Increased repression brings increased leftism, increased leftism brings increased repression, in an ever tighter circle that turns ever faster. This is the left singularity
The increased repression, Chick-fil-AÂ and the Olympic opening ceremony, is not a manifestation of left insecurity, but of the ever accelerating movement left, the left singularity.
Let us compare the arrogant hate filled murderous totalitarianism of the recent British Olympics, with the civilized and sportsmanlike Nazi Olympics of 1936. The British Olympics demonized capitalists as smokestacks, the slave trade, and racism, while celebrating the murderous National Health Service, in which one third of hospital deaths are murder by the state. Imagine if the Nazi Olympics had put on a big show demonizing the Jews and advertizing the benefits of state elimination of lunatics and the feebleminded. (And, digressing, why does the modern welfare state murder the elderly, while putting the insane and retards on the street? If you are going to murder anyone, murder, or at least lock up, the insane.)
In fact, of course, the Nazi Olympics celebrated the pursuit of excellence by all people and nations. Hitler congratulated Jesse Owens, probably through gritted teeth, but he congratulated him, and the Nazi celebration of the Olympics, the movie Olympia, celebrated him, while Voula Papachristou was expelled from today’s Olympics.
As Bruce Charleton observes: “Public opinion†has been moved Leftward by truly massive, and now massively-policed, media saturation – and the use of exemplary punishments of public figures for real or imagined violations of the zero-tolerance policy concerning non-PC public (and private)
Leftists are not troubled by the fear that the masses might revolt against the left, but rather each leftist fears he might fail to keep up with the ever changing line, find himself a few years, or weeks, or days behind the current ever changing political correctness, and find himself deemed a rightist.
Which historically halts only in bloodshed. There is no equivalent right singularity, as repressive right wing regimes forbid interest in politics, while repressive left wing regimes command interest in politics.
The left singularity is the same each time in its approach to infinite leftism, but differs chaotically and surprisingly each time in its ending short of infinite leftism
If it did not end, the final outcome, infinite leftism in finite time, would be that everyone is tortured to death for insufficient leftism, except the last torturer, who then commits suicide to punish himself for failure to inflict infinitely severe torments, but this does not happen in practice, because always at some point short of infinite leftism, something, or someone, goes boom – though not necessarily very far short of infinite leftism.
The left singularity generally ends when quite a lot of people near the very center of power are terrified that the left singularity, the ever more extreme demand for ever greater purity, has become a threat to at least their property and liberty, and usually to their lives. It ends when the ruling elite become sufficiently frightened of each other that some of them decide to do something drastic – which is to say, it ends after it has gone quite a bit further than it has yet gone. There is a lot of ruin in a nation.
When it ends, things sometimes get a lot better. And sometimes they do not. But things stop getting worse.
Often a left singularity ends when left wing leader, for example Stalin, has everyone to the left of himself shot, or a sufficient number of people to the left of himself shot to halt the singularity, thus conveying, with bullets, the message that the current status quo is left enough. To the right of here you get shot, to the left of here you get shot. The ever leftwards movement has succeeded in bringing us to this glorious utopia, and anyone who wants any more change, rightwards or leftwards, is going to die.
Sometimes the singularity ends in a military coup. This generally results in the message, again conveyed in bullets, that that was wee bit too far left. We are going back a wee bit rightwards – though not necessarily very far rightwards. To get all the way back to before the left singularity set in generally requires armed conflict within the army, with one army faction going to war with another, as in the restoration, or foreign conquest as foreigners take advantage of internal disorder, as in Cambodia, or some event similarly drastic.
The further the reversal goes rightwards, for example the Restoration, the less bloody the reversal is. When you are far left it requires more terror to stabilize the social order, to prevent it from going even further left, than when you are far right, for the order of the restoration rested on the patriarchal authority of heads of households and men of property, while Stalin’s order rested on Stalin. Leftist repression makes politics compulsory, while rightist repression makes politics forbidden, which requires a lower level of repression.
