You may expect that event would have a deep impact on the cultural consciousness of the species—that they would be keenly aware of how special the times they live in are, and how fortunate they are for the event. Maybe they’d even make a religion out of it. Instead, you find that the majority of the species is hardly aware of this revolution, the Industrial Revolution—and instead the Ideological Aether focuses entirely on all of the evils generated as a side effect of that revolution: colonialism, environmental damage, inequality, unnoticeable “global warming”1.
The only explanation would be that after this Industrial Revolution, this species was taken over by an inimical regime that despised the Industrial Revolution and indeed the prosperity of the species itself.
And this is exactly what happened. The Enlightenment and Scientific and Industrial Revolutions would be accompanied by a counter-revolution: the rise of Leftist Ideology. And much like any material/economic history of humanity that does not center the significance of the Industrial Revolution is worthless, any political history of the modern world that does not center on the rise of the Left-liberal Rāj is worthless.
All other factors you come up with at best feed into the climb of Left-liberalism or influenced it in some way. Bureaucracy this, managerial that, fiat currency (lmao), high-trust chutiyapa—no, the key factor is that there was a committed movement driven to gain power, and exploited all these opportunities present.
B.1.1The French revolution
1789 as origin point
Left-liberalism = reformist wing
Left = revolutionary wing
Communism = most uncompromising and fanatical faction of the Left
Classical liberalism = the right most edge of 1789 disdained by all other groups above for its actual moderation and tolerance towards “infidels” (i.e. those who exist outside the spectrum created by the revolution).
FAVSTIAN Classical liberalism, the just regime that brought prosperity and great strength to Britain and America, sired two unworthy sons who conquered France in an event called the “French Revolution”. The sons then committed patricide, murdering their father as well as the earlier regimes (religion and aristocracy) he had deposed but spared. After a bunch of power struggles within their regime in which everybody started killing everyone, the middle-elites brought some order eventually leading to the fall of their regime and the people took refuge with the dictator Napoleon, who deposed the unworthies.
B.1.219th century: exile
Over most of the 19th century, the Two Unworthies were in exile. Britain and America prospered under Classical liberalism, while the rest of the West did so under his sons from different nations (who tried to differentiate themselves from him). The Two Unworthies bid their time: Left-absolutism under the French and German socialists2, and Left-liberalism under the “new liberals” of Britain and various “progressive” and “social democratic” movements throughout the West. Both unworthies started their march from c. 1890—Left-liberalism in the greater Anglosphere, and Left-absolutism in Continental Europe, the latter culminating in the communist revolutions of Germany and Russia. (“Left-absolutism” may be more typically called “communism” etc—however, there are many communists of the Left-liberal strain who call themselves “democratic socialists” etc. The key distinction is that Left-liberalism is more open to gradual left-ward march by building consensus and accepts the submission of those belonging to elite classes and groups—while Left-absolutists demand violent revolution and the purge of anyone even slightly impure in ideology or class. Ultimately this is also why Left-liberalism prefers democracy while Left-absolutism prefers autocracy as the means—the goals, however, are not different. More insection 3.4)(Interestingly Left-liberalism, in the form of progressivism in America, would have a fling with racist and fascist ideologies as exemplified by the administration of Woodrow Wilson and the continued Democratic coalition between the Left-liberals and the Southern Democrats. The fling would start wearing out after the passage of the Civil Rights act, though the state governors and legislatures of the Deep South states would remain Democratic until c. 2010. This may be compared to the I.N.D.I. Alliance—really just the “Legion of Doom”/“Villains unite!” trope).
B.1.3F.D.R. as the Left-liberal Constantine
Due to its robust Classical-liberal political system and fortunate geography, America could be defeated neither by internal nor external foe, by totalitarians nor anarchists, by any religion nor irreligion, by weapons nor laws, by no race or country, by no enemy of any name.
