Home > Critical Thinking, Current Affairs, Dystopia, Musings, Philosophy sans Sophistry, Reason, Secular Religions, Skepticism > Western ‘Leftists’ are Only Slightly Less Despicable than CONservatives

Western ‘Leftists’ are Only Slightly Less Despicable than CONservatives

Regular readers are well aware of my utter dislike, contempt and hatred for all CONservatives- regardless of their race and social class. The world would be a far better place if all of them and their progeny ceased on exist, one fine day. Many of you are also aware that I am no fan of so-called ‘liberals’ or as I like to call them, LIEbrals- because they are basically CONservatives who expouse socially progressive-sounding causes largely because they are a bit ashamed of being perceived as knuckle-draggers. In other words, LIEbrals are CONservatives who are not retarded and exhibit a basic level of self-consciousness, if only to project themselves as more “deserving” of their station in life. LIEbrals = we are better than southern and flyover state white-trash.

Let me now talk about the other group who I detest- though not with the intensity reserved for CONservatives and LIEbrals. I am talking about western ‘Leftists’ aka the losers with more self-conciousness than LIEbrals and CONservatives. But why dislike people that are kinda better than either LIEbrals and CONservatives. Aren’t they an improvement of some sort or at least a change in the right direction? Well.. they are, but it is not enough. See.. white people in early 20th century USA were ‘better’ than their counterparts from 300 or even 100 years prior. Unlike their predecessors, they did not bury women for witchcraft, openly practice slavery, enthusiastically support genocide of native people and were on threshold of extending voting rights to women.

However they still strongly believed in their alleged “racial superiority”, put considerable effort into immiserating black and other non-white people, did many nauseating things in support of maintaining racial purity, were the inspiration for Hitler and his Nazis and were otherwise a fairly loathsome bunch of people. Some of you might say that we should judge them by the standards of their era rather than contemporary ones. Fair enough.. but then shouldn’t we also judge Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan by the standards of first half of 20th century- which was a pretty dismal time in human history with all those other genocides, two world wars, inter-war conflicts, forced population exchanges etc. My point is, you have to draw the line somewhere.

So what do I despise about western ‘Leftists’? How are my views on them similar or different from those about LIEbrals and CONservatives? Well.. for starters, my feelings towards western ‘Leftists’ are rooted in dislike and contempt rather than hatred. Which is another way of saying that my major beef with them is about how they think, behave and see the world rather than their broader goals. So I am perfectly fine with legal equality irrespective of race and sex, socialism and wealth redistribution, decentralization and preventing public and private rent-seekers, progressive income and wealth tax-funded healthcare and education, non-corporate controlled universal basic income, legalization of drugs and prostitution, right to choose etc

At this point, some of you might throw up your hands and say “so why do you despise western ‘Leftists’ if you support the majority of their stated goals?”. Well.. keep reading.

1] The biggest problem with western ‘Leftists” today concerns their real identity and motivations. Contemporary western “leftists” are, by and large, careerist petite bourgeoisie. Almost every single prominent western ‘Leftist’ today seems to be somebody with multiple degrees in the liberal arts who spends an inordinate amount of effort trying to convince others that they alone are morally upright and virtuous.When is the last time you met a prominent western ‘Leftist’ who actually performed work which did not involve writing clever-sounding articles, books or indulging in scholarly-sounding pontification. Leftism was once a movement of the working classes, you know.. people who work to make a living. Today it is mostly a movement of weaselly apple-polishers trying to use ideology to advance their own career.

2] The current crop of western ‘Leftists’ (at least well-known ones) are almost exclusively derived from the professional upper-middle or aspiring middle class. They have no interest in problems of people from other.. should we say.. more ‘icky’ classes. They would rather protest for the right of transgender men to use female restrooms than bother with concrete proposals to eliminate racial discrimination in healthcare, housing and the so-called ‘criminal justice’ system. They believe that gender equality is achieved when more white women are hired in armed forces so that they can go half-way around the world to kill some more brown people. For them, a just immigration system is one which allows enough poor and desperate people into the country so they can then hire those same people at low wages to clean houses and take care of their kids.

