Tuesday, December 23, 2014

The Left Is Deader than the Right under the Influence of the Sacro-Decadent Globo-Oligarchy

The New 'Left'
I often find myself annoyed by people referring to Liberals — notice the capital ‘L’ than the little ‘l’ with general meaning — as the ‘left’ because the real left has been almost totally routed and virtually vanquished. What now goes by the title of the ‘left’ is just a marketing brand created by the decadent minions funded and/or bought off by the globalist oligarchs consisting largely of Jews and their mini-me homos(who should maybe be called ‘inversexuals’).
The real left, as it developed in the late 19th century and through much of the 20th century, was about the interests of the people, the masses, the workers, the farmers, the poor, and ‘marginalized’ or oppressed minorities. Of course, there was always an elitist leftist culture dominated by intellectuals and radical artists. And some very rich people, especially Jewish tycoons, have also funded leftist/communist movements around the world, usually more out of tribal than ideological interests.
In the West, especially America, the radical left failed to come to power, and what developed as the mainstream left revolved around labor unions, increased government programs, agrarian populism, and the like. There was always a rift between the well-educated and intellectual elitist left and the populist left made up of less well-schooled(and often less intelligent) workers, farmers, underemployed, unemployed, and/or ‘disenfranchised’ minorities. Though both sides might be roughly agreed on economic agendas, the populist left tended to be culturally conservative with firm commitment to family, community, culture, and church — more out of habit and cultural norms than for any philosophical reasons — , whereas the elitist left was generally more cosmopolitan, anti-traditionalist, and socially/culturally experimental.
Even so, when push came to shove, the elitist leftist placed the needs of the workers and the masses ahead of elite-leftist hangups. Indeed, especially in the first half of the 20th century, plenty of leftist intellectuals believed that art should serve as propaganda tools to serve the interests of the masses. Or it should reflect the world of the suffering workers and raise consciousness about ‘what is to be done’. Several films of Sergei Eisenstein were political propaganda, though their originality and brilliance attained the rightful status of art.

While there were plenty of elitist and/or bohemian leftists who found leftist orthodoxy rigid and dogmatic as pertaining to free thought and expression, most still placed the Cause before all else, which was why Jean-Paul Sartre, though valuing his freedom in republican France, served as apologist for Stalin’s USSR. Leftists such as he didn’t see the conflict around the world as one between total good and total bad but one between necessary-for-human-justice/progress and obstacle-to-human-progress. So, there could be much about the former that was bad and much about the latter that was good, but overall, as the party line declared that the future of mankind lay with Marxism/communism, a moral person had to choose sides and commit himself to her the Cause. It’s like during World War II, there were good things about the Axis and bad things about the Allies, but a decent person(in the West) was expected to commit to the cause of the Allies because the Grand Conflict was one between one side that, despite its flaws, recognized(even if only ideologically) the equal worth of all humans AND the other side that, despite its virtues in certain respects, was essentially about the unholy right of one people to tyrannize and rule over other peoples deemed less than human. After WWII, people like Sartre applied to the same logic to the conflict between the US and USSR. True, there was much that was good about the US and much that was horrible about the USSR, but nevertheless, the USSR was understood as ideologically and morally standing for the equality of all men whereas US stood for neo-imperialism via capitalism that, despite its productivity and progress, was philosophically based on the economic exploitation of workers by the propertied class of capitalists.

Though never a communist, I used to subscribe to the general philosophy of the left, that is until I came to realize that communism is an evil and not only for practical reasons — it doesn’t work and has been costly in lives to say the least — but for philosophical reasons, i.e. even if it worked, it could only produce a vast prison where people are forced to be ‘equal’.

