Why Does Cthulhu Always Swim Left?
Part 2 of 2 (Part 1 here)
When Leftists are out of power, they’re figuring out how to get into power. One classic example is Vladimir Lenin’s What is to Be Done? My take is that it’s dreadfully boring, which is hardly unusual for pinko texts. The main theme is why revolutionary Communism is better than organized labor movements that are only seeking better paychecks. Much of it is ideological nitpicking, with Comrade Lenin getting in the final word over his competitors. That’s of certain historical interest, but otherwise the petty squabbles among rival Leftists are long forgotten by now.
Although it seemed fairly thin on actionable advice — maybe I didn’t dive deep enough into it — but surely there must have been something to the ideological gatekeeping. Of course, surely he did a lot of other planning, too. The text was published in 1902, and he had only started his movement with about 50 followers not long before. The October Revolution took place 15 years later, after which he was busily consolidating power over the world’s largest country. That’s quite extraordinary, most especially for a guy whose brain under that famous chrome dome was turning into Swiss cheese.
Countermeasures: We spend quite a bit of time making plans for how society can be saved. Some might be a little far-fetched, but still worth a shot as long as we’re not putting all our eggs in one basket. These, however, are going to be castles in the sky until we get enough coordination and soft power (at least) to make a difference. We already have lots of plans — and some of them are pretty darn good — that begin with “When we get in charge,” so let’s start focusing on how to get in charge first.
The big tent strategy
Leftists will form alliances of convenience with anyone who’ll play ball with them. They now have a powerful coalition of groups that otherwise wouldn’t have much to do with each other. For example, blacks and Hispanics are competitors in the labor market and compete (sometimes ferociously) for territory, yet they’re part of the same coalition. For that matter, with the exception of Marcus Garvey blacks got little traction with their organizing until they had (((outside help))). Meanwhile, their Hispanic rivals haven’t formed too many parties larger than a quinceañera. Muslims have been courted for a while, even though it’s nonsensical given that Islamic views clash with the views of major Leftist constituencies — namely Jews (excepting neocons), feminists, and gays. On that note, every letter in the LGBT movement dislikes the other letters, but they’ve always coexisted in the same fruit salad. When the Left finally brings the bronies, furries, otherkin, and obsessive nose-pickers (a more powerful bloc than one might imagine) on board, their coalition will be complete and they’ll be ready to conquer the world at last.
What unites these widely disparate special interest groups? Normally they’d pursue their own various goals, but instead cultural Marxism binds them together with pure ressentiment serving as the glue. They have nothing in common with each other except fear and envy of normal white people. As destructive as this has been, it’s inescapable that the Leftists have accomplished an impressive feat.
Countermeasures: I once suggested that we start doing the same, and I got barbecued in the comments section. After that, I felt like a Branch Davidian of the Extra Crispy denomination. (What the hell, guys?) If the white population drops below 50%, which our blessed politicians are hell-bent on doing against the public’s will, we need to have some allies, or at least groups that are off doing their own thing rather than being pawns in a hostile united front. Just saying . . .
To do so we could use some more finesse, as well as negotiating skills. The “because screw you” principle works reliably if one has absolute power and can dictate terms, but rather obviously we’re not there yet. Thus, it’ll help to consider what will motivate rivals to back off, or perhaps even cooperate. Messages such as “drop dead” tend not to win hearts and minds. At the other extreme, payoffs, or other unacceptable concessions are a bad idea. A proper carrot-to-stick ratio is necessary.
Leftists usually work out their differences behind closed doors. Sometimes there are public clashes between interest groups, but these tend to be the exception. I’m not sure how it all works, since there’s no Cominern or Politburo to set the party line these days. Still, the job gets done. By all appearances it seems like a cloud of major influencers is effectively calling the shots. They project a collective political consensus, which is picked up by everyone else. As for the worker bees, those who have doubts about it will think twice before dissenting from the hive mind. Doing so would run the risk of ostracism by their friends. In my opinion, that’s too much conformism, but it does get the job maintaining the state’s ideology in the Empire of Nothing done.
