The self-flattering mythology of the Left

Miscellaneous General
1

Since praxeological reasoners are neither Left or Right, perhaps we would be objective in judging both.

In that respect, I’d say that the Left is the most self-flattering side of the spectrum. One might even say that they have constructed a proud self-flattering mythology, of all their proud battles and successes.

Tony Blair, whenever faced with harsh questions about the failing National Health Service system in Prime Minister’s Questions, would always counter Liberal and Conservative opponents with a reminder that “We, the Labour Party, created the NHS, and we are the ones who have kept it functioning properly”. No matter how many reports of the year-long waiting lists for cancer patients who die when their turn comes or how many reports of people who get sick from unsanitary rooms in NHS, Blair always touted the system as a crowning success of the Labour Party, which should not be criticized for petty shortcomings like public hospitals killing patients.

The American Left is always proud of how its peaceful protests produced the Civil Rights Act…peaceful protests that turned into violent riots in Detroit and various rich upscale cities of US, with knives and machine guns becoming the new political arguments. It’s always the CRA itself that is glorified, not its actual effects - the spontaneous increase in poverty and social immobility of black Americans.

The American Left also is proud of having started the New Deal and entering WW2 - both of which had destructive effects on the US, with the New Deal lengthening the Depression and WW2 impoverishing Americans at home and killing millions of Americans abroad; all of it just to strengthen Stalin and give him half the world.

The American Left is proud of its antiwar movement in later years - except when Lyndon Johnson started the Vietnam War, when Clinton aggravated the Bosnian war, and when every major leader from the Left only fought unnecessary wars, rather than stop war. Indeed, the Left has lost its interest in antiwar stands, as Barack Obama butchers hundreds of Pakistanis, with not one word of protest from the Left.

The African Left glorifies men like Kwame Nkrumah, who quickly turned his prospering nation into one of the poorest countries in the world.

The South American Left glorifies child murders like Che Guevera, and thinks that the anti-imperial totalitarian authoritarianism that arose in various South American nations actually helped their countries. Of course, not only did Leftist dictators butcher many and ruin lives of countless others, South America never won the anti-imperial struggle. Even with Chavez and Morales doing all they can, South America is still a playground for the US, and both their and other countries in South America are freely kicked around as often as possible by the US. There has been not one single success in ending US imperialism in South America. Not one.

The European Left glorifies its high unemployment rate, low growth, destructive social engineering welfare state policies that have left France and Spain as broken state-financed nations

Ironically, the Right never glorifies any achievements. Indeed, the Right claims perpetual failure against the Left. It has a more pessimistic tone, about the failure and decline of their society. Some members of the Right claim that society started falling apart in the 1960s, some say in the 1910s, some say in the 19th century, some even say in the 18th century. The Right always talks about what went wrong and who did wrong.

But I must admit: what self-flattering myth would the Right ever have? “We successfully killed millions of communists during the Cold War under dictators like Franco and Pinochet.” I guess deep down, the Right knows that it should be a little more humble in claiming to have done anything.

2

It sounds like you’re successfully being divided and conquered. The “Right” is only more quiet on its activities and accomplishments because its former rarely result in the later. Furthermore, while the “Right” may be silent with their esteem, it is only because their actions are nearly identical to the “Left”, which they rhetorically oppose.

Consider how US Democrats were so opposed to the aggression of the Middle East under Bush & the Republican majority, yet silent on the issue as the wars drag on and even expand under a Democratic president and Congress. Likewise, the US Republican Party now bemoans the over-reach of The State; whereas previously, they were silent under a Republican president and Congress.

The “Right” is only less apt to boast their prowess because in doing so, they self-incriminate and reveal themselves as hypocritical statist. Don’t not be fooled into thinking an opposing engraving is not the same coin. That is precisely how the world ended up as it is now.

3

Yeah and plus, the right wing isn’t going to say, “We’re way more socialist than you liberals” -the two groups have opposing ends and values; they could never compete with each other on the same ideals.

I do tend to think though, that the right doesn’t tend towards flattery often because it doesn’t have much of a record to flatter itself with and that’s probably due to the trend for conservatives to either get bogged down in scandals (nixon) and because a good deal of conservatism is about slashing government so you can never flatter yourself on what you do, but in large part, for what you don’t do.

A lot of this is also because the education establishment is run by liberals which means continual demolition of conservative accomplishments in history through attacks on the “free market” of the 1920s, the reagan revolution and feminization of poverty, the patriot act, iran-contra, the el salvador dictatorship, etc.

