OpinionPerspective

Notes in the Margin: Where We Fit on the Political Spectrum

by Dissident Millennial

From Fred Reed:

In my capacity of shade-tree anthropologist at large, I am trying to make sense of the far Left. It is tough sledding. Most of it makes as much sense as lug nuts on a birthday cake. Help me. I am really confused.

I can’t see that the Left actually is Left. I mean, the Left in its more practical embodiments used to be the champion of the working man. It fought for unions, good pay, benefits and job security. Conditions were horrible in America’s mines and factories. Things were ugly, and Leftists often got hurt or, occasionally, killed trying to remedy them.

Today’s “Left” is the party of Bill and Hill, of George Soros and the half-educated narcissists of Hollywood rolling in dough, of excessively comfortable academics and the media, all of whom use ethnic minorities as voting fodder but want nothing to do with them. When do you think was the last time Hillary or Megyn Kelly was in a truck stop or Legion hall, or had dinner in a restaurant where most of the diners were black?

The Left is now hostile to working men, called “deplorables” in an unwise moment of honesty by Hillary. Can you imagine Saul Alinsky or Leon Trotsky worrying about transgender bathrooms or cultural appropriation? And it is a weirdly teenage Left in which most seem ten or fifteen years younger than their chronological age. (slightly edited)

Fred makes a good point. Today’s “left” is really just an institutionalized tantrum of stunted emotional development writ large, whereas today’s “right” is merely a worthless grab-bag of libertarian dogma, Constitutional fetishism and Judeo-Christian piety. Both sides are infantile, regressive, anti-intellectual and anti-rational, and neither does anything to advance progressive White-European interests.

This reinforces the point I made here that as national socialists we are neither liberal nor conservative, nor “of the left” or “of the right” in today’s political terms. Rather, as national socialists we are perhaps best described as traditional progressives who are with the Old (anti-capitalist) Left on economics and the Old (anti-social degeneracy) Right on the subjects of race, sex, culture and nationhood.

* * *

Source: Author

Previous post

Jewish Merchants of Sin and Porn, part 9: Jews and Porn

Next post

Orwell Alert -- Sexual Bolshevism Takes Over U.K. Advertising

4
Leave a Reply

avatar
4 Comment authors
cc21st Century WNFranklin Ryckaert21st Century WN Recent comment authors
  Subscribe  
newest oldest
Notify of
21st Century WN
21st Century WN

Fred Reed is a race-mixer (mestizo wife) so his opinion is heavily tainted by the fact of who he’s bangin’ every night. I file his commentary under my “John Derbyshire File”, another race-mixing spokesman for the alt-right/white nationalist movement and Jared Taylor’s American Renaissance.

Franklin Ryckaert
Franklin Ryckaert

The modern political spectrum of “Left” and “Right” is no more about class but about race. It is no more a struggle between Workers and Capitalists, but between non-Whites and Whites. Hence the Left’s promotion of mass non-White immigration (legal or illegal) and the struggle against “White privilege”. Whites, no matter how poor, are always “privileged”, and non-Whites, no matter how rich, are always “under-privileged” and “victims of discrimination”. Thus the Left doesn’t care about the White working class, because they are White and therefore automatically oppressors of non-Whites. Even rich Whites can join this epic struggle against the evil White man, as long as they cooperate in his ultimate destruction. In the coming non-White Utopia, so they hope, they will attain the status of “honorary non-Whites” and enjoin all… Read more »

21st Century WN
21st Century WN

@FRANKLIN RYCKAERT: I was referring to John Derbyshire, not Fred Reed, when referencing American Renaissance.

cc
cc

Government is fiction made up from whole cloth. Political science is an American invention; the science of politics. When is the last time a politician applied the scientific method to their work? To say politics is a science is to say that every politician is a scientist. That’s funny.