon it; to ‘make it into something.’ Natural objects always therefore have the status of mere potentials: potentials for being made over, improved upon, or re-used or re-arranged in some fashion.
This denial of identities that exist independent of human designs is the root metaphysical assumption behind a whole host of Leftist follies. The doctrine of “social construction” is directly and obviously dependent upon it. Everything is “fluid”: men can become women and women can become men; race is an illusion, and there are no inherent racial identities. Leftist arguments for these positions depend upon appeals to borderline cases and the assertion that “everything is on a spectrum.” Borderline cases exist, but the conclusions Leftists draw from them are non sequiturs. As Greg Johnson has pointed out elsewhere, according to the logic of Leftism, since colors are on a spectrum, there is therefore no such thing as green, blue, yellow, and so on. One could extend this sort of logic to argue that there are no “natural kinds” at all, even with respect to what we call species. And some Leftists, especially academics, actually do make this claim. Those same academics will charge any believer in real identities with the sin of “essentialism” (where “essence” is understood to mean “inherent identity”).
If there are no definite identities, then there is no “truth,” since truth is the recognition of identities and states of affairs that exist independent of our minds. For Leftists, “Truth” can be retained only in the sense of “my truth” or “your truth.” Of course, this interpretation of truth retains the word, but guts its meaning: saying that something is “true for me” merely means that I believe it. There is thus no way for the Left to distinguish mere belief from knowledge. We must dispense also with appeal to “facts,” since a “fact” is simply something known to be true. Besides, facts are just tools of oppression – or so academic Leftists and SJWs claim. (In a certain sense, this is true: those whose ideology is at odds with reality must of necessity feel oppressed by an appeal to facts.)
Needless to say, logic is out the window as well. As Ayn Rand never tired of pointing out (correctly), logic rests on the law of non-contradiction, which in turn rests on the law of identity: something cannot possess property X and not possess it at the same and in the same respect; which presupposes that things have specific, identifiable identities that exist apart from our beliefs about them. The Left is now quite open in its rejection of logic, which is dismissed as a product of Western ethnocentrism or even white supremacism. Never mind that Leftists use – or abuse – logic in making such claims: If logic is a tool of Western ethnocentrism, and if that is bad, then logic must be rejected. Once again, Leftists are not likely to be persuaded by the observation that their views are self-contradictory. The rejection of logic is obviously one of the major reasons why Leftists are so comfortable with contradiction.
It follows from what has been said so far that the elimination of reality, identity, truth, fact, and logic is simultaneously the elevation of the subjective to absolute status. In other words, what is given primacy in Leftist metaphysics is subjective states: beliefs, feelings, sentiments, wishes, hopes, and dreams. Hence the constant emphasis on changing or manipulating the “messages” people receive (as if changing these will change reality), or the words they use. (Remember: the only reason women are not as strong as men is that they’ve been told they are not as strong.) Hence the Leftist faith that “education” (i.e., propaganda) will remove all inequalities.
Furthermore, for the Left, subjective states are not evaluable according to any standard independent of subjectivity, since that has been eliminated. For Leftists, the only thing that can check the subjectivity of individuals is the collective subjectivity of groups. Hence the emphasis the Left places on policing the thought, speech, and actions of everybody, especially its own. And hence the conformity of individual Leftists, their dread of censure, and their fear of ostracism. For the Left, the group or groupmind is the only reality.
I noted earlier that, given their metaphysics, there is no way for Leftists to distinguish mere belief from knowledge. We might also ask if there is ultimately any way for them to distinguish sanity from madness. Without a conception of an objective reality consisting of beings with definite identities, it is hard to see how one can make that distinction. In the last several years, it has become popular on the Right to speak loosely about liberalism as a “mental illness,” or of “libtards.” There is actually some truth to this. Given the Left’s rejection of objective reality and elevation of subjectivism, it stands to reason that it would attract individuals who are not entirely sound.
It also stands to reason that it would weaken or worsen mental health. How? Well, to adhere truly to Leftist dogmas, one has to deny the sensory experiences human beings have on a daily basis. For example, the significant physical differences between the races are perceivable directly, but social construction theory demands that I reject the evidence of the senses and, in essence, regard my experience as an illusion. “Sally” may seem to me, in every way available to sensory experience, to be a man, but again, I must deny the evidence of the senses and regard “her” as a woman.
