A Typology of the Left

When dealing with the Left, it’s useful to distinguish between its various sub-types, because combating these sub-types may well call for differing strategies and tactics.

So here it is: a typology – not of their ideas – but of their differing psychologies, personalities and motivations. It’s taken as a given that leftism = egalitarianism (i.e. synonyms.)

 

Here, I divide them up into 3 main categories. They are as follows:

 

1. Intrinsic Egalitarians/General Egalitarians

— People with a genuine attraction to the idea of equality across the board – in all areas of life. Caused by status anxiety revolving around feelings of inferiority. (After all, equality is only an improvement if you’re below average.) Results in hostility to the idea of hierarchies based on an objective standard of quality. [See: The Psychology of Leftism]

 

2. Extrinsic Egalitarians/Single-Issue Egalitarians

— People who side with the cause of equality, because they want equality in one  Racial, ethnic and religious minorities – side with the Left in other people’s countries – Blacks in White countries, Jews in gentile countries, Muslims in infidel countries, and Irish-Catholics in UK and America, etc.

 

3. Pseudo-Egalitarians (Economic and Social)

— economic a. and b.

—- a. Those who gain financially from economic liberalism – support modernity so as to exploit it financially via the peddling of degeneracy, the opening up of new markets, use of cheap labour, etc. As well as the international banking system.

—- b.  Those who gain financially from economic collectivism – i.e. poorer people who side with the Left because it’s wealth redistributive policies will leave them materially better off.

 

— social a. and b.

—- a. status-seeking conformists – people copying what they perceive ‘educated’ opinion to be so as to appear smarter themselves. Followers of intellectual fashion. [See: Cultural Hegemony] (Motivated by the prospect of social rewards.)

—- b. harm-avoidance based conformity – the great bulk of people who to a greater or lesser extent are subconsciously copying what they perceive to be the norm. ‘Perceive’ being the operative word. [For example: What You Can’t Say] (Motivated by the threat of social punishments.)

—- c. informational conformity. (Going along with the views of the wider social group and its appointed experts.) The misinformed – people who genuinely and honestly believe falsehoods (about history, or racial/sexual/individual differences.) because that’s what they’ve been led to believe is the truth.

 

typologyoftheleft1. Intrinsic or general egalitarians are those who find themselves in an unfavourable position in life’s various hierarchies generally. Or they just feel anxiety towards the prospect of competition (stemming from an inner weakness.) Either way, their fight is with hierarchy in general– though paradoxically, often presents itself as an attack on one hierarchy in particular (as if that were the main battlefront.) This is presumably to subconsciously displace the real cause of their anti-hierarchical attitude to life and the world. (This group contains those who, although sometimes bright and/or creative, generally fail at life. These people are losers, misfits, rejects, sexless, ugly, weak, lacking in vigour; but most importantly of all resentful.) This group represents the genuine egalitarian type. Driven by an identification with what is reviled or held in contempt; and antipathy towards what is strong and self-possessed.

The deep motives for intrinsic egalitarianism were most perceptively uncovered by Friedrich Nietzsche with his concepts of ressentiment and slave-morality.

This sub-type was also summed up perfectly by American eco-terrorist and schizotypal nutjob Ted Kaczynski. He attributed leftism to ‘feelings of inferiority’ as well as what he called ‘oversocialization.’ In regards to the former he wrote: ‘Many leftists have an intense identification with the problems of groups that have an image of being weak (women), defeated (American Indians), repellent (homosexuals), or otherwise inferior. […] [L]eftists tend to hate anything that has an image of being strong, good, and successful.’ Very well put…

 

2. Extrinsic or single-issue egalitarians are those who find themselves either in an unfavourable position in a single one (or a small number) of life’s various hierarchies – or – are concerned about the future possibility of suffering as a direct result of the existence of one of these hierarchies. (This group includes ethnic/racial, religious, and economic groups, etc.) Their battle is with particular hierarchies BUT often presents itself ideologically as an attack on all hierarchy.

Paradigmatic examples: how Irish Catholics in Ireland are known to be relatively conservative (by modern Western European standard), yet when living in traditionally Protestant England or the United States as ethnic minorities tend to side with the political Left. The strongest example of this phenomenon is that of the Ashkenazi Jews, who have practically built siding with the Left in other people’s countries into their collective identity as a diaspora people. Another example, would be the ‘working classes’ of modern Western populations, stratified according to socio-economic status, who often side with the socialist or quasi-socialist Left because they believe it’ll lead to them being economically better off. Outside of their economic concerns however, these people often exhibit quite conservative or traditionalist or ‘right-wing’ attitudes on political, social and cultural matters.

 

3. This group (pseudo-egalitarians) includes all those who through either commission or omission; through aggression, including passive-aggression; aid and abet the cause of the Left. It doesn’t matter whether these people identify with the Left – some of these individuals describe themselves as “right-wing” or “conservative”… but they are not. They’re helping to facilitate the centuries-long leftward drift of Western societies,because it benefits them economically and/or socially. (The latter being because either they stand to gain through feigning egalitarianism, or because they stand to lose something through revealing rightist views and sentiments.) This can either be conscious or unconscious, and these people may be naturally of a (weakly) egalitarian, inegalitarian or moderate disposition. It doesn’t matter, they’re pseudo-leftist.

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 )

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s