Why New Left Theory is just One Big Justification for Rebellion

Having studied, analyzed and talked about the ideology and philosophical theories of the contemporary Western far-left so much for several years, I can’t help but notice something: all of it can basically be summarized as one big justification for rebellion. Specifically, unconditional, unlimited rebellion, i.e. not limiting rebellion to situations where there is actually well-grounded justification, and not limiting the scope of rebellion to only when and where it is well justified. The point here is, all movements for change ‘rebel’ against the status quo to some extent. The rebellious spirit definitely has its place in bringing about positive change, and also in resisting tyranny. Abolitionism rebelled against the then-status quo of slavery, women’s suffrage and first wave feminism rebelled against the then-well accepted idea that men are superior and deserve more rights, and so on. These movements all rebelled against specific pre-existing ideas, institutions and/or laws that were rationally found to be unjustified. On the other hand, the contemporary Western far-left’s vision doesn’t accept limiting the rebellious spirit in this way. Their philosophical theories tend to justify a far wider-ranging, all-encompassing type of rebellion. The kind of rebellion that could result in the indiscriminate tearing down of existing and long-standing values and institutions, regardless of merit.

This open-ended and unrestricted spirit of rebellion is actually one of the things that makes the contemporary Western activist left incompatible with traditional liberalism. Remember that old-school liberals only challenge aspects of the status quo that they find unjust, irrational, or otherwise unsound, after rational thinking and deliberation. The old-school liberal never engages in open-ended and unrestricted rebellion, both because this would not generally be a rational and justified course of action to take, and because this indiscriminate attack on everything, whether justified or not, would detract from their well-justified criticisms of the things they most want to change. (This follows the logic that, to the average observer, if someone keeps complaining about everything, then they might themselves be the problem after all, and their complaints should probably be taken less seriously.) In conclusion, open-ended and unrestricted rebellion would be seen by the old-school liberal as both irrational and counterproductive.

Using real world examples, one can see that the old-school liberal is generally correct here. Think about this: if gay marriage activists opposed not only laws limiting marriage to one man and one woman, but also indiscriminately attacked the fact that marriage is between two people, or perhaps even the institution of marriage itself, or even the very concept of family itself, they would have undercut their case for rational reform severely, to the extent that gay marriage might not even have been legalized at all! Luckily, gay marriage activists, being mostly old-school liberals, limited their opposition to the then-status quo to only where it was rationally justified, and did not wage an open-ended and unrestrained rebellion against all things to do with marriage and family. This is why gay marriage gradually gained public acceptance and support. When faced with arguments like these, the ultra-rebellious far-left really has no rational comeback available to them. If they don’t want to give up their belief in open-ended and unrestricted rebellion, they would have to resort to irrational ideas. This is actually one explanation for why critical anarchist ideology was developed and propagated, despite being logically invalid and also not supported by any historical empirical evidence. For the ultra-rebellious far-left, critical anarchist ideology is not taken up because of its rational validity or its track record of success. It is taken up to provide justification for continuing an otherwise unjustifiable open-ended and unrestrained rebellion. Its value is therefore not in actually improving things in the real world, but in giving the rebellious-minded a (false) leg to stand on.

In the past few years, I have generally labelled the contemporary far-left’s postmodern critical theory ideology as ‘critical anarchism’. I still believe this is a valid way of looking at the phenomenon, one that emphasizes the results. However, looking at it from a more psychological viewpoint, one can also see it all as basically an open-ended and unlimited justification for rebellion. I think one can look at this from two angles actually: firstly, if critical anarchism is to be the goal, then open-ended and unlimited rebellion would be well justified. If everything is an oppressive social construct, then rebelling against and destructing everything in the status quo is not only justified, but even heroic. Herbert Marcuse’s call for the ‘Great Refusal’ in the 1960s, his conflation of Freudian repression with political oppression and implicit calls to see them as one and the same and to abolish both simultaneously, Michel Foucault’s perception of power being everywhere and resistance being applicable everywhere, and the activist left’s decrying of calls for civility as ‘tone policing’, are all basically open-ended justifications for unrestrained rebellion. On the other hand, if one is already psychologically predisposed to favor unrestrained rebellion, then critical anarchist philosophies would provide the justification one needs to act on one’s impulses. This is why those with this kind of ultra-rebellious predisposition would naturally feel that critical anarchist philosophies are ‘liberating’. The kind of liberation they bring is to the ultra-rebellious mind, to free it from any and all constraint. It might not even actually have anything to do at all with liberation of people in the real world from social and political oppression.

