‘Racism’ – the first and final word

Definition: particularism – human beings are naturally a social animal, they live embedded in groups. ‘Particularism’ can be defined as preference for, or loyalty to, ones own kind – family, nation, race… (antithesis: universalism – cosmopolitanism, one-world brotherhood, globalism.)

Preference for in-group vs. Hostility towards out-group. (Commonly believed to be one and the same – or two sides of the same coin – but are in fact separate; analogous to two independent sliding scales.) As is shown in the below study:

The Psychology of Prejudice: Ingroup Love or Outgroup Hate?


Allport (1954) recognized that attachment to one’s ingroups does not necessarily require hostility toward outgroups. Yet the prevailing approach to the study of ethnocentrism, ingroup bias, and prejudice presumes that ingroup love and outgroup hate are reciprocally related. Findings from both cross-cultural research and laboratory experiments support the alternative view that ingroup identification is independent of negative attitudes toward outgroups and that much ingroup bias and intergroup discrimination is motivated by preferential treatment of ingroup members rather than direct hostility toward outgroup members. Thus to understand the roots of prejudice and discrimination requires first of all a better understanding of the functions that ingroup formation and identification serve for human beings. This article reviews research and theory on the motivations for maintenance of ingroup boundaries and the implications of ingroup boundary protection for intergroup relations, conflict, and conflict prevention.

 Additional studies can be read here, here, here and (to a lesser extent) here.


So, if we have two scales operating independently of one another – preference for in-group and hostility towards out-group – then this presents us with four possible configurations:

  1. Preference for in-group but no hostility towards out-group
  2. Preference for in-group and hostility towards out-group
  3. No Preference for in-group but hostility towards out-group
  4. No Preference for in-group or hostility towards out-group

[labelled as 1. 2. 3. and 4. below.]

The linguistic meme-concept, ‘racism’, was developed in order to blur the first three together, as if they were all one and the same – and then pit them against the supposed neutrality of number four.

^ A false dichotomy is implied therein between racism (‘hostility towards out-group’) and not racism (‘neutrality towards in-group and out-group.’)

Examples: wanting to preserve ones country as belonging to ones own nation, vs. wanting that and also disliking a people, either for no good reason, or which – for example – is trying to move in and displace your people (i.e. there are perfectly good reasons to even hate another people – for example if they are seeking to ethnically cleanse or genocide you.) vs. stabbing a black man in the head just because he’s black. <– in leftish newspeak these are all but different manifestations of the same phenomena – ‘racism.’ All are then opposed to a mythical ‘colour-blindness’ – that “race doesn’t matter.”

Of the four possible configurations, the first three are therefore dismissed as ‘racism.’ They are blurred together into one singular construct.

This – however – is only true for white people. A separate standard is deliberately applied to non-white people across all areas of life. So…


Two additional terms related to Racism – and used in the exact same way – are ‘Xenophobia’ and ‘Hate.’ So with the latter, for example, love of ones own kind becomes ‘hate.’

Doublespeak is language that deliberately obscures, disguises, distorts, or reverses the meaning of words. Doublespeak may take the form of euphemisms (e.g., “downsizing” for layoffs, “servicing the target” for bombing), in which case it is primarily meant to make the truth sound more palatable. It may also refer to intentional ambiguity in language or to actual inversions of meaning. In such cases, doublespeak disguises the nature of the truth. Doublespeak is most closely associated with political language.

“Why do you hate?”, “All he is doing is spreading hate…” (SPLC’s ‘hate-groups.’ ‘HopeNotHate’, etc…) …

… ^ The grammar of Newspeak has two characteristics: (i) the virtual interchangeability of linguistic function (noun, verb, adverb, adjective, etc.) among the parts of speech…


Whenever we think about loyalty to ones racial, national or ethnic group, we can use the metaphor of the family. Everybody – barring life-events or psychopathology – has a natural preference for, and loyalty to, their own family over others. In no sense would anybody assume this necessitated a hatred of non-family members. Indeed anyone claiming that ‘love of ones own family’ is merely a thinly disguised excuse for hatred of other people’s families would rightly be viewed as someone whose head was not screwed on right. Additionally families – like nations – have fought one another throughout history, and always will; but nobody would claim that families therefore should be done away with due to their being primarily based on hate which inevitably leads to violence. (Various kinds of leftist of course do want to get rid of the family, but they don’t use this stupid logic. They reserve that for nation and race…)

Such ideologically-loaded terms as ‘racism’, ‘xenophobia’, ‘hate’ and ‘bigotry’ function as what are known as thought-terminating clichés (aka thought-stoppers.) These are words or phrases which have the effect of shutting down rational and critical thought or discussion, and of providing a simplistic answer to what are often highly complex human problems.

They can pre-empt and shut down any substantive analysis. Appearing to say something substantive about a given topic, they are often empty and say nothing of substance whatsoever.

Mundane examples from everyday life include ‘it is what it is’ and ‘everything happens for a reason.’

Any word or phrase operating as a thought-terminating cliché may actually be valid in certain contexts, but it is the facility with which it is regularly used to shut down thought or debate which makes it a thought-terminating cliché.

The following words of psychiatrist Robert Jay Lifton – the man who popularised the term ‘thought-terminating cliché’ in his 1961 book, Thought Reform and the Psychology of Totalism: A Study of “Brainwashing” in China – are incredibly pertinent to any thought regarding the modern Western hivemind:

“The language of the totalist environment is characterized by the thought-terminating cliché. The most far-reaching and complex of human problems are compressed into brief, highly reductive, definitive-sounding phrases, easily memorized and easily expressed. These become the start and finish of any ideological analysis”.

This is the primary function the word ‘racism’ fulfils in the modern West.

Note: thought terminating clichés are not just expressed to others in order to quell discussion or dissent, but are also often expressed internally to oneself in order to suppress cognitive dissonance and to avoid thinking about certain things.

Beyond the fact that the term ‘racism’ blurs together the aforementioned three separate phenomena, it additionally represents a false dichotomy because there are not only two factors at work – ‘preference for in-group’ and ‘hostility towards out-group.’ There is a third: hostility towards ones own in-group.

It is this third, not neutrality, which sums up white leftists. They harbour a deep-seated hostility towards their own in-group (as white people, for Europe – culturally and its civilisation – and their respective nations: white English leftists disdain England, white Swedish leftists loathe Sweden, white French leftists despise France, etc…)

Given that preference for ones own kind is the natural and default position, and hostility towards ones own kind can only develop and override the former under the influence of a neurotic psychological complex; it is very debateable whether true neutrality can even exist in these matters.

This hostility towards ones own amongst white liberals has been demonstrated in a modern study by David Pizarro – which he subsequently called the “kill whitey study.”

Summed up here:

Given the Choice, Liberals Would Rather “Kill Whitey”

Recent work by David Pizarro at Cornell is shedding light the role that race and ethics play in politics, by asking people to sacrifice the lives of either Tyrone Payton or Chip Ellsworth III.

