Matt Nuenke, Vulpes and the motivations of the left

Posted by Guessedworker on Wednesday, 23 February 2005 23:01.

These thoughts are a brief response to Matt’s post “Animal Rights, Humanism, and Universal Altruism”. The latter was quite beautiful to read for anyone who has loved a dog – or any “higher” (ie, social?) animal. Dogs in my case, twice … plus I was brother to my daughter’s tragically deceased lop-eared rabbit. Not a close family relationship I can claim to have anticipated, but life is full of surprises.

But to take the issue forward …

Right now at Westminster and in the English countryside we are witnessing the submission of those ties of humankind (to which the left is usually so anxious to accede) to an apparent compassion for an indefatigable and, from a human perspective, non-social competitor for food resources: the fox.

How is one to explain this? Obviously not through the workings of Great Nature. Genetic scientists live in perpetual fear of discovering a trace of race. So, human-vulpine nepotism? Not much chance of that, I think ... nor of those bio-chemical subtleties of the bond twixt Man and animal to which Matt averrs. When did you last get close enough to a fox to savour its olfactory delights?

No, the only available hook on which to hang this weird preference for otherness over kind is a morbid and powerful hatred of kind – in this case affluent, middle-class hunting folk. For said kind fails to meet the left’s entirely manufactured and faux-moral qualifications for being fully human. Any fool can see, though, where the problems of being human actually lie.

The fox, no less than the black, the homosexual, the female, is a foil for the advance of self over repressed negative emotion. Politically, this reconfigures as the advance of self as untermensch over the repressive ubermensch. Because that’s what leftism among white Europeans really is: the absolute negation of human qualities to that part of humanity most akin to the individual as a mis-read means to leap repressed feelings of self-aversion. One (cultural) bound and he was free.

Self-hatred is a deeply unhealthy compulsion and even, in its general action upon society, a pathology. But we have bred swathes of people with this malady. The more intelligent are, naturally enough, drawn to spheres where they can advance their personal psychological interests … where, essentially, they can self-heal through the act of annihilating a proxy. It is, of course, a less than fully human proxy. It is a proxy which they must imbue with hate … with racism, sexism, homophobia. It is, therefore, a proxy whom they, in turn, can hate in an act of unconscious release attended by much moral superiority.

The latter is particularly important to these strange creatures. We can see that it is pure vanity. But to them the possession of New Morality is an accoutrement of freedom and, of course, signals the juxtaposition of roles. They are the craved, new, compassionate ubermensch. We are forever cast down in sin. Our only salvation lies in sincere self-annihilation in the interests of the foil - the black, the homo etc. It is the price of us joining humanity (ie, the left) and, therefore, the price they attach to their hate-control both over us and, by extension, themselves.

Those of us interested in the politics of the right know full well that the predations of the liberal elite are in no way supported by the population at large. No ordinary Englishman wants multiculturalism, political correctness, hate speech laws and all the rest of it. These things are needs of the left.

We cannot cure the damaged left because we cannot cure society in a liberal age, and the ills from which they suffer are the ills of family. The perhaps impossible task that is set against our heads is to speak to our own political kind, to all those who are caught up in the liberal zeitgeist but are not proponents of the politics of national and racial self-hatred. We must speak of love of family and love of kind, and we must hope to be heard.

Tags:

Comments:

Posted by Geoff Beck on Thu, 24 Feb 2005 04:02 | #

Poor Guessedworker writes another insightful essay - only to be sandwiched by discussion of Sweden and Jewish Power.

Ah, I guess the subtle fox is doomed.

Posted by Matra on Thu, 24 Feb 2005 06:02 | #

When I lived in N Ireland I tried unsuccessfully to argue the case for foxhunting with people who were generally apolitical but very much for outlawing this type of hunting. Pointing out far worse treatment of animals that few object to and even making the Lembit Opik argument that banning it has nothing to do with animal welfare was a waste of time. They’ve seen the pictures, they know people enjoy the hunt, and those people seem too alien to sympathise with. It’s the same with bullfighting. The mob would rather all the bulls be cut up for meat immediately than to live good lives, as they do, until their last day, than for a human to enjoy that last day in the bullring. Most don’t seem to mind animal cruelty as long as there are no pictures and no humans seen deriving pleasure from it.

Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 24 Feb 2005 10:38 | #

Matra,

My point would be that possibly quite minor cruelty suffered in early childhood - for example, mild bullying by an elder sibling - sensitises the sufferer to cruelty in the wider world. The sight of it triggers a powerful emotional response in which moral outrage is a key and most telling characteristic.

This unconscious behaviour finds a natural home in the politics of the left, with its many tempting ways to rationalise psychological morbidity as the demand for justice, fairness, equality, inclusion et alia.

We should view our own kind who conflate personal and societal panaceas as political perverts. I, for one, cannot see what else they might be.