 

Getting Out of the Jordan Peterson Trap

He was the perfect trap the far-left set for us

Back in 2018-19, when Jordan Peterson was at his peak, and going around promoting his criticism of what he called 'postmodern neo-Marxism', the far-left mounted a campaign against him, with the maximal amount of drama involved. They tried to cancel Peterson wherever he was scheduled to speak, and passed around media that was supposed to discredit Peterson, including that famous ContraPoints video (which was how she shot to viral fame, and ultimately became a target of far-left revolutionary bullies for many years, but that's another story). Back then, I thought that the far-left was doing what they were doing, because they were afraid that Peterson would be able to expose their real agenda, which would make their more moderate supporters turn away from them. Eager to expose the revolutionary bullies' deceitful and harmful agenda, I thus gave some support to Peterson's 'campaign', even as I knew we didn't see eye to eye on many political issues. I thought that someone had to stop the revolutionary bullies, and if Peterson is the only man we have, we couldn't afford to be picky. (Also remember that Peterson hadn't become his worst form at that point yet.)

Over the years, however, my original views on this matter started to crack. Firstly, there were other people who were doing more effective and accurate criticism's of the (LINK) critical anarchist left, without resorting to clunky and inaccurate terms like 'postmodern neo-Marxism' and Jungian metaphors all the time. Yet the revolutionary bullies didn't react much to those people. Secondly, I began to realize that Peterson wasn't even an effective critic of the critical anarchist left at all. There was a good reason he lost that infamous debate to Slavoj Zizek. In the debate, he kept conflating actual Marxism with what he called 'postmodern neo-Marxism', but he couldn't explain how or where the two were related in a convincing way to an intellectually serious audience. It appeared that he couldn't even give a good answer to the retort 'but Foucault wasn't a Marxist'. All this meant that he really posed no threat to the critical anarchist left's theory or worldview, except in a superficial sense. It was about as ineffective as using penicillin to kill Covid. Thus logically, the far-left wouldn't actually be afraid of what he had to offer. Finally, Jordan Peterson's zone of influence, so to speak, only shifted further and further to the right over time, and he became more and more irrelevant in liberal circles over time. This meant that he was never actually a threat to the far-left's plan to recruit impatient and Trump-frustrated liberals into their movement.

What we've concluded so far is that Peterson wasn't effective in even putting a dent in the far-left critical anarchist philosophy and worldview, and their plans to radicalize and recruit left-liberal people into their movement. So why did the far-left react in such a strong way against Peterson? My current, updated view is that they essentially picked a quarrel with Peterson because he was an easy opponent, in order to inoculate their peripheral followers and their potential future followers in the center-left against more robust criticisms of their program. Firstly, Peterson was already suspect in many left-of-center circles, for his opposition to trans rights legislation in Canada, his skepticism about climate change, and his strained relationship with feminists. All this, combined with his intellectually unconvincing talk about 'postmodern neo-Marxism', meant that he never had much credibility in the center-left. For many in the center-left, especially those who weren't aware of how extreme the far-left could go (which was the vast majority back then), Peterson was someone to be mocked for his alarmism about the left's supposed extremism, not someone to take seriously. He was the professor who supposedly conflated campus trans activists with Stalinist revolutionaries, while bullying feminist presenters on live TV. For many mainstream liberals, he sounded too similar to the far-right cranks who decried that gay marriage and multiculturalism were New World Order or 'cultural Marxist' conspiracies back in the 1990s and 2000s, his word salad about 'postmodern neo-Marxism' certainly not helping his case here.