OK, they didn’t really have to sacrifice anyone, but each participant in the study was faced with a variation of the classical ethical dilemma called the “trolley problem.” The trolley problem asks the question: Would you push someone on to the tracks (and kill them) to stop a trolley holding 100 people from crashing (and killing them all)?

The paper (pdf) describes the twist that Pizarro and colleagues put on the trolley question when they asked it to California undergraduates:

Half of the participants received a version of the scenario where the agent could choose to sacrifice an individual named “Tyrone Payton” to save 100 members of the New York Philharmonic, and the other half received a version where the agent could choose to sacrifice “Chip Ellsworth III” to save 100 members of the Harlem Jazz Orchestra.

While the study didn’t specifically mention each person’s race, the researchers reasoned that “Tyrone” would be stereotyped as black, while “Chip” would be stereotyped as white. On the saving end, they assumed that the Philharmonic would be thought of as white, while the Harlem Jazz Orchestra would be assumed black.

When faced with this choice, each individual in the study group showed different reactions based on their political leanings–the liberals were more likely to sacrifice “Chip” to save the Orchestra, while conservatives were more likely to sacrifice “Tyrone” to save the Philharmonic. When describing the findings in a recent talk Pizarro explained his interpretation of the findings:

If you’re wondering whether this is just because conservatives are racist—well, it may well be that conservatives are more racist. But it appears in these studies that the effect is driven [primarily] by liberals saying that they’re more likely to agree with pushing the white man and [more likely to] disagree with pushing the black man.

And also:

But this was just college students. Perhaps they were morally mushier than most people. So the team went further afield. As Pizarro describes in the talk:

We wanted to find a sample of more sort of, you know, real people. So we went in Orange County out to a mall and we got people who are actually Republicans and actually Democrats, not wishy-washy college students. The effect just got stronger. (This time it was using a “lifeboat” dilemma where one person has to be thrown off the edge of a lifeboat in order to save everybody, again using the names “Tyrone Payton” or “Chip Ellsworth III”.) We replicated the finding, but this time it was even stronger.

Despite professing to not see race, it is in fact this attitude that typifies the average leftist. And in a leftist world it is this hatred of whiteness that is all-pervasive. The following being the exact same attitude manifesting at a more extreme level:

This hostility for ones in-group amongst leftists is definitely related to feelings of low self-worth [see: Psychology of Leftism] and resentment – it is possible that the average advocate of equality is a low self-esteem individual who has always felt undervalued by the other members of his own group, which over time results in resentment towards that in-group; and a knee-jerk tactical preference for taking the side of the other – the outsider.

This psychological mechanism is the original source of all egalitarianism. The basis of leftism. A life-strategy of the weak.

‘The Christian religion [read: egalitarianism] originated in the realization that the weak could overcome the strong when they banded together in a herd, using the weapons of guilt and conscience. In modern times this prejudice had become widespread and irresistible, not because it had been revealed as true, but because of the greater numbers of weak people.’ — Francis Fukuyama paraphrasing Friedrich Nietzsche

Is the greater propensity for modern people to disdain their own group simply due to heightened neuroticism – brought about by the increasing sensitivity and softness induced by comfortable living?


The End-Goal: Where leftism is taking us…

The two forms ‘diversity’ can take and their respective effects:

  1. as groups = ethnic conflict (overt decline + extraverted conflict.)
  2. as individuals = isolation (covert decline + introverted conflict.)

^ This is why our governments put so much effort into mixing everyone up as individuals with much opposition to ‘segregated communities.’ It is because on some level they understand that the decline will be so much more peaceful and easier to manage.


The following two studies on this speak for themselves:


1. Diversity as Mixed Groups:

Good Fences: The Importance of Setting Boundaries for Peaceful Coexistence

We consider the conditions of peace and violence among ethnic groups, testing a theory designed to predict the locations of violence and interventions that can promote peace. Characterizing the model’s success in predicting peace requires examples where peace prevails despite diversity. Switzerland is recognized as a country of peace, stability and prosperity. This is surprising because of its linguistic and religious diversity that in other parts of the world lead to conflict and violence. Here we analyze how peaceful stability is maintained. Our analysis shows that peace does not depend on integrated coexistence, but rather on well defined topographical and political boundaries separating groups. Mountains and lakes are an important part of the boundaries between sharply defined linguistic areas. Political canton and circle (sub-canton) boundaries often separate religious groups. Where such boundaries do not appear to be sufficient, we find that specific aspects of the population distribution either guarantee sufficient separation or sufficient mixing [IA: see point 2 below] to inhibit intergroup violence according to the quantitative theory of conflict. In exactly one region, a porous mountain range does not adequately separate linguistic groups and violent conflict has led to the recent creation of the canton of Jura. Our analysis supports the hypothesis that violence between groups can be inhibited by physical and political boundaries. A similar analysis of the area of the former Yugoslavia shows that during widespread ethnic violence existing political boundaries did not coincide with the boundaries of distinct groups, but peace prevailed in specific areas where they did coincide. The success of peace in Switzerland may serve as a model to resolve conflict in other ethnically diverse countries and regions of the world.


2. Diversity as Mixed Individuals:

Robert Putnam – Diversity and trust within communities

In recent years, Putnam has been engaged in a comprehensive study of the relationship between trust within communities and their ethnic diversity. His conclusion based on over 40 cases and 30,000 people within the United States is that, other things being equal, more diversity in a community is associated with less trust both between and within ethnic groups. Although limited to American data, it puts into question both the contact hypothesis and conflict theory in inter-ethnic relations. According to conflict theory [IA: see point 1 above], distrust between the ethnic groups will rise with diversity, but not within a group. In contrast, contact theory proposes that distrust will decline as members of different ethnic groups get to know and interact with each other. Putnam describes people of all races, sex, socioeconomic statuses, and ages as “hunkering down,” avoiding engagement with their local community—both among different ethnic groups and within their own ethnic group. Even when controlling for income inequality and crime rates, two factors which conflict theory states should be the prime causal factors in declining inter-ethnic group trust, more diversity is still associated with less communal trust.

Lowered trust in areas with high diversity is also associated with:

  • Lower confidence in local government, local leaders and the local news media.
  • Lower political efficacy – that is, confidence in one’s own influence.
  • Lower frequency of registering to vote, but more interest and knowledge about politics and more participation in protest marches and social reform groups.
  • Higher political advocacy, but lower expectations that it will bring about a desirable result.
  • Less expectation that others will cooperate to solve dilemmas of collective action (e.g., voluntary conservation to ease a water or energy shortage).
  • Less likelihood of working on a community project.
  • Less likelihood of giving to charity or volunteering.
  • Fewer close friends and confidants.
  • Less happiness and lower perceived quality of life.
  • More time spent watching television and more agreement that “television is my most important form of entertainment”.

Full Study: E Pluribus Unum: Diversity and Community in the Twenty-first Century


What needs to be done then is to formulate each of the points made in this article in their absolute most simple, concise and easy to understand form; and then to repeat those points again and again and again, as far and as wide as possible, and also – without actually parroting one another verbatim – in as consistently similar language as possible. Simplicity and repetition are key.