Posted by ben tillman on Fri, 25 Feb 2005 20:31 | #

No, the only available hook on which to hang this weird preference for otherness over kind is a morbid and powerful hatred of kind – in this case affluent, middle-class hunting folk.

I agree that a proximate cause of Leftist activism of this sort is hatred, though not necessarily hatred of one’s own kind.

Here is an interesting discussion of 1960’s radicals The Weathermen:

http://www.nypress.com/16/23/film/film2.cfm

Mark Rudd is quoted: “I cherished my hate as moral superiority”—a confession of blistering honesty that conveys the heat of privileged activism. Something more was going on than kids acting on principle.

Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 25 Feb 2005 21:18 | #

Well, “moral superiority” is John’s take on leftist motivation. But the notion that lefties bin their own people, culture, history and nation just to feel good is facileness naming a cause of ... facileness. It’s simply not man enough to explain why.

Let me, at this point, enter a couple of caveats to self-hatred as the root of leftist behaviour. First, leftism can be an entirely logical mode to pursue group interest. You, of all people, will understand that Jews promote leftism because it is a Conservative methodology from their perspective. Likewise the 19th century working class of newly industrialised Britain promoted their interests through Chartism, then unionism, then political organisation. This was, from their perspective at that time, a Conservative method in a loose sense. It increased their power, freedom and prosperity (for a time, anyway).

Second, the liberal-left which is so exercised by our racism, sexism and homophobia is peopled by volunteers not conscripts. You can conscript people to political correctness - the police in Britain dawn-raiding BNP members homes are good examples. But volunteerism speaks off a more fundamental commitment. Volunteerism marks the true believer and, for my money, the real liberal.

This is the individual we encounter in politics and long-marching through the institutions of state. This is the individual we - who now include the working-class or blue-collar man but, of course, not self-identifying Jews - are up against. I hold that he is exercised by self-hate because I find his transfer of hateful motivations to others like himself (like us) a far better fit to all the facts than a desire to trail decency behind him wherever he goes. Damnit, I know the guy well. He needs to imbue us with the hate with which he is struggling.

The depressing outcome to this view, however, is that the anomie caused by liberalism only increases the flow of self-hating actors. The only way to turn off the supply is to change the political zeitgeist back to Conservatism. WNism, I think, has no part to play in such a mighty reversal. But you are welcome to try to convince me otherwise.

Posted by Svigor on Fri, 25 Feb 2005 23:36 | #

What is the real distinction between Conservatism and WNism in this context? Is it just individualism?

One thing I think the enemies of Leftism really underestimate among its causes is simple conditioning. People are Leftist because they’re told to be leftists. I think this is the most powerful factor in favor of Leftism. The message that has been pulsing from our mass media for better than half a century is that Leftism is for the good guys, and everything else is for the bad guys.

We can pick apart the myriad insidiously clever methods used to impart that message, but that’s just cataloging the trees in the forest.

Posted by Guessedworker on Sat, 26 Feb 2005 00:29 | #

Svigor,

Thanks for the comment.

1) Individualism is neither here nor there. It certainly is not the defining characteristic of Conservatism.

2) Conservatism is distinguished from WNism because it stands apart from the liberal zeitgeist, and as an alternative to it. WNism is part of the zeitgeist. You, for example, protest the power of the Jewish ubermensch. Liberalism always functions on a vertical binary analysis of freedom. It cannot conceive it in the Conservative sense, which is as an organic property of stability.

3) Suggestibility is important within the general and, obviously, mostly apolitical population. It is, though, in the warp and weft of the liberal zeitgeist, not a singular product of the media, the schools etc. It is in no way the key to understanding life-long leftist actors - which key I have endeavoured to set out above.

4) Are you perhaps more content with a neat, tidy view of white leftism that vouchsafes the possibility of recovering the poor lost souls, if only the grip of organised Jewry can be prized loose? Yes, organised Jewry rides the wave for all it’s worth. But when Jews protest to WN’s that they couldn’t possibly control the millions of committed white liberals out there they are right. What’s more, we can’t control them either, save that we find the means to re-Conservatise our world.

Posted by Svigor on Sat, 26 Feb 2005 20:55 | #

I know what you mean about WNism as part of said Zeitgeist. Many times I have used multicult rhetoric against anti-racists. Still, I think it’s safe to say that WNism is not at all a part of the multicult pantheon. This goes to the heart of some of the points I make about the true motivations of the multicult and the Left. If the Left truly had aims as stated, it would welcome at least the non-hating portion of WNism into the fold.

The problem is that racial realism (a profoundly Conservative value) is near to the heart of WNism (not white supremacy).

I’d like to comment further, but I keep finding myself needing to put words into your mouth.

Liberalism always functions on a vertical binary analysis of freedom. It cannot conceive it in the Conservative sense, which is as an organic property of stability.

Can you expand on that? I don’t understand your meaning.

3)
4)

Let me ignore these for the nonce, and respond later.