New Left vs. Old Left

[Petr]

On the Old Phora, I had this thread, the theme of which was the pathetic decadence of the modern first-world Left, and how once upon a time, the militant Left actually had some standards:

Portlandia: Traveling Into the Depths of Leftist Decadence - The Phora

"In Seattle I visited Left Bank Books, a communist/anarchist bookstore. The commissars of the Soviet Union would have liquidated the entire store given that the bookstore’s view of the People’s Revolution seemed more based in deviant sexual behaviors than fighting for workers rights. The modern Left in Seattle and Portland has become so feminine that I almost wish for the old masculine Soviet communist spirit. While Soviet banners are displayed, I doubt these folks know that the Soviet Union would probably be called “fascist” by the American Left because they interned homosexuals and purged the Jews from positions of power due to their corrupting forces. This modern form of American Leftism is based on murdering the unborn, sexual degeneracy, laziness, and homosexuality. The ideals and passions of the past Leftist movements are all gone, swept away by the forces of hedonism and modernity."

In the past, the Communists might have been a nasty bunch of sons of bitches, but they could also be capable of great deeds that the modern-day Antifa dregs could never do, like the defence of Stalingrad and the Vietcong guerrilla movement for example.

Here we have an example of how the defenders of "Old Left" are annoyed by the pretensions of first-world Shitlibs:

 

[Petr]

Here is an example of this "New Left vs. Old Left" conflict in its early phase - Bertrand Russell was a typical deracinated, decadent Western proto-shitlib intellectual, who criticized the traditional mores of Western culture (especially Christianity; Russell is still a hero to fedora-wearing village atheists), but when the Bolsheviks started their radical social experiment, Russell got scared and distanced himself from it.

LENIN IN 1920

"willing to inflict widespread misery" In 1920 the British philosopher Bertrand Russell, who believed himself a "communist," we...

affirmativeright.blogspot.com

In 1920 the British philosopher Bertrand Russell, who believed himself a "communist," went to Russia and encountered Lenin. In Lenin he perceived the cold, brutal type of the "Eurasian man," deceptively down-to-earth but lacking much of the higher sensibilities and affinities that Western dilettantes sought in Leftism.

In other words, to put it bluntly, Lenin was not "artsy-fartsy" enough for Russell's bourgeois-socialist tastes. This might have actually bothered egocentric Russell more than Lenin's cruel deeds. And for all his evil, Lenin was admittedly a determined man of action (a "bold, bad man," as Victorians might have put it), and thus something that geekish Russell could not really appreciate.

What is more, Russell subscribed philosophically to mentally and morally paralyzing, neo-Pyrrhonian ultra-scepticism:

http://www.christianciv.com/Atheists_Confess.htm

Academic philosophers, ever since the time of Parmenides, have believed that the world is a unity. . . . The most fundamental of my intellectual beliefs is that this is rubbish. I think the universe is all spots and jumps, without any unity, without continuity, without coherence or orderliness or any of the other properties that governesses love. Indeed, there is little but prejudice and habit to be said for the view that there is a world at all. . . .

Bertrand Russell, The Scientific Outlook, p. 98.

Seeing this, right-wing traditionalists might actually agree (at least partly) with this judgment that Leon Trotsky pronounced on proto-shitlibs like Russell, who feel only corrosive scepticism towards the world, and nothing positive and constructive:

https://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/works/britain/problems/ch04.htm

Russell is a latter-day enlightener who has inherited from the old enlightenment not so much its enthusiasm as its idealistic prejudices. Russell is a sceptic through and through. He counterposes the peaceful and gradual methods of science and technology to the violent methods of revolution. But he believes just as little in the salutary force of scientific thought as he does in the force of revolutionary action. In his polemic with Nearing he attempts under the cover of pseudo-socialist phrases to belittle, discredit and compromise the revolutionary initiative of the Russian proletariat. In his polemic against the biologist Holden he makes a mockery of scientific-technical optimism. In his pamphlet Icarus he openly expresses his conviction that the best outcome would be the destruction of all our civilization. And this man, worm-eaten through and through with scepticism, egoistic, reclusive and aristocratic, considers himself called upon to give advice to the British proletariat and to warn it against our communist intrigues! The British working class is entering a period when it requires the greatest belief in its mission and its strength. To gain this there is no need for any stimulants like religion or idealist morality. It is necessary and sufficient that the British proletariat understands the position of its country in relation to the position of the whole world, that it has become clear about the rottenness of the ruling classes and that it has thrown out of its way the careerists, quacks and those bourgeois sceptics who imagine themselves to be socialists only because they from time to time vomit in the atmosphere of rotting bourgeois society.​

 

[Petr]

Also in Mexico, the decadent bourgeois Left can be counted to support the neoliberal globalist-capitalist model, and the concomitant American imperialism, when it really matters:







Evo Morales has made this undeniably correct point, that only genuinely anti-imperialist Left can make "the powers that be" nervous:

 

[lifetradition2]

Forgive me if I am not as wellread or knowledgeable in "right" info & ideas (& instinct) but just some minor comments:

