Including Audio Version by Jim Goad!
Being White, Despite “Left” and “Right”
Jim Goad
Audio version: To listen in a player, use the one below or click here. To download the mp3, right-click here and choose “save link as” or “save target as.”
Speaking as a white man, I have no problem with being a white man.
What I don’t understand is how this automatically makes me a member of the political “Right.”
It’s easy to prove that I’m a white man. A simple DNA test based upon a saliva sample proves that I have entirely European ancestry, which to me is analogous to being white. I believe that continental ancestry is the most efficient shorthand for categorizing the world’s major races.
A basic chromosome test, as well as a cursory listen to my beautifully deep voice or a rudimentary gander at the fulsome bulge in my blue jeans, would prove that I am a man. The gender binary is real. It can be proved with genetics. The political binary cannot.
Whether I, as a provably white man, am “Left-wing” or “Right-wing” is impossible to prove, and I’ll attempt to prove why.
Whenever I try to ask someone who believes in the existence of an objective political “Left” and “Right” to define them in quantifiable terms, my hand closes on a jelly-like slime which divides up and pours through my fingers.
You could perform a DNA test on someone’s skull and determine whether they had significant ancestry from continental Europe. But just as you couldn’t tell whether the brain inside that skull ever harbored “racist” thoughts, you would have no idea whether it favored Left-wing or Right-wing ideas. This is why race is real, while notions such as “racism” and “Left vs. Right” are nothing more than ephemeral social constructs that change according to a given society’s needs.
Unlike DNA tests, there is no sort of scientific metric that can establish where I stand on the political spectrum. About a decade ago, I took 18 different multiple-choice tests designed to pinpoint my political orientation, and the results only established that I was severely and hopelessly disoriented.
Up until I was about 30, because I was mostly uninformed and easily swayed by dominant cultural narratives that I naïvely figured were objective rather than biased, I identified as a liberal. Then one day, I stopped.
All I meant by identifying with the “Left” was that I believed in innate human equality and that all disparities in income, performance, etc., were caused by unfairness. I no longer believe that. As a result, I quit buying into all the guilt-tripping bullshit about whites conquering the world through the sheer force of their unique rottenness. That’s been my only ideological change in the past 30 years. So if you want to define “Left wing” as believing that people are innately equal and “Right wing” as believing they are unequal, then I’m “Right wing” only in that sense.
But the problem is, very few people will let you stop there. They insist you swallow the entire belief cluster in one bite. If you’re “Right wing,” then you have to embrace all the predictably stuffy opinions about tradition, abortion, religion, degeneracy, patriotism, monarchy, feminism, promiscuity, pornography — the whole kit and caboodle. I say fuck the kit, and to hell with the caboodle.
When most people talk about the political Left and Right, they’re never talking about only two things. They’re dredging up a panoply of factors, none of which are entirely Leftist or Rightist on their own, that range along a wide array of polarities: capitalism vs. socialism, race realism vs. race denialism, authoritarianism vs. libertarianism, modernism vs. traditionalism, moralism vs. rationalism, individualism vs. collectivism, facts vs. feelings — more lefts and rights than there are in a boxing match. There are so many lefts and rights, the terms are essentially meaningless.
The notions of political Left and Right are also elastic and perpetually in flux. They are the ideological equivalent of transvestites. In the past few generations, they’ve always lurched leftward. Like Robert Anton Wilson said, “It only takes 20 years for a liberal to become a conservative without changing a single idea.” In his Devil’s Dictionary (1911), Ambrose Bierce defined a conservative as “[a] statesman who is enamored of existing evils, as distinguished from the Liberal, who wishes to replace them with others.” But in 2023, the roles have been switched. It appears that any group’s behavior and values change depending on whether it’s in or out of power.
At the moment it’s the Right-wingers, who’ve lost control of all the major institutions, who want to radically transform society. That used to be a Left-wing sentiment. Right now, it’s the Right-wingers who are in favor of free speech. That used to be a Left-wing sentiment, too. These days, it’s the oligarchs, billionaires, corporatists, and upper economic classes who are marinated in Leftist “woke” ideology. But it wasn’t very long ago that wealth and corporatism were exclusively associated with the Right. A generation ago, Communists were considered extremists. These days, you’re an extremist if you merely want to lower taxes and curb illegal immigration. A century ago, progressives were eugenicists. Now the idea of innate biological inequality is confined to the “far Right” and “Nazis.”
