The Left, The Collapsing Star

The strength of the left can be found in its entrancing historical fiction, and the psychology of victimhood. The left can grab from many demographics by the all-encompassing oppression narrative. However, this also causes several problems.

Since the left contains diverse demographics all in a race to the bottom of their own respective victim narratives, there is now an environment of near-zero loyalty as the different factions all fight against each other for power. You can see this as #BlackLivesMatter derides white middle class feminists. It can be seen in how the T is trying to expel the G of the LGBT, because even white gay men have too much privilege. Blacks see whites as having white privilege, while women see men as having male privilege, and so Tyrone of BLM and Denise of feminism will eventually clash over which side gets the greater benefits.

For a long time, we have viewed the left as this all-expanding force, moving the Overton Window ever further to the left with each passing decade. I think we have all come to assume that accelerating leftism is inevitable. Their legions are too vast and their control of the cultural narrative is too tight.

I believe what we’re seeing now with the left is analogous to a dying star. More groups enter the left, it gains further power, until the day when it finally becomes unstable and collapses in on itself, though not through gravity, but from infighting.

As the left’s radicalization advances with ever-increasing speed, you’re going to see more divisions and less stability in the left. The stricter rules of the left’s dogma mean that leftists begin to police themselves with greater ferocity. They call out the privilege of the other factions, and compete against each other for who has it worse. These fractures are currently taking place along fault lines of race, sex, sexual orientation, etc., because each group has holds their own unique crime of privilege. You can even see this now as the more radical and unreasonable Tumblrites consume themselves.

The collapse would have happened a long time ago if there wasn’t social technology in play on the part of the left to mend the divisions. If you were to enter the university now and take a class in any social studies one of the first topics of any 101 level class would be: Intersectionality.

Intersectionality is the concept in social studies that all forms of oppression are connected. Aside from the dictionary definition, this concept means that you, the hypothetical student, must accept all of the left’s diverse factions as one, without exceptions, or else you’re racist.

If you are an intersectional feminist, then black rights, gay rights, and trans rights also come with your feminism because, as Tumblr likes to say, “if you’re not doing it for trans women, or women of color, then who are you doing it for? Shame, shame, shame.” If you don’t accept POCs as a white female feminist, then you’re a racist and no longer belong in the club. If you’re a gay man who doesn’t accept transsexuals, then you’re transphobic bigot, so get out. If you’re a black male who doesn’t accept feminism, then, sorry, you’re still a misogynist. It is the threat and promise of this ostracism that directs each faction to get along.

Note that such a buffer would not be needed if solidarity were natural to the left. It isn’t, but conflict certainly is. As things get worse and the privilege narrative becomes further extreme, not even intersectionality can keep the growing resentment from dividing the left further. As hatred for their enemies grows, each faction will see pieces of that enemy within their allies. That lady is still white, after all, and that black man is still a man. No matter what whites do, they still have white privilege. No matter how hard you advocate for women’s rights, no male can be called a “feminist,” only an “ally,” and of course they still inevitably have the stain of male privilege, as well.

Expelling gay men from LGBT campus groups will not only be a question in later years, but common practice. This is the left, after all. They won’t stop until they win. They won’t compromise with their perceived “oppressors”. It seems that even intersectionality has its limits.

However, even if intersectionality were to die, there is one last thing to keep the crumbling left together, and that is their combined hatred of a common enemy.

It is in the nature of humans to change alliances based on the strength and scope of an opposing force. The U.S. allied with France to fight the English, then allied with the English to fight the Germans, then allied with the Germans to fight the Russians. If we were to ever go to war with aliens, then the Russians would be our ally. And if those aliens needed help to fight the emergence of the Elder Gods, then they’d be our ally, too. It is the nature of things.

Even after the rise and fall of the intersectionality concept, the psychology of the common enemy would still keep the left together. So long as the trans can hate cis, and women can hate men, and blacks can hate whites, then there will always be a gravitating force.