Indeed, I spent so much time earlier dealing with the Leftist treatment of sex differences and of transgender because it is here that we really find the ultimate in the Left’s denial of nature, and its capacity to persuade others to deceive themselves. There is probably nothing more basic in our experience than our capacity to distinguish between the sexes. In order to be a consistent Leftist, one has to bifurcate one’s consciousness. Orwell wrote of this bifurcation – this “doublethink” – in Nineteen Eighty-Four:
To know and not to know, to be conscious of complete truthfulness while telling carefully constructed lies, to hold simultaneously two opinions which cancelled out, knowing them to be contradictory and believing in both of them, to use logic against logic, to repudiate morality while laying claim to it, to believe that democracy was impossible and that the Party was the guardian of democracy, to forget, whatever it was necessary to forget, then to draw it back into memory again at the moment when it was needed, and then promptly to forget it again, and above all, to apply the same process to the process itself – that was the ultimate subtlety; consciously to induce unconsciousness, and then, once again, to become unconscious of the act of hypnosis you had just performed.
Leftism requires a kind of Kantian divide between “experience” (the realm of sensory evidence and facts) and the “moral realm” beyond actual experience. When confronted with inconvenient facts, Leftists seem to feel that they have a moral obligation to ignore them. It is not unlike Kant’s treatment of matters such as freedom of the will: though experience (and science) may give us no actual evidence of free will, we must nevertheless believe that we are free. Though experience may give us no actual evidence for racial equality, no evidence that “Sally” is a woman, we must nevertheless believe . . .
This gives us another reason for the Left’s high tolerance for contradiction. Ultimately, Leftists are uninterested in truth (real truth) or consistency. They believe that certain claims must be asserted – not because they are supported by facts, but because they are moral. It is entirely irrelevant to them if some of these claims contradict others. To take one example discussed earlier, Leftists can assert that race is a social construct and vilify an entire race (whites) because they feel that both stances are morally obligatory. That they contradict each other is simply not a consideration (“. . . to hold simultaneously two opinions which cancelled out, knowing them to be contradictory and believing in both of them . . . ”).
Now, because this metaphysics essentially repudiates reality, its adherents find themselves actively in opposition to reality. They will attempt to eliminate, or lessen the disconnect, between their ideology and reality, which causes them significant cognitive dissonance, using both “internal” and “external” strategies. The “internal strategy” involves control of one’s own thoughts: refusing to entertain certain offending facts or to listen to opposing ideas; training the mind not to notice certain features of reality (e.g., common male or female traits; the behavior patterns of races, etc.); the “doublethink” described by Orwell.
The “external strategy” involves actually attempting to alter reality to bring it into accord with ideology. Familiar examples of this include suppressing opposition (deplatforming, intimidating, discrediting, imprisoning, or even killing opponents, and banning heretical books); seizing power over institutions; the imposition of “plans” for remaking culture or the economic sphere according to visions of what ought to be (Soviet “five year plans,” Mao’s “Great Leap Forward” and “Cultural Revolution,” etc.); re-education (the transformation of schools into indoctrination centers, the injection of political content into every area of life, the use of torture and brainwashing to “convert” opponents – for a classic example read about the “Pitesti Experiment”); the ritualistic destruction of reminders of bourgeois/racist/sexist/homophobic/transphobic culture (the pulling down of monuments; destruction of historical artifacts; desecration of graves; posthumous trying and convicting of alleged oppressors; the renaming of towns, cities, streets, schools, theaters, awards), and so on.
However, the more psychologically interesting examples of the “external strategy” involve Leftists attempting to, for lack of a better term, “fake reality.” One form of this strategy involves manipulating situations or data so as to give the appearance that Leftists are making progress in achieving their ideals. (This could be called the “Potemkin Village Strategy.”) It is important to note that the primary objective of this is to fool themselves. Other manifestations of this tendency involve Leftists manipulating their surroundings so as to shield themselves from facts which, according to their ideology, are not supposed to exist. They may also manipulate their surroundings so as to protect themselves from being confronted with opposing viewpoints. Here are a few more specific examples (in no particular order), some of which are already very familiar to my readers:
- Affirmative action: Liberals rig the system in order to elevate the social position of less-qualified blacks and Hispanics (never Asians), then pretend that they never practiced affirmative action, and that said blacks and Hispanics merited everything they received. Once again, listen to Orwell: “. . . to forget, whatever it was necessary to forget, then to draw it back into memory again at the moment when it was needed, and then promptly to forget it again, and above all, to apply the same process to the process itself . . .’