I’ve noticed that both the Left and Right, in their current incarnations, are insanely moralistic, sadistically authoritarian, aggressively anti-individualistic, voyeuristically fixated on everyone’s private business, and bitterly unhappy. We now have a “Right wing” that, like the “Left wing,” is hostile toward individualism. I propose the radical notion that modern politics, especially as they’ve been shoved through the social-media meat-grinder, have made everyone into boring, meddlesome, miserable, insufferable assholes.
Overwhelmingly, both the establishment “Left” and “Right” wings are simultaneously disdainful of “racism” and hostile toward allowing white people to organize in their collective interests.
Sure, but you’ll insist we’re not talking about the “true” Left or Right wings. And the Soviet Union wasn’t true Communism. And no true Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge.
And ain’t it a kick in the head that the side you identify with is the good side, while the other side is the bad side? It seems almost mathematically impossible that this would always be the case, and yet somehow it is.
I’m starting to believe — and no one has been able to convince me otherwise, especially by barking at me and insulting me — that the idea of “Left v. Right” is the biggest fraudulent conspiracy theory ever concocted. I sense that it’s purposely divisive and is used mostly as a distraction — especially away from economic issues, which seem to have been drowned out by the cacophonous culture wars.
I also suspect that if people were able to unglue their heads from the Left/Right dichotomy, they might be able to convince a much broader coalition of white people that they are under attack for their race rather than their beliefs. Did it ever occur to you that these “normies” you claim you’re seeking to reach might be open to the idea that white people are being scapegoated if you weren’t browbeating them for not being as ideologically pure as you are on ten million other unrelated subjects? Have you stopped for a moment to consider that countless ordinary white people might be receptive to pro-white — or at least anti-anti-white — messages if you didn’t insist they also had to be Christian or wear suits or eat meat or smoke cigars or worship long-dead monarchs or be sexually uptight or spit on the poor?
In the microcosmic social incubator that is prison, no one gives a shit about your political beliefs, your religion, or your country of origin. Race is all they see. Maybe there’s a lesson in all that.
When someone assaults a white person on the street for being white, they don’t care about their political beliefs. A few years back, I participated in a debate with that crusty, irascible, cock-obsessed race-denier E. Michael Jones, who famously claims that race is only a “category of the mind.” Jones and I are both from Philly. When he told me that an Irish-Catholic friend of his had been murdered in North Philadelphia, a blighted urban war zone that is overwhelmingly black, I said it’s obvious his friend wasn’t murdered for being Irish or Catholic.
I never really cared about being white until I was told I had to hate myself for it. All I know for sure is that I’m a white male, so is my son, and in the current cultural environment, both the establishment Left and Right are hostile toward us.
It’s time to place biology over ideology. Genes over political scenes. Spread the message that it’s okay to be white without being Left or Right.
* * *
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.
Including%20Audio%20Version%20by%20Jim%20Goad%21%0ABeing%20White%2C%20Despite%20and%238220%3BLeftand%238221%3B%20and%20and%238220%3BRightand%238221%3B%0A
Share
Enjoyed this article?
Be the first to leave a tip in the jar!
Related
-
The Worst Week Yet: April 21-27, 2024
-
Nowej Prawicy przeciw Starej Prawicy Rozdział 2: Hegemonia
-
Is There a Right Wing after Postmodernity? “Euronormativity” and Biopoliticized Resistances to the “Counterhegemonic” Left
-
The Nigga They Are, The Hard “R” They Fall
-
Counter-Currents Radio Podcast No. 582: When Did You First Notice the Problems of Multiculturalism?
-
The Worst Week Yet: April 7-13, 2024
-
The Woman-Punching MAGAts of Manhattan
-
The Woman-Punching MAGAts of Manhattan
24 comments
Beautifully put Mr. Goad.
As a sub-sub librarian I’d like to offer a few footnotes in support of Mr. Goad’s contention:
https://reason.com/2023/05/21/the-left-right-spectrum-is-mostly-meaningless/
https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2023/05/02/the-extreme-center-how-the-neocons-went-woke/
https://www.newsweek.com/neocons-woke-left-are-joining-hands-leading-us-woke-war-iii-opinion-1748947
https://youtu.be/Jrg0X9H6FGU
IIRC, the terms originated in the French Revolution, where the legislators supporting the traditional monarchy sat on the right in the General Assembly and the ones supporting the revolution and/or republicanism sat on the left. For years and even centuries after that, the “left” was associated with anyone wanting to overthrow the traditional order, although I defy anyone to make the case that that’s what the left is now. Anyway, they really seem more like terms of convenience now than anything else, quite often meaning the exact opposite of what they meant historically. Ask any neocon and they will tell you Hitler was a “leftist.”
