What the left has going for itself

so i got that going

What is leftism?

Leftism is lying, in order to knocking over apple carts, in order to take fallen apples for oneself.

The bad news is that the left is in control of most Western apple carts, and leftists being leftists they cannot help themselves but knock them over their own apple carts. This is their nature, and it will not end well. But we already knew this.

The good news is that leftists, in the face of strength, will not be able to knock over your apple cart, just like a thief cannot rob a well defended house, just like the media cannot  touch Donald Trump. Lies need to sneak past the truth, but if the truth is stated loud and clear, lies cannot be sneaked past. Leftists fold in front of strength (despite their strongest protestations to the contrary) and will go looking for greener, less defended pastures.

Lies come in many forms. There is no use trying to list all the lies, since the list of lies is endless. However, leftism has a recurrent core theme, since it is motivated by envy, covetousness, hate and jealousy of people who have apples – the rich, the successful, the happy. Thus we see a core lie, over and over, being that leftists tell us that these groups are evil and deserve to have their apples taken from them.

Why do people fall for leftist tricks? One part is that a minority of people will always have the majority of apples; not as skewed as the tinder market in which 20% of males bangs 80% of women, more like 10% of the rich owning 45% of the apples. The remaining 90% of people is apt to want some of those apples for themselves, are likely to at some level support leftist lies in favor of taking apples from the upper 10%. Which is why democracy is stupid.

The other part is that rightists are human, all too human. There exists no such thing as the perfect rightist; the perfect honest, upstanding, strong truth-teller. We all have weaknesses. The left seeks out these weaknesses, mocks them, seeks to abuse them. Sometimes they succeed, sometimes they don’t. That is the game. Thus we are always reminded of our limitations.

9 thoughts on “What the left has going for itself

  1. This “knocking over apple carts” business, if I’m not mistaken, comes from Jim. It seems to be a manifestation of a libertarian’s belief in the sacred inviolability of private property — which makes sense, as for most of his adult life he was a Trotskyist-cum-Rothbardian (in common with libertardianism itself).

    Now, I’m not going to tell you how to live, but if the end consequence of this idea would be to prevent you — were you to be suddenly catapulted into power — from seizing the property of your avowed enemies where possible and smashing it where not… well, you might want to do some introspection; comprehensively re-examine your thoughtsystem, and figure out exactly when, where, and how you were thought-cuckolded, and by whom.

    Have you ever read On the Genealogy of Morals? I highly recommend it. If you retain sufficient neuroplasticity, it will burn the thoughtcuckery right out of your brain.

    The first assumption in my theory on the origin of bad conscience is that the alteration was not gradual and voluntary and did not represent an organic assimilation into new circumstances, but was a breach, a leap, a compulsion, an inescapable fate that nothing could ward off, which occasioned no struggle, not even any ressentiment. A second assumption, however, is that the shaping of a population, which had up till now been unrestrained and shapeless, into a fixed form, as happened at the beginning with an act of violence, could only be concluded with acts of violence, – that consequently the oldest ‘state’ emerged as a terrible tyranny, as a repressive and ruthless machinery, and continued working until the raw material of people and semi-animals had been finally not just kneaded and made compliant, but shaped. I used the word ‘state’: it is obvious who is meant by this – some pack of blond beasts of prey, a conqueror and master race, which, organized on a war footing, and with the power to organize, unscrupulously lays its dreadful paws on a populace which, though it might be vastly greater in number, is still shapeless and shifting. In this way, the ‘state’ began on earth: I think I have dispensed with the fantasy which has it begin with a ‘contract’. Whoever can command, whoever is a ‘master’ by nature, whoever appears violent in deed and gesture – what is he going to care about contracts! Such beings cannot be reckoned with, they come like fate, without cause, reason, consideration or pretext, they appear just like lightning appears, too terrible, sudden, convincing and ‘other’ even to be hated. What they do is to create and imprint forms instinctively, they are the most involuntary, unconscious artists there are: – where they appear, soon something new arises, a struc- ture of domination [Herrschafts–Gebilde] that lives, in which parts and functions are differentiated and related to one another, in which there is absolutely no room for anything that does not first acquire ‘meaning’ with regard to the whole. They do not know what guilt, responsibility, consid- eration are, these born organizers; they are ruled by that terrible inner artist’s egoism which has a brazen countenance and sees itself justified to all eternity by the ‘work’, like the mother in her child. They are not the ones in whom ‘bad conscience’ grew; that is obvious – but it would not have grown without them, this ugly growth would not be there if a huge amount of freedom had not been driven from the world, or at least driven from sight and, at the same time, made latent by the pressure of their hammer blows and artists’ violence. This instinct of freedom, forcibly made latent – we have already seen how – this instinct of freedom forced back, repressed, incarcerated within itself and finally able to discharge and unleash itself only against itself: that, and that alone, is bad conscience in its beginnings.


