28 Reasons Why the Progressive Left Is Doomed
Groupthink is a psychological phenomenon that occurs within a group of people in which the desire for harmony or conformity in the group results in an irrational or dysfunctional decision-making outcome. Group members try to minimize conflict and reach a consensus decision without critical evaluation of alternative viewpoints by actively suppressing dissenting viewpoints, and by isolating themselves from outside influences.
Groupthink requires individuals to avoid raising controversial issues or alternative solutions, and there is loss of individual creativity, uniqueness and independent thinking. The dysfunctional group dynamics of the "ingroup" produces an "illusion of invulnerability" (an inflated certainty that the right decision has been made). Thus the "ingroup" significantly overrates its own abilities in decision-making and significantly underrates the abilities of its opponents (the "outgroup"). Furthermore, groupthink can produce dehumanizing actions against the "outgroup". —the first two paragraphs of the Wikipedia article “Groupthink”
I started writing this little—well, huge—essay well over a year ago, long before my computer died and this blog went into suspended animation. Consequently, I had originally intended the title to be something like, “Why the New Left Is Faltering,” because I didn’t want to be hasty with regard to prophesying the doom of the progressive left, or feminized cultural Marxism, or emancipatory politics, or politically correct Social Justice, or secular democratic socialist globalism, or whatever you prefer to call it. But now, after all this time of procrastinating, the fall of Marxism 2.0 is looking much more like an inevitability. Now I’m openly prophesying the impending doom of the new left. It may remain as a fringe movement, but its Titanic coup attempt on western civilization is beginning to fail spectacularly. If it does in fact die out completely, like the Paris Commune or Stalinism, then hallelujah and good riddance; but simply for it to die down to a fringe movement would be good enough, provided that care is taken to prevent it from flaring up into another conflagration of mass hysteria and criminal silliness.
The purpose of this listicle is not merely to find fault or make fun of the feminized PC left. If that were the case it would be much longer. The purpose here is just to point out the main reasons why the new left is beginning to hit the rocks, with multitudes of metaphorical rats diving overboard, and why, consequently, only a major overhaul (probably requiring much more rationality than is available for the task) could possibly save it at this point.
That the left is losing momentum is patently obvious, despite their moderate success in the US midterm elections; although it could hardly be said that this is because of the superior efforts of the right. In fact, the establishment right, the globalist right, the elitist right, appears to be in league with the feminists, et al., in their attempts to emasculate and undermine traditional western civilization. The troubles of the left are almost entirely their own doing. Not only is their irrationality and hysteria not conducive to successful strategies, but their intolerant, vindictive, and often infantile attitudes and behavior are driving people away by the tens of millions. People are starting to wake up from what is essentially well-intentioned consensus insanity, a kind of starry-eyed suicide cult.
The reasons listed below could easily be divided into two categories: organic weaknesses, and traits which are simply reprehensible and off-putting, in the view of people who have eyes to see. But there is some overlap, and some reasons can be interpreted either way. Also there are other kinds of overlap, like between “vindictive” and “hysterical.” Anyway, I haven’t taken the trouble to try to classify them systematically. Feel free to do it yourself.
|(the shield, used as a weapon, says "no hate")|
1. It was designed to fail. This is a very important one, regardless of the fact that even most “progressives” are oblivious to this particular coffin nail. Much of the basic ideology of the new left derives from the Frankfurt School, a group of European Jewish Marxists who got together back in the 1920s. Despite their Marxism, they did have enough sense to disapprove of what Comrade Stalin was doing with Communism in Russia, and also they could see that the west was just too prosperous and comfortable for any glorious proletarian revolution to be likely there. So, they developed a long-term plan to destabilize western society in general, in order to facilitate the eventual Marxist takeover. This included the promotion of strife between the sexes (à la militant feminism); the disintegration of the nuclear family (partly through facilitating divorce, encouraging homosexuality, the aforementioned feminism, etc.); racial strife (through, ironically, human rights movements and white-bashing); degrading the influence of religion and other deep-rooted western traditions; and so on. They even developed a system called critical theory in which just about everything in western society, not just capitalism and the bourgeoisie, could be found fault with. The philosophy of the Frankfurt School eventually combined with other movements to produce the Social Justice movement that we see today—resulting in the strange situation of progressive idealists adopting as a utopian ideal the very system that was designed to weaken and tear down western civilization. Most progressives appear to be oblivious to this split personality of their own adopted faith, and so it continues to lead to instability and chaos, not to anything really sustainable. And now the instability is bringing down the very vehicle of instability itself, to the hilarity of its critics.