But to keep a star together, gravity must be at equilibrium with the expanding force, and there is no guarantee that these two forces can scale together. The privilege and oppression narrative will only become more extreme, as it always does with the left, so thus the hatred for the common enemy will need to be proportionally extreme. This balance will have to be maintained, otherwise it will end in the fracturing of the left and thus the death of the left itself as we know it. My prediction: you’re going to see a much more blatant anti-white/male/straight propaganda as time goes on. This must take place, in order to keep the left from collapsing.

In one sense, the left is very powerful, but change your perspective and it is actually quite weak. If that delicate balance is maintained, then it is bad news for all of us, but how fragile is that balance? I certainly don’t know. The future of the left hinges upon it. The good news is that, if well understood, we can tip that balance.

Right now, the focus is on white-cis-hetero-males, but those men are either small in number in leftist circles or completely submissive. When feminists talk about the patriarchy, or BLM talks about white supremacy, they’re referring to a powerful and nebulous far-away force akin to the Illuminati. If it’s not an unknown cabal, then it is “the system”. Both are conceptualized abstractions, and neither are things one can directly point to. This makes the enemy elusive, and it’s hard to keep a constant hate for an enemy that comes and goes from your attention.

But the feminist on your left is a real, flesh and blood person, as is the BLM advocate on your right. They can conjure the feeling of immediate threat in each other if their struggles were framed differently.

One way to stop the left is to divert attention away from an ambiguous threat from abroad and instead shift the focus to the left’s different faction of activists. The narrative to fragment the left could work as such: the power that you want to fix your oppression is finite, and not only is it finite but all the other activists are vying for a bigger slice of that power. If you don’t take it, they will take it from you. If you want to end your oppression, then you need to secure it from the others, who, if they had it, wouldn’t even throw you a bone. They’re privileged after all. They can’t see your oppression.

If you were a leftist, would you still target a faraway enemy when you’re about to be double-crossed from behind? No. Reframing the struggle in this way puts leftist against leftist. Every blow they make to each other is a blow that we didn’t have to make.

All it needs is a little push for the left’s narrative to gain momentum on its own. Ego takes it the rest of the way down. Feminists will think that race will prevail over women’s rights. Blacks will think that middle-class white women will prevail over them. Transgenders will think that both groups will entrench cis-hetero-normative society. And all will realize that if they want the power to end their group’s suffering, then they must act in direct competition with the others.

The primary result would be open conflict within the left, and because the left thrives on conflict, it will be like an ouroboros feasting upon itself. Solidarity will be broken, and the last chapter of the left will read: A House Divided Cannot Stand.

Liked it? Take a second to support Social Matter on Patreon!
View All


  1. I had an interesting experience on a Washington Post comment. The article was about how Muslims were really victims (after the Paris nightclub massacre) and we need to let many more in. I first brought up Rotherham. Then, I stated Sweden was the rape capitol of Europe. One woman said she welcomed Muslims while someone else implied but didn’t cite any stats about which group was doing the raping, i.e., indigenous Swedes or Muslims. Both seemed to think rape was fine as long as done by Muslims, and not white frat boys on broken glass.

    In other words, no matter how violent Muslims (or blacks) behave as long as it isn’t happening to them personally at any given moment they will do what it takes, or pretend to, to take down the bigot, hater, racists.

    Quite a bit less abstract is the increasingly dysfunctional DC metro system. Like all black-controlled areas, all government and quasi-gov entities employ incompetent blacks through racial nepotism. The way gentrifiers should resolve the problem would be to buy out the incompetent employees and replace with whites, Asians, and Hispanics.

    But, in both cases these middle class, college-educated feminists, gays and Bernie acolytes cannot concieve of the simple remedy of expelling the problem. It is beyond their ken. Instead, their rage against the scapegoat group seems to become more hysterical.