Yeah, generally the Right favors more “Authority” while the Left more “Anarchy.”
So Stalin was to the Right of most Communists, but the old bank robber who dropped out of training for the priesthood was still decidedly a Leftist.
Libertarians get this all hopelessly mixed up because they obsess about “Big Government,” bourgeois bookkeeping, and monetary policy. Plus, the Church is always the answer even if it is run by Lesbians and pederasts.
And, of course, Hitler was “big gubbamint” even though all regimes use a boatload of central planning and are totalitarian to some degree when they are under siege and waging Total War.
Hitler’s party also had the plurality of seats in the Reichstag (where Hermann Göring was the body’s president), long before the Head of State, President von Hindenburg actually named Hitler Reichskanzler, and the Reichstag voted him emergency powers to fight the Communist subversion decisively for once. All German Chancellors before Hitler used dictatorial decrees liberally ─ except without much popular support or effectiveness.
I think the Left-Right paradigm is handy if one does not take it too literally and has an acceptable level of understanding of history and politics.
Neocons are basically Jews who would be Trotskyite Communists if that were a winning thing today. They usually love Israel and the race-mixing of Gentiles, and they have few objections to cultural-Bolshevism. They have a long racial aversion to Russians and many strident European nationalisms, and they are quite willing to use American military power for their own or “global” interests.
Plus, unlike many quasi-Marxists, Neocons highly enjoy having, speculating, and spending money in modern America. They have not (yet) learned how to viscerally hate American Goys like they do the Russians, Poles, and Germans (in that order).
Irving Kristol, “the Godfather of Neoconservatism,” was literally an ex-Trotskyite or (((sympathizer))). It does not take so much to understand why frumpy budget hawks or global Interventionists are so tolerant of corporate Pride.
🙂
Thanks
Neocons never stopped being Trots.
That was one of several useful things I learned back when I made steel. Trots used to make pilgrimages to every steel town in the country, back before too many mill rats voted for guys like Reagan in the old days and Trump more recently.
That was when weird old Noel was in my local for about a year and a half. Wouldn’t give out any free copies of RACE TRAITOR, either. But definitely a Trot.
Trotsky was/is a religious figure to the neocons, a point not appreciated. The whole red scare in the 1950s was Trots getting back at Stalin. Seriously, there would have been no Joe McCarthy had Stalin let Trotsky retire peacefully in Mexico. But Stalin persecuted Trots in Russia, so Trots persecuted Stalin’s bum-kissers in the USA. Thus, the Hollywood Ten and all that.
Or as Harry Truman put it, the only new thing you ever learn is the history you haven’t read yet.
Maybe Christopher Hitchens, another self-avowed Trotskyite, wasn’t neocon, but he was doing a fine impersonation towards the end.
I’ve read one man who insisted that not only Lenin and Stalin, but even Mao Zedong, all were “Rightists”, because “they were hostile to freedom”, i.e. he thinks that only the Left can defend freedoms.
Well said. Being ‘pro-White’ should be about what makes White people happy. If we don’t agree on the specifics, then we need to cordon them off and leave them to local policy-making. One size does not fit all.
Being left now pretty much boils down to being anti-white. You could want to tax the rich, 99% of their income, legalize public sodomy and legalize court catamites for the likes of Scott Wiener and Jared Polis; but if you have even an inkling of sympathy for the plight of working class whites then you’re a nuh nuh nuh NAZI!
There’s been a sort of inversion of politics. During the Bush Jr. era the right position was to be pro-war and anti-war was the left position. Now with the war in Ukraine the political right/left has been inverted.
The article’s position is undoubtedly the correct default. But it might also be wise to temper expectations wrt how much of the political left — here let’s just define it as people who declare themselves to be in it — one might convince to stop running the ball into the wrong end zone.
I use the term left, imprecise as it is, as a one-syllable four-letter shorthand for neomarxism, a concept that holds meaning at all for probably not 1 in 50 people. Neomarxism is ofc the old Marxist intellectual framework for class war repurposed for ethnic war. I could list its tenets, but we all know them. Most who can be properly labeled neomarxist will at least profess to adhere to and believe in all of its core ideas with snore-inducing regularity.
