What actually is the “cause” for why someone becomes a Left-liberal? Where does this ideology come from—both in terms of what motivates its adherents, and in terms of history?
The immediate cause for the dominance of the dominant Ideology or Religion is just network-effects—power sustains itself. People simply follow the dominant ideology of the world, as it is omnipresent in the culture. It is easier to copy the values and frameworks already widely-present, than to come up with new ones—this was even true for a tolerant ideology like Classical liberalism, but is especially true with a truly hegemonic regime like Left-liberalism which possesses the “antibodies” or “Śatrubodha” to suppress ideas opposed to it (section 4.1).
It’s not too different from people following the religion they were born into—the only difference is Left-liberalism gets progressively radical every generation (a continuous revolution, etc.) so it appears to be that people are constantly converting to it. But once the fundamental principle/moral ideal is set—that Noble Savagedom is worthy of worship and perpetuation—each generation will naturally take that to further and further logical extremes.
Still, we may ask—it must have begun somewhere. Sure, you can give a history (as I do in appendix B), but a historical account of events is not an explanation. It is not a theory that would allow a man in the 18th century to predict exactly what ideology would be dominant three centuries from his time. In the introduction to chapter 4, we described the Marxists who attempted to answer this question for the ideologies they accused—and gave a laughably wrong answer. Ultimately this is really the Why is there something rather than nothing? question of political science. Sure, a total power vacuum would be filled by some usurping power, but Why is this particular ideology dominant over all others?
Still, here are some theories or partial explanations.
Simple network effects (what dominates the ideological aether remains so—because of status quo bias and the Regime pushing it).
Fundamental human instincts—suicidal empathy, counter-signalling, bonoboism etc.
Big-braining, i.e. contrarianism to (and indeed inversion of) traditional morality and “fuck you Dad”-ism.
Immediate self-interest of the client groups that Leftism worships, due to democratic incentives (Leftism doesn’t actually serve any group’s interests in the long run, but democracy might create game-theoretic incentives for it—e.g. by turning the world into a gibs-seeking game between communities).
People simply yearn for a smart man to confidently tell them things. While Classical liberalism, Communism and Left-liberalism were all sons of the Enlightenment; in continental Europe the latter two monopolized the intellectual elite.
Fundamental rhetorical ease of defending leftist beliefs.
Taking “polite fictions” seriously (see below). Combined with “soft, kind” religions like Christianity (“the meek shall inherit the Earth”)—and perhaps the Bhakti movement—this can create a recursive revolution leading to Left-liberalism.
- As society grew wealthier, we could afford to let go of a lot of the “hardness” that used to be necessary for the survival of civilization—and those necessities began to be seen as injustices (some genuine, some not). Thus a class of activists emerged who were specialized in fighting such injustices—for whom that was their entire job, and they would gradually gain in power as supporting them was seen as a moral obligation (see also below). In India, we couldn’t even afford to let go of all of these, but “premature imitation” by the Nehruvian state led to the same phenomenon.
The wealth created by the industrial revolution removed Darwinian pressures against suicidal ideologies.
The wealth created by the industrial revolution meant that jobless retards can yap all day and dominate the discourse.
It is worth remembering that many progressive dogmas now embraced wholeheartedly by conservatives originally were such “polite fictions”. Everyone who wasn’t a lunatic communist knew the open secret that human groups didn’t literally have the same expectation of achievement that poor kids weren’t just rich kids with less, etc. Human equality was a polite fiction, which most people knew wasn’t literally true, but rudeness was uncivil, unfairness to exceptions was uncivil. So it was one of those things that you didn’t talk about in polite company.
“Racism” was rudeness based on race, which is not the behavior of a civilized human being—no matter what the truth about race was. For the reformers of the 60s, the polite fiction then became the platonic Noble Lie, and the boomers were the first generation to be true believers.
The moral of the story being that what originates in a civilized sense of politeness can within a generation become a new Orwellian fact, and The Emperor’s New Clothes acquires a very different ending.
The boomers bought MLK, but even for them, sexual equality between men and women remained more of a polite fiction, then a noble lie—until their grandchildren made it orthodoxy. Gay people being just straight people who like the same sex underwent the same transformation.
We can see the same thing happening in real time with LGBTP ideology. The vast, vast majority of its adult supporters know very well that the pervert in a dress is a pervert in a dress, but he deserves our pity, and it is uncivil to be rude to him about it.
Now look at discussions of young normies on the lower end of the bell curve. Say, r/nostupidquestions. A lot of people on the internet appear to genuinely believe that trans surgery actually transforms one sex into the other, after growing up under an Orwellian language regime which for everyone older than them, had just been a form of politeness. When I was a kid, there was a lot of confusion and discussion among my peers about “the pregnant man”—until an educator explained to us that it wasn’t actually a man, the tabloids just called her that.
Imagine how confused kids today must be about basic aspects of reality. Parents using the approved language about things they understand as at best politeness and at worst a point deer make horse loyalty test, not fully comprehending that their kids might never be in on it.
Vedic → Classical Hinduism → Purāṇic and Bhakti → Islam
Greek theology → Greek Philosophy → Christianity → Islam
(…) → Classical liberalism → “Love the poor” → Left-liberalism
The pattern is thus:
WAR men turn into EliteHumanCapital men as they tire of war.
EliteHumanCapital men create the wealth that affords Niceness.
Nice men feel obliged to indulge Parasitic subhuman men.