In the greater Anglosphere, the election of F.D.R. as POTUS in 1933 would prove to be the Constantine moment (or Aśoka moment) for Left-liberalism, marking the conquest of America by Left-liberalism. He would turn the U.S. constitution into a nominal piece of paper worth nothing more than lip-service, essentially replacing it with the “New Deal”—which not only legitimized left-liberal economic policy but also afforded a massive asymmetry of power in favour of the new Left-liberal conquerors (practically enforced by measures like court-packing and the creation of the bureaucratic state). Keynesian economics would be used as a blanket rationalization for any and all left-liberal economic policy (even if directly contradictory to it). In Britain too, Left-liberalism would ascend—though gradually, in typical British fashion.
B.1.4Nehruvian/Fabian socialism and third-worldism
Late Colonial India got pretty-much one-shotted by Left-liberalism, conquered far more thoroughly than the U.S. or Britain. I can see three reasons for this:
The Indian elite was quite small at the time, and so there was less to conquer
Gandhi, Nehru and co were the only leaders allowed to end up on national media by the British, essentially groomed to be their successors.
Indians are, like Whites of Western European origin, inclined toward suicidal generosity (section 3.5) though unlike the whites we cannot even afford it.
Thus when the British Rāj fell, India was handed over to the Nehruvian Left-liberal Rāj—specifically of the Fabian socialist, pro-Islamist and Third-Worldist strain. The damaging consequences of this on our nation’s economy and culture are well-known need not be detailed. Western Continental Europe, too, would quickly be conquered by Left-liberalism in the post-war period.
I’ve been increasingly realizing that “everything the British did cynically, the Nehruvians did ideologically”.
The British were favorable to Muslims (building out West Punjab with canals, preferentially hiring Muslims after the 1857 Rebellion, etc.) because they were seen as less rebellious, and because larger Muslim influence prevented a unified Hindu block of resistance. Congress did the same thing out of secular ideology.
The British stifled Indian industry because it threatened their rule; Congress stifled it out of socialist ideology.
The British stoked up caste divisions as a form of divide-and-rule, especially supported anti-Brahmin movements, explicitly stating that it was necessary to destroy the status of traditional elites in order to establish their rule. Congress does it out of left-wing belief in ahistorical oppression narratives.
The British ran a White Elephant economy: building up a few good areas and letting the rest of the country languish in poverty, because that’s all they needed for the few Brits stationed in India. Congress did the same: boasting about building four universities and two good trains over 70 years and scoffing at the massive scale at which Modi rolls out trains and roads and ports and airports and toilets and electricity.
The British fired on civilians at Jallianwala Bagh to shut down threats to their rule. Congress allowed terrorists and rioters to fire at Indians, out of pusillanimity and secularism—and they themselves (in 1948 and 1984) and their allies (Ayodhya 1990, Marichjhapi 1979) did so out of anti-Hindu ideology.
And then finally we have the general pusillanimity of Congress rule: whether in defending against terror attacks or in refusing various territories or even a UN seat ... on that, even the British have no analog.
—a great man.
B.1.5Post-WWII West: the Long March
What was really most impressive about the rise of the Left-liberal Rāj in the West is how it happened under everyone’s noses, without even making itself apparent as a conquering ideology, just presenting itself as obvious Truth and Morality and Progress.But unlike Left-absolutism, it did not instantly attain total hegemony in the Western world overnight—gradual, Śāntipūrvak, recursive revolution is Left-liberalism’s characteristic modus operandi. In FDR’s time, most of the media had been pro-business and right-wing or centrist; academia was quite balanced in the 1950s, etc. Yet over the next few decades the Left would steadily increase their dominance over the elements of sovereignty: academia running apologia for communism (and creating atrocity literature like “McCarthyism” for the little pushback that they received for it from Americans), various social revolutions with their share of terrorism, rapes and total social degeneration that would be brushed under the rug. The social mileu—or Ideological Aether—in the West that once fawned over industrial, scientific and technological advancements, would divert its attention to caring about various international social movements and competitively acting like retards.
Ultimately, this was all because people “stopped really believing in the Old Gods (Classical liberalism and its more moderate variants in europe)”. Which left a power vacuum in the realm of ideology (and this is also kinda why American Republicans tried to fill that vacuum with Christianity during the Cold War, but that could never really work)—no regime motivated to be vigilant for threats.Still, the hegemony of the Left in this period was not nearly as strong as it is now: the most obvious example being the Cold War, where foreign policy was largely anti-communist. Of course, this too was at risk, as may be observed in Reagan’s 1964 speech “A Time for Choosing”3 or certain CIA documents from the 1990s decrying Hindu nationalism4.