Something someone else has pointed out (PhilosophiCat, if memory serves) is that Leftists will immediately take collective action against targets of opportunity, guided by their ideology. To paraphrase the point, on our side there are those of us who will hesitate due to analytical paralysis. For instance, we might debate with each other about whether we should raise public consciousness about the urban orcs, or whether that’s futile until we get the Eskimos off our backs. It’s better to do something constructive than to overthink it to the point of failing to seize the moment.
Countermeasures: All too often the Right has dramatic public personality clashes. We should end this and focus on our common purpose. That can’t be avoided entirely, since some so-called leaders have demonstrably questionable agendas, but we have far too much sniping. (Note well that the “demonstrably” part is critical; hold your fire about unsubstantiated rumors and ideological nitpicking.) If we save our rhetorical ammo for the enemy rather than squabbling with each other, we would get a lot further.
Other than that, our side has too many armchair Caesars and not enough centurions. Those who dream of being the next Austrian Bonaparte need to get some serious street cred first.
The Dream and The Plan
One thing the Left does well at is to have an animating vision of what the world should be like. (Whether this is attainable or realistic is beside the point.) They also have a message of how to get there. “If only we implement X, it would eliminate a pressing social problem.” Let X stand for Communism, multiracialism, the sexual revolution, globalism, gun-grabbing, defunding the police, free crack pipes, and so on. In some cases, Plan X is practically a vision of Heaven on Earth, which is one way they manage to attain such feverish tenacity.
Although the selling points are pretty compelling, often the unintended consequences end up being worse than the original problem. The good news for them is that Leftists never have to say they’re sorry! They’ve had a lot of remarkably flaky ideas which end very badly. When things go awry, they won’t admit Plan X was a bad idea. Chances are they’ll double down on it. Then they’ll blame their failure on everyone who didn’t buy into their program with sufficient enthusiasm. (This might be accompanied by a witch hunt for Trotskyites, saboteurs, or people who said naughty things on social media.) Nevertheless, their lousy track record is beside the point, since the sales pitch is what gets the rubes on board.
Countermeasures: For Rightists, our vision is typically to avert certain disaster. (History usually proves us right.) A vision with a more positive angle is to have a country that looks like the one we grew up in. That’s not a bad start, but we should step up the game here. Of course, we’ll have to avoid setting wildly unrealistic expectations. The Leftists have been peddling magic pixie dust by the barrel since The Communist Manifesto, but that doesn’t mean that we can (much less should) get away with that, too.
The Left never sleeps
The Left has a lot of highly motivated people on their side. Sometimes it’s a full-time hobby, or even a profession. They have countless lobbies, foundations, non-governmental organizations, and so forth to promote their ideology, and that’s in addition to the usual opinion-forming institutions. Our side has always looked down upon the dirty hippies who have nothing better to do than smoke dope and wave signs, the social justice warriors living in Mommy’s basement, the motormouthed two-bit professional agitators, the bureaucratic barnacles, the pampered pinko professors, the presstitutes, and all the rest of the lazy grifters. Although the scorn for these freeloaders is well-deserved, their tireless efforts certainly add up to a lot of soft power.
I have to admit that the Left has the advantage in sheer gumption. If their activists would put all that energy into self-improvement and gainful employment, they’d work wonders for their personal lives. Of course, if they did that, they’d stop being Leftist rotters.
Countermeasures: We’ll need to find the time to counter this with our own efforts, even if we’re busy with work and family. If Rightists put in as much determination as Leftists do, the results would be stunning. We’d see a sudden seismic shift, as with the collapse of the Soviet Union, except this time globalism would be on the way out. Now imagine George Soros crying in his beer . . .
The problem is that for all too many garden-variety conservatives, politics is only something they do on Election Day. The Right needs to get past that notion. If all the people who just want to be left alone were to realize that The System has no intention of leaving them alone — even if they move to a frozen square state — then the Sleeping Giant would awaken at long last. It’s high time for Joe Sixpack to get off the couch and get it in gear. Granted, overdoing it is counterproductive, but the more common problem conservatives have is doing little more than griping. Sometimes even Dissident Rightists will need a little reminding that the enemy has no intention of stopping until they’re dancing on our graves. Obviously we’d better stop them first.