- The dumbing down of schools in order to make the achievement gap between the races less obvious. Also: the elimination of programs for the gifted, since they are overwhelmingly populated by whites and Asians.
- The systematic attempt to eliminate all dissenting voices among university faculties. This is motivated principally by the desire to create an environment in which Leftists are never confronted with ideas that might upset them. As Jef Costello has noted, Leftists have thus turned academia into a “fantastic alternate reality” in which they can go on believing whatever illusions they like, “confident that no one around them will be so gauche as to confront them with facts.”
- The creation of a multitude of “safe spaces” where Leftists can be protected from reality. These include universities, as just discussed, as well as all the little enclaves of white liberals. From within the walls of their upscale, gated, monochrome communities, protected from the harsh realities of “diversity,” they can advocate diversity, inclusion, and especially, the necessity to tear down walls.
- The creation of a fake reality through the entertainment industry. Films and television programs created by Leftists not only propagandize the public, but provide the already converted with an escape into a world in which all their fantasies become reality: wise black judges; brilliant black scientists; a female President; multicultural Thanksgiving dinners; feminist superheroes who are stronger than the boys; white people with black best friends; Wakanda – and so on.
- Censorship of hard news by Left-wing journalists: not reporting the race of criminal perpetrators (a common practice in multicultural Europe), with some crimes not reported at all (usually, again, because of the race of the perpetrators) while others are downplayed. This often has the effect of putting individuals at risk: shielded from the realities of human difference, they become too trusting in, say, what neighborhoods they visit or who they buzz into their buildings.
- The dismissal of crime statistics as “racist,” since Leftists know a priori that no group could be more prone to crime than any other (because everybody is “equal” and race is a “construct”).
- The dismissal of the results of IQ testing, for the exact same reasons.
- The denial of hereditarianism, despite the overwhelming evidence in favor of it, as well as the never-ending attempts to manipulate the environment or the “messages” groups receive, on the supposition that environment is everything.
- The hyper-concern with language, something Orwell analyzed brilliantly: the idea that by changing language, certain thoughts are made impossible. And if certain thoughts are made impossible, reality is changed (or faked). To take one infamous example (which has not caught on), the disabled are, according to PC, “differently abled.” Thus, the fact that disability is a negative is swept away by a word change.
- The selective alteration or revision of history – something else Orwell got. Much has now gone down the memory hole. History books are being rewritten by Leftists to de-emphasize the importance of Greece to world civilization, and to de-emphasize the contribution of the West generally. Western achievements – so politically correct historians are now saying – were due to “luck.” (See my long review essay of Ricardo Duchesne’s The Uniqueness of Western Civilization.)
- Forced apologies, confessions, and self-criticism. The Communists were famous for extracting these under torture, or at gunpoint. In the US, the Left extracts them by threatening people with the loss of their careers (in Europe, there is also the threat of jail). It is important to understand that this serves two purposes. The first, and most obvious, is to intimidate others into silence. The second purpose is to reassure Leftists that they are right. As difficult as this may be for some of us to believe, the recantations of heretics strengthen believers in their faith.
Of course, many other examples could be given.
The outcome of the Leftist metaphysics is death. And what else could it be? This is an ideology that insists that nature, including human nature, is infinitely malleable. It denies difference and natural inequality. It loathes the strong and lauds the weak. It denigrates beauty and raises up ugliness. It denigrates family and celebrates the hedonism of the childless. It denies truth, while asserting what it takes to be absolute truths. It uses logic to reject logic. It moralizes, while denying morality. It promises a glorious future, while causing misery in the present. It demands we love strangers and hate our own. When the attempt is made to remake reality according to this nest of contradictions, the result can only be the destruction of life, health, happiness, civilization, and nations. It is absolutely deadly – and this is not, of course, mere speculation. The track record of the Left is one of murder, torture, tyranny, famine, poverty, and general misery unparalleled in human history. Leftism is the worst disaster ever to befall life on Earth.