Wilson was right, sure. FDR and JFK would now be considered conservative, right or even far right.
Citing Alain de Benoist for maybe the 27th time:
’Left? Right? That’s over.’
It’s been over for decades.
“The notions of political Left and Right are also elastic and perpetually in flux. They are the ideological equivalent of transvestites.”
About a hundred years ago (well, actually about 46 years as I can see by finding it online) that libertarian rag Reason magazine had a little piece by some guy who had the typically Libertarian, too clever by a half, “Larry Lightbulb” idea that “How to get converts Left and Right” involved the clever strategy he called “political cross-dressing.” The idea was to express Libertarian ideas in Left or Right garb, depending on the audience. E.g. tell liberals that gun control is bad because it discriminates again blacks, etc.
https://www.scribd.com/document/213437719/Political-Cross-Dressing#
Later, Clinton (or more likely, one of his “consultants”) came up with the idea of “triangulation,” stealing popular ideas from your opponent. That’s how we got the Crime and Welfare reforms, with Hillary talking about “superpredators” (i.e. blacks) and Biden demanding the death penalty for crack dealers (like his son).
Then The Nation discovered that “The popularity of these reforms has led Republicans to add political cross-dressing to the Rove strategy.” (https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/political-cross-dressing/)
While looking for that article online, I also find that Tony Blair “invented” the idea of “policy cross-dressing” back in 2006:
“Earlier this week, Tony Blair stated that ‘policy cross-dressing is rampant and a feature of modern politics that will stay’. For anyone observing politics in UK, NZ, or anywhere he was essentially stating the obvious.” (https://liberation.typepad.com/liberation/2006/08/political_cross.html)
And a couple years ago “Leftist progressive environmentalist George Monbiot is shocked that there are antivaxxers among his acquaintances. Something ‘weird’ is going on, he says, whereby the curiosity, scepticism and suspicion typical of people on the left has driven those selfsame people to adopt rightwing versions of this language, so much so that ‘some have succumbed to a far-right conspiracy ideation, up to and including Q-anon’.”
(http://www.andrewdobson.com/blog—notes-from-a-cliff-edge/political-cross-dressing)
George has been asleep for quite a while if he’s shocked, just shocked to discover that “curiosity, scepticism and suspicion” are no longer “typical of people on the left.”
You see this all the time among Republicans, where every issue gets framed in “liberal” terms; they never denounce anything as “anti-White” but as “discrimination” or Democrats are the real racists or Hunter Biden skating is wrong because “see, there’s your real White Privlege!” etc. Rather than “converting” anyone it just enables them to express “dissidence” without, you know, actually disagreeing with the Dems.
In any event, there sure seems to be a whole lot of cross-dressing in Anglosphere politics.
https://www.timesofisrael.com/painting-of-clinton-in-blue-dress-hung-in-jeffrey-epsteins-home/
In the end of the 19th and in the beginning of the 20th century the Left was a progressive movement seeking to improve living and working conditions of the working people of their nations over the resistance of degenerated nobility and clerics, and it was a national movement. I remember that Atatürk was actually a Left politician, but anyway a strong nationalist. Also such Germans like Strassers, or Roehm, or even Goebbels (at the beginning) were both leftists and nationalists.
Yes, and Goebbels was subject to discipline, whereas the Strassers far less so. That is hugely important. Building Nations, States and Civilizations is a lot more difficult than classical-Liberals might suggest. Just having Liberty ─ whatever is meant by that ─ is not enough. The Left always confuses transgressive and inchoate with insight and wisdom.
Then there is SA-Chef Ernst Röhm ─ the venerated Reichsheer veteran ─ he was secretly caching weapons for a revolutionary coup that would, among other things, replace Hitler and purge the Junker military caste, replacing qualified Reichswehr staff officers with his own SA militia.
So ultimately a traitor. Even von Hindenburg wanted Röhm purged with extreme prejudice. Theodor Eicke personally shot Röhm in his prison cell, and not a moment too soon.
What if Röhm had gotten his way and purged the elite German officer class?
During the war, Hitler frequently found the Junker caste to be unpleasant and disagreeable. They were not happy about taking orders from commoners. They were truculent and characteristically resistant to change but highly-qualified and frequently superbly innovative ─ such as with the creation of a highly-mobile Panzerwaffe as a new mobile striking arm.
