[ExI] Who are the "leftists"?

[Rafal Smigrodzki]

On Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 11:57 AM, J.R. Jones <mrjones2020 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 11:25 AM, spike <spike at rainier66.com> wrote:
>>
>> The USA has the farthest left government we are likely to ever see in our
>> lifetimes,
>
> What a disgustingly depressive thought..

### Hey, this is a very vague statement - depressive because it's so
far left or depressive because there may not be a more leftist one
coming?

But this brings me to the question of who are those leftists one keeps
hearing about. Let's leave aside any analysis of the historical
meaning of the political left, and instead look at what kind of people
in today's America would be called "leftist".

Leftists consist of two major subgroups: the losers and the winners.
The losers are rank and file blue collar proles, inept hippie types,
various Occupy freaks and catspaws, low-ranking academics and other
assorted riffraff. Not very interesting.

The winners however are, despite spouting the same slogans, a
completely different species. The two outstanding features they
exhibit are hypocrisy and obsession with social status. Enviously
looking around, they are driven by a desire to claw their way to the
top of the status pyramid. In a bygone era they might have worked for
the holy church, or for General Motors - any institution where
bureaucratic ranks provide a clear structure for individual social
progression. In today's world the nation- or world-state is the locus
of power which is why the culturally Marxist flock there.

The ideal habitat for the leftist winner is the school or university,
where elevated status is built into the job description of the teacher
or professor. The accumulation of leftists in schools lead to
increasing leftist indoctrination of consecutive generations, and
eventual leftist "takeover" of the society with 90% or more of
government bureaucrats and academics voting for a nominally leftist
party. I am using the word in parentheses, since nothing has really
changed: The same kind of people who might have spouted Christian
sermons in 1913 now spout traditional leftist shibboleths but their
essence, hypocrisy and obsession with status, are still there.

The kind of people currently referred to as "leftists" have to be
hypocritical. Their idea of eudaimonia involves a relative superiority
which implies the existence of inferiors. Since hardly anybody likes
being called inferior, the aspiring leftist who wants to avoid
pushback must be at pains to deny the importance of status, or even
deny the possibility of somebody being inferior. This explains their
public, flat denial of the importance of IQ (and a private obsession
with it), and the denial of gender or racial differences. In order to
appear less threatening and more humane, the leftist endlessly
expresses concern for various victim groups. Of course, the leftist is
not very willing to part with his own resources to help those in need
because he does not truly care about them (not surprising, since
almost nobody cares, but this is another story altogether), and
usually demands that other people's money should be used - but the
credit should flow the the leftist. That's why homeless people's cell
phones are called "Obamaphones" and not "MyTaxDollarPhones".

The above explains the seemingly strange combination of egalitarian
rhetoric used by our masters, and their resolute practical commitment
to ruthless, hierarchical control.

Because of all that, it is not only unsurprising but rather completely
inevitable that the administration using more traditionally leftist
rhetoric ends up being even more authoritarian than their junior
partners in the scam (the Republicams, in case you don't get my
drift). 99.9% of government employees are unelected, and most of them
are culturally leftist but in practice conventionally power-grabby
hacks, just like their spiritual predecessors since ancient Babylon's
first clerics. You let them work with a few elected, arrogant,
narcissistic, hypocritical social strivers steeped in commie rhetoric,
and the sky is the limit (at least as far as the budget deficit goes).

Rafal