I think most everyone in the modern world has pretty poor standards, except for some nationalists who at least seem more decent and except for some christians (though not all/many christians). I have seen/heard and experienced some things which I would never have believed this regime and people could be so outright lying and mean and cruel about and yet they all act as if it is all right and reasonable and normal. Of course the "left" are against all boundaries, borders, barriers, races, nations, Gods, so they are going to be more like beasts (not natural ones though), and the liberals mis-believe that all humans are naturally good (except when they attack "bludgers", "mentally ill", "cirminals", "nazis/fascists", Putin, "Islamic terrorists", etc). Hence the abortion activism, gay activism, etc. And of course we are in the last decadent decline and fall Winter phase of out Western Germanic-Roman high culture (much like the 4th "pale" horseman in Revelation 6). Every movement also declines after its founders & their circle deaths.
The western elite have also been pushing all this dirty stuff like promiscuity everywhere for years too.

I find the "left" and "right" usages of our "right" to be somewhat confusing because of the difference in usage to how the regime and "left" use the word. I understand that to the right "left" is like artificial, modern, revolutionary, socio-economic, globalist, intellectual as opposed to the "right" who are traditional, natural, national, instinctive etc. (And even then it is not so simiple because the right is a dialectic synthesis of thesis and antithesis/heretical/dark, while the left is just dualistic left alone without right.) But when this western world regime claim they are centre/middle between two extremes of "far left" and "far right" it gets all confusing. The "right" is actually a middle/third way balance between this regimes "left" and "right", or is "off the spectrum".
I find similar confusion with the left hand path and right hand path different usages in different Satanism circles like COS, TOS, Satanic Reds, etc. In that scenario the "right" are left hand path (heretical, dark, synthesis).

Personally I just see the main common enemy as just globalism.
I am always amazed at modern nationalist movements still posting so much on "leftists" seemingly communists as I don't see any much around here nowadays and it seems obsolete since the Iron Curtain fell. Unless they mean globalist leftists. Though the PM here Ardern is an "international socialist" and I guess some people could also say they similarly thought the right (nationalists) are also obsolete since WW2.
This globalist regime is a cunning clever combination of "right" and "left", eg private schools for elite/rich, public schools for poor/plebs. Fluoridated water for plebs, unfluoridated water for elite/rich. Two parties on "left" and "right" (fake choice). Suburban subdivision slums for poor/plebs, private mansions for rich.

I'm also in Satanic Reds / Social Realists, but they are not leftist as such despite their name.

NZ nationalist Bolton once proposed a synthesis of nationalist new right with anarchism which was interesting. There is a National Anarchist movement but I found them a little bit to occultist.

 

[Petr]

 

[surenot]

i thot the basis of leftist thinking was to sacrifice moral standards for the common good. Isnt that what old left principal is? turn a blind eye to certain moral norms for the common good? I've read locke and hobbes and found rousseau to be interesting. Modern leftism is almost a misnomer, it's literal insanity. This left vs right is hardly good vs bad. What happened to truth?

 

[lifetradition2]

i thot the basis of leftist thinking was to sacrifice moral standards for the common good. Isnt that what old left principal is? turn a blind eye to certain moral norms for the common good? I've read locke and hobbes and found rousseau to be interesting. Modern leftism is almost a misnomer, it's literal insanity. This left vs right is hardly good vs bad. What happened to truth?

My knowledge may not be as good as others here but my thought/feeling is that while it is true that the modern left tends to be for new/artificial/revolutionary as opposed to old/traditional/natural/moral, and to favour such things as abortion, gay rights, immigration, etc and generally are against borders/boundaries/barriers & nations/races & gods and classes, it is not necessarily the main original meaning of words/concepts like socialism etc. The left is the side of the heart (biologically and figuratively). Socialism, democracy etc was in favour of standing up for rights of social demos people and reforming the corrupt upper (& middle) class(es), and opposing artificial socio-economic discrimination/limitations/oppression (as artificial ones as opposed to natural ones, though they came to see even the natural ones as being supposedly artificial). Hence even the nazis appreciated that socialism/republicanism had some uses like removing the decadent monarchies etc. The social was an important component of national socialism even though it is not the social that is the determining factor but the "national" (racial/personality). A picture I use is that communism pulls down from below, capitalism pushes down from above. Man is a social animal/creature, and there is such a thing as society and being anti-social. So it is a balance of national/right and social/left. Greeks said the best systems were monarchy, aristocracy & democracy, and the worst are tyranny, oligarchy & ochlocracy.

 

[Petr]

 

[Petr]

 

[Petr]

If the radical Greenies would begin any serious manner promoting "Red" or Old Left ideas like this, they would soon find their corporate support cut off:

 

[kanethenotorious]

Old left: Support the hourly worker against the white collar executive.
New left: Support liberal social causes and "cancel" racists.