  2. So why hasnt the left collapsed already? I would say that although left advocates to the outside equality (which is more unstable than hierarchy), but inside the left has strict hierarchies. For the activist groups those who have the most victim capital and the least privilege capital are higher in the hierarchy than those who have less victim capital and lot of privilege capital. So if white + woman + lesbian + feminist ends up in dispute with black + woman + lesbian + feminist, it is mostly no contest, the black party is almost predetermined to win. It doesnt matter much what they say, unless the black party breaches leftist basic principles so egregiously, that in this instance the victory is handed to the white feminist. You can use this kind of “calculation” to calculate the hierarchies and outcomes of the left. Of course white feminists have been crafty, and they have had disproportionate power according to leftist standards, but increasingly the colored feminists are conquering the positions of white feminists, and as the competition is rigged, white feminists cant do much to stop this process. Colored feminists can also always slap the trump card to the table, if nothing else works, “White feminists are full of implicit and explicit racism, they plunder our narratives and tamper with them”, or something along these tunes.

    The said competition happens in lower and middle level of leftist hierarchies. The leftist bureaucrats, who hold the strings of leftist purses and who have leftist power, are seen in the left as neutral parties, who are above the victim-privilege frays, and who often indirectly or directly adjudicate in leftist victim-privilege skirmishes.

    If you want the left to collapse, the said hierarchies must become unstable, open to all-out competition, challenges, alternative narratives, fragmentation, interest separation, etc. You could e.g. insinuate to different leftist groups, that they have horrible inequality problem inside the left. To the white feminists it can be said that higher victim classes has become the new pampered, arrogant and unequal privileged classes, who pursue increasingly monopoly power for themselves, and to the black feminists it can be said that white feminists privately despise black feminists, they hold disproportionate power, in large part behind the scenes, and they uphold consciously these racist and unjust privilege structures, etc.

  3. Starting in the mid-1990s and sporadically until the present, an occasional news story would pop up about a “gay gene”.

    Such as it was, such news never took legs. The contradiction stands though: if GLBT is “genetic”, why would they not parade that around? Now that both Wachowskis are freaks, that would be a shining example, no?

    Of course no. Why?

    Because the average couple, when they find out that “junior” is going to grow up to be bringing big black boyfriends to family gatherings, or their little girl is going to be climbing the curtain, or their first born son will be walking around gay parades with stripper heels and hairy legs, they are going to head straight to the abortion clinic.

    And abortion is what to the left? Very damned important. That’s what.

    And LGBT as genetic risks breaking the Dark Alliance. The only compromise will be “OK you can only abort whitemaleCIShetero babies!” which will not be good enough for the left because any abortion stopped by any law is still to them like a cross to a vampire (child sacrifice is priority I guess) and the notion that only certain babies can be aborted will underscore the need for the adults versions of those lives that don’t matter to the left to start fueling the helicopters and rethinking Pinochet.

    1. LGBT as genetic is also very unlikely. For genetic reasons.

      The entire pattern of Oppressed Client Empowerment is not rational on any principle except this is a way we the elite can beat down the power of the middle. And clients always fall for it because A)they are stupid; B)they get free shit; or C)both.

      1. Richard Cheimison April 25, 2016 at 6:12 pm

        Homosexuality as a result of testosterone bath mishaps is the most likely (not talking tranny freaks, just homos) + the Commie Germans did good research on this. But the same applies: parents could abort fag babies.

  4. 'Reality' Doug April 25, 2016 at 1:21 pm

    I stopped reading after I realized the author is placing culture war and ideology at the causal center. CH recently posted about the SMP as the one marketplace to rule them all. The social norms of those with a locus of control in their brain stems have been ascendant for 50 years running.

    The real causality of social norms in decline is intelligently animal humans cannibalizing those who take rhetoric and narrative seriously. There is now simply less wealth to go around, and animals are animals. There is no honor among animals, or woman would be man’s best friend. The rhetoric is wearing thin because a societal, ethical description of a behavioral system more and more consistent with pure animal kingdom ecology, without a storehouse of suckers who are evolutionary losers that don’t carry forward, is not plausible—without needy faith (a la the nice guy operating on universally civilized principles). Faith is superstition and superstition is the mindset of a superior animal able to adapt in the wild (but not to higher culture, individual vary) better than other animals. This is the wild with an unusual supply of resources: this is a tax farm.