2. It’s irrational. One of the big differences between Marxism 1.0 and its postmodern feminized sequel is that all that dry, masculine technical discourse and dialectic were largely replaced by gushed outpourings of feminine feeling. Masculine rational objectivity is sometimes even rejected by feminized leftists as a tool of toxic white patriarchal oppression. Consequently, the new ideology which is supposed to replace traditional forms of patriarchy is based largely on irrational, feminine wishful thinking, on the shifting sands of emotional subjectivity, in which feelings are considered to be at least as important as empirical facts with regard to deciding what’s what. The philosophy, or academic fashion trend, of postmodernism was adopted, I assume, for the very reason that it rejects the validity of any objective, empirical narrative (or, what is about the same, it claims all narratives to be equally valid). A typical example of this is gender: back in the good old days of toxic patriarchy a person’s gender was determined by the straightforward objective criteria of genitals and chromosomes; but in a feminized progressive world, one’s gender is determined by subjective feelings—leading to the extreme irony that after a million years of being obvious, settled reality, it is now supremely controversial to assert that girls don’t have a pee-pee like boys do. Progressives tend to think like stereotypical females (stereotyped objectively), and many may take pride in this, going with the feeling that femininity is inherently wiser than masculinity. This emotionality leads to strategies not based on rationality, objectivity, or empiricism but on wishful thinking, which tends not to work nearly so well as the old-fashioned masculine approach. A Liberal Studies department in academia may somehow be governed by sporadically howling feminists or antifa radicals, but an extremely, unimaginably complex technological society simply cannot, and will not. Political reality cannot be determined by decrees derived from subjective emotionality.
3. It refuses to learn from its mistakes. To some degree this is a corollary to the preceding one (and to another one lower down on this list). Followers of the new left often favor their own ideology to what is before their eyes, and so they insist that their theories and feelings are right, and outward empirical evidence somehow wrong. Consequently, instead of adjusting their tactics to a changing environment, they become like a compulsive gambler losing more than she can afford, and just keep going “double or nothing” after every loss. A case in point may be the left’s repeated attempts to destroy opposition through attempted character assassinations, brought about by vengeful accusations and name-calling. It’s getting rather old, and people are growing indifferent or even disgusted, but it doesn’t seem to occur to the leftists in question that perhaps they should make adjustments to their playbook. At any rate, at this point the situation may really be all or nothing for the new left. Hence their growing hysteria. But hysteria is a different one, to be discussed presently.
4. It’s hysterical. This one is a corollary to the “irrational” entry above, but more aligned with the “simply reprehensible” category of offense described in the introduction. It goes beyond mere sloppy, hormone-driven thinking; the progressive movement has become so hysterical, at least in the United States, that it discredits itself in a modern civilized culture. (Such mass hysteria as it generates might have been very effective and successful one or two thousand years ago, although “patriarchal” Enlightenment values have rendered emotionality-driven political movements much less likely to be effective than in premodern times. It may be, in accordance with the policy of doubling down on failure just mentioned, that some ideologues are betting that if the fever pitch can be whipped up sufficiently, then enough people will be caught up in the hysteria to overthrow the patriarchy; but if so this strategy seems to be faltering.) Over the past few years in America almost every case of rioting, howling in the streets or on university campuses, smashing of shop windows and torching of parked cars by berserk mobs, people being beaten up at random in public places, and so forth, have had radical leftists right in the middle of the melee—and people can see this. A more subdued form of hysteria has taken over the mainstream (leftist/globalist) media with raging anti-Trumpism, witch hunts against perceived politically incorrect heretics, and so on. And people in increasing numbers can see this too. The irrational rage directed against judge Brett Kavanaugh recently was itself sufficient to open the eyes of hundreds of thousands if not millions of Americans.
5. It’s intolerant. Which leads to another nail in the progressive coffin: After many decades of the “liberals” of the left being the champions of freedom of thought and expression, with the conservative right trying, and failing, to impose traditional Christian morality on the populace, now it is the PC thought police of the new left who are trying, and are apparently in the process of failing, to impose through brute force of sanctimoniousness the moral code of cultural Marxism. (Now, ironically, it is the political right that welcomes free thinkers and nonconformists.) Anyone as far right as the center is branded with the slur of racist, sexist, fascist, Islamophobe, transphobe, or whichever derogatory label seems to fit most handily, resulting in resentment and indignation from ordinary people who know full well that they aren’t Nazi white supremacists. White people as a group, in their entirety, may be called white trash, rednecks, toothless trailer trash, subhuman racist filth, and so on, without anyone being called out on it, while at the same time nobody is allowed to say the word “nigger” while reading Mark Twain out loud. And now, for reasons unnecessary to fathom, the left has even begun turning upon itself, with individuals not considered orthodox enough or groups not considered to be victimized enough being attacked and ostracized. Gay white men for example, and to some degree white feminists, have begun falling from grace, often inducing elaborate penances and increased zeal from leftists in danger of being thrown out of the exclusive club. Thus what tolerance the new left endorses is little more than the “liberating tolerance” endorsed by Frankfurt School member Herbert Marcuse: “Liberating tolerance, then, would mean intolerance against movements from the Right and toleration of movements from the Left.” But now even some movements from the left are no longer tolerated. The slashed shark had begun feeding on its own entrails. But I’m straying into a another reason, which will be discussed farther down.