Hitler understood and appreciated the institutional skill and professional value of the officer corps and found Röhm’s permanent revolution inclinations insane.
Like them or not, for the most part, the Junkers had always served Germany honorably in the past; they had earned respect, and merely cashiering a few brilliant troublemakers like Ludwig Beck paid off. Stalin would have purged them a bit more literally (plus everybody who had ever taken tea with them).
Röhm’s plan to depose Hitler and to replace the Reichswehr with the SA, the Party militia, likely would have crippled German military readiness for decades. Communism on the Continent would have been the benefactor.
Most conventional historians sideline the importance of the SA in favor of the SS after the 1934 Röhm purge. This is misleading. Newer historiography on this question involved a meticulous study of the personal careers of every one of the 178 SA generals ─ finding that they remained a powerful cadre of hardcore and faithful Nazis until the bitter end.
I have always thought of myself as being on the Right, or hard-Right. I like the idea of the guilty being duly punished. Whenever I take Adorno’s famous F-Scale quiz on Fascism, I usually score as “Disciplined but Tolerant.” I don’t think those are bad personal characteristics. And I am a Progressive at heart ─ as long as it serves the cause of the Nation-State or White Nationalism. And as long as we don’t start waxing utopian (like Marx) or miss the forest for the trees like Conservatives, I think (or I would like to think) that society can be deliberately improved other than in the Afterworld.
🙂
I think it’s fine policy to be unaffiliated with a political party, as they will quickly take you for granted and reach out to others to grow their base. Many right leaning parties have a “Don’t say white” policy, even if that makes up the bulk of their membership. Hard not to see that as a little bit taking them for granted. One of the big priorities after winning an election is to think about how they will win the next election.
The logic of computer processors is still binary 1s and zeroes. The pattern of them and endless yes/no decisions funnels into all the duties we expect of them. Political elections have much in common. Usually there is a more right-leaning and more left-leaning candidate who is far from the ideal of the average voter. Unfortunately, this plays out much more slowly than it does for a computer. But the pattern of 1/0 or left/right elections gradually shifts a democracy under ideal circumstances. In most cases the pendulum just tends to swing back and forth. It seems right now that in many western nations the voters have grown weary of wokism, the strategies of ‘equity’ and DIE, and increasing crime. So it will likely swing to the right until the next cycle.
I don’t feel the right is ‘hostile’ to whites as a policy, and they are more likely to offer concessions to whites than the left, so long as you ‘don’t say white’… but saying ‘white’ is long overdue. After all we use the words Asian, Hispanic, Latinx, Black, etc. instead of saying Korean, Nigerian, Venezuelan, Mexican, etc. Maybe getting it okay to say ‘white’ is one step forward in the binary 1/0 pathway of ‘progress’.
I used to be one of the “normies” that almost everyone on the Dissident Right lambastes, and as many Christian Nationalists do. My path towards White identity was a little here and a little there, without even knowing where I would end up. It certainly wasn’t a conscious effort. But, there was one thing that I began to notice, about five years ago, that turned on a light: I noticed how horribly our (White) males were bring treated in our culture. And not just by feminists. By everyone. Not just a passive lack of respect, but an active disrespect. I saw it in commercials, in movies, in interviews, in stores, in the office. It was (and is) sickening to me. It’s obviously been going on for decades, but it took me a long time to see it. I am somewhat ashamed of that. It is so obvious to me now that I can’t help think it was a willful unknowing on my part in the past. Or maybe it was the indoctrination. In any case, noticing it, finally, is what made me seek out information and communication (in articles and interviews) by people who are conscious of their White race. It was nice to hear from White people who care about that.
I don’t consider myself a liberal or a conservative. Like Jim Goad, it’s not as important to me as the race thing now. I want our race to survive and to flourish, all our ethnicities. And I want our men to be respected and honored again in Western societies. Otherwise, I am not interested in the conversation because we, Whites, cannot survive without our guys at the helm. I really believe that now. Other races (including Jews) are taking advantage of us, and killing us. I don’t think this would be happening if White men were permitted to do what men naturally do (and have always done throughout history): create, build, and protect.
I appreciate Jim Goad’s candor in his articles here at Counter Currents.
Yes, I capitalize “White” now.
