The Anthropology of the Left (youtube.com)
Jews, a force of the left theoretically, are they currently in a battle to maintain their status as victims while victimizing other victims, in the eyes of liberals in the US and Europe? The Left, theoretically, sides with victims always, or with the weak always, even if the strong is the one acting beneficially. Are Jews (if they are leftist, which he didn't prove) leftist because they less commonly have land, they less than other peoples have nothing to be conservative about?
The Left champions science as a sort of religeon, but currently it has lost scientists (who believe in genetic traits, not just ‘blank slate’), so that will be a battle for the Left.
The Left focusses on ‘how kind they are.’ To be moral is to ‘fervently believe whatever is strategically efficient for the Left as a movement at that given time. This is why you see constant virtue signalling and one-upmanship in Leftist regimes, whether Mao, Stalin, the French Revolution or the Modern West. Since there are no moral principles, they can’t stop themselves anywhere or reset. It's also why they can immediately rationalize any breaking of their own moral codes.' ‘Not being hyprocrates isn’t a part of their value system.' ‘They don’t care about what if the roles were reversed, they care about winning.' The left pushes, trying to destroy human nature. Some think leftism is a powre fantasy for the powerless, and WIAH points out that you can almost perfectly correlate lack of agency in the world with Leftism. Beurocrats, professors, or retail and service workers are all jobs without agency where the resentment builds up. ‘They all secretly want to be dictator.’ ‘You can see that the Left is all about power and agitation because they will always pick the most aggressive strategies to get their goals.’ ‘Every thing they say gives them more power.’ ‘Everything the Left says is projection ... Their projections of hate, institutional power, and racism that they shove onto the Right, are all completely true about them. What the Left says about the Right is what the Left is.’
The Left was able to gain dominance, argues some writer, because it appeals to the beurocracy. It gained control over military, etc, all industries. ‘The beurocracy gains power by dismanteling the civilization.’
The Left, WIAH says, can't wage war, make companies, art, manage government, do law enforcement, develop new ideas. The Left has become decadent.
'In almost all cases, what the New Left sees as progress is the breakdown of traditional social ties, or individual social responsibility, which is always filled by the state or management.
Are people now afraid to criticise what may be a large problem, women?
Do women always want to mitigate risk for individuals in policy? Welfare state? Are women equally aggressive as men, but manifest it differently (gossiping, shaming and rallying)? Female relaitonal warfare? Does the Left always smear their enemies and make them socially unpalatable?
‘Once you dig to the bottom of the Left’s worldview, they're just wrong.' Isn't that how it should be though? I think WIAH also would agree, though, that there should be Left but it shouldn't dominate. And on a longer scale it doesn't. And there's a question you can ask yourself. Should the Left ever have power over destructive things, when they are basically non-self limiting and some say destructive and self-destructive? Also, we might want to be suspicious of politicians and CEOs appealing for support from Leftists, because the premise they must have is that they are the victim or a nice guy or are helping the Leftist victims, but politicians and CEOs can't be poor so how can they honestly be in this role, but must maintain that perception? There might also be a thing where the best policy for Leftist political figures is to say nothing, since their relationship is to benefit Leftists at the expense of others, but neither wants them to admit that and neither wants the Leftists to have to face that they want that.
If we have more people who have less responsibilities, or delayed while they go to school and do a sabatical etc, don't have children, will that produce more people disposed toward liberalism? ie lack of self-responsibility and belief in taking things from people who have things and giving them to who they want?