How the New Left Compels the Right to Be Morally Superior
When the great Way is forgotten, kindness and morality arise. When wisdom and intelligence are born, the great pretense begins. When there is no peace within the family, filial piety and devotion arise. When the country is confused and in chaos, loyal ministers appear. —Tao Te Ching
Force always attracts men of low morality. —Albert Einstein
Morality is simply the attitude we adopt towards people whom we personally dislike. —Oscar Wilde
I’ve written in a previous post about rightist morals vs. leftist morals and how they compare and contrast. Both sides endorse ethics of a sort, though the right’s conception of morals is broader, and also more traditional and even ancient; it is more in accordance with the ethics of great religions, especially western ones, particularly with regard to such alleged immorality as indulgence in sensuality and worldliness.
This is another take on the same general issue, but from a more or less cultural Darwinist perspective. In other words, I will attempt to describe how social pressures coming from the left are pressuring the right in America towards greater and greater morality, modesty, and sense of honor. No doubt this is also the case in countries other than the USA.
This is totally setting aside the peculiar fact that very many on the alt-right or “hard right” in the west are puritanical moralists anyhow. Probably most leftists are clueless with regard to this. Even many non-Christians on the western right are concerned with “moral purity,” “sin and expiation,” etc., and are vehemently opposed to such decadent luxuries as pornography, sexual promiscuity, and recreational drug use. Some people on the alt-right who contact me, or with whom I otherwise come in contact, strike me as dour and humorless moral zealots, and remind me of, say, those grim Scottish Presbyterians of a few hundred years ago, who considered dancing, public merriment, and going to the theater, let alone something like sodomy, to be acts of selling one’s soul to Lucifer. The morals of the western right are not necessarily Buddhistic: many of them would agree that morality allows killing fellow human beings in defense of one’s own homeland, race, and traditions. Many would no doubt agree with the famous quote of Macaulay: “And how can a man die better than facing fearful odds, for the ashes of his fathers, and the temples of his gods?” The radical left also show plenty of tolerance for the taking of human life for ideological reasons, but they tend to be less upfront about it, and are more likely to dissemble with regard to it.
And then of course, many on the moderate right have long been devout conservative Christians who take their traditional religious values seriously. But there’s more to it than this. The left is actually pressuring the right, whether the right likes it or not, to be morally superior.
For whatever reasons, mainstream popular culture, as promulgated by most of the corporate mass media, is predominantly conditioned by the “liberal” political left. Consequently, in the news especially, there is an increasingly obvious, hypocritical double standard, in which the right will be attacked for actions or inactions that would be applauded, or just ignored, if the left had done the very same. Standard procedure for the leftist, globalist, corporate news media is to run defense for “liberals,” while attacking virtually anything the other side does or doesn’t do. In America the few exceptions to this bias of corporate media include Fox News, usually, plus some less mainstream media like Breitbart, some online magazines, and talk radio. These exceptions are biased also of course, but in a more conservative direction. Much of the conservative news media has been replaced by people making YouTube videos in their bedroom on a $100 webcam.
There are a whole slew of obvious examples of this establishment bias regarding US President Donald Trump. Most of the behavior at which leftwing propagandists are protesting in tones of outraged indignation—pretty much all of it with the exception of some crude tweets and insults announced at rallies—would be celebrated enthusiastically, or at least staunchly defended, if it were Saint Obama and not “Drumpfler” who did it. If Obama had ordered the drone strike to take out Qasem Soleimani, for example, no announcer on CNN or MSNBC would be declaring it, in stern tones, to be an irresponsible, impulsive escalation towards World War 3, or the war crime of illegally assassinating a “revered military hero.” But of course before the drone strike some on the globalist establishment left were accusing Trump of being weak and “impotent” with regard to Iranian provocations. If Saint Obama had made essentially the same sort of phone call as Trump made, infamously, to the new President of Ukraine, and he very probably did to various foreign officials, and notoriously did once on a hot microphone, pretty much nobody would have seen any problem, aside from a few grumbling conservatives. If some Republican celebrity had publicly fantasized about killing Obama a few years ago, his career would have ended right then and there. Similarly, if it were a son of Donald Trump that sat on a board of directors for a Ukrainian gas company without any obvious qualifications to do so aside from a family connection with the White House, then the whole thing would be decried to the heavens as the scandal of the century. But, since the son in question is on the side of the Democrats, instead the media run defense and keep as quiet on the subject as they can get away with.
Aside from the occasional vulgarities, President Trump, in all likelihood, perpetrates no sorts of acts that most other Presidents have not also perpetrated. Quid pro quo is how practically all diplomacy works, for example, and no doubt national leaders regularly make secret deals that would not find favor if widely known. Yet Trump is reviled as outrageously corrupt, and a warmonger also, despite the facts that 1) thus far he allegedly is the least militarily aggressive President since Carter, and 2) Obama allegedly ordered more bombs dropped on more countries than Trump has, by far, with his multitude of drone strikes allegedly killing more civilians than military targets. Also of course, Joe Biden, the Democrat frontrunner for the presidency, has been recorded on video as he boasted in front of an audience how he committed a much more egregious quid pro quo with Ukraine’s government than Trump has been accused of. But few care about all this on the left, because the whole point is that anything that Trump does or doesn’t do will be attacked, because he’s on the other side.