In the early days of a left singularity, armed conflicts tend to favor the left, due to greater cohesion, a greater willingness to self sacrifice, and greater willingness to use dreadful means. In the final days of a left singularity, armed conflicts tend to favor the the right, often in a ridiculously one sided way, for reasons not altogether clear to me. Possibly the demand for ever more left wing beliefs selects for people ever more stupid and ever less in contact with reality and undermines military discipline and order. Observe that three rentacops can handle any number of occupiers, though it somehow takes three hundred policemen to handle fifty occupiers. The recent military debacles of the British army suggests that they could similarly handle today’s British army. A handful of Blackwater mercenaries can defeat a large horde of Arabs, a handful of Arabs can defeat a horde of British soldiers, which suggests that Blackwater could conquer Britain quite easily if ever the Pentagon were to let them off the leash, or the Pentagon’s hand became too feeble to grip the leash. The weakness of Europe makes reversion to seventh century anarcho-piratism a real possibility.
However, whatever is wrong with the military forces of a left singularity near the end, it tends to be decisively remedied after the end, which often gives us a military left force that is potent, and quite left wing, for example Napoleon’s army, even though it no longer suffers from the ever leftwards tendency.
Cromwell’s army was white, male, and heterosexual, with the death penalty for sodomy. Today’s British army is united only by faith, faith in progressivism.
A left singularity ends because of loss of cohesion in the ruling elite, which finds itself having difficulty keeping up with the ever leftwards movement, and because of military weakness, which is perhaps elite incohesion manifested in the army. The worst outcome, and typically the bloodiest outcome, is that further movement leftwards is halted, and military discipline recreated, for example Stalinism. The best outcome, and typically the least bloody outcome, is that the leftists just flat out lose, and are purged from government, academia, and the official Religion, for example the Restoration.
Interesting stuff.
“but this does not happen in practice, because always at some point short of infinite leftism, something, or someone, goes boom – though not necessarily very far short of infinite of leftism.”
This is the bit that interests me most, because I find it impossible to guess what will happen. What I think is missing from the above is the sense of competition between rival rulers.
Leftism in the West has gone so far in eliminating any rivals to the State/ La/ Education/ Media complex that it is hard to imagine a traditional coupl being possible.
In the first place, I think that the current national entities are much too big to hold together through a collapse; and that local leaders will emerge – maybe very local indeed. So, your picture of a society resembling England after teh Romans left is not too far fetched.
But there is also the point that the extreme weakness of will of European elites means that a really small group of people who actually *want* to lead and are prepared to do what it takes could very suddenly seize power – but sch groups are nowadays almost always alien to European society, I mean they are not Europeans.
I really don’t know whether China wants to seize power in the West, but if it does then I think it would be easy. But they are not behaving as if they do, so it is probably a red herring.
The most likely future rulers in Europe are Islamic, because Islam is quite explicit that this is its aim, and nobody in power would be prepared to take the measures necessary to stop this from happening – indeed the state would likely use force to prevent resistance.
As to their being a lot of ruin in a nation – again this depends on teh strength and will of alternative rulers. When the alternative rulers are small, weak and ambivalent, then there must be a lot of ruin before they can take over.
My sense is that Western societies are extraordinarily fragile, England now compared with even a generation ago is very fragile, since all autonomous power has been rendered ineffectual (the church, the legal profession, medical profession, universities, trades unions (very powerful in the 1970s!), local government etc – all are now filleted branches of public administration, wholly driven by external agendas, often originating in the mass media.
Indeed, government is now ineffectual – and the mass media drives everything, although it is amorphous.
Indeed, the grey (or red-haired) eminence of British Politics, manipulating three Prime Ministers for the past decade and a half, is standing trial (which shows how the head can be cut off but even more will grow to replace is) – I mean Rebekah Brooks. She is worth looking at as a case study in the non-public nature of modern power, real power – yet which was indeed probably a very old fashioned kind of power – the personal fascination of a woman with (apparently) overpowering female magnetism, and a reminder of how far such a person can go – essentially all the way, up to consort, empress, queen – surrounded always by others keen to do her bidding.
A story worthy of Shakespeare!
That which cannot continue, will stop.
Which does not, however, guarantee that what comes next will be an improvement. It will, however, be interesting.
It is impossible to guess what will happen, because it works out differently each time, in part because people look at what happened last time, and adjust their behavior.
Cronulla Riots. Muslims attempt to enforce Sharia law on Cronulla Beach. Clubs of young white non Muslim males turn vigilante. Police intervened forcefully against anti Islamic rioters, while piously turning their heads the other way when a convoy of Muslims went into Cronulla to reinforce the local Muslims (who were getting ethnically cleansed) The attacking column was defeated, and the police were either defeated, or were deliberately ineffectual about obeying orders to repress one side of the conflict, but not the other.
A commission was set up to investigate the riots, which commission proceeded to earnestly ignore any bad things done by Muslims. This pissed people off, so the commission was eventually sacked, and replaced by a supposedly even handed commission, which demonstrated its even handedness by charging an equal number of Muslims and non Muslims with riot, assault, and so forth. The effect of the riot was that Muslims were intimidated, and, less obviously, police were intimidated by the forces of order and western civilization. At some stage in the process, someone decided that the anti sharia forces were getting seriously scary, and could not be ignored with impunity, nor successfully repressed. The prime minister, John Howard, took the even handed position that this was just criminal disorder, rather than evil white racism.
Of course what it was, was non state forces resisting Sharia, when state forces would not do so.
Of course, this is one successful holding action, in western civilization that is in general retreat and collapse. One not lost, ten thousand lost. I hope, however, it holds some possibilities about the shape of the coming collapse.
Another reason for a tiny bit of optimism was the almost ridiculously one sided conflicts between rentacops and occupiers.
[…] The left singularity continues « Jim’s Blog […]
“why does the modern welfare state murder the elderly, while putting the insane and retards on the street?”
You really need to ask? They have pensions, which cost money to the state, so they are killed to save money for government jobs. Insane asylums also cost money, so out they are.
Question about terminology: if it’s a singularity, how could it be stopped at all?
Inside the model, it could not be stopped at all. The model is not reality; the map is not the terrain. The point is that if your intellectual model produces a singularity, this is evidence that there is something left out of your model. In fact, the nature of models is that there are a lot of somethings left out. So, one of the left out things stops the singularity. To find out which left out thing and how, you would need a broader, better model. Jim is not claiming to have the broader, better model in hand.
All models are wrong, but some models are useful.
It tends towards a singularity, but it always stops a step before achieving it. There’s always a Butlerian jihad bringing sense back before the point of no return is reached
I sometimes wonder whether that is an illusion. What if we are that lucky branch of the multiverse where, looking just at it it looks like a Maxwell’s demon is putting society back into working order?
This would also explain the Fermi Paradox. If all intelligent life in our universe tends to eventually spirals into perfect leftism as described in the OP… if so building self-improving AI designed to extrapolate human ethics like the folks at SIAI hope to do may be an incredibly bad idea.
“If it did not end, the final outcome, infinite leftism in finite time, would be that everyone is tortured to death for insufficient leftism…”
I hope this model of the universe is as unlikely as I think it is!
Khmer Rouge Cambodia provides a fair approximation. Everyone educated, or who exhibited symptoms of intelligence, was murdered, frequently by the most extraordinary tortures, in particular, most of the Khmer Rouge were themselves murdered by the Khmer Rouge, usually with the most extravagant tortures. The absence of intelligent Cambodians is quite noticeable. Khmer Rouge rule had massive dysgenic impact, visible to casual observation. Khmer Rouge Cambodia is where Russia was headed, had Stalin not halted the process.
Cannot be stopped within the model, nor within our existing social order, nor by politics as usual. Therefore, will be stopped by politics as unusual. If a coup is unthinkable, well, coups are not the only way in which social orders change. But when the money runs out, coups may well be thinkable.
Quite. But has there ever been a PC military before? A military which puts PC above military goals?
Of course, there have been ineffective, inefficient militaries – and they have had other goals – but there is something very fundamentally different about what we have now in the West.
One comparison would be with the Communist Republican side in the Spanish Civil War – hugely subsidized, vastly incoherent, all about propaganda, evil both accidentally and by intent but consumed with self-admiration.
They lost of course (for a few decades, at least) but I am not sure whether there is a Franco equivalent.
It seems that a few decades ago, the world used to be filled with military dictatorships – but they lacked legitimacy and most have gone – and are being replaced by theocracies.
Like I keep saying, the political future looks like a choice of religions – most likely a choice of monotheisms. And religions which are not suitable for theocracies will not be contenders.
It is fairly common for the left to politicize the military. This can lead to armed political conflicts within the military, for example Sulla vs Cinna, and Monck vs Lambert.
Sulla was a member of the Optimate party, Cinna a member of the Populare party, words that still have their right wing and left wing tones. It was suddenly and bloodily revealed that soldiers are just naturally inclined to be right wing, regardless of their supposed class interest.
The army is politicized to prevent a Sulla or a Monck, but the politicization renders the army ineffectual, which soldiers resent.
The army of Marius was in large part freed slaves and suchlike, yet still they went over to Sulla.
According to Neil Howe and William Strauss, the cycle is about 4 generations long. That puts CW2/WW3 around 2020.
The Howe and Strauss cycle is driven by the tendency for people to forget that war is nasty, that keeping peace is hard, while going to war is easy, that starting wars is easy and that ending them is hard, forget the necessity for compromise.
This is a different phenomenon to the left singularity
It rather looks as if the left singularity will go asymptotic at roughly the same time as the Howe and Strauss cycle hits its war phase. The Howe and Strauss cycle might well be pushing the left singularity along, as leftists come to think that coup and/or civil war are unimaginable, so engage in riskier behavior. However, in the past, left singularities have not synchronized with the Howe and Strauss cycle.
Isn’t this the big daddy of all leftist singularities? All other leftist movements had England and then american supporting, protecting and nurturing them.
The movement began in England, immigrated to America and now almost rules the entire world. When the American left goes there will be no one left to fund the propaganda and control the police that keeps everyone else inline. Either way, it’s going to be a big bodda boom when the US goes.
Yep. The biggest and oldest. Most left singularities live fast and die young.
I wish I could deduce from the fact that it must end, that it is likely to end well. Historically however, they usually do not end well – they just stop getting endlessly worse. On the other hand, Anglo Saxons are different, which is why this one took so long to go asymptotic. Perhaps it will end well.
Don’t forget the total emphasis on individualism and the destruction of austere social rules (Summer of Love) of the “prophet†generation. That plays right into the singularity.
In the Howe and Strauss cycle, the war is supposed to break out while the prophets are still in power. This one is going to be late – though, perhaps not all that late.
The war breaks out when the Nomads are in power. The Prophets hate war (Vietnam). It’s the unfortunate recklessness of the Nomads (Gen X) who, sick of their ineffectual elders/leaders (Prophets) not being able to “get things done” decide to “get things done”. In this cycle, it would be the Millennials who’d be doing the actual fighting.
[Not that I think American Gen-X wants to go to war, but WWII synchronized the hot-spots (e.g.: Middle East) along with us, even if CW2 is only the remotest possibility.]
No one ever wants to go to war, but as time passes, people forget that war is easy, peace is hard, that to keep conflicts from going maximally lethal and maximally violent requires continual effort and forethought, requires a vast barricade of long established time hallowed laws, tolerant customs, and social expectations of good behavior, to protect us against our nature as killer apes.
Let me get this straight as I’m not an “old book” reader, or a history buff.
Would it be accurate to attribute as your view that all (or most) civilizations perish because all (or most) societies and civilizations (as far as we know) collapse, because of, if not entirely because, the affects or effects of the “left singularity”?
If not, please give input on my false characterization.
Societies that have died from leftists ideas:
1. Western Rome from left wing christian ideas. Immigration is good! Swords to plow shears! Love your enemies!
2. Sparta: Women’s rights(Women ran everything and acted very much like modern feminists). Male population of fighting age dropped to 10,000. Slaves revolted and the empire crumbled.
3. Babylon: Women’s rights again(Child custody, child support, Families falling apart, ect). Men wouldn’t fight for the city and spent all their time partying. They left the river gate unguarded and the meades took the city because everyone was drunk and getting laid and couldn’t be bothered to fight.
4. Baghdad vs the Mongols(Diversity is strength). Muslims spent all their time doing bullshit academic work(State funded), watching singers, and letting their daughters act like whores. They even had women doctors and judges running things. To keep things running well the Caliph had to give large amounts of power to Christians and other minority groups as Arabs where too busy fucking around to fight and run things(Read the first few chapters of “eaters of the dead”). When the mongols showed up the christens opened the gates and let them in. Opps.
Citation needed. Please.
Civilization dies with women’s liberation, leading to lek based reproduction, leading to men not investing in posterity, leading to pacifism, failure to reproduce, and so on and so forth.
This is a different, longer term phenomenon to the left singularity, though each contributes to the other.
“On the first Feminian Sandstones we were promised the Fuller Life
(Which started by loving our neighbour and ended by loving his wife)
Till our women had no more children and the men lost reason and faith,
And the Gods of the Copybook Headings said: “The Wages of Sin is Death.””
We could call all theocratic singularities, for example the fall of the Roman Empire in the West, left singularities, and most of them have much in common with more recent left singularities.
It is a reasonable generalization, but generalizing too far, one is apt to lose specifics.
More recent left singularities are more readily recognizable as left, more atheocratic than theocratic, and more likely to resemble our own: The purest recent examples are:
There is much truth to going further back in time, but leftists are reluctant to recognize theocracies as “left”. Supposedly, leftism is completely different, and indeed it somewhat different, though not nearly so different as claimed.
Hmmm – traditionalists like me see all secularism as Left, but you see all theocracies as Left.
So what is an example of a non-religious/ secular Right state, free of taint of significant Leftness?
I say there are none (nor could there be) – not if they have to last a couple of generations and be stable for a while, to count as anything other than an mixed transitional state.
The secular Right is merely a theoretical construct, wishful thinking, pick-and-mixing – like Mencius Moldbug, who wants a state that functions permanently as if run by SSPX but without the ‘absurd’ beliefs and limitations on liberty
Not all religious societies are theocratic, as most people, particularly rulers, don’t take their religion seriously most of the time.
Iconoclastic Byzantium was a theocracy. Komnenian Byzantium wasn’t.
Constantine I wasn’t a theocrat, Theodosius I was.
I am using ‘theocracy’ here as it is generally used – to mean a society run *throughout* on the basis of religious goals. This meaning is compatible with various structures, not necessarily involving a monarch – and including a church state split – so long as the state is thoroughly permeated by religious goals.
My point is simply that the basic form of Right/ reactionary society is one in which society is run with religious aims – rather than utilitarian aims – and I am pointing out that the real world secular Right have the same broad aims as the secular Left – utilitarian aims, increasing human happiness/ reducing human misery.
My favorite theocracy is England from the Restoration to the early nineteenth century, which gave us modern science, the industrial revolution, and the British empire. Would you say it was run throughout on the basis of religious goals?
My interpretation of this period is that just as a King prevents the negative sum struggle for political power from dissipating the wealth of the nation by preventing anyone else from getting political power, the official Anglican church prevented the theocratic struggle to attain power by being Holier than thou, allegedly superior Holiness being the striking and major characteristic of leftism.
Things went to hell with the British movement to ban the slave trade, because that made superior holiness the basis of political power and the confiscation of other people’s wealth.
Depends on the definition of theocracy. Charles the second did not take religion seriously, and taking religions seriously under Charles the second was not good for one’s career, yet to go to the correct universities, or to be a member of parliament, or such, one had to be Anglican, and, as an Anglican, one had to subscribe, or claim to subscribe, to certain doctrines.
I would interpret this as an effort to keep people who believed in certain dangerous things out of power, which is to say anti theocracy, though Bruce Charleton could with equal validity interpret this as an effort to enforce belief among the ruling elite in certain true, and therefore not-dangerous, things, which is to say a theocracy that enforced true beliefs.
Charles the second did not take religion seriously
Charles II took religion seriously. He was, apparently, a reign-long secret Catholic believer, though not a Catholic, in a country which would not tolerate a Catholic King. He was wise enough to know that the Church had lost England for the foreseeable future and that there was only a little he could do about it. He did what he could do, however. For example, he kept the creepy-crawly king-killing Cromwell-lovers away from power, and he reduced the persecution of Catholics. The beautiful story of his deathbed reception into the Church is here.
I would describe Charles II as a pretty normal Catholic king (which is to say a theocrat) saddled with a country which would not have him. So, he was trying to move it back towards the Faith: softly, softly. He was not loud because he saw that being loud was not feasible. His brother, sadly, was less wise.
Did not seem to interfere with his supply of mistresses, or cause him to be unduly humble in religious services. They called him the merry monarch, at a time when the religious competed to demonstrate how religious they were by how sour faced they were. The contemporary criticism was not that he was a crypto Catholic, but that he did not take religion seriously.
Possibly. And what was his religion before he was invited back to be head of the Anglican Church, when he was protected by Roman Catholics, and dependent on their favor?
The deal with France was that in return for money and arms, he would convert to Roman Catholicism at some unspecified date in the future. That he needed a substantial inducement, and that he left his conversion to the last possible moment, when it would do the French, and the Roman Catholic Church, no good, suggests that he was not a life long Roman Catholic, so much as a life long pragmatist.
Did not seem to interfere with his supply of mistresses, or cause him to be unduly humble in religious services.
Oh, come on. In his position, I’m sure I would fall to temptation as well.
The deal with France was that in return for money and arms, he would convert to Roman Catholicism at some unspecified date in the future. That he needed a substantial inducement, and that he left his conversion to the last possible moment, when it would do the French, and the Roman Catholic Church, no good, suggests that he was not a life long Roman Catholic, so much as a life long pragmatist.
Sure. He converted on his deathbed, when neither France nor the Church could do him any temporal harm but when England could do his heirs harm, because he was a pragmatist. A real pragmatist would have adopted High Church Anglicanism the second he no longer needed France to prop him up and would have disowned his brother the second he converted to Catholicism.
but he did adopt High Church Anglicanism.
I don’t see all theocracies as left. Rather, theocracies wherein power is obtained by being holier than the next guy are left. From the restoration to the early nineteenth century, the official Anglican Church was as right as right could be – in large part because Charles the second met efforts to gain power through real or loudly proclaimed holiness with gentle ridicule, a blow as painful and more effectual than cutting off their heads.
The left might be best defined this way: Rule of the talking priests. Their power comes from their words and ideas. The right is the rule of the warrior priests. Their power comes from their ability to win battles and keep order.
My analysis is that the left singularity ends due to loss of elite cohesion: For example it was hard for the Khmer Rouge to continue to rule when a large part of the Khmer Rouge had been tortured to death by the Khmer Rouge. On your analysis, which might be the same facts viewed differently, when things go so far that fire and steel starts to matter, the leadership of the left just is not very good at it, which explains the fact that despite left efforts to create a left politicized army, the soldiers tend not to like them very much.
Marius, the most able general of the Roman Republican left was primarily an administrator and organizer. His logistics were great, his battles not so great. And when he died, the rest of the Roman Republican left was grossly incompetent in the civil war.
Western Rome fell because they stopped having kids. No kids to fight meant importing mercenaries and slaves to keep things going.
Christians actually fixed this problem by outlawing infanticide. They also outlawed slavery. The population stabilized and started to increase. Lack of people is not why the west fell.
Outlawed slavery in Imperial Rome? I don’t think they did.
[…] The left singularity: “Increased repression brings increased leftism, increased leftism brings increased […]
To those human beings who are of any concern to me I wish suffering, desolation, sickness, ill-treatment, indignities – I wish that they should not remain unfamiliar with profound self-contempt, the torture of self-mistrust, the wretchedness of the vanquished: I have no pity for them, because I wish them the only thing that can prove today whether one is worth anything or not – that one endures.”
(The Will to Power, p 481)
“You want, if possible – and there is no more insane “if possible” – to abolish suffering. And we? It really seems that we would rather have it higher and worse than ever. Well-being as you understand it – that is no goal, that seems to us an end, a state that soon makes man ridiculous and contemptible – that makes his destruction desirable. The discipline of suffering, of great suffering – do you not know that only this discipline has created all enhancements of man so far?
(Beyond Good and Evil, p 225 )
I do not point to the evil and pain of existence with the finger of reproach, but rather entertain the hope that life may one day become more evil and more full of suffering than it has ever been.
Jim, have you seen Daniel Greenfield’s recent post on Islamic Revolutions? It’s like a mirror image of this post. He could have called it “The Islamic Singularity.” Same principle: however holy thou art, there is always somebody holier than thou who is therefore obliged to kill you.
http://sultanknish.blogspot.com/2012/08/like-allah-islamic-revolutions-devour.html
The left singularity and the Islamic singularity are both particular examples of the theocratic singularity, and yes, pretty much everything Greenfield says, is also true of us, though we are a bit more hesitant to start cutting off heads.
At some point, we are going to have to treat commies and such pretty much the way white supremacists, nazis, and suchlike have been treated: McCarthy times ten thousand, because if we don’t, we shall continue to head leftwards. And we will need a Sulla or a Pinochet to do it.
[…] ‘The Left Singularity Continues’ […]
[…] ‘The Left Singularity Continues’ […]
[…] And just like banal, nationalistic rituals that remind us of our skewered interpretation of 2nd WW history, so, every time a black is killed by a non-black, the synergy of a progressive, relentless march is invigorated: a cauldron of reactivity and a large ethnic, minority as a human shield, fit for modern progressive, puritanical leanings. Such a horror can only end in leftist singularities. […]
[…] This syndrome, essentially indistinguishable from political modernity, calls for a cybernetic theory of accelerating social deterioration, or self-reinforcing economic repression. The trend that dark enlightenment recoils from demands explanation, which is found in the diagram of Left Singularity… […]
[…] Prigrlite svoj status. Ako ne zbog poÅ¡tivanja prve božje zapovjedi, onda zbog toga Å¡to, ?ak i da se probate prilagoditi progresu, vi to ne možete – jer ne možete plivati dovoljno brzo da pratite lijevi singularitet: […]
[…] Regardless of how you feel about video games, or 4chan, this should terrify you. This is the beginning of the end. This is the beginning of the Left Singularity. […]
[…] Leftists are not troubled by the fear that the masses might revolt against the left, but rather each leftist fears he might fail to keep up with the ever changing line, find himself a few years, or weeks, or days behind the current ever changing political correctness, and find himself deemed a rightist. // Which historically halts only in bloodshed. There is no equivalent right singularity, as repressive right wing regimes forbid interest in politics, while repressive left wing regimes command interest in politics. // The left singularity is the same each time in its approach to infinite leftism, but differs chaotically and surprisingly each time in its ending short of infinite leftism. — Jim […]
[…] Os esquerdistas não são perturbados pelo medo de que as massas possam se revoltar contra a esquerda, mas sim cada esquerdista teme que ele possa falhar em acompanhar a linha que sempre muda, se encontre alguns anos, ou semanas, ou dias atrás do atual politicamente correto sempre em mudança e se descubra considerado um direitista. // O que historicamente só para em derramamento de sangue. Não há nenhuma singularidade de direita equivalente, já que regimes repressivos de direita proÃbem o interesse na polÃtica, ao passo em que os regimes repressivos de esquerda ordenam o interesse na polÃtica. // A singularidade de esquerda é a mesma toda vez em sua aproximação ao esquerdismo infinito, mas difere de maneira caótica e surpreendente toda vez ao acabar aquém do esquerdismo infinito — Jim […]