Leftism = anti-fragility
I observed earlier that the Israeli and Italian parliaments are anti-fragile—despite the constant hubbub in both chambers, nothing changes; the constant small disagreements and dramas add up to metastability. The same is true for the left itself; if you look at the picture above you see myriad left parties and then, if you look below, you see a handful of right-wing parties (artificially inflated by dividing the Conservatives into regional parties)—and this situation replicates across the world. The left is riven with factional strife—divisions between Maoists, post-feminists, Lacano-Marxists, Marxist-Leninists, social democrats, anarcho-communists, and greens abound. Often the in-fighting on the left is utterly vituperative, just as the Italian and Israeli parliaments feature venomous overt disagreement—yet within all is stable and homogenous, the more they disagree the more overall concord exists on the left.
This conforms with the fact that the left is feminine. Women are also anti-fragile—women gain from disorder; even birth itself, with its multiple small waves that facilitate the baby’s progress down the birth canal, represents an anti-fragile process—lots of small disruption leads to a completed result. It may seem counterintuitive to say men are “fragile”, but that is due to the language used. When we say men are “fragile”, in the Talebian sense, we do not mean that men will break down and weep at the slightest difficulty; rather, they are like a vase or a statue—their integrity is vulnerable to disruption.
To put it in evolutionary terms: when a primitive camp was overrun the women would often survive, whereas the men would be put to the sword—hence women have evolved to gain from disorder (rape and abduction in this case), and this is why they have so many wiles (to seduce and persuade is a product from anti-fragility). Anti-fragile things are great survivors, like nature herself—they have little dignity and instead “roll with the punches”, so they can absorb large amounts of insult (the insult strengthens them—consider her ways).
Women are analogous to nature: they never change, they are ahistorical—they are like the reeds on the Nile, under Pharaoh or Napoleon they wave in the same way; if they change, it is via slow evolutionary change—itself an anti-fragile process where multiple small “experiments” on the genome succeed or fail. The left is also analogous to nature: it has no history, when it takes power, as in the USSR, the result is stasis—it has no original ideas, as with women, it can only copy (Capital is a love letter to European civilisation, but it has no real answer to European civilisation—only inversion, subversion, and destruction). Slavery, incidentally, is also anti-fragile—the slave, like a woman, learns to live with many small insults from the master and, in the end, learns to serve him well and accommodate him (flirt-seduce him, in fact). Freedom is fragile: the free man would rather kill himself than submit to slavery—consider his ways.
Nature has no history because she is not self-conscious—she just exists, she is pure becoming; she throws up more and more life without thought, yet she cannot reflect on herself—let alone objectively. In the same way, the left is not self-conscious—hence the “Non-Playable Character” meme from the right. The left is just a repertoire of emotional tricks (rhetoric) that it uses to keep reality at bay and inveigle resources from the right (it is pure anti-fragile survival tactics; it gains from disorder—it gains from chaos; it causes chaos because it thrives on chaos—feeds on it).
Tactics are anti-fragile—strategy is fragile; the word “strategy” literally comes from the Greek for “general”—the general, always a man, has an overall plan; the merchant, the traitor, the spy—they all have tactics, little “schemes” to wriggle out of tight spots; they are spiritual women. The constant changes on the left, its vicious factional disputes, apparently over nothing, belie deep stability—the right, despite its apparent unity, consists of people with very divergent views (they are individuated). This is because one side is just tactical manipulation—even against each other—whereas the other side has a strategic direction.
The left, not being self-conscious, genuinely does not know what it wants—any more than a woman knows what she wants; it only has a sense that there is “power”, power attracts and “they want some of that”, yet they do not know how to achieve genuine self-directed action—they can only react to what self-directed people do, either in protest or to beg resources from the successful (the left is genuinely reactionary, it overtly calls for “progress” because it cannot actuate real progress).
Hence the left parodies and inverts the right, or attempts to bully-flirt with it through rhetorical emotional appeals and outbursts of violence—yet, being unselfconscious, when the left is violent, as with a woman, it blames the right (“White supremacism did this,” says the BLM activist after his mob burns down a city—“Look what you’ve done,” says the woman after a petulant outburst). Women don’t know what they want, and they’re not going to stop until they get it—and the left is exactly the same, hence they never know what to do when they get into power since there is no one to copy or invert any more (in the end they do right-wing things, as with Stalin)
Nietzsche is a leftist philosopher—he is the apostle of becoming over being; he favours feminine nature—the chaos he so adores—over masculine order, since he associates the latter with God (pure being). Becoming is anti-fragile—becoming is nature; it gains from disorder—it is subjective and unselfconscious, as with Nietzsche’s philosophy. At its most extreme it is also shameless—as with a harlot. Indeed, I once read a woman’s website called The Brazen Careerist—and that is purely feminine, brazen careerism (anti-fragile). Are we not now, in the West, governed by brazen careerists?
The solar principle, the masculine, remains objective—Friedrich Nietzsche, ye hardly knew thyself! He was too caught in feminine chaos—especially because he rejected God, the objective force. Similarly, merchant races—the Jews, the Lebanese, the Armenians—are feminine because they have historically submitted to slavery like women rather than died like men; in the process, they have become anti-fragile—long-lived like Methuselah—and associated with trade and courtly manipulation.
They have also become natural—as with women, as with the hippies—and so they are associated with the left: the pure worship of the free market and socialism go together because both are feminine, both are materialist and natural; they are about dependency, you depend on your financial network or your trade union solidarity. Only that which is solar—completely objective—remains self-sufficient and so stands above the network (and its inherent corruption); and this is the man who embraces the solar principle, he who seeks to become like God—self-sufficient and objective.
The right is not “natural”—or, rather, it is not biologically natural; it is Nature with a capital “N”—it is the objective and differentiated solar principle that looks down on biological nature, the unchanging swamp, with a detached view. To be whole, to be fully Natural, masculine and feminine must be married; and the woman must submit to the man, nature must submit to Nature—the Moon to the Sun; hence any theory that is purely based in biological nature, such as Darwinism, even if it is inegalitarian, cannot be on the right—Darwinism is also about anti-fragility, it is also a feminine theory (just like its inversion, Marxism). Darwinism is on the left because it cannot account for “the observer”, for the consciousness that stands without and elaborates objective values from an eternal space—it can only reduce and degrade this notion to a quantitative process tied up with genes; it cannot tells us why we say “why?”—and why the ability to ask “why?” can in turn change reality, even biological reality.