And we should not entertain, even for a moment, that all of this was the awful result of noble intentions gone awry. One need only look at the gleeful, shrieking, hate-filled faces of the misshapen creatures who call themselves the Left today. There is no question that at the root of Leftism is a virulent nihilism: a will to destroy, to profane, and to corrupt all that is strong, healthy, and decent. At some level of their awareness, all Leftists know that their ideals will not work – and they do not care. The real point of Leftism is not to improve the world, but to destroy it.
* * *
This completes my account of the metaphysics of the Left, and the psychology that seems to be inextricably wedded to it. In the next essay (which will follow in a few days), I will show how what we have learned about the fundamentals of Leftist ideology can help us discern what the metaphysics of the Right must be.
 And see also my essay “Heidegger: An Introduction for Anti-Modernists” in What is a Rune? and Other Essays.
 The argument here could be expressed more rigorously either as a hypothetical or a categorical syllogism:
If logic is a tool of Western ethnocentrism, then it must be rejected.
Logic is a tool of Western ethnocentrism
Therefore, logic must be rejected. [Modus Ponens]
[All] logic is a tool of Western ethnocentrism.
[All] tools of Western ethnocentrism are things that must be rejected.
Therefore, [All] logic is a thing that must be rejected. [AAA-4]
My point, in case it is not obvious, is that Leftists use logic in the very process of rejecting it. This means either that logic is absolute (incapable of being coherently denied), or, at the very least, it means that Leftists cannot escape their own Western ethnocentrism. I tend to believe that both are true.
 George Orwell, Nineteen Eighty-Four (New York: Houghton-Mifflin, 2017), 34.
> This gives us another reason for the Left’s high tolerance for contradiction. Ultimately, Leftists are uninterested in truth (real truth) or consistency. They believe that certain claims must be asserted – not because they are supported by facts, but because they are moral. It is entirely irrelevant to them if some of these claims contradict others.
If I may say so, I believe this is typical right-wing explanation for the left. We express our understanding in a way it becomes understandable to us.
But I believe that the left simply has no concept of truth or consistency. I mean that literally. On an emotional level (i.e. unconscious) they cannot conceive of these concepts. Rationally they can, so it is possible to rationally discuss with the more intelligent left, and even score a few points where they will concede that some view of the right is fact. However when you confront them a week later with the same fact, you have again to start from zero because the rational process does not register, does not stick, with them.
If I might borrow a quote from a famous early 20th century philosopher and leader. I will substitute a few choice words within [square parentheses].
But a [Leftist] could never be parted from his opinions.
At that time I was still childish enough to try to make the madness of their doctrine clear to them; in my little circle I talked my tongue sore and my throat hoarse, thinking I would inevitably succeed in convincing them how ruinous their [Leftist] madness was; but what I accomplished was often the opposite. It seemed as though their increased understanding of the destructive effects of [Leftist] theories and their results only reinforced their determination.
The more I argued with them, the better I came to know their dialectic. First they counted on the stupidity of their adversary, and then, when there was no other way out, they themselves simply played stupid. If all this didn’t help, they pretended not to understand, or, if challenged, they changed the subject in a hurry, quoted platitudes which, if you accepted them, they immediately related to entirely different matters, and then, if again attacked, gave ground and pretended not to know exactly what you were talking about. Whenever you tried to attack one of these apostles, your hand closed on a jelly-like slime which divided up and poured through your fingers, but in the next moment collected again. But if you really struck one of these fellows so telling a blow that, observed by the audience, he couldn’t help but agree, and if you believed that this had taken you at least one step forward, your amazement was great the next day. The [Leftist] had not the slightest recollection of the day before, he rattled off his same old nonsense as though nothing at all had happened, and, if indignantly challenged, affected amazement; he couldn’t remember a thing, except that he had proved the correctness of his assertions the previous day.
Sometimes I stood there thunderstruck.
I didn’t know what to be more amazed at: the agility of their tongues or their virtuosity at lying
I like to elaborate a bit on the previous remark: we, right wing, have an inner core, a visceral level, where we ‘feel’ what is right. When we hear something that makes sense we ‘know’ on an emotional , instinctual level that this is so. Let’s call this recognition of truth process ‘inner conviction’.
As said the inner conviction for the right is based in objective reality.
The inner conviction for the left is based on outcome, they know at a visceral level what *must be*.
The Greeks called that inner conviction nous, a word which is often translated as Reason. This is not rationality in the sense of calculation but of intuition or insight.
