I've always enjoyed reading responses to the things I've written, especially the shrill and irate ones. Thus I was particularly pleased when my last blog post Jacobin, Frogtwitter and the new avant-garde became such a hit amongst our emaciated class of Ironic Leftists. I was expecting an avalanche of non-sequiturs, ad-hominems and various other forms of mental onanism and that is precisely what I received. Let's go to the tape, shall we?
These type of complex sentiments were the overwhelming response from the Stoner Socialist crowd. Now, I wanted to bring this up not in order to "respond" as there's clearly nothing substantive to respond to here. Rather because these examples give us a fantastic look into the minds of our modern "leftists" as well as verifying many of the claims I made about them in my previous piece.
Now obviously all of these examples are essentially ad-hominem attacks. In and of itself there is nothing particularly bad about using the Ad-hominem, I am personally a big fan of it in many situations. However, they are only really effective when they're paired with a legitimate critique. The ad-hominem is the icing on an argument's cake, not the cake itself. What's more, if their ad-hominem attacks are correct and I am simply a right-wing hack who makes constant typos (true!) and uses purple prose (thus violating the immutable laws of the Elements of Style, the MFA's Holy Koran) to hide my profound ignorance, how easy and simple a task it would then be to demolish me with actual arguments, or so one would assume if they took the insults of the Leftist at face value. Alas, for our earnest socialist interlocutors, argumentation is not one of their strong suits (unless, of course, it's coated in a thick sauce of meaningless Lacanian or Marxist Jargon.) But here we must look closer, for these are not merely garden variety insults but were deployed with a particular purpose in mind.
Liberals and Leftists both share the bad habit of universalizing particulars, in this case by assuming that their opponent's sensitivities will be the same as their own. Many of our modern bourgeois bohemians are profoundly attached to the idea of their own intellectual superiority i.e. their identity and perceived social status primarily rests on the notion that they are, at least in some respect, an "intellectual." To have this status threatened is for them one of the most terrifying experiences imaginable. As to threaten their social status is to threaten their very identity and sense of self. As David Foster Wallace put it in his famous commencement speech: "Worship your intellect, being seen as smart — you will end up feeling stupid, a fraud, always on the verge of being found out."
This is the situation our young coffee shop Marxists find themselves in: ever afraid of being exposed as an intellectual fraud. Hence the need for an ironic persona. After all, if one's opinions are always ostensibly ironic one can never be truly criticized. Thus, their status can be preserved in perpetuity. The ironic persona of the Modern Leftist serves as a rhetorical womb in which their malformed and underdeveloped personalities can shield themselves from the cold gaze of the other. They are the fetus men, who can only ever feel truly at ease when they are floating in the warm and protective bath of their own ironic placenta.
Hence why the cruelest attack they can imagine would be against their opponent's own intellectual status. Every leftist lives his life in fear of being discovered as a fraud, especially those who are, as I stated in my previous piece: "emaciated adjunct professors and underemployed MFAs."
For these individuals, their intellectual status is everything and not simply due to their own vanity but for more practical reasons as well. If they were ever to lose this intellectual status their prospects would be rather dim. As Davila once quipped: "The left is a collection of those who blame society for nature’s shabby treatment of them." Or, put in another way: Physiognomy is real, as we can observe below.
Every Leftist of an intellectual bent longs to cover their own natural deformities and the deep-seated resentments which spontaneously flow from them with a gloss of respectability. This gloss, of course, is an illusion as Uncle Ted himself pointed out:
Leftists may claim that their activism is motivated by compassion or by moral principles, and moral principle does play a role for the leftist of the oversocialized type. But compassion and moral principle cannot be the main motives for leftist activism. Hostility is too prominent a component of leftist behavior; so is the drive for power. Moreover, much leftist behavior is not rationally calculated to be of benefit to the people whom the leftists claim to be trying to help. For example, if one believes that affirmative action is good for black people, does it make sense to demand affirmative action in hostile or dogmatic terms? Obviously, it would be more productive to take a diplomatic and conciliatory approach that would make at least verbal and symbolic concessions to white people who think that affirmative action discriminates against them. But leftist activists do not take such an approach because it would not satisfy their emotional needs. Helping black people is not their real goal. Instead, race problems serve as an excuse for them to express their own hostility and frustrated need for power.
The Modern Leftist's political projects are almost entirely a vehicle for the actualization of their own ressentiment. Like the Cathars before them, their war against the demiurge is motivated purely by the need for revenge. Hence why their preferred method of revolt is desecration, whether it is against Traditional religious imagery (as was the case during the Red Terror in Republican Spain), Western Civilization (which is constantly assailed by Leftist academics), or the beauty of the human form itself (which is now the target of the gnostic violence known as "transgenderism".)
The "Execution" of the Sacred Heart by a Republican firing squad
Pictured above: Communist philosopher Jean-Paul Sartre, whose entire career was motivated by the desire to overcome how viscerally revolting he was. Few know this.
The Modern Leftist, like his Puritan ancestors, is haunted by the idea that "someone somewhere might be happy." This is an unacceptable state of affairs to them. For while the more astute among them have long since realized that it is impossible to make all equally happy, they have instead set for themselves the more achievable goal of making all equally miserable. A dream they managed to achieve time and time again throughout the 20th century.
Likewise, beauty for the fetus man is intolerable. As he is himself incapable of admiring it, instead finding that its very existence only highlights his own profound feelings of inferiority. Hence why he can only mock it and seek its desecration, while remaining safe and protected in his slimy cocoon of ironic distance. But this protection remains merely a temporal illusion.
For, in reality, the ironic wombs in which the fetus men thrive will soon be little more than the fresh graves for their stillborn souls.