Also worth commenting on is the apparent “shift” in the Western Left’s focus from economic socialism to “identity politics”. Some economic socialists have attributed this to CIA conspiracy (citing examples like Gloria Steinem who was an anti-communist Left-liberal), and many on the right have also adopted this talking point in order to try and “own” the identitarian Left (e.g. “corporations invented wokeness to distract from working-class struggles”!)—this is rather counter-productive for the right, since economic socialism is also very bad.In reality, it was just a factional struggle within the Left, and the fundamental reason for the increased focus on identity politics was not CIA intervention but:
“Obvious” class differences in the U.S. had disappeared (think e.g. the Warhol quote about everyone drinking the same Coke5) so the U.S. proletariat did not see themselves as a hopeless slave class that needed the Left to worship it.
The racial history of the U.S. and the colonial history of Europe were universally condemned by the Western elite, so they provided a much more uncontroversial plank for the Left to build on—it would face less resistance, because the people felt too “guilty” about this history to resist and wanted to be on the right side of history.
Left-wing economic ideas had already become ingrained in the culture and would sustain themselves without active intellectual support—thus, broadening the Omnicause was seen as more valuable.
Yet, a movement for a totally socialist economic system have faced much more resistance as its empirical demonstration in the Eastern bloc was visible for all to see. Thus it made sense for them to bide their time on that and wait until the word had become less toxic, as would start happening in the late 2000s and 2010s.
In any case, today it’s not Leftists that are CIA agents but the CIA that is a Leftist agent.
B.1.6Deradicalization of the Communist World
One of the ironies of history is that late Marxist-Leninist states became much more normal and conservative societies because the entire social mileu that generates leftism - radical academics/intellectuals, professional activists, trade unions - disappeared or were liquidated.
Unlike Left-liberals in the West, it did not keep up with the various new social revolutions, retaining an older, more Faustian outlook on the world compared to the social transformations in the West. One reason for this is that unlike Left-liberalism which had no fixed doctrine, the rigid “doctrinaire” nature of communism prevented it from adapting and generalizing its ideology to changing social circumstances that Marx had not foreseen. ShazCoder gives another explanation: in the brutal authoritarianism required by their uncompromising nature, they purged the social classes that generate leftism in the first place: radical academics/intellectuals, professional activists, trade unions. Thus, Left-liberalism’s relative “softness” can be considered a patch to this “revolution eats its own” problem found in Left-absolutism.
In a bid to “prove” their ideology and generate the wealth necessary to spread it far and wide, they became obsessively passionate about building industrial and military might, something that had never been core to the communist ideology proper (indeed, this is why you will not see modern communists passionate about industrial maximalism). While the Americans were also passionate about winning the Cold War, this was restricted to military and space innovations; everything else was already operating at a high efficiency as it was done by the free market.
Ultimately these developments are responsible for the “based” picture people have of autocratic communism. It is not, as right-wingers say, that the Soviets are the OGs and Indian or Western communists are the rip-offs—no, our repulsive communists are the OGs, the Soviets became based and industrial-maximalism-pilled due to happenstance.
These developments would eventually lead to the weakening of the fanaticism that is so characteristic to the ideology. The economic system in the Soviet world would, of course remain socialist, and economic stagnation would eventually set in in the 1970s—causing people to simply start losing faith in communism, eventually leading to the fall of the communist empire in 1991.
China, too, would lose faith in communism—but unlike the Soviets they simply transitioned in the 1970s to capitalist economics and Chinese nationalism (while remaining nominally communist), resulting in an economic miracle.