Anyway, whatever one thinks about the left(the real left, that is), what goes by the title of the ‘left’ in our times is NOT the left. Not even close. If anything, the real left is deader than the American Right. True, there are still Marxist scholars on college campuses. Also, the media hail the likes of Thomas Piketty as the ‘new Karl Marx’. Noam Chomsky, a real leftist, is much admired by many who claim to be on the ‘left’.
But seriously, the main discourse on the so-called ‘left’ isn’t about class issues, the people, the workers, the farmers, the masses, the poor, etc. If such groups are mentioned at all, it’s less as the main constituents of the left but as mere pawns on the political chessboard so that certain elite groups could maximize the power and privilege even further by claiming to be for ‘the people’. American politics is essentially an elite vs elite affair, with the Democrats claiming to represent the people against the super-rich and the Republicans claiming to represent Middle America against the ‘urban elites’ and the growing underclass(especially those who are not white). But it’s really about two groups of elites(who are agreed on lots of things)merely fooling the masses to get the votes so that they serve their super-rich masters. This is to be expected when the true bastions of the so-called ‘left’ are Wall Street, Hollywood, Silicon Valley, super-yuppified Washington D.C., gentrifopoleis like Seattle and Portland, Ivy League universities(where the only real game in town is narcissism of power and privilege), and urban ‘gay’ districts populated with snide, sneering, preening, hissy-bitchy queers and queenies. When Jews and homosexuals were indeed minorities without all the rights and equality of access enjoyed by the ruling elites(especially of Wasps), one could make a leftist case for minority rights. But are today’s Jews and homos really about equal rights for minorities or for special powers/privileges for minority elites who are vastly and disproportionately represented in the upper strata of top institutions, businesses, and governments?

It’s oft-been noted that the Chinese Communist Party is only communist in name and really has been, since Deng Xiaoping’s reforms, essentially a state-capitalist nationalist party. Likewise, what goes by the title of the ‘left’ has almost nothing to do with the real/classic/traditional left. Of course, causes and movements change and evolve over time, but when the changes are as drastic and fundamental as those that have swept over American ‘progressivism’, it is time to call it by another name. This isn’t to suggest that what goes by the ‘left’ should be called the ‘right’. If we define the ‘right’ in terms of excessive wealth, privilege, power, and obedience to the prevailing orthodoxy, then I suppose one could argue that today’s ‘left’ is indeed the ‘new right’ since its power and privilege are centered in the biggest and richest cities in America and EU and because it’s so slavish to the cult of Political Correctness. But the new ‘left’ is too decadent and frivolous to associate with any meaningful sense of the ‘right’. Though the much reviled Koch Brothers are said to be on the ‘right’, they are actually completely onboard with the so-called ‘leftist’ globalist agenda of open borders, ‘gay marriage’, and other lunacies. The only real difference is the Koch Brothers believe in lower taxes and less regulation. Libertarianism may ally with the Right, but it cannot serve as a genuine foundation for the Right as its values(or lack thereof) are glaringly shallow, trashy, or outlandish(in your typical Ayn-Rand sort of way, which may be good for entertainment but not for any assessment of reality).