Desert Flower: [T]here was one thing that I began to notice, about five years ago, that turned on a light: I noticed how horribly our (White) males were bring treated in our culture. And not just by feminists. By everyone. Not just a passive lack of respect, but an active disrespect. I saw it in commercials, in movies, in interviews, in stores, in the office. It was (and is) sickening to me. It’s obviously been going on for decades, but it took me a long time to see it…
I don’t consider myself a liberal or a conservative. Like Jim Goad, it’s not as important to me as the race thing now. I want our race to survive and to flourish…
I appreciate Jim Goad’s candor in his articles here at Counter Currents.
Yes, I capitalize “White” now.
—
Capitalizing White when referring to our people is a good start and should be standard among serious White loyalists. I appreciate Mr. Goad’s articles also and am glad to see him with this one, writing what William Pierce stated nearly 50 years ago about how we, as race-thinking separatists, are neither right-wing nor left wing.
[O]ur position on every issue is derived from an underlying view of the world which is fundamentally different from those of either the right or the left. That is, to the extent that they have any underlying philosophy at all. Often there is none, and a great many people who identify themselves as liberals, conservatives, or moderates simply have an assortment of views on various issues which are not related to any common idea, purpose, or philosophy…
Source: Our Cause by Dr. William L. Pierce | National Vanguard or listen to him giving Our Cause speech, here: Dr. William Pierce – Our Cause – National Alliance Video (natall.com)
Fucking cheers to that.
I’m tired of hearing pro-white people clutch their pearls over “degenerates” and “lolbertarians,” et cetera. It’s an objective fact we are all individuals, so it’s just as goofy to deny individuality as it is to deny race. Both things can coexist at the same time. Being pro-white doesn’t preclude someone from being a pink-haired gay pagan anarchist vegan union-worker — or a million other things — so why go out of your way to alienate them if they agree on the bigger issue? You catch flies with honey, not vinegar.
pink-haired gay pagan anarchist vegan union-worker
Maybe because such people consider themselves just so as pink-haired gay pagan anarchist vegan union-worker, but not as white, and they do not care about their whiteness at all and their self-identification is not based on the racial principles.
Maybe because such people consider themselves just so as pink-haired gay pagan anarchist vegan union-worker, but not as white, and they do not care about their whiteness at all and their self-identification is not based on the racial principles.
Maybe. But maybe not. Wouldn’t you have to ask the person in question rather than deciding for them like some self-appointed Whiteness Customs Official? Maybe such a person has DNA that can be entirely traced to Switzerland and also identifies as white. None of the above-listed identifiers magically change one’s DNA or ability to identify as white. That was the whole point of the article—biology trumps ideology.
Actually, they don’t even have to “identify as white” for others to identify them as white. I’d wager that if a mob of coal-black Juneteenth-celebrators were attacking such a person in the street, they wouldn’t be attacking them for being a pink-haired gay pagan anarchist vegan union-worker.
Like KB I am not seeing this person as being part of the fold, yet nor probably ever. Not to say they couldn’t be converted by a near-death experience…..But honestly even that is unlikely to do it. Maybe if Ken Burns had a twenty part documentary series on why Hitler was right?
There are left and right psychological types. It’s mythologized in the fable of The Ant and the Grasshopper.
Here I have to make the standard disclaimer that in this context when I say “conservative” I am not referring to mainstream political “conservatives”, whether office-holders or pundits, who are fake controlled opposition. With that out of the way…
Conservatives only feel right when capital -economic, genetic and social- is accumulating and growing, at a personal and societal level. Leftists only feel right when they are consuming capital.
Conservatives can imagine the past and the future. Leftists live in a continual present. Leftists have no clue how any of the infrastructure or social rules they are embedded in came about, nor do they care. A key trait of leftists is ingratitude. The ability to exist intensely in the moment can have advantages, for example, when playing an instrument. The grasshopper is often portrayed as a fiddler.
Conservatives want to align with natural law. Leftists want to futilely oppose natural law.
Conservatives recognize a natural hierarchy and celebrate the healthy, the beautiful, the successful, the intelligent. Leftists celebrate the sickly, the ugly, the poor, the dumb, the resentful. Leftists may talk about equality as a rhetorical ploy, but what they really want is an inverted hierarchy with leftists on top. The first shall be last and the last shall be first.
Sure, there are some people in the middle but this introduces contradictions which tend to push people one way or the other.
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.
Paywall Access
Lost your password?Edit your comment