top of page
  • Writer's picture738

Leftist thought levels

I read a university textbook from 1999 about Islam—a general overview, the series from Oxford. It was non-information, especially when before I had just read Pearson’s The Grammar of Science (1900).

The Islam book was mush, it was only useful because it showed me how leftist academic thought in the late-1990s shows a clear progression to what the left says today.

However, the book did let me identify a key difference between the left and the right. The editor, in his summation, spoke about the “atheist” Soviet Army in 1980s Afghanistan—his quotation marks.

There are two levels this statement can operate at:

(1) The Soviet Army was the military branch for a state that was atheist, per its laws and ruling party—ergo, the Soviet Army was an atheist organisation.

(2) People still practiced religion in the USSR—and that included soldiers in the Soviet Army; ergo, the Soviet Army was not atheist, hence the word can appear in quotation marks.

Leftists always use sense (2) and ignore sense (1)—and this is why right and left talk past each other.

You see it with discussions about Islam itself: “Islam has bloody borders!” “There are many ways to be a Muslim, many sects—don’t generalise!”.

But the same statements can both be true—whether about Islam or the Soviet Army—just at different levels.

How far you agree with the statement “the Soviet Army wasn’t atheist” depends on the level you work at.

A paradoxical statement like “the Soviet Army was an atheist organisation staffed by religious people” can very well be true, if both levels are taken into account.

The typical “wet liberal” leftist only operates at level (2)—hence “mustn’t generalise”, while the right operates at level (1) “godless Russian Communists”.

When confronted by (1) the wet liberal pops up and says “but not all Russians are like that”—a statement that is true, but only at a certain level.

The difference between (1) and (2) maps onto male and female thought—narcissistic individualism versus objective generalisation, left and right.


Recent Posts

See All

Dream (VII)

I walk up a steep mountain path, very rocky, and eventually I come to the top—at the top I see two trees filled with blossoms, perhaps cherry blossoms, and the blossoms fall to the ground. I think, “C

Runic power

Yesterday, I posted the Gar rune to X as a video—surrounded by a playing card triangle. The video I uploaded spontaneously changed to the unedited version—and, even now, it refuses to play properly (o

Gods and men

There was once a man who was Odin—just like, in more recent times, there were men called Jesus, Muhammad, and Buddha. The latter three, being better known to us, are clearly men—they face the dilemmas


Post: Blog2_Post
bottom of page