Legitimacy – the Foundation of Political Power

The following constitutes the fundamental starting point. Everything to be done is to be done with this in mind.


What is sought is a revolution.

A revolution is primarily a mental phenomenon – it takes place in the minds of men first and foremost.

What is wanted is a long-term transfer of power out of the hands of the representatives of opposing ideologies (liberal democracy, post-Marxism, etc.), and into the hands of representatives of our ideology – that of the Right (fascism, national socialism, integralism, revolutionary conservatism, etc. – different terms for the same thing: the ideology of the Right applied within the context of technological and secular modernity.)


The power of whoever is in charge relies primarily on belief.

– the belief in the minds of others that their rule is good and correct. Nobody can rule without this.*

– and if that belief should erode, then their power is in jeopardy; and it may well end up being transferred over to somebody else.

* The example of a mediaeval king — he could not have simply dominated an entire population through force of physical prowess. No matter his formidability, it is an impossibility for one man to accomplish such a thing. He could only continually rule over his kingdom in so far as others believed that he is rightfully king.


The same principle is true whether we’re talking about the command of an individual/group OR an ideology.


To take a look at purely hypothetical examples; let’s imagine we have a social order inhabited by four competing political ideologies – National Socialism, Liberalism, Communism and Anarchism.



All else being equal, the ideology which has the most supporters is the one which will rule. (We’ll begin to look at in what ways these things are not always equal later…)

So here we have a National Socialist state with significant Liberal opposition (left.) A Liberal state with relatively little opposition (right)…

… a Communist state with strong liberal opposition (left.) And a state being fought over by National Socialists and Liberals (right.)

So it should be clear that at the most basic level the ultimate goal of attaining power and dominance of ones worldview boils down to a matter of winning people over to your ideology whilst also discrediting rival ideologies.

Referring back to the previous example of a mediaeval king (though the example holds true for ideologies too) – that he could not have simply dominated an entire population through physical intimidation; it being an impossibility for one man to accomplish such a thing – regardless of his personal formidability. And he could only rule continually over his kingdom in so far as others believed that he is rightfully king. Those ‘others’ will consist of either:

1) the majority of the masses

2) an elite minority which is capable of dominating the rest of the populace, either physically (i.e. the military and police) or mentally (i.e. the priesthood.)


Any social order – traditional or modern – can be represented by the following:


In terms of who dictates what beliefs regarding rightful rulership prevail, the direction of influence can flow between all three and in either direction.

Any one of the above could spearhead a revolution – particularly if the others are indifferent.


So a revolution will result when we win over enough of the right kinds of people to our worldview.





Remember, this is essentially two simultaneous battles:

  1. Convince people of our worldview.
  2. Discredit all rival or competing ideologies.


This will lead us on to the next stage, which will be looked at in separate articles, and which can be summarised by these four questions:

  1. What is our worldview? (see: 5 Principles of the Right)
  2. What is their worldview(s)?
  3. How do you win people over to a worldview?
  4. How do you discredit an opposing worldview?



– ‘Ballot box vs. barrel of a gun’ is a false dichotomy. There have been plenty of revolutions which took place neither through the democratic process, nor through violence. This can come about because if an ideology wins over the minds of the people, it can appear to the current ruler that the writing is on the wall, and they opt to hand over control peacefully rather than being forcibly deposed.

– There are many ways a physical revolution can take place. Some entail a protracted civil war and widespread slaughter; others are 100% peaceful. Some are enacted through voting; others require no voting at all. Some happen overnight; others are long drawn-out affairs. In short, there’s no way of knowing how the final realisation of the revolution will come about. What should be concentrated on is bringing about the required mental revolution. Once that is ensured, the rest will sort itself out.

– Successfully effecting an ideological revolution is what everything hinges upon. If things were to end in civil war – this is what furnishes one side with its soldiers, and provides the finances, resources and know-how. If it goes to the ballot box, this is will provide candidates and voters; financial and media backing. Win people over mentally, and the material resources follow.

Self-Mastery, pt. 1 – the Breath

Mental activity is inherently intertwined with the functioning of the autonomic nervous system, including respiration. The example most people being aware of being the balance between the sympathetic nervous system and arousal, on the one hand; and the parasympathetic nervous system and relaxation, on the other.

It’s not normal for the average person to have any voluntary control over their autonomic nervous system. However, every individual has conscious control over their breathing – which is both consciously and unconsciously controlled, and thus provides a link between the conscious and unconscious. Having a degree of control over the breath, it is possible for everyone to influence their inner state via control of the breath.

Here we will be using the most basic of breathing exercises – yet also the one which has the most profound and immediate effect. The purpose of this particular exercise is to impose a rhythm on the breath, which, through its influence over the rest of the nervous system, can help bring the psycho-mental flux under control. This is brought about by the two-way relationship between the breath and heart, on the one hand; and the activity of the mind, on the other.

In order to achieve this objective there must be two conditions imposed on the breath:

  1. It be rhythmic (the inhalations and exhalations are matched.)
  2. It be automatic (not under too strong a voluntary control, which can inadvertently cause problems, such as tension or hyperventilation.)


These are the two necessary conditions. If we have these two conditions present then all other considerations are of little significance.



The virtue of the perfectly rhythmic breath was an important element within the tradition of yoga. It was an essential part of their discipline of pranayama – which was at once seen as a suitable practice for the average man, as well as a pre-requisite for more advanced meditative practices.

Modern science is developing its own support for this method. Namely that breathing is intimately tied up with activity of the heart – which is directly liked up to the brain via the nervous system – and as such, can be consciously manipulated as a method of controlling nervous system activity. The more rhythmic our breathing, the more stable our autonomic nervous system is. This manifests itself as increased heart rate variability; which is seen as signifying nervous system adaptability and stress resilience.

The goal is to train the breath to adopt this steady breathing pattern as its default state. The steadiness of the breath becomes a strong foundation upon which to develop the steadiness of the mind.

As a beginner, this can be practised in small 10 to 20 minute sessions, intermittently throughout the day when appropriate. Over time, the unconscious will readily adopt this as its default breathing style. It can then be left to run like clockwork in the background ensuring an ongoing state of heightened mental sureness and stability.

Choose somewhere comfortable to sit where you won’t be disturbed, and practise the breathing pattern below. A stopwatch or clock with a second-hand can be used to maintain the proper timing. Though you could also, for example, tap out a steady beat with your fingers. Reciting a mantra in the mind is sometimes suggested in traditional yoga teachings as a means of keeping time.

In actuality, any recurring rhythm could be used for the breath, but the most practical – and the one that produces the most optimal results – is probably a 2-1-2-1 ratio (inhalation-hold-exhalation-hold); or alternately a 1-1-1-1 ratio.