What the far-left was doing was actually very similar to what right-wing influencers often do in their propaganda videos, where they choose the worst examples of feminists, LGBT activists and liberals in general to put on display, to convince their audience that these people are too ridiculous to even listen to. Using Jordan Peterson as their example, the far-left successfully convinced many liberals that criticisms against the 'woke left' are the stuff of far-right crankery, and are not worthy of listening to. The result was uncritical acceptance of the 'woke left' agenda, until at least late 2021 (the turning point apparently being the election of Republican Glenn Youngkin as Governor of Virginia, which caused the Democrats to actively pivot away from the 'woke left' as a whole). Thus the far-left were very successful in avoiding, or at least delaying, legitimate criticisms of their agenda from being widely heard and considered, by painting any such criticism as both cranky and in league with the far-right. Jordan Peterson was simply a tool they used for that purpose, and with great success too. The rejection of Jordan Peterson led to the automatic rejection of any and all similar criticisms of the 'woke left', even if they were much more robust and without the problematic baggage Peterson had. The Jordan Peterson trap meant that, whenever critics of the far-left sounded even a bit like Peterson, which was basically inevitable when we were talking about the same phenomena, we were often greeted with 'clean your room', 'something something bucko', or other Peterson-themed insults, and dismissed for supposedly being brainwashed Peterson fans.

While the whole drama about the attempts to 'cancel Jordan Peterson' are now mostly history, the effects of the Jordan Peterson trap that the far-left has set for its critics are far from over. While I'm glad that the ability to criticize far-left and specifically 'woke left' ideas in mainstream liberal media has been fully restored, the 3-4 years the far-left bought through the Peterson trap meant that their ideas now have many more adherents than they otherwise would have. There is also still a lot of resistance to any and all criticisms of the 'woke left' agenda in some circles, resistance that was likely built up back in Peterson's heyday. What we need to do now is to fully overcome the Peterson trap, by showing our potential listeners in liberal circles that we don't share Peterson's flaws. This will have to include both a serious and intellectually sound critique of the postmodern critical theory worldview, as well as a convincing demonstration that a liberal reformist agenda devoid of postmodern-critical influences is actually the best way to improve lives and bring about justice, including for disadvantaged minorities. We need to show our sincerity towards social justice in the first place, if we are to succeed in this. Boosting someone as flawed as Peterson to fight the far-left out of desperation was a mistake. Now we need to make the case for old-school pro-free speech liberalism, on our own terms and values, like we should have done in the first place

Will Anti-Woke Go Too Far? Here's my Answer.

I think the most important thing to ensure that anti-wokeism doesn’t go ‘too far’ is to maintain a truly intellectual critique of wokeness. Both the right-wing culture warrior version of anti-wokeism, as well as the new Democratic-aligned avoidance-based anti-wokeism, are ultimately rooted in a knee jerk reaction judgement of whether things could be deemed ‘woke’, while never truly engaging with the phenomenon on an intellectual level. As I’ve said many times, the problem with wokeness is that it is ultimately rooted in postmodern critical theory ideology, and ultimately in a worldview that I would classify as ‘critical anarchism’: critical because it uses (bad faith) critique as its weapon, and anarchism because it ultimately wants to deconstruct all existing social structures, without differentiation as to whether those structures actually serve a useful function or not, because their ideological theories tell them that all such structures are oppressive. Radical identity politics, cancel culture and the rest are all strategies in service of this overarching goal.

To maintain an intellectual critique of wokeness, and importantly, to resist lumping normal liberalism into wokeness and hence becoming subconsciously opposed to liberalism itself, we must be able to differentiate between critical anarchism and liberalism. For example, supporting gay marriage and accepting LGBT people is liberalism. Attacking family values and deconstructing gender is critical anarchism. Acknowledging that racism is still a problem that needs to be dealt with, while insisting that racism is a problem that lives within individuals and that individual responsibility is key to ending racism is liberalism. Saying that racism is ‘systemic’ and the only way to fix it is to discredit entire systems of education, law enforcement and justice, as well as overturning the entire paradigm of individual merit and individual-level fairness, is critical anarchism. Critical anarchism’s agenda has been soundly rejected by the general public across the West because it is offensive to our long-standing values. On the other hand, liberalism is still broadly popular, and we should aim to revive a version of liberalism that is completely free of critical anarchist influences. Building a robust critique of critical anarchism is the first step to get there. 