6. It’s vindictive. This one is a result of the intolerance just mentioned, and manifests not only as disapproval but as a desire to hurt or even destroy anyone who disagrees with the progressive gospel—especially if they are popular and persuasive in disagreeing with it. Marxism 2.0, like its 20th-century predecessor, is to some degree based on resentment, anger, and hostility; Marxism in whatever form apparently requires an enemy or scapegoat against which the faithful must unite and struggle. In other words, there must be an out-group to engage in combat. The relatively feminine nature of the new movement (and white, college-educated women evidently take it most seriously, according to polls) further adds an element of feminine spite that was less obvious in the Bolsheviks, the Maoists, and the Khmer Rouge. (At this point I may as well digress a bit to point out the ironical fact that feminism is a system of complaint based on 1) resentment of men and 2) insistence upon the right to imitate them; and feminists’ inability to imitate them makes them even more vindictive, because they are resentful of the fact that they can’t really be like men. So they try to emasculate men to make them easier to imitate, and they grow even angrier when even that doesn’t work…) So the progressive left, or cultural Marxism, or whatever you want to call it, has ceased being a movement seeking equality; “social justice” has degenerated into a quest for vengeance, for getting even, for turning the tables, for settling the score. And the PC gestapo can get really nasty in their attempts.
7. It has fundamental principles that don’t hold water, and avoids debate. The rejection of the validity of “patriarchal” rationality and objectivity has taken its toll on the ideology of the movement(s) of the new left—so much so that the advocates and activists of the new left will often reject the very idea of serious dialogue with opponents, and simply fall back on vindictive and/or hysterical name-calling: “We don’t negotiate with fascists,” or some such. Largely because of this, really glaring fallacies go unchallenged in progressive leftist echo chambers, like the idea that a borderless welfare state could somehow not be a fiasco, or the idea that Donald Trump, who has a Jewish daughter and two Jewish grandchildren, is somehow an antisemitic Nazi. But one can’t reason with them anyway, because they reject the validity of reason. It’s a symptom of toxic masculinity, or some such.
8. It’s turning academia into a public laughingstock. I’ve mentioned elsewhere that, although the right certainly has its lunatic fringe, the new left has a lunatic center, namely academia. The universities of the west appear to be the primary source and epicenter of cultural Marxism as well as of the raging hysteria that the left is producing. Rather than being objective educational institutions promoting freedom of thought and offering a multitude of challenging points of view, western academia has mutated into a network of neo-Marxist indoctrination centers. Furthermore, diversity quotas and affirmative action have resulted in people not really qualified to be teachers or students being teachers or students, with at least half of the hysterical spectacles on university campuses seeming to have at least one shrieking black female at the center of them. The more liberal academic fields are continually discrediting themselves with postmodern absurdities and published hoax articles on subjects like phallocentric gravity; and even the (formerly) hard sciences have been infected by postmodern feminized leftism—I have read that there is actually a journal of feminist glaciology now. Many people in the west began their red pill experiences by seeing hysterical leftist college students demonstrating (or even rioting) over inane trivia like politically incorrect Halloween costumes or to prevent a non-leftist speaker from exercising freedom of speech. People are aware of the borderline irrational incoherence running amuck on university campuses over the past few years, and the most infamous centers of leftist learning have seen dramatic plunges in enrollment as a consequence.
|the iconic hysterical screaming black girl at Yale|
9. Progressive Europe is a mess. As though the educational system were not a large enough fiasco to serve as an example to the people of America, progressive, feminized western Europe is sliding nearer and nearer to collapse into chaos and real live civil war. The implementation of progressive policies in Western Europe—including open borders, attempted multiculturalism, feminism and the attempted abolishment of masculinity, socialism, and much else—is leading the civilization there into a state of instability which appears in some areas to have reached the point of no return. It may be that the inevitable collapse of the EU into chaos and flames will help to wake up progressives elsewhere trying to cause their own cultures to imitate the EU’s progressive example. Feminizing Marxism and making it more pacifistic, compassionate, and irrational is just not likely to be much of an improvement, to say the very least.
10. Despite being secular and unreligious, it is pro-Islam. Presumably as a result of the cultural Marxist agenda for destabilizing western civilization, Christianity and traditional Christian values are viewed with contempt by members of the new left. (Two examples of scorned values are the idea that one should turn the other cheek and forgive an offensive person rather than screeching in hysteria, and the idea that homosexuality is “abomination.”) Yet Islam especially, of all the religions of the world, receives particular respect, or at least regard, from progressives, largely because its followers tend not to be white—thus rendering it a tradition of a heroic and glorified victim class. But a Marxist obliviousness to the power of a devoutly or even fanatically believed-in religious system is a major cause of the escalating crime rates in western Europe attending the ongoing migrant crisis. Progressives who harbor a lukewarm indifference to their own cultural heritage cannot fathom traditional Muslims’ refusal to reject their own deeply-held religious values in favor of the relative decadence and moral relativism of the new left’s Brave New World. Furthermore, the left refuses to accept the obvious fact that traditional Islam glorifies violence. Muhammad himself (peace be upon him), was literally a bandit and warlord who endorsed murder, banditry, war and persecution against non-Muslims, torture, and rape, had hundreds of people beheaded, sold women and children into slavery, and on and on—and remains the ideal role model for Muslims to this day. And now that followers of this dark-age ideology have been idiotically imported en masse into Europe by clueless feminists, progressive governments are hiding the truth about the escalating crime rates in unassimilated “no go zone” enclaves and elsewhere, including rapes and molestations of women, children, and goats (yes, goats). Yet due largely to social media people are increasingly aware of the suicidal nature of the progressives’ views on immigration, and their equally stupid views on the notion that “everyone is the same.” Christians may be insulted by references to Jesus as a “dead Jew on a stick,” but even telling unsavory truths about Islam, or quoting Winston Churchill’s opinions on the subject, can get one arrested for a “hate crime.” And now real Islamophobia (i.e. fear of Islam) is coming mainly from the left, as they are afraid to offend Muslims because of the increasingly likely, even impending, violent backlash. Islam is incompatible with rights people in the west have striven for centuries to attain, it is threatening to overwhelm western Europe especially, and people are seeing this and blaming the idiotically naive feminized left for welcoming it. Furthermore, the desperate measures the progressive governments are taking to cover up the whole mess are becoming more and more obvious, resulting in more and more citizens becoming deconditioned and skeptical with regard to what they are told concerning the situation.