The actual time for each segment in the sequence doesn’t matter, as long as the proportions remain correct. The correct speed of the breath will depend a great deal on present circumstances. i.e. it would necessarily be much quicker during intense physical activity than at rest – a point more relevant for when you begin to incorporate this continuously throughout the day than in the beginning when the practice is first being learned.

The following two are just examples of timings that may be used. They would be the most practical, due to them being the ones most easily practised with the assistance of a stopwatch or clock:

4 seconds in, 2 seconds hold, 4 seconds out, 2 seconds hold. (5 breaths/minute – slow.)

2 seconds in, 1 second hold, 2 seconds out, 1 second hold. (10 breaths/minute – moderate.)


So, for example, you would inhale gently for four seconds. Hold the breath for two seconds. Exhale gently for four seconds. Hold the breath for two seconds. Repeat in a cyclical manner.


Side note: the popular notion that high arousal (adrenaline) equals stress, and that relaxation techniques which induce parasympathetic dominance are the key to a healthy mind, is pretty wide of the mark.

The mind being in a positive state – along with the corresponding physiological state – has little to do with high vs. low arousal. It instead has much to do with what some are now calling brain coherence – brainwaves, as measure by ECG, etc. manifesting a highly ordered state. This is found in conjunction with a highly rhythmic heart beat (at the same time exhibiting high variability – i.e. a steady, predictable variability; as opposed to a chaotic and unpredictable variability.)






The bottom line here is that a high arousal state is definitely useful if you’re also in a state of internal coherence. Conversely a low arousal (or ‘relaxed’) state will still be negative if you are in a chaotic internal state.



This is the second vital consideration. It also presents something of a paradox, for the task at hand is the conscious manipulation of the pattern of the breath. However, focusing on moving the breath in and out with our conscious mind presents a significant problem. The conscious mind does not know how to breathe anything like as well as does the sub-conscious mind – whose task it usually is. Consciously manipulating our breathing in this way is very likely to lead to problems – hyperventilation, and/or tension from the forced nature of it – and will only make our situation worse. Hyperventilation deprives the brain of oxygen, hindering mental performance – even in the presence of brain coherence where the breath is properly rhythmic. None of this is what we want.

The answer is to control just the parameters of the breath; but to actually let the breathing process itself – the mechanical in and out – take care of itself. This can be developed as a skill by simply sitting and observing the breath. Notice how it feels when the breath takes care of itself, going in and out automatically. And also understand the difference between this and how the breath feels when we are actively and consciously inhaling and exhaling. There is a subtle but marked difference. Aim for the former – an automatic breath – and not the latter. The body knows how to breathe better than we do.

You want to almost keep the breath in peripheral awareness, whilst controlling the parameters – the length and timing of the inhalation, exhalation and retentions.


Combining the two into one (rhythmicity and automaticity together) is the whole method. When performed correctly everything will be subjectively experienced as being just right.


Breathe through the Heart

There is an additional, third, element that can be leveraged in this breathing exercise. This is to consciously breathe through the centre of the chest – where the mystical side of the Indian tradition held the heart chakra to be. Doing this amplifies the power of the technique. It is not necessary; as are the elements of rhythmicity and automaticity. Breathing through the heart is instead supplementary – providing an enhancing effect.

This would give us a diagrammatic representation looking something like the following:

The Logic of Modern Art

The essence of modern art is the negation of beauty. The value of beauty – along with its association with the sacred – is inverted. Ugliness and vulgarity is now put forward as ‘art.’

The method for how this is done:

Beauty has two forms: 1) beauty-without-form (generalised beauty), 2) and beauty-with-form (the beauty of particular things.) There is, additionally, the perennial connection between the aesthetic and the sacred.

This gives three means of inverting beauty:

  1. Inversion of beauty-without-form
  2. Inversion of beauty-with-form
  3. Inversion of aesthetic/sacred link


We will begin by looking at 1) beauty-without-form.


1. Inversion of Beauty-without-Form

To understand beauty-without-form we must understand the concept of entropy

For our purposes, entropy can be understood as the principle that everything in the universe tends to greater disorder over time. As time increases, so does disorder/entropy. The exception is if energy is put into something to make things move in the other direction – i.e. to increased order (lower entropy.)

This is intuitively obvious. If we put our energies into the construction of a building and then leave it to the elements, it will only deteriorate over time. The brick and mortar will crumble, glass break; the building will slowly fall apart until collapse. This is entropy. From order to disorder. Conversely a large pile bricks and materials will never spontaneously arrange itself into a house by chance.

To take another example, consider a sandcastle on a beach. But instead of thinking of it as a single object, think of it in terms of its many constituent parts – the grains of sand that it’s made up of. And along side this; consider a pile of sand consisting of a more or less identical number of grains of sand.

The sandcastle represents the grains of sand in a low entropy state (ordered.) The pile of sand represents the grains in a high entropy state (disordered.)

Entropy is a measure of how many ways we can rearrange those grains of sand without messing up the overall shape or structure. There are infinitely greater ways of doing this to the sand pile without causing any meaningful alteration to its structure. This is therefore said to possess ‘high entropy.’ Whereas, almost any rearrangement of the grains of sand in the sandcastle and it will no longer be the same thing. This means it exhibits low entropy, which represents a more highly ordered state.

And again, if left to the elements, then the winds will attack the sandcastle and it will gradually disintegrate and become less ordered.


A low entropy state is an aesthetic state. This is what we’re referring to as beauty-without-form; the beauty of nothing in particular. And conversely a high entropy state is an unaesthetic state.

Low entropy = High aesthetic

High entropy = Low aesthetic


A low entropy state is a high aesthetic state…

Beauty-without-form is the manifestation of order in the world. The aesthetic is the crystallisation of order in the world. Order can be understood as consisting of two complementary components, harmony and complexity:


(it can be understood as such – it is not a synthesis.)

If we take a look at the pictures above and below we can understand what the simple formula above really means.



Beauty-without-Form = Harmony + Complexity


Therefore, beauty/order can also be negated in one of these two ways:

1) through the radical minimisation of harmony

2) through the radical minimisation of complexity


1) [high complexity / low harmony vs. 2) low complexity / high harmony.]


1) high complexity / low harmony = would give you disordered complexity

2) low complexity / high harmony = would give you hyper-simplistic harmony


Examples of 1) and 2) …

So this is the first means through which beauty can be negated. – the entirety of modern ‘aesthetics’ constitutes a willed negation of beauty. Modernity is entirely negationary. Modernity is a neurosis.


2. Inversion of Beauty-with-Form

Now we move on from the negation of beauty-without-form to the negation of beauty-with-form – that is, the standard of beauty which is particular to a thing itself.

The clearest exposition of this idea came from Plato. Though the idea itself existed long before he came along.

This idea is called Plato’s Theory of Forms. Its premise is that every object has its own ideal form or structure – which exists in the metaphysical realm; outside of space and time. So, for example, there exists the Form of a perfect circle. An individual object in the human world can be said to be a circle, or circular, only insofar as they participate in, or imitate, the perfect Form of a circle.