    As long as the superior humans allow inferior humans to adulterate their lowest common denominator beneath functional civilization-ish standards (not polite and irrelevant ‘civil’ standards per parasitic rhetoric) by political unity, this trend of organizational degeneracy toward a wealthless animal ecology will continue. The rhetoric means nothing, is nothing, except lube for the losers to keep losing and keep trying as feckless givers.

    1. A lot of human psychological evolutionary adaptations can be explained by Muh Dick. But civilization is hardly one of them.

      1. 'Reality' Doug April 25, 2016 at 5:07 pm

        By Jove I think you’ve almost got it. Yah Dick explains the atrophy of civilization. A patriarchy of Mah Cerebral Cortex directing Mah Dick times the multiplier that is mass cooperation (not mass defeatism) called culture explains the creation and maintenance of civilization. Try J. D. Unwin, Sex and Culture, vide Expansive Energy, or the convenient links below (though not as conveniently handy as Yah Dick to be sure):

        Anyone who is ‘offended’ by profound biological fundamentals is not worthy to comment here or opine on our societal constructs as if a rationalist (cf. Ph.D) or scholar. Maybe I am feeding a female troll. If this blog is a religious loons’ haven (per free will of the spirit, evolution is nonsense, etc.), then every comment I have ever made here is inappropriate. Feedback on the links would be instructive.

        1. Can’t quite make out what you’re getting at RD. Can’t comment on the CT article because I avoid ‘gelical pubs as much as possible. But the Black Pigeon vid is at least 99% based. I don’t know what on earth would make you question whether this blog is a religious loons haven. Obviously it is (or isn’t) based entirely upon preconceived notions.

          Patriarchy is an integral feature of civilization which divvies up the girls approximately equal enough for most capable men to find one. This would seem to indicate a level of cooperation that goes well beyond simple muh dick considerations. Would you agree?

        2. The video is nice. I’ve been saying for about six months now that western Europe is gone — give it to the invaders, I don’t care any more. Eastern Europe, which was always the better more civilized part anyway (maybe that’s why the Soviet Union wanted it) until the anomalous period after WW2, is surviving by simple means of putting up some fences and having a few guards. Western European society, especially Germany under the mind-control imposed after WW2, wasn’t really a complete culture, and once Gaddafi was swept out of the way, it collapsed. Yeah, past tense.

          The article requires a subscription which I don’t have. But JD Unwin published his book in 1934. He died a young man in 1936, according to one of the slides in the video. Was he murdered?

  5. All this infighting while the Left is swimming in free money — think what they’ll do to each other when their resource base starts to contract! This has already begun at the U of Missouri, where a few knee grows brought the administration to its knees. Now there are 30% fewer applicants for the class of 2020, and a lot of Leftists are going to lose their jobs.

    Shrinking budgets make Left-wing institutions even more Left-wing, as their less extreme members are purged.

    1. Yeah UM is fun to watch. I have no animus against them and I feel sorry for the mostly-good people of Missouri. In fact they did the right thing and the legislature quickly reduced the funding once the nonsense got out of hand. It will be a black school now, an object lesson. Let it go.

      What’s more worrying is the Ivy League (+Stanford, MIT etc.) knuckling under to this stuff. These are perceived as worldwide treasures and they have the power to enroll stop students and retain top faculty (not Christakis who is quitting Yale in disgust, but many others) through their namebrands and endowments. University reputations and places in the pecking order are some of the stickiest things known in economics. If the fags are in charge in those places, they really have a position of power.

  6. The left will not collapse because the left IS the collapse.

  7. The analogy of the star, growing before a collapse is I think a strong one. But of course what happens after the collapse depends entirely upon its mass.

    I think we need to remember the fundamental high+low versus middle nature of power retention. It’s easy to mistake all the various, mutually antagonistic “lows” as being actually powerful. Whereas the real power lies with highs, and the lows are simply tools. They’re not the ones with actual agency; they’re clients.