Their radical vanguard is driving the agenda
The radical Left forms a center of gravity that pulls its moderates in their direction. For example, although the Communist Party USA’s best electoral showing was only about a quarter of a percent, a powerful Marxist ideological undertow emanated from a vast network of undeclared members (“illegals”), fellow travelers, agents of influence, front groups, comsymps, useful idiots, and the peculiar species of worms known as liberal journalists. Likewise, feminism has dozens of factions that can be difficult to define, but the bra-burning core (generally the ones who use the Redstockings Manifesto as a playbook) ends up driving the agenda. By the time of the Stonewall riots, the militant gay factions had eclipsed the moderates. Not even moderate liberals feel any obligation to disavow Leftist radicals, or even admit that any past notables went too far. Note that although they can get very touchy about language, calling them “extremists” has no effect whatsoever.
Meanwhile, the center Right pointedly does not follow the lead of the radical Right. Instead, as if by some odd instinct, they’ll avoid straying too far from the Left! They wouldn’t want to be outside of the mainstream, now would they? Perish the thought! If their opponents called them extremists — or even worse names, heaven forfend — it would be simply awful! When that happens, they fall all over themselves to prove that they’re moderates. (One typical shtick is, “Well, I’m not an extremist, unlike this guy a little to my right.”) Obviously such a self-imposed ideological gag order puts the Left in the driver’s seat.
Because the moderates have been tricked into self-policing by accepting the Left’s taboos and moral framework, the radical Right is shut out of the discussion. Not only that, but the mainstream Right attacks us with more vehemence than they do their actual opponents. Sometimes they’ll even confuse us with leftists; now, that’s special. As I stated in Deplorable Diatribes:
The lukewarm, bland, and timid form the vanguard of mainstream conservatism. If they’re called extremists, they roll over and play dead. They’re always suckers for “salami slicing” tactics. They give the cold shoulder to those who defy politically correct taboos that Leftists created, or even jump through hoops to disavow the hardcore. (An enemy stabs you in the back, but a friend stabs you in the front.) None of it gains new converts, much less Leftist approval. Trying to show that they’re moderates by punching right effectively lets their own opposition frame the debate. It’s time to cease this absurdity.
Countermeasures: Mainstream conservatives need to stop playing by the rules of discourse established by Leftists. Their enemies won’t even give them a pat on the back for it — trust me! The “punch right, defend left” stuff will get them nowhere. Also, they must start daring to go beyond the mainstream. The alternative is holding their ground at best, slipping backward inevitably, and never recapturing lost territory.
The mainstream media — a veritable pillar of Our Democracy ™ — is more incestuous than the Rothschilds. There was the JournoList group which was quickly shut down when someone discovered it and spilled the beans. Lately, coordination is done by other private social media groups. They’re not supposed to do that — believe it or not, there’s an antiquated concept called “journalistic ethics” — but it happens anyway. That’s why TV announcers can be found saying the same things, like they’re reading from the same script; it’s because they are! When a talking head from the Clinton News Network recites the same boilerplate as the one for LOX News — not only different corporations, but supposedly ideologically opposed ones — that says everything one needs to know about how the mainstream media works.
That one was just for starters. If this is how journalists can coordinate, imagine what the Deep State types in cahoots with each other are up to. With the e-mail leaks a few years back, we could do more than imagine! For one thing, that left quite a few of us puzzling over what a handkerchief with a map that seems pizza-related could be, now didn’t it?
Networking is a biggie. Leftists have a massive head start on organizing. Granted, these days there is no Comintern or Politburo to send the party line down the big transmission belt. On the other hand, if all the unofficial channels could be visualized, they’d look like a massive spider web crisscrossing the globe, probably far beyond my imagination. This needn’t even be a conspiratorial cabal; simply by having many friends in high places, one can move mountains. They’ve had a knack for this sort of thing since day one. And with computer technology, it’s easier than ever.
Countermeasures: We could be doing that, too. Again, computer technology makes it easy. We’ve made some inroads already. Still, if there’s a Vast, Right-Wing Conspiracy, as Cupcake informed us in 1998 when Chubby Bubba got caught with his pants down, then I have never been invited to the party. (Either there isn’t one, or I need more street cred to get noticed!) Granted, cyber-security is a concern. The remedy is to have it set up by people knowledgeable about the subject who can research it and do it right. Also, it’s important to be picky about who is invited. Finally, the general best advice for social media applies even on private channels: that is, don’t say anything online that you wouldn’t want to appear in a newspaper article. Since cyber-security and screening can’t be assured with 100% confidence, then if in doubt, keep your big yap shut.