My Disagreements with the Activist Left are about De-polarization and Free Speech

It's certainly not just arguing over ideology and philosophy

Tara: I'm actually very frustrated that the left seems to keep misunderstanding where I'm actually coming from. Sometimes, they even mistake me for those who pretend to be centrists but actually always sides with the right on purpose. Given my strong opposition to the 'populist right', I'm certainly not one of those people. But the left keeps misunderstanding me.

Katie: As I've said before, maybe it's because you keep criticizing the left all the time. The left already feels defeated, and fearful of the rise of the far-right. They're not going to take constant criticism well at the moment. Perhaps you just need to understand this.

Tara: I understand how they feel. But that doesn't mean I can stop critiquing where the left is going wrong. What I'm ultimately trying to do is to reduce the polarization, so that the center can hold. I believe that individual freedom is safest when a moderate politics prevails. As I've said before, a strong moderate presence in the political landscape is essential for safeguarding free speech. The problem with the activist left is that its tactics, based on its theory and worldview, are leading to more polarization. They have been both radicalizing young people to refuse to compromise, and also providing fuel for right-wing culture warriors. This is why I can't just stop critiquing the left.

Katie: Is your objection to the activist left based primarily around differences in ideology and worldview then? If so, how is it any different from all the pointless culture war-style debates out there? I mean, how is it different from those jumping up and down about people saying 'Seasons Greetings' instead of 'Merry Christmas'?

Tara: My objection to the activist left is because their ideology and their tactics are fuelling polarization, and in many cases, harmful to free speech. This, in turn, poisons the discourse, prevents a true understanding of the issues, and leads to either stalemate or bad outcomes. While I have fundamental philosophical differences with them, my objection is ultimately not rooted in philosophy, but rather rooted in practical outcomes. I personally believe that pointless squabble about language and philosophy, like the Merry Christmas vs Seasons Greetings example that you cited, are counterproductive. But being concerned about practical results, especially in terms of polarization, free speech and policy outcomes, is actually another thing. I think this needs particular clarification and emphasis.

This is why, going forward, I intend to describe more clearly where exactly my disagreements with the activist left's ideology are, and why I'm disagreeing for the sake of practical outcomes. I hope that this will show that I'm not arguing for the sake of language and philosophy. What I wish for most is a turnaround in the polarization of the Western political landscape generally, as well as the restoration of a healthy marketplace of ideas. Going forward, my critique is going to be focused on this vision, and what we need to do to get there.

 

Why the Left has a Problem with 'Culturally Normal'

It's a natural consequence of the critical anarchist worldview

Recently, California Governor and likely 2028 candidate Gavin Newsom called on the Democratic Party to be 'more culturally normal'. This has sparked controversy in some corners of the left. Some of them are saying that calls for the Democrats to be 'more culturally normal' are a dog whistle to move the party to the right, and throw some vulnerable minorities under the bus in the process.

However, does being 'more culturally normal' necessarily mean a wholesale shift to the right, and/or throwing minorities under the bus? This, I think, is what we need to examine here. To embrace normie politics, which is necessary to become 'more culturally normal', certainly does not involve becoming more like the Trumpified right, or moving closer to their positions at all. It would instead look more like moving back to 2012, the year when President Obama publicly supported gay marriage. That's certainly not a right-wing year, by the way.