3] It gets worse. There is, you see, a considerable overlap between LIEbrals and western ‘Leftists’. Indeed, one of the easiest way for a LIEbral to elevate his or her social standing today (at least in their mind) is by supporting allegedly progressive causes- but only fashionable ones. So dressing your 6-year old non-stereotypical male child as a girl because ‘she’ could be trans is the socially appropriate way of showing one’s “wokeness”. However these same people will do nothing beyond pay some lip service for issues such as children without adequate healthcare, housing or food- because those things are associated with ‘icky’ people. They will donate some cheap toys to a charity around Christmas rather than ask why such ‘charity’ is necessary.

4] Western ‘Leftists’ are overwhelmingly white and the few minorities in their ranks are there for the grift.. I mean career advancement. Face it, nowadays you cannot have a self-congratulatory award ceremony or banquets where people give each other prizes for “empowering” each other without a few non-white faces. Look at how far we have come.. a corporation which extorts many thousands of desperate people while awarding billions to its upper management has finally hired a Black, Asian or Indian CEO? And he or she is also gay.. how “woke”! What about those tens of thousands extorted people. Well.. it is all due to the “free market” and we cannot do anything about it. And remember.. everything can be “fixed” with neoliberal wonkery and “data science”.

5] One of the most amusing, and telling, aspect of the contemporary western ‘Leftist’ mindset is how easily they stop supporting a cause when systematically abused and victimized people resort to a little violence. According to these ‘Leftists’ a group of black people protesting systemic abuse and occasional murder by white cops become unworthy if they break even a single shop window. Did I mention how strongly these ‘Leftists’ believe in “gun control” or how they insist everyone should respect “authority” and “experts”. Or how they masturbate over shitty Tesla electric cars, the latest puff-piece about “machine learning” or “artificial intelligence”.. basically anything that is seen as fashionable and “woke” enough. In other words, western “Leftism” = performance art.

6] Western ‘Leftists’ never stop giving useless or bad advice to non-white people and people in non-white countries- who find it darkly comic. These ‘Leftists’ want everyone else to give up their lifestyle and conveniences for the “environment” and to prevent “climate change” but are loath to change anything significant about their own lifestyle. And remember, you are a ‘heretic’ and ‘denier’ if you doubt the veracity of this central sacrament of their secular apocalyptic cult. Of course, they could just come out and admit that they are racist and part of a declining and rapidly diminishing race. But as we all know, western ‘Leftists’ are all post-racial, totally non-patronizing group of very “diverse”, “woke” and “highly educated” people- who can never make a mistake and give awesome TEDx presentations.

In summary, much of what passes for ‘Leftism’ in the west today is reformulated LIEbralism with new buzzwords and more performance art. Ironically, this does not fool anybody outside their group. And now you know why I find them despicable and repulsive, though somewhat less so than generic LIEbrals and CONservatives.

What do you think? Comments?

  1. P Ray
    May 6, 2019 at 10:38 am

    Don’t forget the other great “LIEbral” issue: Our efforts to care about the environment result in raised prices, reduced services and class stratification, but that is because “poor people can’t be allowed to live like the rich”.

    This review sums it up:
    February 08, 2007, 0:00 a.m.

    A Mine is a Terrible Thing to Waste
    Mine Your Own Business exposes green hypocrisy.

    By Peter Suderman

    It’s not often you find environmentalists staging a protest outside of National Geographic. But in mid-January, a handful of them gathered outside the magazine’s Washington, D.C. headquarters to rally against the organization’s decision to rent out a theater for the Washington premiere of the documentary Mine Your Own Business, a movie that tracks the efforts of environmentalists to stop the development of mines that promise to invigorate flagging economies in destitute regions across the world.