It doesn’t have to be this way
Earlier I mentioned animating visions. One of these is that the political environment inevitably moves leftward; if not now, then certainly later. It’s a notion that the Neoreactionaries call Whig historiography. As the Leftists tell it, they’ll always get their way eventually; therefore, resistance is futile. This is akin to their assertion that they’re on the right side of history. Surely this vision is good for a triumphalist thrill, but is it always true or desirable?
One major problem is that the infinite leftward trajectory has no endpoint in sight. There’s a lot that could be said about this, but I’ll give the capsule summary. Perpetual revolutions will ultimately tend toward chaos and nihilism. In practice, Year Zero all too often ends in a massive purity spiral. If a government has unlimited powers, absolute certainty that they’re right, and flaky ideas that don’t work, then things can get very bad indeed.
Other than that, “change” is not a direction, and buzzwords such as “progress” are too vague to be a practical guide. Besides, who gets to decide exactly what progress means? That’s a very evocative question! How many of these Leftists actually know who put these fuzzy notions into their fuzzy noggins? If they knew the cultural forensics of it all — who came up with these ideas, and why — they might be quite shocked, indeed!
There are ways to do dialectics other than the one-way ratchet where one side obliterates the other. The original form involved a back-and-forth motion, rather like a pendulum. The perpetual cultural revolution has gone far enough, and it’s time to push back. Standing athwart history and yelling “Stop!” isn’t enough anymore.
* * *
Counter-Currents has extended special privileges to those who donate $120 or more per year.
- First, donor comments will appear immediately instead of waiting in a moderation queue. (People who abuse this privilege will lose it.)
- Second, donors will have immediate access to all Counter-Currents posts. Non-donors will find that one post a day, five posts a week will be behind a “Paywall” and will be available to the general public after 30 days.
- Third, Paywall members have the ability to edit their comments.
- Fourth, Paywall members can “commission” a yearly article from Counter-Currents. Just send a question that you’d like to have discussed to [email protected]. (Obviously, the topics must be suitable to Counter-Currents and its broader project, as well as the interests and expertise of our writers.)
To get full access to all content behind the paywall, sign up here:
Paywall Gift Subscriptions
If you are already behind the paywall and want to share the benefits, Counter-Currents also offers paywall gift subscriptions. We need just five things from you:
- your payment
- the recipient’s name
- the recipient’s email address
- your name
- your email address
To register, just fill out this form and we will walk you through the payment and registration process. There are a number of different payment options.
Counter-Currents Radio Podcast No. 534 Interview with Alexander Adams
Notes on Strauss & Husserl
George Friedman’s The Next 100 Years
The Dakota Territory’s Indian Wars During the Civil War, Part 2
The Dakota Territory’s Indian Wars During the Civil War, Part 1
How Much Would Slavery Reparations Actually Cost?
Martinez Contra Fascism
Munchhausen: The Third Reich’s Wizard of Oz
Notice: Trying to get property 'ID' of non-object in /home/clients/030cab2428d341678e5f8c829463785d/sites/counter-currents.com/wp-content/themes/CC/php/helpers/custom_functions_all.php on line 150
Notice: Trying to get property 'ID' of non-object in /home/clients/030cab2428d341678e5f8c829463785d/sites/counter-currents.com/wp-content/themes/CC/php/helpers/custom_functions_all.php on line 164
I’m not finished the essay yet, but I think if we were to visualize the difference between the actions of the right and left as funnels going in different directions, we quickly see the reason for the left’s success.
The left focuses the energies of its entire motley coalition (wide end of funnel) toward one thing: eliminate whitey and his habitat (Western Civ). With a single goal like that, everything falls into place.
What does the right want? Can it be summed up so succinctly? Should it have to be?
For the right, the funnel goes in the opposite direction, with the open end representing the limitless range of possibilities for human achievement. I don’t think there’s so much a problem with the narrow end, as with the wide end–the multiplicity of possibilities. How do people fight for that?
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.