    Exactly the opposite is true of the noble one who conceives of the basic idea ‘good’ by himself, in advance and spontaneously, and only then creates a notion of ‘bad’! This ‘bad’ of noble origin and that ‘evil’ from the cauldron of unassuaged hatred – the first is an afterthought, an aside, a complementary colour, whilst the other is the original, the beginning, the actual deed in the conception of slave morality – how different are the two words ‘bad’ and ‘evil’, although both seem to be the opposite for the same concept, ‘good’! But it is not the same concept ‘good’; on the contrary, one should ask who is actually evil in the sense of the morality of ressentiment. The stern reply is: precisely the ‘good’ person of the other morality, the noble, powerful, dominating one, but re-touched, re-interpreted and reviewed through the poisonous eye of ressentiment. Here there is one point we would be the last to deny: anyone who came to know these ‘good men’ as enemies came to know nothing but ‘evil enemies’, and the same people who are so strongly held in check by custom, respect, habit, grati- tude and even more through spying on one another and through peer- group jealousy, who, on the other hand, behave towards one another by showing such resourcefulness in consideration, self-control, delicacy, loyalty, pride and friendship, – they are not much better than uncaged beasts of prey in the world outside where the strange, the foreign, begin. There they enjoy freedom from every social constraint, in the wilderness they compensate for the tension which is caused by being closed in and fenced in by the peace of the community for so long, they return to the innocent conscience of the wild beast, as exultant monsters, who perhaps go away having committed a hideous succession of murder, arson, rape and torture, in a mood of bravado and spiritual equilibrium as though they had simply played a student’s prank, convinced that poets will now have some- thing to sing about and celebrate for quite some time. At the centre of all these noble races we cannot fail to see the beast of prey, the magnificent blond beast avidly prowling round for spoil and victory; this hidden centre needs release from time to time, the beast must out again, must return to the wild: – Roman, Arabian, Germanic, Japanese nobility, Homeric heroes, Scandinavian Vikings – in this requirement they are all alike. It was the noble races which left the concept of ‘barbarian’ in their traces wher- ever they went; even their highest culture betrays the fact that they were conscious of this and indeed proud of it (for example, when Pericles, in that famous funeral oration, tells his Athenians: ‘Our daring has forced a path to every land and sea, erecting timeless memorials to itself every- where for good and ill’).31 This ‘daring’ of the noble races, mad, absurd and sudden in the way it manifests itself, the unpredictability and even the improbability of their undertakings – Pericles singles out the r9aqnmi/a of the Athenians for praise – their unconcern and scorn for safety, body, life, comfort, their shocking cheerfulness and depth of delight in all destruc- tion, in all the debauches of victory and cruelty – all this, for those who suffered under it, was summed up in the image of the ‘barbarian’, the ‘evil enemy’, perhaps the ‘Goth’ or the ‘Vandal’. The deep and icy mistrust that the German arouses as soon as he comes to power, which we see again even today – is still the aftermath of that inextinguishable horror with which Europe viewed the raging of the blond Germanic beast for centuries (although between the old Germanic peoples and us Germans there is scarcely an idea in common, let alone a blood relationship). I once remarked on Hesiod’s dilemma32 when he thought up the series of cultural eras and tried to express them in gold, silver and iron: he could find no other solution to the contradiction presented to him by the magnificent but at the same time so shockingly violent world of Homer than to make two eras out of one, which he now placed one behind the other – first the era of heroes and demigods from Troy and Thebes, as that world retained in the memory of the noble races, who had their own ancestry in it; then the iron era, as that same world appeared to the descendants of the down- trodden, robbed, ill-treated, and those carried off and sold: as an era of iron, hard, as I said, cold, cruel, lacking feeling and conscience, crushing everything and coating it with blood. Assuming that what is at any rate believed as ‘truth’ were indeed true, that it is the meaning of all culture to breed a tame and civilized animal, a household pet, out of the beast of prey ‘man’, then one would undoubtedly have to view all instinctive reaction and instinctive ressentiment, by means of which the noble races and their ideals were finally wrecked and overpowered, as the actual instruments of culture; which, however, is not to say that the bearers of these instincts were themselves representatives of the culture. Instead, the opposite would be not only probable – no! it is visible today! These bearers of oppressive, vin- dictive instincts, the descendants of all European and non-European slavery, in particular of all pre-Aryan population – represent the decline of mankind! These ‘instruments of culture’ are a disgrace to man, more a grounds for suspicion of, or an argument against, ‘culture’ in general! We may be quite justified in retaining our fear of the blond beast at the centre of every noble race and remain on our guard: but who would not, a hundred times over, prefer to fear if he can admire at the same time, rather than not fear, but thereby permanently retain the disgusting spectacle of the failed, the stunted, the wasted away and the poisoned? And is that not our fate? What constitutes our aversion to ‘man’ today? – for we suffer from man, no doubt about that. – Not fear; rather, the fact that we have nothing to fear from man; that ‘man’ is first and foremost a teeming mass of worms; that the ‘tame man’, who is incurably mediocre and unedifying, has already learnt to view himself as the aim and pinnacle, the meaning of history, the ‘higher man’; – yes, the fact that he has a certain right to feel like that in so far as he feels distanced from the superabundance of failed sickly, tired and exhausted people of whom today’s Europe is beginning to reek, and in so far as he is at least relatively successful, at least still capable of living, at least saying ‘yes’ to life . . .