4

I would make a distinction between Leftism and Democrats; and between Rightism and Republicans. Left and Right are two separate ideologies or world-views which different people are drawn to. Republicans and Democrats are self-interested individuals who pander to the two different groups in order to acquire power (votes).

In a very general sense the Right assents to big business and the Left assents to big government. All the examples you give of Leftist pride are associated with the accomplishments of government. What you miss is that the Right claims credit for the accomplishments of big business, that is to say that their boastful myth is nothing less than the Rightist roots of industrialization and capitalism which gave us the affluent standard of living we all enjoy.

5

When I said ‘the American Left’, I did not refer to the Democratic Party.

The Democratic Party itself is one of the biggest enemies of the American Left. This is a party which glorified racism for the longest period, which had Ku Klux Klan members like Robert Byrd, and had men like Al Gore Sr. who fought to keep segregation in the American South.

By Left, I meant the kind of people who were protesting on the streets for the Civil Rights Act, the Equal Pay Act, and others. The kind who unsuccessfully tried to prop up George McGovern and Jesse Jackson as presidential candidates. I meant Leftists like Alexander Cockburn, David Sirota, and Robert Scheer - all of whom consider the Democratic Party to be worse than the Republican Party. I meant the hardcore Leftists on American radio of the 1930s who called anybody who refused to intervene in Europe a fascist.

The entire body of intellectuals, would-be social engineers, youth protesters, and college professors who consider themselves part of the American Left all allege victories in the past. They say they defeated racism, which they did not. They say they empowered blacks and minorities, when the policies they demanded did the opposite. They say the helped protect the poor and unprivileged, when they did not. They say they fought for a good cause in Europe in WW2, when they actually ended up killing millions of innocent Germans in fire-bombings. They say they helped uplift women in status, even though women were already some of the best paid and highly positioned people back in 1880s itself. They claim that all the useless legislations they tried to fight for were actually worth something. In truth, those were all empty victories, which sometimes did more harm than good.

6

Sadly, I don’t think this mentality will ever be uprooted, at least in any future worth considering. There has been no form of propaganda that has been so successful and no religion in the past has been so successful in making a living off of glorifying catastrophic results and establishing mythologies that billions of people are willing to fall for while feeling good about themselves for doing so.

7

Pra,

Please forgive my miscomprehension. I was misled when you associated LBJ, Clinton and Obama with “every major leader from the Left” and your comment that Democratic Presidents can do wrong and get a pass; “with not one word of protest from the Left.”

Now it’s clear that we agree on a distinction. But this is really a sidereal issue. My main point was that you are wrong with your assertion that the Right is without boastfulness.

8

Right now the right is not so boastful… we shall wait and see? I think they will be just as annoying as the left. After all, its just the same religion by a different name, and people simply believe the religion they were brought up with. They’re still the same people.

9

Dondoo,

I’m not sure what “this mentality” refers to but generally speaking mankind has always been myth-centric. I think it is accurate to say that mythos informs ethos. A rugged individualist might be able to jettison the mythos but unless he opts-out for total isolation he must live with mythos’ child; ethos.

10

By mentality, I was specificaly refering to the leftist mindset, not any other group of self deluded people. Speaking of myth, any reason why you chose that name Zerubbabel?

11

I’ve had Zerubbabel a long time. I like the sound of it. It’s Hebraic etymological root means “to come out of Babylon.” So the name can mean whatever image one thinks of as Babylonian. It could mean a great economic cosmopolis (universal city or perhaps a one world government). Or the image might be of Babylon and Cyrus being adherents of Zoroastrianism which originated the cosmic battle between good and evil. It might simply be the image of urbanization and elitism. It might even be the moniker of an anti-Iraq war activist.

Speaking of etymological roots; “delude” comes from the roots which essentially means “to lose at the game.” He who wins is never deluded. One only escapes delusion by either winning the game, or opting out of the game. “Self-deluded” would literally be one who loses the game on purpose. The one who plays the game yet thinks he’s not playing the game might be the one truly living out a myth.

Too much etymological analysis. Sorry. In the end delude is merely a dysphemistic invective that is inevitably tossed in ALL directions.

12

“Self-deluded” would literally be one who loses the game on purpose. The one who plays the game yet thinks he’s not playing the game might be the one truly living out a myth.

