A very well written, cogent analysis of the radical left, and why they are so resistant to reason, or logic

I watched Tucker Carlson interview the author, and decided to give it a read- it is excellent and to the point.


That actually explains a few things. But it nails one thing in particular:

"Because one’s good moral standing can never be guaranteed, the best way to maintain it is to attack the moral standing of others. "

That fits the loonie American leftie/proggie/SJW assholes with perfection.


Like I’ve been saying:

Commentators have accurately noted how social justice seems to take the form of a religion. This captures the meaning and fulfilment I found in protests and occupations. It also captures how, outside of these harrowing festivals, everyday life in radical communities is mundane but pious. As a radical activist, much of my time was devoted to proselytizing.

1 Like

That’s a really good article, thanks for posting it.

He’s still a bit blind. I offer that the current liberals are the same as what he describes as radicals; the difference is one of degree and less of a difference each day. Liberals are weak radicals with commitment issues.

1 Like

they realize the immensity of the cruelty and malevolence in the world. They reject a society that tolerates such suffering. They sanctify justice as their telos.

That summarize it quite nicely.

A few additions:
They dislike the reality they have to pay their own way in this world which includes healthcare, their education, the lack of ability to ensure a good paying job, a home to live in, etc.
It could be applied to almost everyone on the left excluding their wealthy elite.

1 Like

Plus 5 points for “telos”. Well done.

Liberals consider it expedient to align themselves with people even THEY think are radicals. They do it believing that the radicals will eventually be marginalized that the more centrist views will prevail.
But it’s a “deal with the devil” and they should read up on how these things pan out in history. The radicals will eventually devour the moderates. But until that happens, yes… they seem to be the same.

I think it’s already happening and the first ones to lose their voice are the white, liberal males. The ones who do most of the whining.

You been pushing this theory that it was a religion for em for last couple year…kudos for being ahead of the came.

It’s ironic that their faith is based on anti capitalism on one hand but willing support all big goverment social programs giving out free healthcare and tuition etc.

Instead of developing a relationship to God and a recognition of one’s own imperfection, we wanted our non-anarchist families and friends to develop their “analysis” and recognize their complicity in the evil of capitalism.

Also interesting part is the abuse and who is attracted to their form of racialism. It’s extremely predatory nature of their faith, both as being an abuser and being abused.

Edit to add, good threat Wazoo.

Secular puritanism is no less a religion than Puritanism was.

Yeah… that’s true. Some submit. But I’m sure that some say… “wtf happened?”

Interesting read.

The description of these radicals reminded me of a joke I sometimes relate about hipsters: that they are such strong individualists that you can hardly tell them apart.

I know it isn’t just some rampant fear of being seen as different that informs the astonishing conformity of the far Left, and the article seems to try to address these.

I’m okay that I’m not polluted by this radicalism, it is far better for me that I’m not. As for comprehending it, I’ll respond as Terence did: I’m human, nothing human is alien to me.

Still, in the waning moments of the piece there is what I perceive as a huge stumble when she writes: “Young adults often become radicals after they realize the immensity of the cruelty and malevolence in the world.”

Who does she think these radicals in the West really are? They are not, to borrow from Mel Brooks, dumb scum who are so poor that they don’t even have their own language, just these outrageous accents … no, they are the pampered indoctrinated, educated and maleducated, whose outrageous accent is a language of radicalism that is entirely of their own collective making (the language alone would enforce conformity to some measure).

The sympathy and empathy that the writer at last wants to attribute to radicals are too often those where people assume suffering and injustice by proxy. Those who have never suffered claim the suffering of those who have … and they use it as an excuse to engage in an ideology that the folks who once may have suffered were probably too poor, too focused on making a living, to even bother to entertain.


Radicalism is a luxury only the bored wealthy can afford. The rest of us are too busy making a living.

It’s interesting to me to note that the radicalism off of campuses was characterized as a watered down version.

It gave me reason to think of the old distinction between the Greek Sophists and the Grammarians. Perhaps the Sophists (who tried to teach virtue and excellence though rhetoric) bear some resemblance to earlier radical cliques but on campus they make their radicals the way that the Grammarians taught ethics and morality: by rote.

Maybe in the wake of “educators” like Ayers, of the likes of the Cultural Marxists who wanted people incapable of sustaining a civilization and nation, the earlier haphazard methods she may have known are not efficient enough to bring about the intended results. They need copies, not even similar originals, they need, to be blunt, what some have started to call NPCs.

Mass produced radicals would probably look watered down to cottage industry produced radicals.

I wish it wasn’t comedy but there’s been recent polls where people said they weren’t sure how to change a lightbulb.

If you know Nietzsche but can’t change a light bulb, you might be a Social Justice Warrior.


What is NPC?

NPC, non-player character in RPG terms, though I did try to make my NPCs less interchangeable as my game mastering days advanced, is a meme that speaks to the supposed interchangeability of some on the Left, that if you’ve heard one on any particular topic then you’ve heard “them all”.

You may have seen it expressed as pictures of MSM types with their faces turned into simple line drawn characters and repeating “orange man bad”.

Ah so. Many thanks. I have seen it expressed as such.