    With stacks of photocopied handouts and hand-scrawled poster board signs bearing slogans like “Full Disclosure,” the motley crew of activists stalked the streets pushing papers at passers by and engaging in heated debate with free-market counter-protesters and even the filmmakers themselves. Nor were they the only ones going after the film. Earlier, Greenpeace released a statement urging National Geographic not go forth with the showing and comparing the movie to pornography and Nazi propaganda. This was despite the fact that National Geographic was not endorsing the showing, but merely renting out their theater space.

    The rhetorical overkill of the response was telling: The environmental movement is clearly afraid of this film, and they should be. Mine Your Own Business, Irish filmmaker Phelim McAleer’s clear-eyed look at the true impacts of mining and the nefarious tactics of its opponents, exposes the self-satisfied delusions of the environmental Left, putting lie to a host of deadly, anti-growth canards and revealing the smug elitism of many green advocates.

    This is, perhaps, not all that surprising. The ideas espoused by many greens are farcical enough to begin with. But even for someone used to their whoppers, it’s almost shocking the lies, misrepresentations, and condescending behavior that McAleeny manages to catch on film. With great care and thoroughness, the movie deconstructs the Left’s anti-growth narrative of pastoral tranquility and replaces it with something truly shocking: actual local sentiment.

    Mine Your Own Business looks primarily at ongoing efforts to stop Canadian company Gabriel Resources from building a gold mine in Rosia Montana, Romania. The region is poor, with many people still residing in tiny, Communist-era block apartments and forced to use outhouses in a place in which freezing temperatures are common. Most anti-mine activists, of course, live far away, surrounded by modern comforts. But despite this, they claim to know what the locals want.

    McAleer, on the other hand, figured the locals might be in a better position to explain their needs. In the film, he walks the streets of Rosia Montana and two other potential mine locations conducting interviews with area residents. Every one of them repeats a variant on one idea: What they really want is to work, and the mines would provide them that opportunity. By talking directly to locals, and by airing their ideas rather than claiming to speak for them, McAleer beats supposedly pro-local environmentalists at their own game.

    Environmentalists, of course, talk endlessly about preserving traditional ways of life, but locals don’t want to preserve poverty and hardship. They want a chance to provide a more comfortable existence for themselves and their families. McAleer catches Francoise Heidebroek, who works with an anti-mining NGO, claiming that Rosia Montana residents would “prefer to ride a horse than drive a car.” When McAleer asks locals if they’d prefer to clop about in freezing temperatures on a horse, they just laugh at him. Heidebroek, it’s useful to note, sequesters herself away in the modernized capitol city of Bucharest. If she wants to saddle up every morning, well, I say good luck. But there’s no reason that her equestrian whimsy should force actual Rosia Montana residents to do the same.

    But Heidobroek’s wistful fantasies about poverty are nothing compared to those of the World Wildlife Fund’s Mark Fenn. Fenn opposes a proposed mine in Fort Dauphin, Madagascar on the grounds that it would destroy “the quaintness, the small-town feeling” that he so admires.

    Of course, while Fenn, who boasts on camera of his $35,000 boat and the foundation of his new beachfront home, luxuriates in first world comfort, most of the town’s residents live in dire poverty. When asked why locals should be denied the economic opportunity that would come with the mine, he calmly explains that, although they might not have terribly good healthcare, or shelter, or nutrition, they have a stress-free life that can be valued by — I kid you not — the number of times they smile per day. Even if they did get money, he explains, they wouldn’t know how to spend it. As he tells it, they tend to blow their cash on parties, booze, and stereo systems. Not everyone, it appears, can have his taste in beach houses and catamarans.

    Fenn’s attitude isn’t just witless, it’s sickening, and it’s indicative of the general level of smug, out-of-touch elitism that haunts the environmental movement. “Regional character,” “simple life,” “quaintness,” “small-town feeling,” “local history” — these are just warm, fuzzy phrases trotted out by anti-growth environmentalists to deny wealth and opportunities to residents of poor regions. And, as in Fenn’s case, they’re often markers of ugly condescension toward third-world residents.