    The mutual antagonism of the left’s clients is of course a popcorn-worthy spectacle, and should by all means be encouraged. It remains unclear whether a blow-off of clients actually weakens the left appreciably.

    1. Nick,

      those low and middle activists are often the hands and brains of top leftists. Cut them to mutually antagonistic pieces, and large part of the left is either weakened or paralyzed. Think about all the functions leftist activists do, they exist for important reasons.

      1. Inasmuch as they are the hands and brains (really) they are agents-provocateurs situated in the middle – low groups. Inasmuch as they are replaceable gray matter and precision muscle, they do not constitute a something which whose destruction matters much unless a pitched battle is at hand. If ISIS loses a armored car, it is a loss, but there are many armored cars. Our country celebrates destroying some of their armored cars and valuable assets, but they replace them very quickly. You bomb their oil field today and kill their production there– the next month they have rebuilt it and – do you bomb it again? It’s like killing cockroaches. Unless it is probable that all of their assets collapse into a massive civil war of attrition, their infighting actually is useful to the left in that it gives the impression of power where it is not. And as deception is the first rule of warfare, camouflage of this sort is a basic adaptation of veteran forces.

        1. E.A. Grey,

          I would say that your metaphor is unsuitable in this context. In your example something which is destroyed, is immediately replaced with new, functional and shining part. In my example leftist activists are not destroyed or deposed. They stay tenaciously in their places, and they are as power, recognition, status, etc. hungry as ever, in matter of fact this side of their function is often increased, perhaps to fanatical levels. What is selectively weakened or destroyed is the amicable communication, mutual understanding and cooperation between them, and what is selectively intensified is their motives, means and skills to politically and financially to trip, harm, destroy and obstruct each other.

          1. Weakening Hillary by exposing her emails led to an interesting and ongoing fight between her and Sanders. Normally Sanders would be held down and basically kept from public view for the good of the movement. Her only way to fight in this desperately unwanted public contest was to accede to most of Sanders’ positions, and an all-out pandering war broke out. It has looked pretty bad.

            It might result in Trump (another one who would not have this opportunity in a normal year) winning, which really does scare them a lot.

      2. Valkea is right, as bright as NBS tends to be sometimes his uncritical acceptance of Formalist ideology blinds him to some important truths, as we see here:

        “It’s easy to mistake all the various, mutually antagonistic “lows” as being actually powerful. Whereas the real power lies with highs, and the lows are simply tools. They’re not the ones with actual agency; they’re clients”

        Besides being incorrect, the real problem is that this is an absolute statement. As if it’s some immutable Newtonian law of physics, which is true in all places and at all times. The reality of Social Relations is vastly more complicated than this. There’s is usually a symbiotic relationship between various social strata in any organization. Too often NRx falls into the trap of thinking it can have all generals and no soldiers.

        1. Au contraire, NRx has no such delusion. All the generals are of the left, for that’s where the power’s at, and power’s fashionable in any season.

          I would of course not deny that the “lows”, clients of the Left, have any agency whatsoever. Surely some have some. But ten million added together do not add up to one George Soros. Even if they could cooperate without a head, which they cannot.

  8. I think I disagree with this article. The left fracturing and dying in the way you describe would make sense if it truly was a coalition of the dis-empowered groups, with each of the groups bringing its grievance to the table to be addressed. The left to me however seems like a tangled mess of proxy movements (Iron Law of Rebellious tools). Them eating each other doesn’t result in power splitting because the losing side of dissent doesn’t take any of its power with it. In fact when I think of past inter-leftist purges, they make the left stronger not weaker (think Communist regimes).

    1. We can certainly imagine client groups peeling off. As the OP mentions, cis white gay men are starting to get purged. Many have joined the Alt-Right. (More than I’m comfortable with ;-))

      But, as Mr. Borges says, these clients don’t really have the power. They’re all made to look powerful in the media. But I suppose the stick looks very powerful to the dog too.