Exactly; an involuntary egoist, which is the fuel of the left / humanism. I am saying that there delusions subsidize the dreams better and allow greater control than previous or current delusions; their lamps promise better jinn, their immaterialism is better than the other ghosts on some psychological level.

Also if I read it correctly, a nitpick: While Zoroastrianism may have picked up (and there is evidence it had) some Babylonian customs, no Babylonian/Mesopotamian empire was Zoroastrian. On a personal leve if l were to associate the name Zeruzababbel with Zoroastrianism it would be some relation of the Jews and Persians.

Though, if your sentence meant to say you wanted to show the good/bad, light/dark, monotheism/polytheism dualism of Babylon vs Persia that works wonderfully, it just wouldn’t be the 1st thing I personally would think of in relations to Zerubabbel and Zoroastrianism. Cool thoughts and name though. My 2 cents on that.

13

Thanks for straightening out my nit (Zoroastrian Babylon). It appears I was deluded.

It is human nature that we all believe ourselves to be free from delusions. It is always the other that is deluded. In the moment we become convicted of our delusions (disillusioned) we drop them and once again become delusion-free.

Perhaps the Left is more delusional than most, especially if one defines the Left by their delusion. You seem to define the Left as self-sacrifice (the opposite of egoism) ideologues (?).

Dialog can become confused by too many metaphors. Just for clarity, My use of “game” is the cultural norms, morals, values and ideals we live under.

An example might be our disdain for the hypocrisy of someone like Gore who feigning self-sacrifice, is by practice an egoist. Or our admiration for someone like Carnegie, an egoist by day and philanthropist by night. Our principle of harmony and consistency is part of our game. Some use it well and others not so well.

14

My use of “delusion of the left” is they are the ones “possesed” under the leading “Zeitgeist”; that is the one in the most control of information, culture, and the direction of policy; I see the entire mass revolutionary spirit from the Reformation (or non Western cultures governed by Western ideals e.g. Communist Russia) to today by the left as something of being led by some immaterial “spirit” (be it mankind, democracy, etc) to lead, direct, and allocate material things in a material world. This “spirit” is ultimately opposed to, and tends to completley and utterly destroy any customs that come in conflict with it with more rapidity than anything else before it in history; and I tend to find its (self satisfied) results rather gruesome. Furthermore, this “spirit” tends to be far more evangelical, and successful at evangalizing its will at a greater success rate than anything else in history.

If you have the time and wish to put forth the effort, you may want to do a wiki on the name on my sig (max stirner) to see where my terminology and thoughts are kind of comming from; I will admit, it is certainly heterodox (he is a pretty obscure philosopher). If you don’t feel like doing so, just think of Nietzsche to get a very rough idea as to where I am comming from. But I do consider “egoisim” to be an ontological fact.

P.S: Accident or not, The Zoroastrian/Babylonian diacotomy/dualism could actually work beautifully. The problem is, it is about some very obscure subjects.

I unfortunatly tend to think and speak better in metaphors, I’ll try to cut down though

15

That is unfortunately not what happens. Most people cling on to beliefs however shattered they may be by evidence.

16

Dondoolee,

I have only known Stirner as a fuzzy gray figure somewhere between Hegel and Nietzsche. I will read-up some on Stirner. Thanks. I think Nietzche is a poor spokesman for any idea because there are so many vastly different interpretations of him.

Let me understand clearly; Is Stirner a spokesman for the ideology of which you dissent?

I think I recognize the zeitgeist that you speak of. Might it be called “McWorld”? I think most observers would point towards the enlightenment as a more definitive turning point than the reformation. But perhaps that is only because it was more dramatic. In a more fundamental sense you may be right.

Some people point to pragmatism as a spokesman for this materialist zeitgeist. The only American school of thought guiding an American-led conquest of the McWorld.

I think this preoccupation with “material things in a material world” can be found on both the Left and the Right. I wonder what you see as the essence, or defining characteristic, of “Left” and “Right”?

I also am a big fan of metaphor (to pull away from the words). But sometimes when we build metaphor upon metaphor we become too many steps away from the core, essential, meaning. So, metaphor away but try to keep a connecting thread to essence.

.

17

To make it personal we ask ourselves: “What delusions do I have?” And if we were aware of any delusions, we would become convicted and remove them. What you perceive is our capacity for willful blindness. With such a tool we can remain unaware of our delusions and hence delusion-free.

Looking in, no one is deluded; looking out, everyone is deluded.

18

Since this is getting off topic, I just sent you a PM.