Nor does being 'more culturally normal' necessarily mean throwing minorities under the bus. The LGBT community was certainly more 'culturally normal' during its campaign for gay marriage in the 2000s and the 2010s, compared with the so-called 'gay liberation' era of the 1970s. The weirdness of the 1970s queers turned the mainstream off, paving the way for the religious right of the 1980s to attack the community during the AIDS crisis. In contrast, the 'more culturally normal' approach of the 2000s and 2010s won public sympathy for the cause of equal rights, resulting in the legalization of gay marriage in almost every Western country by 2020. This, I think, is a very good example of being culturally normal actually also being good for advancing the civil rights of minorities.

The current controversy over calls to be 'more culturally normal' is actually reminiscent of the controversy over 'family values', back when I was in college in the 2000s. Back then, the right used to use 'family values' as a dogwhistle to signal their uncompromising opposition to gay marriage. I was, of course, a strong opponent of this kind of politics. But that didn't make 'family values' itself a bad thing. Nevertheless, many in the aughts left seemed to actually take issue with 'family values' itself, rather than just the dog whistling. 

The cultural left's aversion to family values and normie values in general has also been on full display in the recent discourse regarding Taylor Swift. We all know that Swift has criticized Trump on multiple occasions, declared her support of the LGBT community, and endorsed both Joe Biden in 2020 and Kamala Harris in 2024. Yet, it appears that the rumors about her being secretly right-wing have returned. Why? It's because she's engaged to an NFL player, wants marriage and kids, has supposedly pro-MAGA friends, and sings that she likes her friends canceled in her latest album.

Although there is plenty of evidence (like the gay marriage example above) supporting the idea that embracing a normie politics is better for advancing and defending the civil rights of vulnerable minorities, certain parts of the left just won't acknowledge this. It seems that they have an inherent aversion to normie politics, that is rooted not in empirical results from history, but in ideological commitments to empirically unsound philosophy. It turns out that, when you believe that the status quo is made up of invisible interlocking 'systems of oppression', this hinders an objective assessment of how things actually are, and prevents constructive action to try and improve things for real people living in the real world. This, again, is why I'm so passionate about critiquing and exposing the 'theory left', in the hope that people will return to their senses and work with the real world as it exists, to achieve practical progress that actually benefits people, for real. 

The Problem with Leftist Video Essays

I think the biggest problem with leftist video essays is that they are full of theory. Like whatever issue they talk about, it's almost always just an excuse to talk about theory. And I think this prioritization of studying theory over looking at situations objectively, without prior bias, is one of the biggest faults of the contemporary left.

The problem with force-fitting events in the world out there to pre-existing philosophical theories is that you inevitably end up with a biased view of events. You end up with a biased and incomplete understanding of what is actually happening. And that is not helpful for achieving anything. It would just make everyone confused, which would make progress and good outcomes even more out of reach. Thus the theory left, far from being 'progressive', actually leads to pointless and needless detours in our quest to understand the truth and make things better.

Moreover, leftist cultural theories are often rooted in postmodernism and critical theory, which is under the umbrella of what is called the 'conflict theory of sociology', which sees human relations as driven more by conflict than by consensus. Thus leftist cultural theory has a strong tendency to pit one group against another, which would only lead to more polarization in the real world. This polarization is harmful if what we want is to find some common ground to move forward on. What I'm most worried about is that the polarization caused by leftist theory makes a rational and productive discourse essentially impossible, thus prolonging the conflict and suffering on all sides needlessly.

Furthermore, leftist theory is ultimately tied to a wider agenda. I think there are actually many people out there, like myself, who are fed up with people with an agenda in general, and just want us to be free of all these agendas. Both the left and the right have a set agenda that is rooted in their long-running ideological obsessions. The clash of these obsessions are the root of the culture wars, which, let's face it, normal people don't want at all. This is why many of us wish that those agendas and those ideological obsessions would just go away. From this point of view, leftist cultural theory is certainly part of the problem, and not part of the solution. 