Every person is born with innate knowledge of the ideal form of all natural phenomena. Two pertinent examples, for our purpose, are the human face and human body. It has been found, for example, that newborn babies spend more time looking at attractive adult faces than unattractive ones – this is an innate preference. They possess an innate (though sub-conscious) conceptual model of the perfect face against which they judge the attractiveness of actual human faces.

The Marquardt Beauty Mask, developed by plastic surgeon Dr. Stephen Marquardt:


Marquardt’s Beauty Mask overlaid over two real-world examples – one representational, one actual.


Two historical representations of the perfect male body – Leonardo da Vinci’s Vitruvian Man (left) and Myron’s Discobolus (right.)


So this is the second means of negating beauty: through the negation of beauty-with-form – by which we mean radically distorting an object away from its ideal Form (whilst still being recognisably of that Form.)



Six pieces by Francesco Sambo:


3. Inversion of Aesthetic/Sacred Link

The third and final means of negating beauty is less directly to do with beauty itself. It involves a radical rejection of the traditional link between the aesthetic and the sacred.

This is accomplished through the juxtaposition of the aesthetic and/or sacred, with elements which are at the furthest possible point from the spiritual. (The lowest, basest, crudest; that which is vulgar, sordid, dirty; the most biological, animalistic and carnal aspect of human existence.)

Two well-known examples, utilising this juxtaposition in regards to that which the West has traditionally considered sacred:


A similar juxtaposition in the realm of the aesthetic: feminist theatre group Sirens standing on stage making male masturbatory hand motions, as part of an art piece:


To conclude: the practical uptake of all this is that now – equipped with the underlying logic of modern art – it should be perfectly possible for us to create our own pretend modern art, as a form of mockery; but more importantly to elucidate the principles outlined in this article, and in doing so to demonstrate the bogus nature of it all. This is surely the optimal line of attack against this stuff – a more effective strategy than simply constructing and propagating arguments against it. Thoroughly undermine its credibility. The Emperor has no clothes…

Right vs. Left – Its Validity

Here we’re going to look into the legitimacy of the Right / Left political dichotomy. It’s becoming increasingly common for people to dismiss the idea that there lies anything meaningful behind the Right/Left political axis. But we’ll conclude that it is in fact valid and useful, in so far as it is correctly understood.

The core issue these two worldviews disagree on is that of hierarchy. The Right is for it; the Left against it. The Left claims to desire ‘equality’ instead.

In this sense, we can say the Right is vertical while the Left is horizontal.

On the one hand we have the Right, whose visuo-spatial representation of politics is Up vs. Down. Life is viewed and judged against the backdrop of a hierarchy of quality – from the highest down to the lowest.

Against this, the Left arises – by way of reaction – which inverts everything the Right stands for and instead views everything in terms of Forwards vs. Backwards. The purpose of life is to escape a pervasive state of ‘oppression.’ The future will thereby be one long expansion in ‘freedom’ and ‘equality.’

This represents the core conflict between two eternally opposed worldviews.

Right Left in Spatial Terms


What the Right stands for is eternal Cosmic Truth. The Good, of which every of value is a manifestation of the Divine.

All of these are aspects of one and the same:

Right vs. Left 1

Right vs. Left 3


The Left as an Inversion of the Right – The worldview of the Right is the default one. The Left comes into being reactively by way of a complete inversion of everything the Right stands for. If the Right is the Sun, then the Left is the Shadow – the Left is a pure negation of the Right (psychologically reactive.) And the world is in a constant struggle between these two poles.

Right vs. Left 2

The Left originates in a psychological neurotic complex, which inverts every one of the Right’s core aspects and ideals, and pushes for them under the language of various pseudo-ideals: ‘equality’, ‘freedom’, ‘progress.’


A better spatial analogy than ‘Right’ vs. ‘Left’: Centrality vs. Dispersal

— dispersal because the left is fundamentally aversive.

In physics terms this would give us…

Centripetal (towards the centre) vs. Centrifugal (away from the centre)

Right vs. Left 5

It is vitally important in all of this, if we are to avoid confusion, that we understand what I’ve called the Schizoid nature of the Left – (using the word ‘schizoid’ loosely to mean ‘split-like.’ i.e. the Left has a ‘split-like’ nature.)

The view of politics which the average person has come to possess, delineates things primarily according to economic policies – with communists and socialists on ‘the Left’; and laissez-faire capitalists or economic liberals on ‘the Right.’ This would leave the true – historical – Right out of it altogether, or leave it with a false position vaguely off the centre. Some modern Rightists helpfully compound this problem by terming themselves ‘Third Position’, and claiming to be ‘neither Left nor Right.’

Right vs. Left 6

A far more accurate way of understanding the above would be to put The True Right on one side (representing as it does; hierarchy, spirituality, organic unity…) and position both communism and laissez-faire capitalism on the other side as two different forms of the Left (valuing: equality, materialism, individualism – socialism is still essentially individualism; it is the banding together of individual egos for mutual benefit. Laissez-faire capitalism / economic liberalism literally arose out of the historical Left against the Right.)

Right vs. Left 7

This is what is being referred to by the schizoid nature of the Left. The Left arises out of an inversion of the Right, but it has at its disposal many different means of negating the ideals of the Right. These often appear to be the complete opposite of one another. Consequently many of the ideological oppositions of our time are in reality different versions of the Left squaring off against one another.

To demonstrate this using as an example the abstract ideal of Beauty; there is only one way of moving towards Beauty – towards the perfection of the Ideal of Beauty. On the other hand, there are always many varied means of negating an ideal such as Beauty. As already mentioned, these are often distilled into and expressed as two ostensibly diametrically opposed alternatives.

Centripetal Centrifugal Beauty 2

The below is a visual example of the schizoid nature of the Left’s negations as applied to Beauty. (Understand that Beauty in its purest form is essentially synonymous with maximum order – and order can itself be understood as harmonised complexity.) If we take order to be ‘harmonised complexity,’ then Beauty – being synonymous with the maximisation of order – can be negated either through the radical reduction of harmony, or the radical reduction of complexity:

Beauty Negated Two Ways.png

The same also holds true not just on the aesthetic plane, but on the political plane as well. Here the worldview of the True Right, and its ideal Social Order or State – which can be understood as a cohesive unity possessing internal differentiation (this was considered the ideal up until the modern period) – is negated by two modern leftist movements: communism/socialism and classical liberalism with its individualism and laissez-faire economics. The former achieves this inversion via the radical reduction of internal differentiation. The latter through the radical reduction of cohesive unity.

Here represented through the idea of centripetal vs. centrifugal forces – or centrality vs. dispersal.

Right vs. Left 8

Here represented more directly to the idea of the Ideal State:

Two Means Negating Ideal State

This concludes our look at this topic for now (though we may well come back to it in future.) For a more in-depth look at the contrasting principles of the Right and Left look at 5 Principles of the Right

Know Your Enemy

There’s a definite problem on the Right whereby people decide that just one category of person is the problem, and seek to use a single strategy against that one group hoping it’ll lead to victory. Things aren’t that simple. We need to appreciate the full complexity of the situation, if we’re to come up with a strategy to defeat them with.