Unfortunately, it’s a rather slippery concept in philosophy and leftists, in their rejection of logic, have often seized upon it as a kind of effortless “getting it”. It allows them to dismiss their opponents as simply “unenlightened”.
Thanks I did not know that (nous).
My main point is that left and right have fundamentally different inner convictions (nous) and never shall the two meet.
We cannot be convinced by them, but they will never be convinced by us.
I don’t think the subjectivity Collin ascribes to leftists can properly be called nous, because their rejection of an objective reality with definite identities eliminates an essential element of that concept.
But I think it’s a very apt word for our reality-based outlook.
I thought “Nous” was translated as “Mind”.
Yes, that is another common translation. Neither English word fully captures the meaning of the Greek.
Consider, however, the way we say someone has “lost his mind” when he’s behaving irrationally.
White leftists look at non-whites as pets they need to take care of and train to act white.
Another terrific contribution from Cleary. This Part II could even stand alone.
How old is that picture of the triggered college girl and how long can you keep strawmanning her as anyone who holds any power over you in any way?
Are you her?
There are far worse creatures that we can show as the face of white western left.
But we are kind.
After reading these lines, can anybody in their right mind pretend there is no devil?
Turns out the road to hell isn’t paved with good intentions but with shrieking harpies and gender pronouns.
Sinistram delenda est.
The road to hell is the road of least resistance.
This is a superb essay. Quite possibly the best I’ve read this year. When I saw that the two parts together exceeded 8,000 words I’ve got to admit I hesitated. I’m glad now that I made the time. Worth every minute. I will be sharing this far and wide in Normieville.
There are many out there who call themselves leftists who I think are not natural leftists, but rather products of a contemporary culture warped by the Left’s Long March. I think these people can be easily persuaded to reject Leftist dogma once they realise they’ve been duped into forming an alliance with the devil himself. Then there are those who you will never be persuaded. They are unreachable through reason because their worldview isn’t informed by reason but by deeply rooted metaphysical presuppositions as Collin has explained. These are people who would require a fundamental change of personality before altering their worldview and their politics because the foundations of their beliefs is essentially a massive emotional substructure.
The only thing I would add to Collin’s essay is the Left’s fetishization of choice. They believe that the immutable things we do not voluntarily choose of our own accord have no real value. In the spirit of Montaigne’s “Nothing human is alien to me” I understand this tendency quite well. In fact, I used to make the argument myself and would even take it to its extreme. I would argue about how blood is not thicker than water, or at least shouldn’t be considered as such, and how it was wrong to treat members of your family different to anyone else because, after all, you did not CHOOSE your family.
To what degree I chose these viewpoints or they were subtly implanted in me from a young age by liberal dogma and propaganda, I cannot tell. I suspect it was a combination of both. I see them now for what they were – an attempt to break down any nepotism, nationalistic feelings and ingroup preferences within the majority population so as to reorient the values of White society to serve the interests of outsiders.
This sort of “rejection of things not chosen” is typical among Whites, liberals in particular, and it’s a problem. If you’re the only one saying we should value only what we choose to associate with voluntarily, then you’ll eventually be replaced by the most tribal groups in your society who have no problem believing blood is thicker than water. In ethnically homogeneous societies, liberal thinking such as this is a luxury. In the multiracial societies we all live in today, it becomes a liability.
Also, valuing only those things you can CHOOSE leads quickly and inevitably to a form of nihilism since choice itself can be deconstructed. For evidence of this, look no further than the persuasive arguments which have been made, and continue to be made, against the notion that we are free agents with free will. If Schopenhauer was right when he said, “Man can do what he wills but he cannot will what he wills” then do we fundamentally choose anything at all? And if we don’t, and choice is a prerequisite for value, then is there anything of intrinsic worth that that can be salvaged in the worldview of the Leftist?
Once voluntary choice has been deconstructed and chased from the stage, then all that remains is the question of whether one should bother valuing anything at all. I say that we should. I say that existence itself, including the existence of one’s own racial group, is a thing very much to be valued in whatever form it takes, even if that form is one which has been thrust upon one at birth.
A wise man once wrote:
“_To be_ always means _to be something_, to possess a specific identity consisting of certain traits and not others. … Every identity is always an _identity in difference_. In other words, the identity of anything is constituted through the ways in which it is different from other things. … As we have seen, there is no difference without conflict, no identity without difference, and no being without identity. Those who believe that we can ignore differences and end all conflict are those who–whether they realize it or not–wish for the eradication of distinct identities. But without identity there is … _nothing_. Life, being itself, is identity–and thus life is difference and strife.”