Two Philosophical Arguments Against 'New Left' Politics

The Enlightenment liberal tradition provides the most apparent arguments to rebut the postmodern critical theory worldview. That free speech is conducive to understanding the objective truth, and that understanding the truth is necessary for practical progress, is itself a self-evident truth that is provable by the study of history alone. It is for this reason that we must always stand firm for free speech. Also, there are good reasons why we should require objective evidence before we can agree that claims being made are sound. Postmodern critical theory's insistence that society is made up of interlocking systems of oppression simply doesn't meet this standard, and thus should be rejected. Besides, viewing society as being made up of interlocking systems of oppression is simply counterproductive, if we want to bring people together to resolve society's most sensitive conflicts, by finding solutions that would be satisfactory for every party. 

The conservative philosophical tradition, going back to thinkers like Edmund Burke, also provide important arguments against the postmodern critical theory worldview. It speaks to how the top-down, inorganic imposition of social change, driven by abstract philosophical doctrine, can be harmful to freedom, and also make things worse in unexpected ways in reality. This is why change must be gradual, rooted in practical need rather than abstract philosophy, and implemented in a way that respects society's long-standing values as much as possible. This lesson is one that progressives would do well to learn. This, in turn, is why I have long argued that the philosophical insights of the conservative cannon should be re-integrated into progressive thinking, and this would make for a good foundation for a sustainable reformist politics. Note that the conservative philosophical tradition is very different from what is wrongly called 'conservative' politics in the contemporary West, which is clearly more authoritarian-reactionary than conservative. True conservative philosophy would lead to a moderate reformist politics. 

The Moderate Argument Against Leftist Politics

As I've pointed out many times before, the whole politics of the 21st century Western far-left is rooted in two branches of philosophy: postmodernism and critical theory. Therefore, the key to winning the argument against the far-left is to intellectually win the argument against these two worldviews. The way we can approach this is two-fold: firstly, by demonstrating the intellectual unsoundness of these worldviews, and secondly, by demonstrating the real world harms of activism and political action rooted in these worldviews. 

Postmodernism rejects the pursuit of objective truth, and sees speech and discourse primarily as exercises of power. Identity-based critical theories, often drawing on postmodernism, imagine society as being made up of interlocking 'systems of oppression', where people are defined as oppressors or the oppressed based on their immutable characteristics. Together, these two overarching philosophical views lead to seeing culture as constructed to oppress the marginalized rather than organically evolved to serve the needs of the people, seeing society as a sphere of powerplay rather than a marketplace of ideas where the objective truth can be pursued, and seeing people as inherently divided into oppressor vs. oppressed groups rather than individuals with their own needs, desires and agency. 

Unsurprisingly, a politics rooted in this outlook is often hostile to free speech, and is generally counterproductive in terms of resolving society's most sensitive conflicts. One needs to look no further than 2010s wokeness, its harmful impacts on free speech, and the backlash it ultimately brought, to prove this point. Other previous instances of the far-left causing similarly deleterious effects include the 1960s-70s New Left (which led to the backlash of the 1980s), the 1930s left in Europe (which led to the rise of fascism and World War II), and the actions of the Jacobins during the French Revolution (which led to Napoleon and the restoration of the monarchy). The far-left's formula has produced the same result again and again, and I think it would be irresponsible to allow them to experiment with society one more time. 

How the Left can Stop Alienating People

Common ground is possible, but there are clearly barriers

Katie: While you've been quite critical of how the left exists right now, you have also said that you support the general idea of progress, as in making society more inclusive and better for everyone gradually. You have also said you want to build bridges and find common ground with the left, where possible. So under what conditions do you think you will be able to find that common ground?

Tara: The most important issue, the absolute make or break thing here for me, is that the left needs to truly embrace free speech and open-mindedness. They need to be able to accept people who want progress in good faith, but might have a different view on how it's best done. More specifically, they need to be more open towards people who have a different worldview, a different model of change, or simply don't accept the core tenets of contemporary leftist theory. If there is to be common ground, it has to be on wanting progress, while still allowing differences of opinion as to what that progress looks like. To put it simply, the left needs to stop letting leftist theory get in the way of being truly open-minded.

Katie: Can you elaborate more about what you see as 'leftist theory getting in the way of being truly open-minded'?