So what I’d like to do here is analyse the tangled web of forces that makes up the Left – from its most active to its most passive actors. We can differentiate between its various threads and look at which can most effectively be combated. The next step will be to figure out how. Let’s see where the enemy is weakest, and where – if anywhere – does our greatest strength lie.

Read the list below and 1) suggest anything you think should be added or removed from the list and/or 2) offer suggestions for how best to tackle one or more of them.

  1. People with a genuine attraction to the idea of equality – Caused by status anxiety revolving around feelings of inferiority. (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]
  1. 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.
  1. Those in it for financial gain – support modernity so as to exploit it financially via the peddling of degeneracy, the opening up of new markets, use of cheap labour, etc.
  1. Poorer people who side with the Left because it’s wealth redistributive policies will leave them materially better off. (The ‘other half’ of number 3. But I still like to keep them conceptually distinct.)
  1. Social 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.)
  1. 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.)
  1. Familial identification – many people identify with a political party or ideology because their family supported it, despite the reasons their family did so no longer being relevant. For example, many White working-class people still identify – and thus vote – for socialist parties even though those parties are currently dedicated to ethnically-cleansing those people in their own countries, and pursuing policies which inevitably lower their quality of life. Another example is people who identify with – and thus vote for – conservative parties because their parents did, despite the fact their parents voted for those parties because of their social conservatism but they’re now supporting gay pretend-marriage, etc. This phenomenon is analogous to the way in which people usually support the sports team their parents support – albeit a much more insidious version.
  1. 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.
  1. Psychopaths – will literally say whatever people want to hear. Fuck all can be done about these unfortunately. Other than maybe call them out as individuals. This is obviously a special case of number 6, but I feel it’s worth bearing in mind anyway.
  1. People who are literally paid money to be spokespeople, or write articles, etc. for the Left despite a complete lack of belief. It happens.

The next step will be working out the best strategy to be used against each of these.

Hierarchy vs. Inequality

I’m on record (all over the place) as stating that the distinction between Left and Right basically boils down to a battle of equality vs. hierarchy. Some people might however be tempted to view the Right as simply being for ‘inequality’ — as that’s the obvious antonym of ‘equality.’ But this is incorrect; the worldview and tradition we call the Right centres around a vertical arrangement of relationships between superior and inferior – with expectations and obligations for both sides in their dealings with one another (e.g. noblesse oblige.)  The true Right has never been about the desirability of the mere existence of inequality between people. Therefore, it’s important we develop a clear understanding of the conceptual difference between hierarchy and inequality. It’s the central pillar of our worldview – and people will want a firm explanation of what it is we’ll replace egalitarianism with.

So here’s Jonathan Haidt on authority (still interesting despite his silly naturalistic explanations for everything):

‘The obvious way to begin thinking about the evolution of the Authority foundation is to consider the pecking orders and dominance hierarchies of chickens, dogs, chimpanzees, and so many other species that live in groups. The displays made by low-ranking individuals are often similar across species because their function is always the same — to appear submissive, which means small and nonthreatening. The failure to detect signs of dominance and then to respond accordingly often results in a beating.

So far this doesn’t sound like a promising origin story for a “moral” foundation; it sounds like the origin of oppression of the weak by the powerful. But authority should not be confused with power. Even among chimpanzees, where dominance hierarchies are indeed about raw power and the ability to inflict violence, the alpha male performs some socially beneficial functions, such as taking on the “control role.” He resolves some disputes and suppresses much of the violent conflict that erupts when there is no clear alpha male. As the primatologist Frans de Waal puts it: “Without agreement on rank and a certain respect for authority there can be no great sensitivity to social rules, as anyone who has tried to teach simple house rules to a cat will agree.”

This control role is quite visible in human tribes and early civilizations. Many of the earliest legal texts begin by grounding the king’s rule in divine choice, and then they dedicate the king’s authority to providing order and justice. The very first sentence of the Code of Hammurabi (eighteenth century BCE) includes this clause: “Then Anu and Bel [two gods] called by name me, Hammurabi, the exalted prince, who feared God, to bring about the rule of righteousness in the land, to destroy the wicked and the evil-doers; so that the strong should not harm the weak.”

Human authority, then, is not just raw power backed by the threat of force. Human authorities take on responsibility for maintaining order and justice. Of course, authorities often exploit their subordinates for their own benefit while believing they are perfectly just. But if we want to understand how human civilizations burst forth and covered the Earth in just a few thousand years, we’ll have to look closely at the role of authority in creating moral order.

When I began graduate school I subscribed to the common liberal belief that hierarchy = power = exploitation = evil. But when I began to work with Alan Fiske, I discovered that I was wrong. Fiske’s theory of the four basic kinds of social relationships includes one called “Authority Ranking.” Drawing on his own fieldwork in Africa, Fiske showed that people who relate to each other in this way have mutual expectations that are more like those of a parent and child than those of a dictator and fearful underlings:

In Authority Ranking, people have asymmetric positions in a linear hierarchy in which subordinates defer, respect, and (perhaps) obey, while superiors take precedence and take pastoral responsibility for subordinates. Examples are military hierarchies … ancestor worship ([ including] offerings of filial piety and expectations of protection and enforcement of norms), [and] monotheistic religious moralities … Authority Ranking relationships are based on perceptions of legitimate asymmetries, not coercive power; they are not inherently exploitative.


The Authority foundation, as I describe it, is borrowed directly from Fiske. It is more complex than the other foundations because its modules must look in two directions— up toward superiors and down toward subordinates. These modules work together to help individuals meet the adaptive challenge of forging beneficial relationships within hierarchies. We are the descendants of the individuals who were best able to play the game— to rise in status while cultivating the protection of superiors and the allegiance of subordinates.

The original triggers of some of these modules include patterns of appearance and behavior that indicate higher versus lower rank. Like chimpanzees, people track and remember who is above whom. When people within a hierarchical order act in ways that negate or subvert that order, we feel it instantly, even if we ourselves have not been directly harmed. If authority is in part about protecting order and fending off chaos, then everyone has a stake in supporting the existing order and in holding people accountable for fulfilling the obligations of their station.’

The Psychology of Leftism

From Industrial Society and Its Future by schizoid nut and eco-terrorist, Ted Kaczynski. He nails down the cause of genuine egalitarianism as ‘feelings of inferiority.’ He also ascribes it to what he dubs ‘oversocialization.’ I’d dispute that. What he calls oversocialization is probably more a case of low levels of physiological toughness (see here and here.) But nevertheless, his comments on feelings of inferiority are all you’ll ever need to know in order to understand every genuine egalitarian you ever come across. Bear his words in mind whenever you hear a leftist speak.