    1. I have read it, thought it was pretty good, although too much energy and too little direction. It is a shame Nietzsche died young, would’ve been interesting to see what an older, mature NIetzsche would’ve come up with.

      I have no trouble smashing and/or confiscating the properties of my enemies, though smashing has my preference. It is simply that I do not see the capitalists as my enemy: let Amazon supply the people, why not. It is the priests that are my enemy: confiscate the Washington Post, bulldozer Harvard and build a new church in its place.

      1. The man lived to 55. How old is “young”, exactly?

        Amazon’s great is some ways and terrible in others. It’s great in that it gives people pretty much exactly what they want: a universal selection of cheap Chinese crap straight to their doorstep in under 48 hours. It’s terrible in that it gives people pretty much exactly what they want: a universal selection of cheap Chinese crap straight to their doorstep in under 48 hours.

        I see it mostly as a question of just how much centralization we want to allow. The Amazonian revolution and its consequences have been a disaster for local economy. It’s the quintessential utility of the modern unracinated corporate bugman, a.k.a. the IKEA human. [Unracinated, as distinct from deracinated, because to be deracinated implies an original state of racination.] I myself have a subscription to Prime.

        On the other hand, Bezos, richest man in the world, is saying openly and loudly that he wants to have a trillion humans in space, and he’s putting down billions of dollars on an ongoing basis to make it happen. In the cosmic balance, that might be worth any amount of short-run anomie.

        1. Nietzsche lost hist sanity 10 years preceding his death, so 45. Not too young, but sort of young for a philosopher.

          If people want to buy Chinese-produced wares, why would I want to stop them?

          Amazon is not centralization, it is decentralization; besides there being one centralized node on the internet, through Amazon everyone in the world sells to everyone else in the world. Pretty decentralized.

          I do not mind Amazon doing that. As long as they provide a service people want, let them provide that service. I mind Bezos’ Washington Post, but I understand how that is a necessity for him to keep leftists off his back.

          To scoff at people for buying the materials they want (Chinese crap) comes dangerously close to Carlylean’s Restorationist marxist position of hating the consumer class.

          1. Valid point, though I think he probably expressed 80% of what he wanted to express. At a certain point the human brain stops coming up with new ideas and starts ossifying into its existing shape.

            Maybe you don’t want to stop them, but there are valid reasons to do so. “Made In America”, for instance — and all that implies. Or Germany, or Switzerland, or Denmark, or Holland. Certain places produce quality goods that can — or should — be made nowhere else, and exist — and only could exist — under a protectionist system. Trump knows this in his bones.

            Consider that in Europe certain foods can be made only in certain places, using certain process, with certain raw ingredients to certain high standards. “Champagne”, for instance, actually means something; in America it’s just a generic kind of wine. Or Prosecco, or Cognac, or Asiago, or camembert. Or Kobe.