Tara: Leftist theory, as developed in the past half a century, has been essentially ruled by overarching ideas like how so-called 'respectability politics' is bad, how 'tone policing' is bad, how speech and discourse is about power dynamics rather than seeking the objective truth, how almost everything in the status quo is an oppressive social construct that should be deconstructed, and so on. When you so fundamentally believe in all these things, you simply aren't open to criticism that says otherwise. The objective fact is that the aforementioned beliefs are counterproductive. To remain in denial of this fact, when the evidence is mounting so quickly, the left has resorted to tribalism. This, I think, is also basically the root cause of the left's embrace of authoritarian methods like de-platforming and cancel culture, and more recently, simply saying that they are 'exhausted' and refusing to even communicate.

Katie: I know you aren't a fan of contemporary leftist theory, but how does theory come into this? Isn't tribalism just part of the uglier side of human nature?

Tara: Yes, tribalism is part of the uglier side of human nature. But the way the left is trying to hold onto fundamentally flawed theory is exacerbating it. It's like how some religious cults develop a strong suspicion of all outsiders, to be blunt. This actually brings me to a related point: perhaps due to the echo chamber effect, the left is very maximalist in its demands at the moment. It is in no mood to compromise, and it is doing a very good job of pushing away those who disagree with not only its policy positions, but also their underlying philosophical beliefs, which are frankly irrelevant to policy outcomes. I believe this is a major factor fueling the growth of the reactionary right.

Katie: What you call 'maximalist demands', others might argue to be necessary for justice. How would you respond to this?

Tara: What we need to remember here is that justice is a practical thing, not a theoretical thing. Which means that, to assess whether a particular course of action is conducive to justice, we need to look at its practical effects. And right now, the actions of the left are objectively not conducive to justice, because they are not only not convincing society to become better, they are actually fueling a reactionary backlash that is making society worse. If only for the sake of justice, the left should really be at least open to listening to others' criticisms, rather than pushing everyone else away in a tribalist way, which is what they are currently doing. I think we should also pay particular attention to how certain aspects of leftist theory is making the left behave in this counterproductive way. 

Why the Left is All Doomer Nowadays

There's no denying it: the left is in an absolutely doomer phase. Gone is the optimism for 'revolutionary change' that pervaded leftists spaces in the late 2010s. The 'resistance' to the second Trump era has been a lot quieter, not because people are not as opposed to his actions, but because the loudest voices of the first 'resistance', the leftist protestors, are now sitting at home in despair.

So how did the left get here? Objectively speaking, we are in a similar place right now compared to the late 2010s. If leftists are doomers today, then they should have been equally doomer back in the late 2010s. I think the only way to explain the discrepancy here is that the left was under the illusion that a magical breakthrough, a shortcut to utopia, was soon to come back in the late 2010s, because they were convinced so by their flawed theories. That the promised change hadn't come all these years later has finally killed all hope of it actually happening at all.

It isn't even like this is the first time the left's empty promises of an instant magical shortcut to utopia 'inspired' a generation to misguided forms of activism, and eventually left them all burned out, after the promises of utopia didn't come true. A similar thing happened back in the 1960s to 70s, an era of radical cultural change, protests about almost everything, and general societal upheaval, with all that eventually resulting in the conservative backlash of the 1980s.

What the left doesn't understand is that there is simply no shortcut to utopia. Sound and sustainable improvement, especially in terms of cultural issues, can only come about as a result of gradual, step-by-step changes, taken in a cautious way, with every detail carefully considered before the change is implemented. Consensus needs to be built by changing hearts and minds one by one. It is long-term hard work, because it has to be. 

Why Left-Wing Activism Still Needs to be Challenged

Saying 'the right is worse' isn't a valid excuse to shut down legitimate criticism

In recent years, I have written quite a few articles outlining my disagreements with the activist left, as it current exists in the Western political landscape. As a result, some people have accused me of having an anti-left, pro-status quo attitude. This could not be more wrong. For the record, I began to support gay marriage back in 2003, I have long been opposed to the endless wars, I'm highly frustrated by the anti-science views that are prevalent across the political spectrum, and I also want to see an end to the polarizing culture wars. I'm certainly not a fan of the current status quo. The way I see it is that the activist left, with its roots in the 'theory left', is part of this toxic status quo, and it too should be challenged.