‘Almost everyone will agree that we live in a deeply troubled society. One of the most widespread manifestations of the craziness of our world is leftism, so a discussion of the psychology of leftism can serve as an introduction to the discussion of the problems of modern society in general.

But what is leftism? During the first half of the 20th century leftism could have been practically identified with socialism. Today the movement is fragmented and it is not clear who can properly be called a leftist. When we speak of leftists in this article we have in mind mainly socialists, collectivists, “politically correct” types, feminists, gay and disability activists, animal rights activists and the like. But not everyone who is associated with one of these movements is a leftist. What we are trying to get at in discussing leftism is not so much movement or an ideology as a psychological type, or rather a collection of related types. Thus, what we mean by “leftism” will emerge more clearly in the course of our discussion of leftist psychology.

Even so, our conception of leftism will remain a good deal less clear than we would wish, but there doesn’t seem to be any remedy for this. All we are trying to do here is indicate in a rough and approximate way the two psychological tendencies that we believe are the main driving force of modern leftism. We by no means claim to be telling the WHOLE truth about leftist psychology. Also, our discussion is meant to apply to modern leftism only.

We leave open the question of the extent to which our discussion could be applied to the leftists of the 19th and early 20th centuries.

The two psychological tendencies that underlie modern leftism we call “feelings of inferiority” and “oversocialization”.

Feelings of inferiority are characteristic of modern leftism as a whole, while oversocialization is characteristic only of a certain segment of modern leftism; but this segment is highly influential.


By “feelings of inferiority” we mean not only inferiority feelings in the strict sense but a whole spectrum of related traits; low self-esteem, feelings of powerlessness, depressive tendencies, defeatism, guilt, self-hatred, etc. We argue that modern leftists tend to have some such feelings (possibly more or less repressed) and that these feelings are decisive in determining the direction of modern leftism. When someone interprets as derogatory almost anything that is said about him (or about groups with whom he identifies) we conclude that he has inferiority feelings or low self-esteem. This tendency is pronounced among minority rights activists, whether or not they belong to the minority groups whose rights they defend.

They are hypersensitive about the words used to designate minorities and about anything that is said concerning minorities.

The terms “negro”, “oriental”, “handicapped” or “chick” for an African, an Asian, a disabled person or a woman originally had no derogatory connotation. “Broad” and “chick” were merely the feminine equivalents of “guy”, “dude” or “fellow”. The negative connotations have been attached to these terms by the activists themselves.

Some animal rights activists have gone so far as to reject the word “pet” and insist on its replacement by “animal companion”. Leftish anthropologists go to great lengths to avoid saying anything about primitive peoples that could conceivably be interpreted as negative. They want to replace the word “primitive” by “nonliterate”. They may seem almost paranoid about anything that might suggest that any primitive culture is inferior to ours. (We do not mean to imply that primitive cultures ARE inferior to ours. We merely point out the hyper sensitivity of leftish anthropologists.)

Those who are most sensitive about “politically incorrect” terminology are not the average black ghettodweller, Asian immigrant, abused woman or disabled person, but a minority of activists, many of whom do not even belong to any “oppressed” group but come from privileged strata of society. Political correctness has its stronghold among university professors, who have secure employment with comfortable salaries, and the majority of whom are heterosexual white males from middle- to upper-middle-class families. 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. The leftists themselves feel that these groups are inferior. They would never admit to themselves that they have such feelings, but it is precisely because they do see these groups as inferior that they identify with their problems. (We do not mean to suggest that women, Indians, etc. ARE inferior; we are only making a point about leftist psychology.)

Feminists are desperately anxious to prove that women are as strong and as capable as men. Clearly they are nagged by a fear that women may NOT be as strong and as capable as men.

Leftists tend to hate anything that has an image of being strong, good and successful. They hate America, they hate Western civilization, they hate white males, they hate rationality. The reasons that leftists give for hating the West, etc. clearly do not correspond with their real motives. They SAY they hate the West because it is warlike, imperialistic, sexist, ethnocentric and so forth, but where these same faults appear in socialist countries or in primitive cultures, the leftist finds excuses for them, or at best he GRUDGINGLY admits that they exist; whereas he ENTHUSIASTICALLY points out (and often greatly exaggerates) these faults where they appear in Western civilization. Thus it is clear that these faults are not the leftist’s real motive for hating America and the West. He hates America and the West because they are strong and successful.

Words like “self-confidence”, “self-reliance”, “initiative”, “enterprise”, “optimism”, etc., play little role in the liberal and leftist vocabulary. The leftist is antiindividualistic, pro-collectivist. He wants society to solve every one’s problems for them, satisfy everyone’s needs for them, take care of them. He is not the sort of person who has an inner sense of confidence in his ability to solve his own problems and satisfy his own needs. The leftist is antagonistic to the concept of competition because, deep inside, he feels like a loser.

Art forms that appeal to modern leftish intellectuals tend to focus on sordidness, defeat and despair, or else they take an orgiastic tone, throwing off rational control as if there were no hope of accomplishing anything through rational calculation and all that was left was to immerse oneself in the sensations of the moment.

Modern leftish philosophers tend to dismiss reason, science, objective reality and to insist that everything is culturally relative. It is true that one can ask serious questions about the foundations of scientific knowledge and about how, if at all, the concept of objective reality can be defined. But it is obvious that modern leftish philosophers are not simply cool-headed logicians systematically analyzing the foundations of knowledge. They are deeply involved emotionally in their attack on truth and reality. They attack these concepts because of their own psychological needs. For one thing, their attack is an outlet for hostility, and, to the extent that it is successful, it satisfies the drive for power. More importantly, the leftist hates science and rationality because they classify certain beliefs as true (i.e., successful, superior) and other beliefs as false (i.e., failed, inferior). The leftist’s feelings of inferiority run so deep that he cannot tolerate any classification of some things as successful or superior and other things as failed or inferior. This also underlies the rejection by many leftists of the concept of mental illness and of the utility of IQ tests. Leftists are antagonistic to genetic explanations of human abilities or behavior because such explanations tend to make some persons appear superior or inferior to others. Leftists prefer to give society the credit or blame for an individual’s ability or lack of it. Thus if a person is “inferior” it is not his fault, but society’s, because he has not been brought up properly.

The leftist is not typically the kind of person whose feelings of inferiority make him a braggart, an egotist, a bully, a self-promoter, a ruthless competitor. This kind of person has not wholly lost faith in himself. He has a deficit in his sense of power and self-worth, but he can still conceive of himself as having the capacity to be strong, and his efforts to make himself strong produce his unpleasant behavior. But the leftist is too far gone for that. His feelings of inferiority are so ingrained that he cannot conceive of himself as individually strong and valuable.

Hence the collectivism of the leftist. He can feel strong only as a member of a large organization or a mass movement with which he identifies himself.

Notice the masochistic tendency of leftist tactics.

Leftists protest by lying down in front of vehicles, they intentionally provoke police or racists to abuse them, etc.

These tactics may often be effective, but many leftists use them not as a means to an end but because they PREFER masochistic tactics. Self-hatred is a leftist trait.