Another obvious example: After railroading President Trump in the impeachment hearings in the House of Representatives (and under it, in a secret basement), in which Trump was not allowed to defend himself or face his accuser, and in which the Republicans were not allowed to call witnesses, to rebut testimony, etc., and which was rushed because of its supposed urgency, now the same people who have been denying the President the right to a fair trial and who sat on the impeachment articles for weeks are demanding a fair trial in the Senate. But there are so many examples of this kind of bias that could be given that no amount of it could really do the situation justice.
Just about anything bad that happens, anywhere, is also spun as the fault of President Trump. The New Zealand mosque shooting, for instance, was blamed on Trump by American corporate news outlets like ABC. At least one hurricane has been blamed on Trump by leftist celebrities. More recently, the Iranian military shot down a Ukrainian commercial jetliner—probably because they were very nervous and jumpy expecting a massive American counterstrike (which never happened) after the Iranians had launched ballistic missiles at American assets in Iraq—and even after the Iranians admitted being at fault, the western ultraliberal media persisted in blaming Trump for it. So this action was not the fault of the people who actually shot down the plane, but rather the fault of someone else who wasn’t there. This same kind of “reasoning” applies not only to Mr. Trump but to white males in general, as I have discussed elsewhere: if black people commit more violent crimes than white people or anyone else, it’s still Whitey’s fault. If women tend to prefer jobs in human relations to being higher-paid mechanical engineers, that too is entirely white men’s fault. This denial of individual moral agency to anyone but white males is especially damning to the left’s own narrative in ways that most of them do not even begin to consider.
Ironically, because of this sort of continuous spiteful vitriol, President Trump may prove to be the LEAST corrupt, LEAST law-breaking President in many decades. This is because he knows that even the slightest transgression of legality will have establishment back-stabbers leaping out of the shadows and denouncing him in leaks to the leftist media. He knows that he must exercise a kind of prudence that other Presidents did not require. (Also, I suppose, Mr. Trump has been a successful shark businessman long enough to know that in order to become and remain successful one should avoid breaking any important laws. Maybe a few lesser laws around the edges may be transgressed, like stiffing contractors for as long as possible, or indulging in a little exaggerated advertising, but no really big, felonious ones.) And it’s not just the President that has to watch his step; anyone on the right, or just considered to be on the right, like classical liberals maybe, have to watch their step likewise, because they are always potential targets of the hysterical, vindictive elements of the left. They are compelled to be prudent.
One consideration is that persecution makes people stronger if it doesn’t succeed in crushing them. Early Rome, early Christians, and Jews pretty much throughout history have been strong and successful largely because people hated them and tried repeatedly to wipe them off the face of the earth. Persecution can unify a people and inspire them to be as good as they can manage. But once the persecution ends, and the formerly persecuted ones gain the upper hand, this particular force for good tends to disappear.
Another factor conducive to morality on the right is that there are plenty of former leftists, me included, who are revolted by the lunacy, hysteria, degeneracy, sleaze, and hypocrisy coming from the “woke” left in particular, and are fleeing rightwards to escape it, and in some cases to combat it. But there is more to it than that, too.
This constant pressure of hostility requiring the right to obey the law and “behave,” whereas the left doesn’t have to live up to the same standards, has an inevitable effect. Furthermore, these conservatives, traditionalists, nationalists, and libertarians will be attacked anyway, simply because of their beliefs, or even their morality. Christians, for example, are denounced as homophobes if they believe their own Bible and consider sodomy to be a sin. They may be reviled as transphobes if they don’t want small children to be castrated. And they may be called just plain evil for not wanting unborn babies to be aborted (killed) for no better reason than the convenience of sexually irresponsible women.
Which leads even further: Machiavellian leftists for over a century have been destroying innocent people just for getting in their way. Lately they’ve been turning against each other. The new left can be like amoral Jacobins or Bolsheviks, running on hysteria while the conservative right is practically compelled to go by laws and objective reality, plus some old-fashioned faith and traditional values. (To be fair, right-wingers have destroyed plenty of innocent people too, although lately they haven’t been in much of a position to do it. Anyway, the Marxists of the 20th century appear to have specialized in it. Or maybe it would be more accurate to say that the innocents killed by the right tend to be foreigners, while those killed by the left tend to be fellow citizens.)
Also, I have already commented on the ironic and bizarre fact that celebrities in the entertainment industry, who notoriously have the morals of alley cats (a universal stereotype that has persisted for thousands of years), are now claiming the moral high ground. When the likes of Cher, Robert De Niro, and Charlize Theron are posing as moral guides to the masses, you know something is seriously wrong with this picture.
All this helps to explain, a little, why the tide now appears to be turning, and the right is gaining momentum throughout the world; the right, much more than the globalist left, is practically compelled to have truth and rightness on their side. (The left say, “Truth is just a social construct, so do as we tell you.”) Also, of course, people do have some innate common sense, and many are seeing through the propaganda, and are morally indignant at the sleazy antics of the Democratic Party in the USA, and the anti-Brexit, anti-nationalist elites of the UK and EU.
As somewhat of a social Darwinist, I am confident that the stronger side will probably win. Survival goes to the fittest, and the side that rejects not only basic ethics but also empirical truth is hardly likely to be the fittest. In fact the left has evidently become the enemy of fitness itself, and has become the champion of misfits and the dysfunctional. Good luck with that approach. The left is going to need it.
In conclusion I would just say, Long live freedom, and may we have sufficient moral strength and wisdom to survive it.