B.1.7Dumb critiques of communists “from the left”
This phenomenon—of the communist world exhausting its leftism—is fundamentally the reason for the apparent split between democratic socialism (Left-liberalism in the West) and autocratic socialism (Left-absolutism in the Soviet Union), and also why so many critiques of communism are so dumb, like “real communism is an utopian fantasy”, or focusing on the authoritarian nature of these regimes and saying “they became what they swore to destroy”/“some animals became more equal than others”.In reality, no: communism is not “good in theory”, the theory is stupid. “Real communism” without an authoritarian government, where all animals really are equal and property is socially-owned so that economic transactions are made democratically or anarchically, would be far, far worse than any communist regime (the Left-liberal/Nehruvian Rāj in India after all practised pretty much the democratic-socialist ideal, and we know how that turned out).
These critiques were developed by democratic socialists like Orwell who disapproved of the methods of the autocratic socialists but not their goals—and the same critiques have been inherited by right-wingers from the Leftist Ideological Aether. The dampening of leftism in the Soviet Union had vindicated the Left-liberal approach over the uncompromising approach: it would not cause “revolution eats its own”, and it did not require the singular pursuit of economic and military might to spread its ideology.
B.1.8A Victory of Kautilyan proportions
2300 years ago, confronted with two Great Empires that had never tasted defeat, the mighty Nandas from the East with their immense wealth and their 4000 iron-clad elephants, and the world-conquering Greeks from the West under Alexander—a man named Kautilya and his protege Candragupta, born to no ancestral wealth nor of any storied ancient line, out-maneuvered both and sired the greatest empire in the history of the subcontinent.Once again in the politics of the Republic of India would this pattern replicate.
The 1970s in India—specifically the Emergency—was essentially a less violent theatre of the Cold War: a tussle between Soviet-backed “autocratic socialists” (Indira Gandhi) and CIA-backed “democratic socialists”6 (Left wing of the Janata Party) ... and one little group, the right-wing Bhāratīya Jana Saṅgh, the only voice actually caring for India’s own national interests—representing a sovereign, Indian ideology (Hindutva).
This third group, with no great power on Earth backing it, would eventually prevail in the long run.
This is the quintessential Kautilyan Victory, characteristic of the Hindoo race. When an unstoppable force meets an immovable object, the priest-king is born to snatch victory of the jaws of both. When the Sky wages war on the Earth, the Hindoo race springs from the banks of the eternal floods bursting down from the abode of the gods.
But I get ahead of myself.
That third group would become the Bhāratīya Janatā Party in the 1980s—parallelly, Indian industrialists would take more direct interest in influencing economic policy, the hold of the Nehruvian Rāj would weaken and the ratio of Indian to world economy would finally start growing for the first time in over 1480 years.
This gradual weakening of the Left-liberal Rāj in India from the 1980s onward may be explained by the following factors:
Disrupting the consensus culture is much easier in an economy playing catch-up—as millions of new people, not thoroughly conquered by the ideology like the existing elites—rise into the middle-classes and elites for the first time.
Left-liberalism, while totally dominant over government, had not fully been able to conquer the hearts and minds of India’s patriotic middle-classes.
Plain misgovernance by the Congress administrations under Indira and Rajiv Gandhi, without the halo effect Nehru enjoyed as the first prime minister of post-British India.
There is nothing that quite mimics the bloodsport and realpolitik of Game of Thrones like Indian politics. Hereditary houses and regional satraps are now collapsing as a dragon-bellied leviathan engulfs India in an unending fire. From the ashes of the old guard spawn new elites eager to stamp themselves into the saga of the saffron march. A peerless leader of ordinary origin puts storied royalty to the sword as internal rivals are bashed by his hilt and banished to the hills.
It is comforting to think of the election of Modi and the partial liberation (from Left-liberal possession) as a decolonization of India from the Left-liberal Rāj. This would be cope, and premature celebration. The key thing to remember is that Left-liberal dominance is not binary. It may be tempting to think of 26 May 2014 as India’s “Independence Day”—it is not. While “classical” institutions such as the film industry and english-language news media have been liberated to some extent, the Left still maintains dominance in humanities academia, social media and civil society. Most crucially, we are very much dependent on the “international” information ecosystem (things like Wikipedia, search engines and social media) which we are hardly in a position to liberate, and we are subject to immense international pressure and regime change attempts from the West (which will only increase once the current “Recession in Leftism” ends, i.e. when Democrats are back in full force).