11. It promotes weakness and dysfunction by glorifying them. The cultural Marxist insistence that, in some sense or another, everyone is the same, and the demand for equality, have resulted in the most dysfunctional and unsuccessful people in society receiving the most support and praise. They are championed as living proof of the oppressiveness of the patriarchal system which has prevailed for thousands of years. And consequently, as they are a kind of ideological quasi-elite who enjoy great favor and attention, people in the new world of Social Justice are actually encouraged to be messed up. People emphasize their defects in an attempt to score as many victim points as possible, in order to rise on the totem pole of glorified victimhood. White people are constrained to fall back on asthma, left-handedness, childhood traumas, sexual deviations, etc. in order to compete even for the lower ranks of the victim hierarchy. And when people are actually trying to be messed up in a society which glorifies it, that society is doomed to falling below even abject mediocrity as a result. In a neo-Marxist society such as this, divided into the two main classes of oppressor and oppressed, nobody is required to accept responsibility for weakness and failure, because they can always blame someone else and claim exalted victim status. It results in a dysfunctional race to the bottom.
12. It demonizes the successful and productive. The other side of the very same coin just referred to is the fact that the most successful in a society are in constant hazard of being demonized as members of the cultural Marxist oppressor class, especially if they are white. Obviously, resenting meritocracy and demonizing the most productive in a society is patently destructive to that society—but of course the irrational left doesn’t care, since western civilization is bad and should collapse anyhow. (Ironically, most of the ultra-rich elites, the notorious 1%, are on the political left now; so it is plausible that they vehemently favor Social Justice, or appear to do so at least, as a means of atoning for their original sin of being mostly-white elitists in the first place.) In the success-hating world of Social Justice, the only way for a heterosexual white male to be tolerated is for him ritually to emasculate himself, humbly apologize for being a white male, and then keep his damned mouth shut. Which, of course, does not strengthen any society.
13. It’s hypocritical. Feminized cultural Marxists are against racism…except toward white people. They’re against classism…except toward poor white “toothless trailer trash.” They’re against sexism…except toward men. They’re against religious conservatives…except for fundamentalist Muslims, who are the most conservative and reactionary of them all. They’re against hate…although many leftist activists are seething with it, howling with it, sometimes even attacking with it. They rage against alleged corruption and dishonesty in their opponents…while concealing or downplaying even worse transgressions on their own side. The ultra-wealthy elites of the coastal cities of the USA wholeheartedly endorse socialism and open borders…while their wealth and social position guarantees that they will not be required to endure the consequences of these impositions on the average US citizen. Even the very existence of political correctness requires people to be shameless hypocrites, as they must pretend that a non-PC thought could never enter their head for one moment. Such hypocrisy is reprehensible, too many people on the “regressive left” are soaking in it, and more and more people are seeing it in all its reprehensible starkness, and are furthermore revolting against the societal compulsion to be reprehensible PC hypocrites themselves.
14. It’s fundamentally unjust. Regardless of the term “Social Justice” and the new left’s obsession with certain types of equity, cultural Marxists try to bring about their ideals by swapping old injustices for new ones, or even establishing new injustices without even replacing old ones with them. Going with the (false) idea that all groups of people are inherently equal or even the same, the left forces everyone in society onto a Procrustean bed of enforced equality, imposed by such policies as affirmative action, diversity quotas, and the aforementioned demonization of the successful. Thus the person most qualified for a position may be unjustly denied it because a person who isn’t most qualified happens to be a certain color, or has a certain sexual aberration. White men especially are frequently denied even the presumption of innocence, and can be destroyed by a single unsubstantiated accusation coming from a woman or a person with brown skin. Nowadays in college “rape culture” a man and a woman can have consensual sex while both of them are drunk, but somehow the woman is automatically raped because she was intoxicated and thus unable to make responsible choices—despite the fact that the man involved was equally intoxicated. Free speech is ambiguously supported by the new left, but not “hate speech”—which really means any speech that they hate, which is any speech with which they heartily disagree. The desire to bring down privileged successful groups and political opponents often degenerates into a primal desire for revenge, or just a smug, ruthless willingness to screw an opponent; and even when it doesn’t sink that low it remains biased in favor of whomever the new left favors (as illustrated by Herbert Marcuse’s definition of “liberating tolerance” above). The American Democratic Party’s recent attempts to destroy the reputation and career of judge Brett Kavanaugh, and their constant attempts to blame anything negative in the world on president Donald Trump, plus their desire to impeach both men for no better reason than that they hate them, are obvious examples of the left’s warped conception of justice. The progressives themselves may firmly believe that they occupy the moral high ground in this regard, and may rationalize their hatred and bias, but fewer and fewer moderates are capable of taking their claims seriously.