      That said, I certainly wish left-infighting were enough to kill the beast, and it is by all means to be encouraged. But encouraged not so much in that it will kill it (or it would have been ages ago), but to reveal, at least to the perceptive, the lie behind their power: that they govern solely in their self-interest (like anyone else would govern), and that their self-interests are 180° reversed from those of the white working and middle classes, as well as those of their clients.

      1. This last point, i.e., left sponsorship of Oppressed Clients actually harms them, is worth a whole discussion in itself. But a case could be made that every sponsored client group is worse off today than before they got “recognized”. Unless by “better off” you happen to mean “have your grievances, pecadilloes, and abnormalities normalized and shoved down the throat of the entire world”. By that metric, they are of course doing quite a bit better.

        1. That word ‘recognized’ reminded me that many leftist activist work for leftist organizations for free, their only ‘salary’ is recognition, praise and little prizes. Although left is generally profligate, they also save a lot of money in some areas, especially in all kinds of activism.

    2. ConantheContrarian April 25, 2016 at 3:28 pm

      “In fact when I think of past inter-leftist purges, they make the left stronger not weaker (think Communist regimes). ”
      But that was a case of Stalin vs. Trotsky, for example. Russian Communist vs. Russian Communist, not oppressed by cis-het-white-man victim A vs oppressed by cis-het-white Victim B. A & B might have a common enemy but their identities are different. It will be interesting to see if a black feminist will feel stronger ties to BLM than to Feminisim and the white sisters.

      1. Your last conundrum has been answered consistently as: the tie to “black” is stronger than the tie to “female”. The only thing that breaks up a collective of blacks is when some of them find out that the cis het white way works and feels good, then against huge pressure from other blacks, they dump all that for what we would see as normality. (Though generally they are happy to be assisted on their journey by continued affirmative action benefits — these they never renounce, and their conversion might be seen as primarily a strategy of extraction of this rent.)

  9. I feel like I’ve read dozens of pieces arguing this basic strategy over my years as a reader of the alt right.

    It might originate from Steve Sailer, I know he often uses the thesis that diversity will eat itself in exactly this way, but I’m not sure how sincere he is in believing it.

    It does makes more sense with ethnic alliances than gender or sexual perversion, and that is what he thinks about most. To elaborate imagine the current state system crashes fully, then the Kurds, Syrians and Turks in Germany would hardly be friends with each other, just as they are not friends in Syria.

    But if the Western state system and international community persists while the Turks in Germany are reclassified as oppressors (because of Kurdish feminism or because they are considered ​white​ Muslims in 2019), this doesn’t make the Islamic – Leftist alliance in Germany any weaker. The central power in its anarcho-tyranic structure then simply discards the tools.

    This is why Spandrell’s Islamic strategy doesn’t work, the left would reclassify white Islam as extremism. It would square the circle by starting to fight “Islamic extremism” seriously with the full weight of the security apparatus behind it. This would be done by closing down quiet orderly German ethnic Mosques and accelerate importing Saudi sponsored Wahabi preachers. The preachers would be supported to give voice to “progressive” and “moderate” Islam. Which of course would just continue to be there to harass the middle, rather than actually change its views on say women or homosexuals.

  10. “I believe what we’re seeing now with the left is analogous to a dying star. More groups enter the left, it gains further power, until the day when it finally becomes unstable and collapses in on itself, though not through gravity, but from infighting.”

    See the example set by the Russian Revolution, as found in Solzhenitsin’s Gulag Archipelago.

    After the Bolsheviks obtained total power, the first people into the camps were not the kulaks or the shopkeepers, but the Anarchists, Social Democrats, Anarchist Democrats, Mensheviks, and other near-kin on the Left who deviated from the Bolsheviks by mere millimeters.

    BTW, just found your site recently and am enjoying it immensely.