There is still a real left and a real right in America, but I would argue that the real left is deader than the real right. The real right tends to be impervious to PC dished out by the ruling elites of this country. It has a sense of core values founded in tradition, religion, love of nation, and/or love of race. As mainstream Conservatives(who might be called ‘false rightists’) tend to be generally under-represented in the media, entertainment, and academia, their overall effect on the real right is limited. In contrast, the real left sees itself as the ideological cousin of mainstream Liberalism that does control most of the top institutions in this country, along with Hollywood, music industry, glitziest urban areas, and etc. If the real right has a knee-jerk tendency against what it deems to be the pernicious influence of mainstream Liberalism, then the real left at the other end of the political spectrum, despite its trepidations, feels somewhat obligated to find common ground with mainstream Liberals who control Hollywood, advertising, fashion, music industry, TV, and universities(where scholars prefer to bitch about ‘cultural’ matters than economic or class ones).
Thus, the real left is far more impacted by mainstream Liberalism than the real right is impacted by mainstream Conservatism. To be sure, some on the real left go along with stuff like ‘gay marriage’ for purely cynical reasons to subvert the social order, thereby hoping to pave the way for the eventual Revolution. Nevertheless, the problems of the real left is far more complicated than the problems of the real right because the real right tends to be mostly white and essentially agreed on the preservation of Western heritage and the power/unity of the white race. In contrast, the dynamics of the ‘real left’ is more difficult because US is very diverse and because the real left claims to represent all groups. But the various groups in the real left tend to see things differently depending on their racial/ethnic perspectives. To what extent are real leftist Jews motivated by ideology or by Jewish interests? To what extent are real leftist blacks motivated by common cause or by black identity? Same goes for every racial or ethnic group in the real left. If each group is motivated primarily by ethnic/tribal interests, can it be said to be part of a ‘real left’? Or are they really all versions of mini-rightist-tribalism hiding behind the mantle of leftism to make common cause against white gentiles who are perceived, especially due to Jewish control of the media and academia, as The Enemy? In a homogeneous nation, the real left might be about specific economic issues as it’d be a given that everyone shares the same national and cultural identity. But in a diverse nation(growing ever more diverse) like the US, it’s difficult to ascertain what the real left is about? Jewish elites love diversity not only because it undermines the white right but because it undermines the real left. As most Jews are rich or even very rich, they no longer believe in the class politics of the real left, even though, on occasion, they make gestures to that regard to fool the suckers.
If American leftism consists of various racial, national, and ethnic groups, how can they agree on anything? In California, we witnessed how even the bulk of Asian-American Democrats opposed ending the ban on ‘Affirmative Action’. For Asian-Americans, ‘Affirmative Action’ is about tribalism because it unfairly favors less qualified blacks and Latinos(and even whites) over yellows. For blacks and Latinos, the current system is unfair because certain racial or ethnic groups are woefully under-represented in top California colleges. So, which side is right? And there are many black leftists who aren’t too keen on open borders. While increased diversity means the victory of the Democrats over Republicans, it also means the brown and yellow populations increasingly eclipsing black America.
With all such divisions, it’s no wonder it was relatively easy for rich elite Democratic Jews and homos to elevate ‘gay marriage’ and nonsensical stuff like ‘transgenderism’ as the main ‘leftist’ issues of the day with, of course, the full backing of billionaire oligarchs in Wall Street, Washington D.C., Hollywood, Silicon Valley, and etc. With so much bickering among various racial and ethnic groups on the Democratic side, why not push for something so outlandish(thereby taking people’s minds off thornier and more difficult issues of race and class)? Maybe the outlandishness will be welcome as a distraction from real divisions that cannot be solved. Besides, ‘gay marriage’ is an issue of ‘faith’. There is nothing to solve. One merely needs to believe in the sanctity of homos and fool oneself that two guys who bugger one another are worthy of marriage. Jewish-Homo War on Marriage has been more ‘successful’(or suck-ass-full) than the War on Poverty by Lyndon Johnson. It ruined the meaning of true marriage, but ‘gay marriage’ became law of the land, and that’s that. It’s easier to shower rich homos with privileges than fix deep-rooted problems of the American underclass. And since everyone is hooked on junk/trash pop culture, surely all the Liberals and ‘leftists’ can be made to agree that ‘gay marriage’ is cool since Oprah and all the cool celebrities are for it.
Martine Rothblatt - Radical Narcissism
So, what should the new ‘left’ be called? As it is decadent, its adherents should be called ‘decadents’. But that doesn’t quite capture the true character of what goes by the name of the ‘left’ in our times. Until recently, decadence wasn’t justified on moral grounds. It was enjoyed or indulged as a form of pleasure, aesthetics, dream-life, opiate, thrill, and/or experimentation. Its appeal was in the loosening of social conventions and bonds that made for a stuffy, rigid, and/or ‘bourgeois’ society. But it was well-understood that decadence couldn’t be morally elevated as the new norm. Its dangers were well-understood as it diverted the focus of human attention from core matters of morality and spirituality to peripheral matters of frivolity or fantasy.
For some, it was something worth risking — even at the cost of social dissolution and moral degeneracy — because it opened up new vistas in imagination and possibilities. Some turned to opiates, some turned to loose sex, some turned to art as religion, some turned to subversion as a game. But it was understood that such indulgences couldn’t constitute the moral core of any social order, at least not in the long run.