Hindutva is still not the dominant ideology of our institutions after more than a decade in power, such is [the leftists’] hold on our institutions and polity. All of our national debates wrt society, economy and culture still have overwhelming leftíst undertone.
I wrote back in May 2024 that we (Indian RWs) had not yet faced the final boss—that “as India grows, the empire’s attention will turn towards us, and that battle will be nothing like we’ve ever seen.”. I think the 2024 election results suggest that this has now begun: that Congress and the left-wing ecosystem in India is now under the direct tutelage of the Western left. We may be in the big leagues now.
B.1.9The end of the end of history
Eventually for the earlier mentioned reasons, the Soviet Union would collapse in 1991. This complete defeat of Left-absolutism—that too while America was led by a streak of Republican presidents—would be seen as a victory of capitalism over communism. Initially this forced Left-liberals to lean heavily on their “good cop”/“liberal” face, presenting it in the form of “Third Way” centrist politics. Third Way politics would be successful, as would competent economic right-wing politics under the likes of Gingrich the Great.
The seemingly de-politicized nature of the 90s and the apparent third way consensus—the “End of History”—was, of course, a mirage: or rather a feint created by the Left to lull its enemies into a false sense of security.With the enemy at the gates defeated completely, the West would lose its sense of purpose. The spirit of anti-communism, nationalism and a desire to win against communism in science and technology—had long been an obstacle to Left-liberal radicalism, and it was now gone. The rise of Islamic Jihad would threaten a return of some nationalistic sentiment, but the Left would diligently manufacture anti-war sentiment and run apologia for Islam to redirect the people’s ire toward the Bush administration.
The best illustration of what Americans’ worldview had been transformed into, was how the 2008 election was perceived. All criticisms of Obama or his policies were condemned as “racist”7, and millions of people who didn’t even have any ideological agreement with Obama (on his retarded healthcare policy or whatever) would vote for him simply because a black person being elected as U.S. president was just seen as a “historic milestone in the fight against racism”—a fitting happy ending to a movie.
Americans no longer understood their history in terms of its classical liberal revolution, the creation of the modern world during the BVILDed age, the various celebrated entrepreneurs and scientific geniuses or the marvellous advancements in science and technology. Instead, the main plotline of their history—and indeed all history—was the fight against racism and various real and imaginary social injustices—and all those BVILD-pilled stories would be reduced to either capitalist evils (by radical leftists) or convenient cultural memories to retrofit some female or black hero to (by girlboss liberals).Western civilization did win. The problem is that a very specific political faction and historical tradition ended up being the chief medium through which it came about and how the west itself is understood.
It’s like being a Arab Christian or Druze in 11th century. You won but it is bittersweet (at best).
Or perhaps a much better analogy is being a Russian nationalist in the USSR during the mid-60s when it’s relative power was at it’s peak.
B.1.10Wokeness and the Left-Islam alliance
This elevation of Islam as a Left-liberal client group would be perhaps the most important and underrated development in Left-liberal politics in the West in the 21st century. While Left-liberalism in India had always adored Islam for the atrocity-filled and depraved history of Islamism in India, this was not a universal phenomenon: Leftists and Islamists had often fought each other in the Soviet Union and Southeast Asia. Left-liberals in the West had a mildly positive predisposition (because of an American terrorist organization called the Nation of Islam), but not nearly the same devotion toward Muslims as those in India had. By flying planes into the World Trade Center and killing thousands of people, Jihad proved herself worthy of the Rāj’s love.
Conservatives would turn into directionless virtue-signallers and pussies engaging in useless intellectual masturbatory “debates” on National Review—the reaction from their base to this uselessness would be Trump, brash and promising ruthless effectiveness in executing what everyone else had been talking about for decades. In his first term, Trump would turn out to be an unexpectedly effective president on economic and foreign policy—honestly the most effective right-wing president in terms of policy since the rise of the Left-liberal Rāj, but it did nothing to fight the Left’s power and only motivated their base more. Online censorship, “cancel culture” (which is honestly a misnomer as it suggests something exclusively targeted toward celebrities and journalists—no, the target was regular people who would have their jobs and businesses taken from them for speaking out against the Rāj) and “wokeness” would all reach untold heights. The Left would pull every dirty trick to remove Trump from the White House—the most notable example being when they deliberately delayed the COVID-19 vaccine, killing untold numbers of people, to prevent Trump (whose “Operation Warp Speed” was responsible for the vaccine’s development) from benefiting from it politically during the 2020 election8—and they would succeed, replacing him with a decaying vegetable.