  11. The Dissenting Sociologist April 25, 2016 at 4:01 pm

    These epidemics of holiness have an ebb-and-flow to them. This was true back when their contents assumed the form of tub-thumping Protestant revivalism and it’s true of the secularized version we have now. The present epidemic will soon hit a sort of Malthusian brickwall and the SJW will become profoundly unfashionable until the next cycle rolls along. Profs and others in occupational environments where people are presently subject to sudden and unpredictable purges will be able to breathe easier for a time- but the (temporary) decrease in the incidence of disruptive public antics of ignorant shrieking girl anarchists and their ilk won’t, by itself, make much of a big-picture difference.

    On a more positive note, the oddly garbled, broken-telephone jumbles that Leftist discourse has been degenerating into these past several years concomitantly with the rise of the SJW does in fact seem to be a long-term and, hopefully, irreversible trend. This will prove a major boon to the Right inasmuch as it is already the case that anyone who wants serious and meaningful intellectual content in their daily reading has to go to sites like Social Matter to get it. Soon the high-IQ set within the Left, at least, will be here looking for the sort of intellectual challenge and stimulus that Tumblr word salads simply cannot provide.

  12. Goading the Left into accelerating is probably viable for the lack of anything else better to do. The question is whether we are the ones who can do it. Does the existent of a resurgent far-Right actually make the Left structurally weaker? They know we exist now, or will soon once the handlers craft an appropriate response narrative. This narrative against us has the opportunity to unite and strengthen them. There is now a cabal explicitly /for/ a return to social order. Their enemy no longer a nebulous abstraction but living, breathing psuedoanonymous men.

    By our actions can we make the Left move too fast past Liberalism? We can force them into embarrassing panics, yes. But does that defensive posture we provoke slow the swim downstream? I think it might. Over the last few years both poles have matured and radicalized. I feel its moreso their extremism fueling us than vice-versa. There’s definitely a feedback loop, and it’s likely the activist party with all the power is doing the jolting.

    Maybe successful Right-wing activism is provoking/taunting to get the enemy to weaken themselves. It is quite hard to gauge what will succeed and there is no way to organize the alt-Right away from specific meddlings. This is unpredictable and dangerous for those who act. It may instill fear, psychologists are already noting “Trump anxiety”. Fear leads to insecurity, which leads to instability, which makes room for restoration. Specific places and specific issues may work out in a desirable way if prodded, though I fear there is more hope in turning Visyas than elites.

  13. This was a great read, Hoffman obviously has a head that’s screwed on straight and tight. I look forward to seeing more from him. The contemporary left is much more fragile than it seems and is made up of conflicting victim groups who would easily turn on each other if pushed in the right way. The Left’s biggest problem is that it wants to both affirm and celebrate cultural differences while also imposing a rigid and universal puritan ideology upon these diverse groups. It’s an attempt to square the circle, a war against reality which they are going to lose.

    If we are smart we can encourage these contradictions to heighten themselves, so that the Star begins to break apart. And looking further down the road, one could even consider the possibility of I dunno…Co-opting the grievances of some of these groups…crazy idea I know.

  14. Very interesting article. I will simply comment that this sounds very much like the Marxist thesis that Capitalism would be destroyed by it’s own inconsistencies and tensions. However it seems this is not the case. Leftism subsumes these inconsistencies and these incongruous tendencies and uses them as impetus. However I do agree that this cannot go on forever, it is a powerful accelerator that unfortunately (for them) leaves them stuck in this self-terminating vector.

  15. “Victim” is the most coveted status among the American Left. Even our black President – a position tagged as “the most powerful in the free world” – often casts himself as victim. Hillary is basing her entire campaign on her victim status. As this article points out, the problem is you never know when some other group is going amass more Victim Credits than yours.

    It is not without its entertainment value, though. There are few things funnier than watching multiple groups arguing over who are the most “victimized”.

  16. The problem with pitting left-wing victim groups against each other is that the left-wing victim group that is the most left-wing is going to win and take power, therefore increasing net leftism and net chaos in society.

    A Jewish Holocaust industry is noticeably better than a Jewish-led Free Palestine/Educate ISIS After Bringing Them Here industry.

Comments are closed.