This is where the new Decadence deviates from the classic decadence. Jewish and homo — or Jomo — elites are hellbent on forcing down our throats the notion that the New Normal is the New Morality. It’s like saying black is the new white, and white is the new black. It’s like saying shit is the new gold, and gold is the new shit. Ridiculous as it is, the Jomo elites are determined to persuade us that something like ‘gay marriage’ is an absolute moral value and that there’s nobility in a man wanting to have his perfectly healthy bodily organs amputated or mutilated so as to become a ‘woman’. It used to be that sodomy or fecal penetration was just some deviant or decadent ‘sexual’ behavior of homos or weirdo sexual experimenters. Now, school children are told that the male anus is as much a sex organ as the female vagina. Never mind the veracity of biological facts when Jewish and homo masters — and their gutless, brainless, and/or spineless collaborators — possess the power to turn the matter of facts into a matter of ‘New Facts’. Just as the New Normal would have us believe black is the new white or white is the new black, the rules of New Facts only depend on who has the power of the megaphone, blackboard, and TV to decide what is and isn’t true. Though the Rolling Stone magazine of the UVA rape story ultimately fell apart, that dung-pile of lies came dangerously close to being embraced as the truth-and-nothing-but-the-truth with the full complicity of the national media owned by Jews that were all-too-willing to push the bogus story as the New Fact. Whether something is declared as ‘true’ or ‘untrue’ in today’s world is more about WHO has the power to assemble and disseminate the Truth and WHAT are the risks for those who dare to disagree. (Notice that even genuine conservatives who oppose ‘gay marriage’ generally remain silent out of fear of WHO has the power to destroy them for WHAT they may say, especially out loud.) As the power of PC prefers New Facts(even if they aren’t factual) over real facts(that may undermine the politically correct Narrative), what really matters is power over facts than power of facts.
Anyway, because the New Decadence isn’t content to dare and challenge the Core Morality but to replace it wholesale as the New Morality, it isn’t just a case of decadence but a case of SACRO-decadence. Decadence has been ‘sacralized’ into a form of morality, indeed the highest form of morality. And that is now the core ‘value’ of the new so-called ‘left’. It’s about rich homos hanging with Jewish oligarchs in the toniest parts of big cities. It’s about elite college graduates thinking they are morally superior to everyone because their hero or heroine happens to be some freak by the name of Laverne Cox. It’s about privileged urban girls getting their ‘values’ from the likes of Amanda Marcotte and Lena Dunham. It’s about the New Western Values being represented by mental cases like Masha Gessen and the Pussy Riot whose members stuff their vaginas with raw pieces of chicken.
Sacro-decadence is about radical narcissism, a demonic and evil form of self-obsession where nothing matters than one’s hyper-preening sense of wealth, privilege, style, and self-pleasure. And this filth is being spread around the world, as US serves the fashion-and-trend-setter for the entire globe. When people become this self-absorbed and self-obsessed with glitz, image, and attitude(one that is utterly lacking in any interest, curiosity, or respect for anything outside one’s own ridiculously inflated ego), how can they mature into real humans with a sense of history, heritage, roots, and responsibilities? We can’t brush off poison like this as mere entertainment because the dehumanized expressions of plastic emotions are too aggressive, insistent, and demanding of attention and respect it doesn’t deserve.

It appears Rolling Stone magazine isn’t content to promote porny filth and junk in the US but hellbent on encouraging its spreading all around the world. It cheers on Pussy Riot in Russia, promotes the ‘gay’ agenda in Africa, and encourages Koreans to act like Whoreans, advice Koreans hardly need since acting like whores comes naturally to those dog-eating copycat attention-and-approval-hogs.
Still, it’s rather rich coming from Rolling Stone since it ran the hyped up bogus ‘rape culture’ story about some satanic sex ritual at UVA. The magazine is with the nutjob feminists on hyperventilating about ‘rape culture’(that doesn’t exist in most colleges), but it’s also with all the demented obscene sluts and skanks whose idea of pop music/culture is to blur the line between entertainment and porn so that it’s no longer possible to tell which is which. As the world capital of radical narcissism or demonic narcissism, US has become an evil nation. Of course, it’s still the richest nation with its big cities getting richer and filling up with oligarchs and neo-yuppies who think they are so hot and righteous because they stuff their mouths with over-priced sushi and wave the ‘gay rainbow’ flag. It fools a lot of people whose only values are vapid materialism and inane narcissism. But what a sick world:

No comments:

Post a Comment