The Biden administration was the Platonic ideal of Left-liberal good-cop-bad-cop. A “moderate” “liberal” figurehead who was literally an incapacitated vegetable, with an administration staffed completely by deranged and abnormal leftists, while very seriously pretending that the vegetable was actually in charge. A continuous stream of left-populist economic policies and Islamist-captured foreign policy9, while Leftist activists would riot complaining about a Biden “betrayal”, seriously portraying it as a centrist or even right-wing and Zionist administration—thus pushing the Overton window to the Left.
To provide an example of just how bad the Islamist influence on the Democratic Party has gotten: by all accounts, the most suitable candidate for Kamala Harris’s VP pick in 2024 was Josh Shapiro. Universally popular governor of Pennsylvania, recommended by her election analysts like Nate Silver and Lakshya Jain (technocrat-LARPer good-cop types) and by prediction markets (which gave her a conditional probability of winning of 55% if she picked him, higher than any other VP choice). And that is what everyone expected—prediction markets gave a nearly 80% chance of her picking him. Yet he wasn’t—for the only reason that he was Jewish. Not even a particularly more pro-Israel Jew than Tim Walz, just ... a Jew. All for Muslims, who are electorally still a constituency of only 1.2% in the U.S.
Wokeness is merely one offensive
Many on the right think that wokeness is some special trend that took off in the 2010s—in reality, it is the continuation of the long rise of Left-liberalism over the 20th century. “Wokeness is dead”, even if true, would only mean that this empire lost one particular offensive battle. Every new leftist attack (e.g. wokeness) appears as something new and unprecedented, because the ones of the past have already been won by leftists, sanitized in the history they have written and established as consensus by appointing palatable liberals to govern them.This is less pronounced in India where at least the patriotic middle-classes do not buy into leftist narratives sanitizing Lalu Prasad Yadav or the License Raj or the various atrocities committed by Congress/Pakistan against Hindus (although many do still believe blood-libel hoaxes perpetrated by Congress such as “saffron terror” or Leftist hoaxes about the Indian army in Kashmir). But if you dig into the history of leftist social movements in the West, you will learn the horrendous reality of terrorism and rape-rings and Islamism in the Civil Rights movements, or the pedophilia promoted during the Sexual Revolution10.
Time and again you see this pattern: leftists make up an obviously stupid idea11, right-wingers spend 10 years “debunking” it to finally achieve a narrative victory, and leftists move on to the next thing, generated by the same dumb ideology and mental processes that brought you the first one.
Meanwhile, tons of stupid regulation passed, money spent on grifters and irreparable cultural damage. All the “sensible liberals” like Ezra Klein and Matt Yglesias agree those were dumb hysterias, without ever bothering to reflect on the dumb meatbags on their thoraxes that produced it.
—On the offensive battles “lost” by the Rāj.
B.1.11Musk, Jews and the Wokeness Recession
The current narrative is that “Wokeness is dead”—and that the authoritarian overreaches of Left-liberalism, especially during the COVID lockdowns, are responsible for it as they permanently destroyed trust in the institutions. This is wrong on both counts:Wokeness is not dead: at best there is a temporary recession in Left-liberalism.
It was not public displeasure that caused this recession, but (1) Elon Musk’s conversion to right-wing ideology, his purchase of Twitter and his influence on the tech industry and (2) the 10/7 shock for Jewish elites. It was Musk and Jews, not retard glory-hunting groypers, who won this battle.
Cracks are already beginning to form in this cope since the election of a literal Communist Islamist as the mayor of New York City. The following essay in section B.2.1 was published on 23 June 2025, when this cope was far more widespread as consensus.