Leftists may claim that their activism is motivated by compassion or by moral principles, and moral principle does play a role for the leftist of the oversocialized type. But compassion and moral principle cannot be the main motives for leftist activism. Hostility is too prominent a component of leftist behavior; so is the drive for power. Moreover, much leftist behavior is not rationally calculated to be of benefit to the people whom the leftists claim to be trying to help. For example, if one believes that affirmative action is good for black people, does it make sense to demand affirmative action in hostile or dogmatic terms? Obviously it would be more productive to take a diplomatic and conciliatory approach that would make at least verbal and symbolic concessions to white people who think that affirmative action discriminates against them.

But leftist activists do not take such an approach because it would not satisfy their emotional needs. Helping black people is not their real goal. Instead, race problems serve as an excuse for them to express their own hostility and frustrated need for power. In doing so they actually harm black people, because the activists’ hostile attitude toward the white majority tends to intensify race hatred.

If our society had no social problems at all, the leftists would have to INVENT problems in order to provide themselves with an excuse for making a fuss.

We emphasize that the foregoing does not pretend to be an accurate description of everyone who might be considered a leftist. It is only a rough indication of a general tendency of leftism.


Psychologists use the term “socialization” to designate the process by which children are trained to think and act as society demands. A person is said to be well socialized if he believes in and obeys the moral code of his society and fits in well as a functioning part of that society. It may seem senseless to say that many leftists are over-socialized, since the leftist is perceived as a rebel. Nevertheless, the position can be defended. Many leftists are not such rebels as they seem.

The moral code of our society is so demanding that no one can think, feel and act in a completely moral way. For example, we are not supposed to hate anyone, yet almost everyone hates somebody at some time or other, whether he admits it to himself or not. Some people are so highly socialized that the attempt to think, feel and act morally imposes a severe burden on them. In order to avoid feelings of guilt, they continually have to deceive themselves about their own motives and find moral explanations for feelings and actions that in reality have a nonmoral origin. We use the term “oversocialized” to describe such people.

Oversocialization can lead to low self-esteem, a sense of powerlessness, defeatism, guilt, etc. One of the most important means by which our society socializes children is by making them feel ashamed of behavior or speech that is contrary to society’s expectations. If this is overdone, or if a particular child is especially susceptible to such feelings, he ends by feeling ashamed of HIMSELF.

Moreover the thought and the behavior of the oversocialized person are more restricted by society’s expectations than are those of the lightly socialized person. The majority of people engage in a significant amount of naughty behavior. They lie, they commit petty thefts, they break traffic laws, they goof off at work, they hate someone, they say spiteful things or they use some underhanded trick to get ahead of the other guy. The oversocialized person cannot do these things, or if he does do them he generates in himself a sense of shame and self-hatred. The oversocialized person cannot even experience, without guilt, thoughts or feelings that are contrary to the accepted morality; he cannot think “unclean” thoughts. And socialization is not just a matter of morality; we are socialized to conform to many norms of behavior that do not fall under the heading of morality. Thus the oversocialized person is kept on a psychological leash and spends his life running on rails that society has laid down for him. In many oversocialized people this results in a sense of constraint and powerlessness that can be a severe hardship. We suggest that oversocialization is among the more serious cruelties that human being inflict on one another.

We argue that a very important and influential segment of the modern left is oversocialized and that their oversocialization is of great importance in determining the direction of modern leftism. Leftists of the oversocialized type tend to be intellectuals or members of the upper-middle class. Notice that university intellectuals constitute the most highly socialized segment of our society and also the most leftwing segment.

The leftist of the oversocialized type tries to get off his psychological leash and assert his autonomy by rebelling. But usually he is not strong enough to rebel against the most basic values of society. Generally speaking, the goals of today’s leftists are NOT in conflict with the accepted morality. On the contrary, the left takes an accepted moral principle, adopts it as its own, and then accuses mainstream society of violating that principle.

Examples: racial equality, equality of the sexes, helping poor people, peace as opposed to war, nonviolence generally, freedom of expression, kindness to animals. More fundamentally, the duty of the individual to serve society and the duty of society to take care of the individual. All these have been deeply rooted values of our society (or at least of its middle and upper classes for a long time. These values are explicitly or implicitly expressed or presupposed in most of the material presented to us by the mainstream communications media and the educational system. Leftists, especially those of the oversocialized type, usually do not rebel against these principles but justify their hostility to society by claiming (with some degree of truth) that society is not living up to these principles.

Here is an illustration of the way in which the oversocialized leftist shows his real attachment to the conventional attitudes of our society while pretending to be in rebellion against it. Many leftists push for affirmative action, for moving black people into high-prestige jobs, for improved education in black schools and more money for such schools; the way of life of the black “underclass” they regard as a social disgrace. They want to integrate the black man into the system,make him a business executive, a lawyer, a scientist just like upper-middle-class white people. The leftists will reply that the last thing they want is to make the black man into a copy of the white man; instead, they want to preserve African American culture. But in what does this preservation of African American culture consist? It can hardly consist in anything more than eating black-style food, listening to black-style music, wearing black-style clothing and going to a black-style church or mosque. In other words, it can express itself only in superficial matters. In all ESSENTIAL respects most leftists of the oversocialized type want to make the black man conform to white, middle-class ideals. They want to make him study technical subjects, become an executive or a scientist, spend his life climbing the status ladder to prove that black people are as good as white. They want to make black fathers “responsible,” they want black gangs to become nonviolent, etc. But these are exactly the values of the industrial- technological system. The system couldn’t care less what kind of music a man listens to, what kind of clothes he wears or what religion he believes in as long as he studies in school, holds a respectable job, climbs the status ladder, is a “responsible” parent, is nonviolent and so forth. In effect, however much he may deny it, the oversocialized leftist wants to integrate the black man into the system and make him adopt its values.

We certainly do not claim that leftists, even of the oversocialized type, NEVER rebel against the fundamental values of our society. Clearly they sometimes do.

Some oversocialized leftists have gone so far as to rebel against one of modern society’s most important principles by engaging in physical violence. By their own account, violence is for them a form of “liberation.” In other words, by committing violence they break through the psychological restraints that have been trained into them. Because they are oversocialized these restraints have been more confining for them than for others; hence their need to break free of them. But they usually justify their rebellion in terms of mainstream values. If they engage in violence they claim to be fighting against racism or the like.

We realize that many objections could be raised to the foregoing thumbnail sketch of leftist psychology.

The real situation is complex, and anything like a complete description of it would take several volumes even if the necessary data were available. We claim only to have indicated very roughly the two most important tendencies in the psychology of modern leftism.

The problems of the leftist are indicative of the problems of our society as a whole. Low self-esteem, depressive tendencies and defeatism are not restricted to the left. Though they are especially noticeable in the left, they are widespread in our society. And today’s society tries to socialize us to a greater extent than any previous society.

We are even told by experts how to eat, how to exercise, how to make love, how to raise our kids and so forth.’