 

[Petr]

Another reminder that Old Left (at least if we are talking about Marxists) will inevitably transform into New Left sooner or later - the Stalinist "Thermidor" was just a temporary aberration, as Communism could not consistently embrace conservative values without ceasing to be Communism:

 

[Petr]

In related news, Cuban birthrates are in the toilet and their population has started to shrink, even without emigration:

Demographics of Cuba - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Lord Osmund de Ixabert]

Forgive me if I am not as wellread or knowledgeable in "right" info & ideas (& instinct) but just some minor comments:

I think most everyone in the modern world has pretty poor standards, except for some nationalists who at least seem more decent and except for some christians (though not all/many christians). I have seen/heard and experienced some things which I would never have believed this regime and people could be so outright lying and mean and cruel about and yet they all act as if it is all right and reasonable and normal. Of course the "left" are against all boundaries, borders, barriers, races, nations, Gods, so they are going to be more like beasts (not natural ones though), and the liberals mis-believe that all humans are naturally good (except when they attack "bludgers", "mentally ill", "cirminals", "nazis/fascists", Putin, "Islamic terrorists", etc). Hence the abortion activism, gay activism, etc. And of course we are in the last decadent decline and fall Winter phase of out Western Germanic-Roman high culture (much like the 4th "pale" horseman in Revelation 6). Every movement also declines after its founders & their circle deaths.
The western elite have also been pushing all this dirty stuff like promiscuity everywhere for years too.

I find the "left" and "right" usages of our "right" to be somewhat confusing because of the difference in usage to how the regime and "left" use the word. I understand that to the right "left" is like artificial, modern, revolutionary, socio-economic, globalist, intellectual as opposed to the "right" who are traditional, natural, national, instinctive etc. (And even then it is not so simiple because the right is a dialectic synthesis of thesis and antithesis/heretical/dark, while the left is just dualistic left alone without right.) But when this western world regime claim they are centre/middle between two extremes of "far left" and "far right" it gets all confusing. The "right" is actually a middle/third way balance between this regimes "left" and "right", or is "off the spectrum".
I find similar confusion with the left hand path and right hand path different usages in different Satanism circles like COS, TOS, Satanic Reds, etc. In that scenario the "right" are left hand path (heretical, dark, synthesis).

Personally I just see the main common enemy as just globalism.
I am always amazed at modern nationalist movements still posting so much on "leftists" seemingly communists as I don't see any much around here nowadays and it seems obsolete since the Iron Curtain fell. Unless they mean globalist leftists. Though the PM here Ardern is an "international socialist" and I guess some people could also say they similarly thought the right (nationalists) are also obsolete since WW2.
This globalist regime is a cunning clever combination of "right" and "left", eg private schools for elite/rich, public schools for poor/plebs. Fluoridated water for plebs, unfluoridated water for elite/rich. Two parties on "left" and "right" (fake choice). Suburban subdivision slums for poor/plebs, private mansions for rich.

I'm also in Satanic Reds / Social Realists, but they are not leftist as such despite their name.

NZ nationalist Bolton once proposed a synthesis of nationalist new right with anarchism which was interesting. There is a National Anarchist movement but I found them a little bit to occultist.

Just the sort of individual we need on this forum. National Anarchism -- one of the five or six classic palaeo-phoraean thought-schools.

 

[Petr]

Yet another example that "the only good Communist is a bad Communist." In other words, only those Reds who are "deviating" rather seriously from the orthodox Marxist party line can have any sort of decent views. And if such people follow those decent sentiments logically and far enough, they will cease to be Communists:

 

[Petr]

But Ben Norton is himself a hypocrite - he supports the Iranian government against its "color revolution" protesters, because he knows that Iran is a vital piece in the anti-imperialist front. So pragmatic political considerations force him to accept these reactionary allies against American imperialism.

And yet, all cartoonish exaggerations aside, Iran is indeed ruled by chauvinistic theocrats. Norton simply chooses to stay silent about this blatant contradiction between his "progressive" views and those of pious Iranians who are resisting the "Great Satan" and its values - like faggot rights.

 

[Petr]

Back in the 19th century, when the working class movements arose, they were often connected to Christian churches. (Connections like that made men like Nietzsche suspect that the whole Leftist phenomenon was nothing but secularized Christianity.)

But by the 20th century, Socialist movements became more and more brazenly Marxist and atheistic. Not everywhere, though - we can see that in places like Bolivia, Leftists (and "Trotskyists" at that!) can still show some respect for religion:

Bolivian Teachers Protest Against Sex Education - Kawsachun News

Teachers’ unions have joined forces with the Evangelical church in Bolivia to protest against the government’s new curriculum. The two

kawsachunnews.com

Teachers’ unions have joined forces with the Evangelical church in Bolivia to protest against the government’s new curriculum. The two main points of contention are the introduction of sexual education and references to the 2019 coup as part of the history curriculum.

The urban teacher’s confederation, led by the Trotskyist ‘POR’ party, says that it will boycott the curriculum and will teach the old one.

 

[Lord Osmund de Ixabert]

Most intriguing indeed. I must say, thy words, each meticulousy selected with scrupulous circumspection & exactitude, serves to impart thy thoughts in a manner consonant with their profound import, granting a glimpse into the internal intricacies of of a well-ordered intellect.

 

[Petr]

 

[Petr]

"NO! France will not be a colonised country!” — French Communist anti-American poster, 1950, showing the American octopus with dollar symbol eyes invading France.