15. It’s biased against white people, even to the point of promoting anti-white racism in white people themselves. White people (that is, people of European ancestry) are the ones who built western civilization and maintained it for thousands of years; yet now white people, even in white-majority European cultures, are despised as somehow inferior, with occasional calls for their absolute extirpation—and many of those calls are coming from people who are themselves white. But the very idea that women and/or brown people, with many of the latter being born and raised in non-western cultures, could maintain an extremely complex technological culture based on a form of objective rationality invented by the white patriarchy, is rather unrealistic to say the least. It is, rather, doomed to miserable failure, regardless of any leftist wishful thinking. But cultural Marxism, based as it is on the oppressor/oppressed antagonism, as well as the Frankfurt School’s planned destabilization of the west, has declared war on the most successful and strongest people in the west, generally speaking. (Actually, Jews and East Asians make more money on average in America, and thus are economically more successful, but the East Asians are largely ignored as a kind of embarrassing anomaly by the left; and some of the Jews, for reasons of their own, call for the extinction of the white race while posing as Europeans themselves.) A typical example of anti-white bias occurred not so long ago in the USA when a police officer of Somalian ethnicity (who in all likelihood was hired not because he was most qualified to be a law enforcement officer but because he was Somalian) shot and killed an unarmed white woman in her pajamas. The predominantly leftist mainstream media immediately began expressing concern, not over his qualifications or whether he was guilty of murder, but over the potential inconvenience and emotional distress to the local Somalian community. Similar anti-white bias runs rampant with regard to West Asian Muslims in the UK. During the Obama administration in the US, a law was passed prohibiting prospective employers from inquiring into the criminal record of a job applicant—because most black men in America have a criminal record, and it was considered somehow preferable for a black criminal to be employed than a white person who obeys the law. Racial slurs against whites are usually viewed as unobjectionable, whereas similar, equivalent slurs against anyone else can destroy the “racist’s” career and social status, regardless of the comment’s context or his intentions. It has gotten to the point that the statements “It’s OK to be white” and “All lives matter” are branded by the left as hate speech. Needless to say, the situation is indicative of a malignant cultural disease that cannot possibly be beneficial for western society. The bastions of western civilization are attacked, and the weak and/or destructive are glorified.
16. It undermines national integrity. The “progressive” left endorses globalism and open borders which punish the working class of developed nations, damage their economy, and destroy traditional cultures and social stability. In fact the United Nations has recently attempted to establish international migration as a fundamental human right, thereby attacking, at least indirectly, the very idea of a national population’s right to self-determination. One purpose of the leftist/globalist push for multiculturalism is the aforementioned desire to destabilize western society by erasing or blurring beyond recognition the national identities and traditional values of western “white” civilization by importing millions of people who are indifferent or even hostile to them. As mentioned above, cultural Marxism is antagonistic to western civilization in general—the “white patriarchy”—and strives to see it eradicated, and to create an easily managed light brown, relatively homogenous, transnational population. Thus the American left’s indifference toward disrespect for or even burning of the American flag, greater concern for illegal immigrants than for US veterans or US citizens in general, and so on. But while the secular liberal globalists work relentlessly and ruthlessly towards the New World Order, western people appalled at the destruction of their national heritage, their traditions and values, and seeing themselves surrounded by outsiders, are shifting toward the right and toward nationalism and traditionalism en masse, realizing that the Powers That Be are indifferent to their well-being if not actually determined to extirpate them. The new left, in its denial of fundamental human nature, wishes ultimately to eradicate tribalism and xenophobia, but instead has only aggravated them.
17. Its claims of commanding the moral high ground are fantastical. In order to claim moral superiority to, say, conservative Christians, the puritans of the new left have had to radically redefine morality. Almost everything involving sex and sensual indulgence is omitted from the equation, for example, as is hatred toward anyone who disagrees with the new ideology. Riots and raging hysteria and hostility are now forms of virtue signaling so long as they are perpetrated for a leftist cause. The very fact that celebrities in the entertainment industry (“show business people”), who notoriously tend to have the morals of alley cats, are claiming the moral high ground against conservative traditionalists is itself a big, red, flashing warning sign that something is emphatically wrong with this picture. Same goes for public orgies called “gay pride parades” passing as emblems of leftist moral enlightenment. Essentially what the new left has done to morality is to replace it with neo-Marxist class struggle and feminine sentiment. Compassion toward the in-group, or to those who may soon join the in-group, is simply not the same as genuine morality. Simply stated, moral weakness is weakness of character, which leads to all sorts of other weaknesses.