    McAleer, on the other hand, treats the locals in the areas he visits with respect. He asks one Fort Dauphin resident what she’d do with the money she’d get for a job, and she says she’d buy an item at a low price and sell it for a higher price — a line that drew much applause from the audience at the premiere.

    Before venturing into the world of documentary film, McAleer worked as a journalist for the Financial Times and the U.K. Sunday Times. The experience shows. Mine Your Own Business works in no small part because of its smart, thoughtful storytelling, its expertly edited juxtapositions of activist claims and local realities, and its strong characterizations. Nor is it burdened by any of the lazy boosterism that infects so much documentary filmmaking. Instead, it’s a compellingly rendered journalistic narrative that casts a skeptical eye on many of the dubious claims of the environmental Left.

    McAleer, of course, has his biases. The film begins by explaining that much of its funding came from Gabriel Resources, the company that wants to put in the mine. But McAleer also makes clear that he took the money on the condition that the company would have no editorial control. In a question and answer session after the film, he claimed to come from a liberal background and said that, on his first trip to Rosia Montana, he had intended to tell a typical story about big bad corporations. The facts of the story, however, were too obvious to ignore.

    Before the film began, Thor Halvorssen, founder of the Motion Picture Institute, an organization devoted to aiding in the creation of films that promote a free society (and one of the groups responsible for the film’s production), introduced it by noting the protesters outside and the virulent reaction from Greenpeace. “To people who are intolerantly devoted to their own views,” he said, “this is pornography — political pornography.” The comparison is strong, but apt. As Mine Your Own Business makes clear, the left’s environmentalist fringe sees nothing as more revolting than the truth.

    Full disclosure: The Washington, D.C. premiere I attended was partially sponsored by the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) which, at the time of showing, was my employer. Neither I nor CEI had any input or involvement whatsoever into the film’s production.

    — Peter Suderman is managing editor of NRO.

  2. Yusef
    May 7, 2019 at 5:46 pm

    Another reason for not hating Leftists as much as CONservatives is they are basically out of power and have very, very little, if any true influence. It is true here and there they have a cozy berth for themselves, that they have presence in academia and find a captive audience there of young people who nevertheless have a good grasp of “the game to be played.” It is really in no way to be compared with the massive and disproportionate hold of the right on basically the entire established media networks, including every day more hold on the internet. I really didn’t even get much good, vicious pleasure reading your satire because this group is too pathetic.

    “The most central and biggest problem with western ‘Leftists” concerns their real identity and motivations. Contemporary western “leftists” are, by and large, careerist petite bourgeoisie. Almost every single prominent western ‘Leftist’ today seems to be somebody with multiple degrees in the liberal arts who spends an inordinate amount of effort trying to convince others that they alone are morally upright and virtuous.”

    There’s a problem, though, in what you consider petit bourgeois. These guys are by and large refugees from the working class nimble enough to jump aboard one of the last at all credible shreds of middle class prosperity in America. You gotta give ’em some credit.

  3. Conscience Constituent
    May 7, 2019 at 10:30 pm

    Pretty much…
    Frankly, the world is going to shit and with how things are any engagement in politics is futile.

  4. thordaddy
    May 8, 2019 at 3:59 pm

    “[W]estern ‘leftists…’ [A] change in the right direction.” — Devil’s Advocate, In Deed.

  5. MikeCA
    May 8, 2019 at 6:46 pm

    “Let all the poison that lurks in the mud, hatch out.”

    You’re not even making an effort any more to disguise who you are..

    ???

    FYI- I detest hypocrites, of all types, with a passion.

  6. May 9, 2019 at 6:47 am

    I agree with you. But I have a queerstion….To what do you attribute whiteys subversion of swarthy? Is whitey especially unique in whiteys ability or willingness to exercise evil? Why has swarthy NOT exercised the same? Is it because swarthy is morally superior to whitey?

    Since that short-lived era (1800-1980s) has ended and whitey is in terminal decline, such an explanation is not necessary. In any case, winning a lottery ticket and then blowing the prize away does not require any special ability.

  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply to P Ray Cancel reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: