The leftist's relationship to power

Ay bruh, fym u oppressed when all da homies be callin you fire?

I read a bunch of interesting articles and comments over the course of this week, which is what inspired me to try and synthesize them into a meaningful whole and make this post.

1. What is power?

Thuletide posted an excellent essay on the various forms of power elites exert over the masses, using Foucault’s analysis as a starting point. I’m not going to spend too much time here because you can get a more in depth description in the link above, but a short rundown is necessary.

Thuletide points out that there exist multiple definitions of power, depending on which school of thought you subscribe to:

Power is institutional domination (a typical Liberal definition of power)

Power is systemic oppression (a typical Marxist definition of power)

Power is submission to rules or law (a typical Psychoanalytical definition of power)

Foucault however, stated that these are just forms of power, as power is not held by one individual or group, but expressed in every aspect of society.

Micro-level “force relations” are the basis of Foucault’s conception of power: Somebody has power over you when they can force you to do something against your own will.

Thuletide then applies this idea to the concept of the Opression Olympics, where more opression leads to more power in modern western SOYciety. He continues by stating that Foucault’s point of interest was the analysis of power expression in modern “democracies” that lack a publicly visible and absolutely powerful sovereign.

Power did not magically disappear during the transition from monarchy to democracy, nor was it handed to the masses, who have far less power today than they did under monarchic rule. Democratic society merely conceals power and expresses it via different means. Foucault identified four modes of power in modern society, which operate in conjunction with one another…

The four modes of power according to Foucault are thus:

1. Sovereign Power: The power to kill and take.

2. Disciplinary Power: The power to regulate behavior.

3. Biopower: The power to control biology and life.

4. Pastoral Power: Power generated through coercive nurturing.

For a more thorough description, check out Thuletide’s post. It’s time to move onto the next part of this essay.

2. Don’t look up [vaccine effectiveness statistics]

Netflix released an interesting movie in early January, called Don’t Look Up. I didn’t watch it myself, because the trailer told pretty much all I needed to know about it. I reasoned that the movie was intended to be “trust the Experts” Covid propaganda, but noticed that the dynamics presented in the trailer were actually a representation of the consequences of knowledge with no power to back it up - which characterizes dissident thought, not mainstream opinions. I forgot about it soon after, until I found Scott Alexander’s review of it.

Scott provides a quick rundown of the plot, observes the same thing as I noted above and exposes some additional internal contradictions found in the movie. Emphasis mine:

Take [the plot] seriously, and the obvious moral of the story is: all conspiracy theories are true. If some rando bagging groceries at the supermarket tells you that every scientist in the world is lying, you should trust her 1000 percent.

But for some reason, everyone else thinks the moral of this story is Believe Experts. Worse, I think the scriptwriter and director and people like that also thought the moral of this story was Believe Experts. I think they asked themselves “How can we create a polemical film that viscerally convinces people to Believe Experts”, and they somehow came up with this movie, where the experts are bad and wrong and destroy humanity.

There’s a debate over whether Don’t Look Up is supposed to be pushing the progressive line on climate change vs. the progressive line on COVID. I’m not sure it can honestly push either

And then asks himself something I’d been wondering myself as well:

What went wrong? How can you try so hard to convey your politics, yet fail so badly?

Or rather, how is it that presumably only those who are already drinking your kool-aid would take your message as it was intended?

Scott sees the source of the contradiction in the fact that every political philosophy is self contradictory due to its scope. This is not something unique to progressivism, but characteristic of every political philosophy.

Progressivism, like conservatism and every other political philosophy, is big and complicated and self-contradictory. It tells a lot of stories to define and justify itself.

I disagree. I think this problem is very specific to progressivism. Let’s take another look at what the movie (or more specifically, the trailer) portrays, what the filmmakers’ want it to represent and what it more accurately represents.

Watching the trailer, it is immediately obvious that the dynamic being portrayed is that of those with knowledge, but lacking power, trying to convince those in power to do something about said knowledge (speaking truth to power). Additionally, the movie itself also shows the futility of trying to get the masses to accept your knowledge (your side of the story) when you don’ have any power and those who do have power are pushing the exact opposite story. So whatever else I can say about the movie, I have to admit that this dynamic was captured well, at least.

According to the people who made this movie, this is an accurate representation of the dynamics between establishment scientists (aka Experts), political authorities and the masses. And yet, this view is completely divorced from reality. When it comes to spreading their stance on the Covid “crisis”, establishment SOYentists have the support of every form of power imaginable - political authorities (most of the world’s governments are (or have been until recently) towing the party line), the media (there is scarcely any coverage of dissident opinions in mainstream media, worldwide), big tech (FB, google, twitter, youtube censor “misinformation”), global organizations (WHO). Additionally, the majority of the people still, after all this time, accept their words as gospel, despite being proven wrong multiple times about pretty much every point.