18. It is bitter and lacks humor. The politically correct left is notoriously devoid of a sense of humor, largely because its followers are deathly afraid of saying something politically incorrect or otherwise committing a microaggression. Also being happy is a sign of being a privileged oppressor, not a sacred victim. Almost the only form of humor left standing for left-wing comedians involves vindictive sneering at the political right, especially, in America, at the President. Thus too much of the left’s “humor” is sour, complaining, and petulant, and thus not particularly funny. One of the puritanical aspects of the new feminized left is that it is virtually opposed to carefree light-heartedness—so much so that a common joke on the right is that the left is terrified that someone out there in the world might actually be happy. Meanwhile, the smartasses of the new right evidently specialize in satire and “mocking the devil”; the right, perhaps ironically, is now the side having the best time and enjoying the most actual happiness. And since it is simple human nature to want to be happy, people are increasingly leaving the puritanical yet morally bankrupt left and joining the right. And to top it all off, as is well-known, the left just can’t meme worth a damn.
19. It promulgates thought control through indoctrination, propaganda, and censorship. Both political extremes, communist left and reactionary right, crush dissent; but the far right extreme is pretty much nonexistent as a major political force at present, despite hysterical accusations from the left, with the exception of Islamism. The Frankfurt School’s grand strategy involved cultural Marxist “progressive” control of the educational system as well as the mass media, and this has almost universally come to pass in the postmodern west. But over the past few years especially there has been an increasing public awareness, and resentment, of leftist educational and media bias, including anti-conservative, anti-libertarian censorship on Internet platforms such as Google, Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube, let alone the mainstream “legacy” media. Also, many businesses now have Human Relations departments that function as PC thought police; there has come to be pervasive, invasive control of speech and behavior, as well at attempts at thought control, that are increasingly perceived as repulsive and intolerable by people in the west. For a person to do or say anything perceived as heretical to the new ideology can easily result in that person being socially and professionally destroyed, and people are really getting fed up with living in chronic fear of some vindictive informant or bullying social justice warrior. The situation has progressed farther in the EU than in America, which latter has the blessing of the First Amendment guaranteeing freedom of speech—which Amendment is bitterly opposed by some leftist activists. The people of the west, especially in the USA and eastern Europe, are resisting with increasing vigor a kind of mental bondage intended to keep them docile and in line.
20. Its early leaders failed to predict the Internet, and its more recent ones the power of the alternative media. The 20th-century neo-Marxists had enough sense to see the importance of controlling the mass media, in order to control the official narrative, in order to control how the masses think; and they very efficiently gained predominance with regard to television, radio, movies, and printed media. But they failed to foresee the Internet and the absolute onslaught of information that would be available there—so now there has arisen, to their horror, a massive alternative to all the controlled narratives dished out by the “establishment,” the likes of which has never existed before. Donald Trump might never have become President if he didn’t have direct, unfiltered access to the American people through his Twitter account, which furthermore cost him nothing to exploit. Similarly, the European governments’ attempts to conceal the ravages of migrant crimes have failed miserably as the news spreads like wildfire anyway over social media and alternative news sites. And the EU governments’ subsequent moves to censor social media along with everything else have become obvious targets of indignant public censure. The “establishment” now finds itself fighting an octopus or hydra: as they scramble to establish control over one alternative source of information endangering their control over the official narrative, new alternatives arise to take its place. Government-controlled official narratives continue to exist, but they are increasingly weak and unpersuasive, resulting in one of the most powerful tools of the political left becoming practically useless. In an increasing number of cases lately, the globalists’ attempts to censor or smear an opponent have backfired spectacularly, even to the point of making the intended victim a celebrity and culture hero. Thanks to the Internet, the left’s official narrative is now going on the defensive.
21. Its leaders, and followers, consistently underestimate their opposition. Consider the Wikipedia’s definition of groupthink quoted at the beginning of this discussion, and compare it with the behavior of the progressive left. They are so sure that they are right, and their opponents wrong, that they consider their opponents not only to be evil racists, Nazis, etc. but also just plain stupid—or to be more precise, ignorant toothless white trash, with a few equally ignorant Uncle Toms or “race traitors” somehow deceived by them. So not only do leftists often insult and offend their opposition to the point of turning mere opponents into irreconcilable enemies, they make the fatal mistake of considering themselves essentially infallible and the enemy incapable of getting anything right. Which is a major reason why the left is continually gobsmacked, so to speak, by the right somehow outwitting them and winning again and again. And so, as mentioned above, they just double down on failing strategies because in their opinion the other side must be stupid, and winning through sheer luck, or by insufficient hysteria on the side of the progressives. As any experienced strategist knows, it is a common, fatal mistake to underestimate one’s opponent—and this of course applies to both sides of a contest, so the nationalist right-wingers shouldn’t get too cocky. The leftists aren’t necessarily stupid either, or even evil—just somewhat divorced from reality.
