The division between a feminine left and a masculine right works to a certain extent, but it is not the whole of the matter. The typical exchange between the wet leftist—the hippy who just wants to be nice and chill out—and the uptight rightist who wants to maintain standards is real enough; and it often comes out over environmental issues, where the right represents the Apollonian masculine desire to develop techno-science and the grungy left stands for violated Mother Earth. Justin Trudeau is weakly and wet, Donald Trump is virile and strong—Trudeau needs to pull himself together and “get real”. Even the way the language is used suggests the difference between a rigid Apollonian marble statue and, well, a sponge—a damp, wet woman; an earthy swamp, a swampy miasmic dirty leftist.
Where does a man like Lenin fit into this schema? Lenin was tough, practical, and unsentimental—so unsentimental he refused to listen to classical music in case it weakened him and distracted him from his mission. This sounds rightist, it sounds like the self-help injunction to focus: no distraction from your mission, stand up straight, and maintain discipline. The same was true for Stalin—literally a steel man, scientific and Apollonian—and Che Guevara and Mao. Further, the Marxists all adored science and technology because these developments opened the road to socialism through historical necessity—even today Nick Land retains this admiration for techno-scientific capital, having amputated what was communistic in Marx and retained the sincere admiration for capital found in the works of the magus.
Symbolism can help us here. Usually, the Sun is taken to be masculine and the Moon is taken to be feminine; however, there are exceptions—there are cultures where it is the other way round. John David Ebert once said that this fact showed that the Jungians are wrong to make associations between the masculine Sun and the feminine Moon; however, we are helped here by Guénon: he noted that in symbolism it is usually accepted that each symbol has a dual aspect—there is a feminine side to the Sun and a masculine side to the Moon.
To return to politics, the liberal left may well be feminine—yet the hard left is definitely masculine, really they represent degenerate masculinity in another form; and they cannot be said to be inconsequential, Communist governments ruled half the world in the 20th century. The feminine right can be found on the radical right: it is the radical right that relies on intuition and instinct—blood instinct, genuine religious faith, and mysticism. So to say that the conflict in politics is between a masculine right and a feminine left is only true in a limited aspect, in politics considered in its narrowest aspect; and it also means that politics is not exactly a war between the sexes, as sometimes it appears to be—rather, the left is feminine dominant and the right is masculine dominant.
The condition is probably an outcome from modernity. Western societies have degenerated into godless liberal democratic systems dominated by atomised populations who largely conform to mass society—they conform in the same way a gas diffuses through a room, entropically. Conservatives repress their own feminine side to maintain this machine; they repress their own feminine instincts and intuitions and instead worship techno-science, itself inherently feminine—so they demand that people conform to middle-class life for rational reasons.
Hence the right overlooks race because to do so allows, in theory, a more efficient global market and seamless labour movement—techno-science oversteps the intuition and instinct that warns against the stranger. The feminine left then says: “If there is no race, why not no sex?” It pulls the decadent right further into dissolution through its own logic, being detached from its feminine side the right cannot defend itself—it is irrational and unscientific to maintain sex divisions, and so the Apollonian is drawn into the murk and is eventually replaced by the masculine left.