— Asatru and the Political
And elsewhere, the same wise man wrote:
“All of us are determinate beings of one kind or another, and what has given us determinate form is a whole host of factors wee did not chose. Again, it cannot be any other way: The man who bemoans the fact this makes him ‘unfree’ is really the man whose ideal of freedom is to be nothing at all.
“This is the dirty little secret of modernity: the desire not to be anything determinate. We moderns want to believe that we are ‘free’ in the sense of having the ability, if we so choose, to be completely unaffected by the past, by heredity, by ties to others, by hormones, by anatomy, by culture, by ethnicity, and, in general, by any and all physical or social circumstances. … We revolt against the very idea that we–and other things–might _be something_; something definite.”
“The will to be nothing definite is simply the will _not to be_. This is the awful telos of modern, Western civilization. Our quest for a false freedom is at root a will to erase ourselves from the world; a death wish. Life is identity, definiteness, form, order, hierarchy, and limits. Those who would affirm life must affirm all of these things.”
— Are We Free?
Thank you. One of the burdens on us is the necessity of repeating obvious truths over and over again. I keep returning to certain themes, as they are simply NOT obvious to many.
This! Their war against particularity is a war against form itself. Form itself is “Fascism”, and those who participate in the formation of anything resistant to change are Nazis (demons). What’s funny is that in their metaphysics, “fascists” are magical in a sense — we are the only beings that actually have particularity, and we’re able to use use the evil magic of “hate” to give things a specific form. But it’s OK for them to hate us; their hate is a good kind of hate because it negates form and leads to spiritual freedom through a complicated alchemical transmutation discovered by Jews.
One of the more useful things Jordan Peterson has said is that the right is instinctively disgusted at the mixing of different categories, while the left seems to take pleasure therein. Thus the right respects natural boundaries and draws artificial lines where we feel they should exist, whereas the left denies any and all differences and thus wants to tear down all boundaries (viewing them as oppressive artificial constructs). This occurs at all levels of discourse, from national borders to the gender binary. Of course it’s possible for the right to go too far in drawing boundaries but this is not a problem we’re likely to encounter any time soon.
As you say, the left’s tendencies stem from their inadequacies, causing them to identify and cooperate with out-group losers. They correctly recognize that their access to resources is restricted when boundaries are enforced. Hence they deny reality and tear down barriers because it gives them greater access to resources, even if doing so is unsustainable and can only result in death and destruction. This is exemplified in the transgender movement, which – for the time being – self-selects its proponents for sterility and gene death.
Ironically (for the leftist) it is the artificial construct of modernity and technological advancement that allows them to bypass the natural order (e.g. women can put off having children into later life thanks to fertility treatments, and low IQ individuals can reproduce carelessly thanks to welfare benefits). If we were to send these people back in time, nature / reality would impose its rules and likely cull their genes from the population. This suggests that civilization collapses when the natural barriers to survival become too relaxed. Thus the more technologically advanced a society, the more quickly it will become dysgenic and fail if eugenic controls are not applied.
Just a wonderful article. I love knowing the psychological motivations that underpin behavior. Knowing “why” is what gives one real insight.
Perhaps I’ve misunderstood Collin’s purpose in writing these essays. The introduction to part one led me to believe that the analysis of leftist metaphysics was not intended as polemic, but as a first step in clarifying our own metaphysics. Now that the first step has been completed, I look forward to the next, more positive essays.
Fantastic! Well-written and quite useful. I shared this with Lefty friends as well.
I have some doubts, Lenin wrote a book entitled, “Left-Wing” Communism: an Infantile Disorder, that “left-wing” are the liberals, even lenin was anti-liberal, in a Marxist-Leninist dictatorship the liberals would be the first to go to the gulags, including Yuri Bezmenov, mentioned in his famous interview that the Soviets considered the silly-useful liberals.
Liberals would be suicidal they could not be considered left-wing.
Comments are closed.
If you have Paywall access,
simply login first to see your comment auto-approved.
Note on comments privacy & moderation
Your email is never published nor shared.
Comments are moderated. If you don't see your comment, please be patient. If approved, it will appear here soon. Do not post your comment a second time.
Edit your comment