22. It has chosen to attack a very powerful adversary. As was already mentioned, it is the nature of Marxism, both neo- and paleo-, to designate an out-group against which the egalitarian collectivists can unify, and which they must demonize and ultimately defeat; and the neo-Marxists have chosen to attack a rather large and powerful out-group—white men. Not only have they turned against the average male citizen of the west, but also the women who love and support them (the conservative ones at least), rendering the out-group potentially much larger than the in-group. As I mentioned in a previous essay, when a group of little finches mobs a hawk, the hawk, being outnumbered and harassed, will usually flee; yet if the numbers of finches and hawks are fairly equal, what you wind up with is a lot of dead finches; and the hawks in question are numerous, and, being hawks, are formidable. Although the new left may bitterly resent this fact, the fact remains that white men have been the creators and sustainers of the same western civilization that almost everyone else in the world is eagerly imitating, the very people who have dominated throughout modern history because they were able to dominate. Furthermore, white men are the ones who have done most to turn ass-kicking into a precise science. So we have decadent elites and the welfare class pitted against the common man and his mate, and the common man is getting thoroughly fed up with it. The elites and welfare classes may prevail in decadent, effete western Europe and on the American Pacific coast, for all I know, but it seems pretty unlikely in most of America. Despite feminized leftists’ rejection of the very existence of human nature, men will remain men, at least latently; and when the shit really hits the fan the primordial stone-age hunter/fighter may awaken, and unleash himself upon an utterly astonished foe.
23. It emphasizes its own idealist dogma in preference to empirical reality. It was mentioned in a previous entry that some of the feminized left’s doctrines are sloppily thought-out to say the least, with a great aversion to allowing anyone to challenge them, even constructively; in addition to faulty reasoning there is the further ideological weakness of overemphasis on academic theories at the expense of pragmatic realities. It is characteristic of the political and economic left to prefer ideological theory to empirical reality—or at least to be much more this way than the conservative right, which goes with what has been demonstrated by past experience to be effective. Consider, again, the fact that it has recently become politically incorrect and controversial to suggest that girls don’t have a pee-pee like boys do. Thus many or even most of the beliefs of the progressive left are concocted in the Liberal Arts and Grievance Studies departments of academic ivory towers, by people with relatively little appreciation for the real-life experience of the dirty little common person. The new left will reject empirical facts that contradict its own position by dismissing them as racist, sexist, fascist…or even, if totally undeniable, as “hate facts.” Then again, the postmodernist element of the new left denies the very existence of facts anyway, thereby allowing progressive theorists to concoct whatever doctrines they like and to parade them as enlightenment. Even ordinary, uneducated people can see this, just as even a child can see an emperor with no clothes on and his naughty bits on full display. Even uneducated people can acknowledge that there really is such a thing as empirical reality, a “real world” with which theories must be in harmony if they are to work. Not only can social engineering based on unrealistic theories result in the nightmarish genocide of 20th-century Marxism 1.0, but it can trample roughshod over universal human nature, even if designed with feminine compassion in abundance. And any system which underestimates fundamental human nature—or worse still, rejects its very existence—is bound to be a bad fit for humanity, and a guarantee of large-scale misery. The new radical left seems to ignore the grim evidence of the entire 20th century that radical leftism doesn’t work; and it rejects obvious facts about gender, and slightly less obvious (yet still valid) ones about racial differences, etc. And to the extent that a world view rejects important empirical facts, it doesn’t matter at all how brilliantly intellectual or logically self-consistent it is: it will inevitably fail, even without opposition.
24. Its ruthless disdain for truth destroys its own credibility. This one is similar to the previous one, but in this case it’s not a matter of leftists shooting themselves (and everyone else) in the foot by rejecting objectivity, it’s more a matter of discrediting the movement, what it stands for, by being caught out in falsifying reality again and again. One hyped prediction after another, one “scandal” after another, one hysterical accusation against the US President after another, collapsing into ruins one after another, and people grow indifferent to boys crying “wolf,” and the mainstream media demonstrating repeatedly that they are not responsible journalists, but rather propagandists. The left is losing credibility by this means, while a mountain of leftist scandals looms ever larger—for example, the growing scandal of the Obama administration spying on the Trump campaign before the 2016 election, the evidently false accusations of Russian collusion, the obviously false rape accusations against judge Brett Kavanaugh, the recent evident attempts of the Florida Democratic Party to commit election fraud, and on and on. This growing mountain of dirt is admittedly nowhere near to being limited only to the left; yet it renders the claims of the left holding the moral high ground laughable, and renders the attempted control of the narrative by leftist news media pathetic. Disdain for objective truth has even infected science, as mentioned above concerning academia—discrediting even supposed empiricism as scientists are increasing caught out politicizing their research in accordance with a leftist political agenda and academic fashion trends and peer group pressure. This sort of thing has greatly interfered with the cause of environmentalism, for example, as a certain amount of climate-change alarmism has been exploited as a political tool for establishing socialized, globalist international regulatory bureaucracies. And now people are becoming suspicious and skeptical of just about any claim made by the (mostly leftist) social elite, even if, by some miracle, it happens to be true.