In the movie, Madam Prez says “Don’t look up”, so the masses wouldn’t see the comet. In the real world, the Experts say “The vaccines are safe and effective, [so don’t look up vaccine effectiveness data]”.

To me, the dynamic presented in the trailer maps much better onto dissident (right-wing) thought. Because most of our opinions are unacceptable in modern soyciety - either ridiculed as conspiracy theories or vilified as various -isms, we find refuge in anonymous corners of the internet. Trying to present non-mainstream views on the Covid “crisis” in public or to someone in power gets you canceled. Trying to redpill your friends means you are a “conspiracy theorist” who can’t know better than muh Experts. Let’s not even get into the other facets of right wing thought.

So, how can leftists capture the reality of dissident opinion so well, even though they are very clearly supported by every form of power imaginable, and thus anything but dissident?

The answer lies, in my opinion, in the fact that leftists are completely out of touch with reality. The leftist truly believes himself to be the counterculture, the revolution, the dissident. Why? Because a good leftist is necessarily willfully blind to his own power.

3. Power within a leftist moral framework

A comment by Rudolph Harrier on Briggs’ blog analyzes the leftist modus operandi of attacking standards and hierarchy under the pretense of relativism and equality - a breakdown of all standards - only to then redefine the standards in a way that suits them once the previous ones were broken down (emphasis mine).

On that note there is a common leftist ploy to attack standards and then once the standards have been vacated, to replace them with standards meaning “believe whatever we say.” They never intend to actually destroy standards, but they are always seeking to replace them with standards which benefit them.

So for example, once upon a time Hollywood was full of beautiful actors and beauty was prized in Tinseltown. Then the left spent years saying that standards of beauty were necessarily bigoted, sexist, racist, etc. and that actors should be hired regardless of their appearance. Once they finally broke down their standards and started to get ugly people hired in roles that called for beautiful people, they did celebrate and say that the cruel standards had been defeated forever. No, they simply started to claim that ugly people were in fact beautiful. It was good the whole time to have beautiful actors, we simply needed to make sure that “beautiful” meant “ugly.” So if you now say “shouldn’t we hire people for roles without considering their looks, considering how hateful standards of beauty are?” they will not agree that the standards are evil, but instead ask you why you can’t admit that the actors they are hiring are “actually beautiful.”

Similarly they attacked objective truth for years, and then when we got a generation who couldn’t conceive of objective truth they did a 180 and declare that objective truth was in fact very important, just so long as you agree that “objective truth” means “whatever the fact checkers are saying today.” The same thing with them insisting that censorship is unjustifiable in all circumstances, only to embrace cancel culture when they were able to abuse their immunity to censorship to take control of the narrative. It’s the same tactic again and again and again.

Part of why conservatives have done poorly over the last century is that they resist leftists as though leftists were seriously trying to destroy standards, where in reality each and every time they are simply trying to replace them.

Yeerk on twitter points out this dynamic as it pertains to the current political climate:

Thuletide puts it similarly:

The vast majority of Leftist political “theory” consists of pointing at objectively good or natural things and then pathologizing them as immoral and bigoted. The basic formula is as follows:

1. Point out a societal disparity.

2. Claim that this disparity is caused by “oppression.”

3. Demand that the “oppressor” cedes power and/or resources to the “oppressed.”

Leftism puts on a pretense of relativism and equality in order to be able to criticize the status quo at a given time, only to throw it all away once they come into power and get to themselves determine the status quo. This is because leftists are sociopathic status maximizers of the incompetent kind, which means that they:

1. Occupy the bottom rungs in any natural hierarchy

2. Are heavily displeased with that state of affairs

3. Thus seek to overthrow, or better yet invert, the hierarchy in order to take up their rightful place at the top

Natural hierarchies are based on competence, beauty and strength and therefore have a very clear and healthy conception of power. This also leads to the valuation of personal discipline, responsibility and achievement. Inverted hierarchies, those that leftists seek to create, on the other hand are based on the exact opposite - incompetence, ugliness and weakness. Their virtues are instead irresponsibility, victimhood and (being a target of) oppression. See, for example, the Opression Olympics in Thuletide’s post.

Combining this idea with the Oppression Olympics concept (where being more “oppressed” translates to having more systemic power) provides a pretty good overview of the power hierarchy in the Postwar West:

• A White woman has power over a White man.

• A Black man has power over a White woman.

• A Black woman has power over a Black man.

• A White transgender individual has power over a Black woman.

• A Black transgender individual has power over a White transgender individual.

• A physically disabled Black transgender individual has power over an able-bodied Black transgender individual.

• The Oppression Olympics continues until we finally reach the top of the power pyramid, where we find Those Who Must Not Be Named.

Thus, in a leftist moral framework, various forms of powerlessness are actually a source of power. The more powerless, oppressed and victimized an individual or group, the more “sacred” they are - which translates to more power. But, since having power leads (or is supposed to lead) to dropping down the hierarchy, the leftist must disavow any use of his (her, their or xer) power while at the same time using it. This is the core of leftist doublethink - to act as though you have power, but to believe yourself powerless at the same time.

This is why many leftists genuinely believe themselves to be oppressed. This is why a man coming out as tranny is woman of the year, a woman coming out as being sexually attracted to pans is stunning and brave, a black career criminal who died of [REDACTED] is turned into a martyr, despite political authorities, media, academia and their peers actively encourage these supposed transgressions.

Scott pointed out what it truly means to be tolerant in I Can Tolerate Anything Except The Outgroup:

The Emperor summons before him Bodhidharma and asks: “Master, I have been tolerant of innumerable gays, lesbians, bisexuals, asexuals, blacks, Hispanics, Asians, transgender people, and Jews. How many Virtue Points have I earned for my meritorious deeds?”

Bodhidharma answers: “None at all”.

The Emperor, somewhat put out, demands to know why.

Bodhidharma asks: “Well, what do you think of gay people?”

The Emperor answers: “What do you think I am, some kind of homophobic bigot? Of course I have nothing against gay people!”

And Bodhidharma answers: “Thus do you gain no merit by tolerating them!”

You can only tolerate those things that you abhor, or at least dislike. In a similar vein, you are only brave if what you do comes at a personal cost to you. Your action is only a transgression if it’s universally disliked, not if it earns you support from everyone and their government.

Let me put it in a way zoomers might understand: “Ay bruh, fym u oppressed when all da homies be callin you fire?”

And yet it is essential to a leftist’s worldview that xe persists in thinking of xemself as oppressed by le evil straight white men, because that is the source of xer power. This reveals the essential femininity of the leftist impulse. Whereas men wield power explicitly, women do so implicitly and indirectly through men and male institutions. Similarly, a woman finds power in her distress - in her victimhood. This is why a woman claims to be oppressed by “toxic societal beauty standards” and eats another piece of cake, whereas a man pumps more iron.

A good leftist is willfully blind to his personal power

This brings us to the climax of this post.

Women and leftists are willfully blind to the fact that things they call "stigmatized", "brave" and "revolutionary" are actually encouraged. This is because their "claim to victimhood" is their source of power, but acknowledging this power reduces their victimhood and consequently takes away their power. Therefore leftists believe that victims can’t hold power, and any act committed by a victim is not an act of power.

Let’s unpack this. Within any moral framework, exemplifying it’s core moral virtues leads to status. Said status is a source of personal power. In the case of leftism, victimhood and “being oppressed” are the highest virtues. Status is assigned to people according to the degree of victimhood and oppression, imagined or real, they have suffered. However, this increase in status elevates them to a position of power, therefore making them no longer a true victim - which means they should lose status and consequently, power. This is a contradiction that can not be resolved (in any sane way) - as one gets power, they are no longer a victim. As they lose power, because they are no longer a victim, they once again become a victim due to the past circumstances. And so on, ad nauseam. This problem arises because said moral framework has a negative relationship to personal power. The only way to resolve this contradiction is for powerful people to necessarily be willfully blind to their own power, in order to keep reaping the benefits of their power. Similarly, everyone else who buys into this moral framework must also be willfully blind to this dynamic, because otherwise they give up the potential for a future rise to power.

This dynamic is the core of leftist thought. The only way to establish and perpetuate maxims such as “Racism is prejudice + power” is to refuse to acknowledge their own power. Nonwhites can’t be racist, because they don’t wield power. All the while being willfully blind to the fact that exemption from a cardinal sin is one of the principal forms of power within any moral-religious framework.

Leftism is predicated upon and perpetuated on this form of willful reality blindness and doublethink, where one commits universally praised acts in order to virtue signal, while at the same time believing these acts to be truly revolutionary and rebellious.

This is why the leftists behind “Don’t Look Up” were unable to manufacture propaganda that works on anyone that isn’t already drinking their Kool-Aid. And why leftists are universally condemning the Canada trucker convoys. And why leftists are all for government-issued vaccine mandates. They can justify any evil act their side commits from the standpoint of victimhood and subsequent lack of power.

Every good leftist knows that oppression is mistreatment + power. Therefore the government isn’t oppressive because it’s a victim of evil right-wingers, and victims don’t have power.