Saturday, 15 February 2014

No such thing as a pure Leftist, a complete Leftist or a logically-consistent Leftist

*

From John C Wright's blog:

http://www.scifiwright.com/2014/02/hoyt-defies-the-empire-of-lies/#more-9899

Leftism is not a political philosophy or a way of thinking; it is a social mechanism for enforcing uniformity of opinion, and a psychological mechanism for accusing others of one’s own flaws in order to award oneself unearned moral superiority.

In order to be logically self consistent, a Leftist would have to reject all values, all thought, all life, and accuse all things. No one can do this. Hence, there is no such thing as a pure Leftist, a complete Leftist or a logically-consistent Leftist for the same reason that there is no such thing as a disease without an underlying organism at one time healthy which contracted the disease.

The Leftist embraces hypocrisy, and accuses some things and not others, some people and no others, even though logic sees no difference between what is pardoned and what is condemned.

They are all illogical, all arbitrary, all hypocrites, because no one can consistently serve an anti-human death cult and remain alive.

A consistent Leftist, wild with overpopulation fears, would kill himself on the instant by withholding his breath, so as not to breathe out carbon dioxide and ruin the world. An inconsistent Leftist will spend his life accusing others of the dangers of imaginary environmental disasters, and flies around in a jet, lives in an energy-absorbing mansion, and so on.

So when I speak of ‘Leftism’ I speak of the idea, or, to be precise, the anti-idea. I do not speak of the people semi-loyal to that idea. And all Leftist people are only semi-loyal.

*

8 comments:

alexi de sadesky said...

Brilliant! Thanks for sharing.

The Crow said...

Yep. That about sums it up.
I used to obsess about my inability to communicate with people, not realizing that the people I was attempting to communicate with were leftists. And that's the difference: I always assumed my own failings for any lack of success, whereas leftists always assume others are to blame.

Luqman said...

There is a consistent Leftist: Satan

Bruce Charlton said...

@L - Actually not - it is impossible to be consistently evil. There is always some irreducible sliver of good, because there can only be destruction from a residue of order.

Don said...

There is nothing that the left cannot turn to evil. Or perhaps it would be better to say there is nothing that the left cannot mock and subvert (outside of Christ and Salvation).

They have certainly infiltrated enough churches to prove they are capable of that. The left seems to be a wholly owned part of satan's plan anyway.

The Crow said...

There is no more a Satan than there is a God. And before you start jumping up and down, what that means is...
Both are linguistic terms, created by humans, as metaphorical descriptions for Reality (the way things are), and Non-Reality (the way things are not).
Subscribing to the idea of 'God', little or no harm results, and great deal of goodness may occur.
Subscribing to 'Satan', and thereby going directly against what-is, immense disruption and damage may result.

Bruce B. said...

"and a psychological mechanism for accusing others of one’s own flaws in order to award oneself unearned moral superiority."

It sounds like the attitude of the Pharisee in the parable of the Pharisee and the Publican: "I thank God I am not like other men ......"

Steve Moxon said...

That's an interesting characterisation that does get to the root of Leftist attitude re 'projection' (to use the one useful contribution of a nation by Freud), but it fails to get at the reason for the origin of contemporary Leftism. This, as I have written about, is specifically 'revenge' against 'the workers' for never having 'risen up', contradicting Marxist prediction and prescription, fatally undermining the entire theory.
The Left's mission has been to replace 'the worker' as the revolutionary agent, and to do this they simply inverted the stereotype of 'the worker'; so instead of male / 'white' / heterosexual, we get female / ethnic-minority / homosexual as the new supposed agent of social change.
This is such obvious insane complete baloney that an extreme authoritarian insistence on the analysis to the exclusion of even the start of any debate is the only feasible course.
This merely postpones facing the colossal cognitive-dissonance of the mismatch between theory and reality, of course; and as the stakes get higher, the authoritarianism gets still nastier.