            Consider further that no one ever vacationed to a “new” American city for the fun of it. Libertarianesque housing policy has utterly forestalled the growth of any Old European-style cities. In America the housing developers erect tracts of cookie-cutter half-pre-fabbed houses (which they then call “homes”), out of nothing, in a few short months to a few short years, without any respect for quality, durability, longevity, or livability. People buy them because nobody gives a shit. They move in, they’ll live there for a few years to a decade or two, and then they’ll leave it behind to crumble into dust. The “core” of American cities with any growth in the last half-century is an interweaving system of 70mph (112kph) highways.

            I see no reason to be dragged down into the muck by the discoordinated “collective” decisions of morons, frankly. “Just let people do what they want, maaan.” Yeah, and then you get “music” like this, places experienced like this, or people looking like this. The very existence of these things disparages my existence and offends my sensibilities.

            You can call that socialistic if you like. I think it rather aristocratic. To the extent that you associate it with one C.R., it’s probably because he’s an academic, in spirit and probably in reality, and the academy, if nothing else, feels in itself the Rɪɢʜᴛ ᴛᴏ Rᴜʟᴇ. The Jew is a spiritual noble in this respect, if none other.

            P.S. “Consumer class” is a hideously offensive label, fit for slaves — or cattle.

          2. So, earn money and buy quality products. There’s plenty of quality products left to be bought. Be the patron of stuff you like instead of waiting for consumer taste to change.

          3. >So, earn money and buy quality products. There’s plenty of quality products left to be bought. Be the patron of stuff you like instead of waiting for consumer taste to change.

            Half collective action problem, half sheer cultural inertia problem.

            For old construction in cities, sheer cultural inertia. For new construction of cities, collective action: it’s physically impossible to have a great quality of life in the vast majority of American cities, because American cities are shit. (Independent of the presence of hot thots, I mean.)

            For music, mostly collective action: people don’t put in the effort to make really great music because they don’t expect to be rewarded for the monumental effort — and rightly so, because they won’t be. Same for art and sculpture, mostly. That stuff is made to be shown off — “look how much better my sculptor is than your sculptor, nah nee nah nee nah nah”.

            There’s just one problem: when such luminaries as the CIA debase your artistic culture (and all the other kinds)… well, there isn’t much you can do about it, is there?

            There’s only one way to return our society to the way of truth, justice, and manly dignity, and it involves dramatic reconstitution of the unintelligent community. Defiance of the international agenda is something for which people are fucking murdered, e.g. General George Patton.

          4. Dramatic reconstitution of the unintelligent community? Leave the unintelligent alone.

            Naturally, prefer the intelligent over the unintelligent, but stupidity alone is not reason enough for a helicopter ride.

            The reason art is shite, architecture is shite, is that both flow downwards from power. Fix power, and you’ll fix art and architecture.

          5. >Dramatic reconstitution of the unintelligent community? Leave the unintelligent alone.

            I’m beginning to wonder how much of my English-speaking meaning is making it into your Dutch-thinking mind.

            “Unintelligent community” is obviously a pun on “intelligence community”.

            >both [art and architecture] flow downwards from power

            No kidding.

            Look, I’m just pointing out that it isn’t some mysterious fucking “ultracalvinist progressive” boogeyman bullshit, what it is is the goddamned “monolithic and ruthless conspiracy” that everyone with a brain has known about for, like, ever.

            Hey, remember when Jim’s entire weltanshauung was based on true-believer holiness-spiraling? I do. I remember when I broke him of it, too. I never got around to breaking him of that Red/Blue State crap, nor of his mind-bogglingly retarded rhetoric re: 9/11. Yeah, the buildings were demolished. Yeah, the Mossad and the American alphabet soup are 100% responsible. Yeah, “terrorism” was always a sham fabricated half for American foreign policy on oil, opium, and lithium; half for expansionist Israeli nationalism; half for America and Israel’s joint partnership called “ISIS”; and half to degrade American civic life.

            Even the supposedly “awake” have their thoughts edited on a daily basis, and it’s a completely organic process we do to ourselves in response to the changing power dynamic at the heights of Mount Olympus and propagated through the airwaves. Our forefathers would have regarded wireless communications as some sort of satanic force imposing itself on the firmament to indoc and enslave, but whatevs.

            Later, tater.

Leave a 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.