443. Deliverance (VII)
To follow on from yesterday’s post on the nature of the left, some rightists say that the left is stupid or incompetent. This is not so. To recap from yesterday’s post: the left is made up from people with a low level of responsibility—the same level as a woman or a child—who are narcissistically insulated from reality with lies, the only way they can attain value is through parasitism; they terrorise others with alternated threats and dishonest sweet talk. Leftist states all end up as militarised states because the left uses the military and secret police to steal value from their own populations—and usually other countries. Although the military is responsible and inherently rightist at its cutting edge, the left co-opts the military leadership through appeals to narcissism among the generals (could any general resist another ribbon, a shiny new tank, or another compulsory parade?).
The right sometimes thinks that the left is stupid or incompetent because it causes chaos. Terroristic violence and lies are stupid ways to lead your life—stupid, unless they work. The left causes chaos, but it benefits from it—so not so stupid. It is true that in the long-term it would be better if we voluntarily cooperated, refrained from lies, and did not gain goods through predation—except it works. Leftists are sophisticated enough to understand the military, the secret police, and the media and education systems; and this is all you need to bully and control other people.
So leftists are not stupid or incompetent; they are competent and clever enough to run what matters for their short-term gratification. When rightists say leftists are incompetent, they really mean that they play a sub-optimal game. The mafioso who runs a protection racket plays a sub-optimal game at the meta-level; the businesses he shakes down fear his predation and are less productive, everyone loses—however, the mafioso is perfectly competent at the protection racket and benefits from it, even if the game is sub-optimal in the widest sense; and “the godfather” behind it is probably relatively intelligent and competent too. So it is with the left.
Remember all those artists and directors—like Roman Polanski and Orson Welles—who are complete narcissists and very irresponsible, yet they are not stupid or incompetent and they still create vast productions. The left is like them, except with the state; and what is amusing with a film set is less amusing with instruments that can kill or terrorise millions. This is why leftists are often found in the arts and why they are fun (Polanski) or intriguing (Hitler); their lability is seductive, it charms you. What they say sounds like a crazy joke, until it happens.
Since the left foments chaos, it does promote stupid and incompetent people who act in stupid and incompetent ways—except at the top. Churchill, although he professed some right-wing views, was a leftist: he was a narcissist—an alcoholic who radiated between depressive self-pity and warmongering rage; as with all leftists, he was irresponsible and loved war; his psychological type was identical to Hitler, another narcissistic raver. Yet neither Churchill nor Hitler were (totally) incompetent or unintelligent, so much the worse for us; yet they were grandiose narcissistic irresponsible liars—and that is the left in essence.
So never listen to people who tell you the left is stupid or incompetent; the left is dangerous precisely because it is competent and intelligent enough to parasitise the state’s central functions—and like all narcissists, leftists are thin-skinned and will bear a grudge if you pierce their illusions. Anyway, if the right is so smart and competent, why do they lose to the left? Because really smart people never really go into politics; it wastes their time—so even the self-proclaimed right is relatively narcissistic, irresponsible, and not overly intelligent; it is composed from people who want to be politicians but are against politics—naturally, they tend to lose. You might even say that they are incompetent…