25. It’s increasingly being perceived as “uncool.” Social Justice is a system based largely on constant bitching, complaining, and faultfinding directed at pretty much everything. It endorses weakness, failure, infantilism, petulance, and dysfunction to the point of turning off even starry-eyed idealist young people—in short, it’s squaresville. The youth counterculture of the west is shifting towards the right, and rightly so. Young people today are not rebelling so much against puritanical conservative Christian parents: they’re rebelling against spineless, indoctrinated, feminized fools trying to compel their daughters to stop playing with dolls and their sons to start playing with them, possibly even trying to get them to wear each other’s clothes. (Also, possibly, the new left’s attempted indoctrinations of children with aberrations like sexual moral relativism may be turning off the very young by offending their as yet intact moral innocence.) Obviously, the cool kids aren’t the ones complaining all the time and having hysterical fits and meltdowns at the drop of a hat. Furthermore, the left, as it loses ground for various reasons, is becoming more panicky and desperate—and panicky desperation is definitely uncool. A rebel says: To hell with PC.
26. It represents the Establishment, which is worse than uncool. As though being increasingly unfashionable were not bad enough, the so-called “resistance,” beloved of the radical left, is on the same side as the corrupt and privileged Establishment! Radical groups like Antifa, Black Lives Matter, and campus SJW activists are in truth unwitting brownshirts for the people who have run the show for decades. They are fighting for the same causes: globalism, a powerful, centralized government (or authority, such as mandatory conformity enforced by group punishment), dependence upon the system of a welfare state, control of the people through surveillance and censorship, keeping the masses weak and docile through disarming them and addicting them to Brave New World style sensualism, and so on. The radicals are not “speaking truth to power,” they are speaking what they are told by power to speak. Seriously, has anyone noticed the oddity of “liberal” politicians and the Establishment media defending and justifying the actions of a domestic terrorist group like Antifa? People are gradually waking up to this too. Most of these radicals are manipulated pawns.
27. It is fragmenting, and the fragments are turning against each other. The observed intolerance and vindictiveness of the feminized left, exacerbated by Frankfurt School planned instability, results in witch hunts and persecutions within the left itself, which of course is weakening it even beyond the expected weakness of a system which normalizes every dysfunction. Most obviously, the left, in America at least, has turned against the working class, its former closest ally, mainly because the working class is composed mostly of the out-group of evil white men. So the working class has left the left in droves, favoring Trumpian populism and America First economics. Now the radical “progressive” left is locking horns with the moderate corporate neoliberals over control of the Democratic Party; their modest win in the recent midterm election immediately initiated a fight for power within the Party itself. The neoliberals are still more or less in control, but have to make many concessions to the radical Jacobins in order to be assured of their votes. But the divisions of the left go deeper still: the third-wave feminists have turned against the 2nd-wavers, black and brown feminists try to silence the white ones, so-called TERF feminists utterly loathe and reject feminist transsexuals, and white gay men are falling from grace for not being victimized enough—the list goes on and on. It is an old observation that the radical left devours itself; the French and Bolshevik Revolutions supply plenty of historical evidence for this. And now the political left, in America anyway, true to form, is degenerating into a free-for-all bitch fight. Meanwhile, in the Republican Party, there are relatively few stubborn neoconservatives left who have absolutely refused to board the Trump train—the ruthless attack on Brett Kavanaugh cured most of the laggards of any illusions that the left hated only Trump.
28. And it is simply not a viable system. Finally, even if the feminized, socialized left wins the civil cold war in the short term, and also somehow counteracts the designed instability discussed at the top of the list, society will inevitably collapse under the weight of socialism, feminism, and a population heavy on 3rd-world migrants, many of them on welfare and voting for more welfare, trying to run a 1st-world system. The “progressive” left seems hell-bent on taking the route of South Africa, or maybe Venezuela, or at the very least Sweden. The most likely outcome of progressivism in Europe would be the Islamist Caliphate of Europistan; the most likely outcome in the USA would be simply a massive economic collapse resulting from a borderless welfare state with free healthcare for all, leading to chaos; either way, the miserable failure of feminized leftism is assured. The big question is, will it fail before or after it gains control over western civilization? If before, then hallelujah and good riddance. If after, then western civilization goes with it. But of course, the new left doesn’t care much about such trivial and inconvenient truths. The new left doesn’t like western civilization anyway.
There are many more reasons why the radical feminized left is screwed, like leftists’ weakness for always taking any bait set out for them, and the lack of some charismatic messiah to take the place of Mr. Obama and outshine Mr. Trump…but I figure 28 is plenty. But even though the new left is virtually guaranteed of failure, those of us who despise political correctness hysteria, value freedom of thought and expression more than security, realize that socialism always, always fails, and do not want western men to become culturally castrated social eunuchs, should never let up until that failure is complete. If it gains real power before it falls it will take civilization down with it. At the very least we need to see the radical left pushed back to the lunatic fringe where it belongs.
|an honorable mention: it's turning western Buddhism to shit|