In this conversation I recently had with my friend Katie, who strongly identifies with progressive politics, I describe clearly the actual concerns I have about the activist left. I hope it illustrates clearly where my concerns about the left are coming from.

Tara: Some people think that I have something against progressive activism in general. But I think it's really unfair. I was a supporter of gay marriage long before it was popular, for example. It's just that I don't agree with the current form of such activism, specifically in the past decade or so in the West.

Katie: Perhaps it's because of your anti-woke posture in recent years. Many people associate anti-woke with the right, and with Trump supporters.

Tara: I took a stand against what is commonly known as wokeness, primarily because of its illiberal aspects like de-platforming and cancel culture, and the oppressor vs. oppressed worldview. So-called progressive politics has gotten illiberal, and this was something I was unwilling to see, so I had to take a strong stance against it.

Katie: The problem is that, many right-wing influencers have said something like what you just said, and then gone on to become full-blown Trump supporters and right-wing culture warriors who fight against everything progressive from LGBTQ rights to pro-climate policies. What I'm saying is, the angle you are taking on 'wokeness' is basically identical to the one taken by right-wing influencers to send people down a right-wing rabbit hole.

Tara: Firstly, all this doesn't make what I said untrue. The truth can be used by bad actors to manipulate people towards bad choices, but that doesn't make it not the truth. Secondly, I have made it clear that I find the reactionary right culture warrior brand of politics very distasteful. Many other anti-woke writers and personalities have avoided criticizing them, because they don't want to lose audience. I have always disagreed with this approach. I believe one must always say what they believe, especially when the stakes are this high. Being complicit in the rise of an anti-science, anti-democracy and anti-free speech movement is something that my own conscience simply cannot accept.

Katie: That's exactly the problem right there. Because of how the right has effectively used the anti-woke moral panic to gain power and enact reactionary policies, many progressives inherently associate the two. And I honestly think it's difficult for them not to think this way, when the association is so strong out there.

Tara: Firstly, I think we all need to be more intellectual, which means resisting the urge to think in terms of stereotypes, or guilt by association. Secondly, I can't help the fact that the 'right-wing' media ecosystem is funded by people much richer than I will ever be, which effectively means it has a megaphone to drown out our voices. Finally, let me make this clear: what I am skeptical of is specifically left activism in its current form, because it is ineffective, polarizing, ideological and sometimes anti-freedom. These are major flaws with real world consequences, including the rise of the reactionary right. And I think we can all agree that the rise of the reactionary right is not good. The fact, let's face it, is that the activist left has been fundamentally rejected, and this rejection has even led some people to embrace reactionary culture war politics. It's not something that the activist left would acknowledge, because for them, it's always everyone else's fault. But it's the reality. What I want to do is to provide a critique of the left, because this critique is sorely needed.

Katie: How about the argument that people like you helping to advance the anti-woke moral panic is helping the right?

Tara: Again, I don't accept that an intellectual critique of wokeness is inevitably associated with the moral panic being whipped up and weaponized by the 'right'. You can have legitimate concerns that build up into an intellectual critique, without the kind of moral panic the 'right' is promoting. As to whether my critique is contributing to reactionary culture war posturing, to be honest, I have been sometimes worried about being taken out of context that way. This is why I have made sure to state clearly my position on the reactionary right. I think I've been fair, in regards to equally criticizing what I see as wrong and dangerous on both the left and the 'right'.

Katie: On this point, there's now a strong feeling among many progressives that equally criticizing the left and the right is simply refusing to acknowledge that the right is the bigger threat to freedom and democracy at the moment. How would you respond to that?

Tara: I think that's effectively a sophisticated way of saying the right is worse, so we shouldn't criticize the left. But that logic would lead to putting off criticism of the left indefinitely, because you could almost always argue that the 'right' is worse. The right was 'worse' in the aughts during the War on Terror and the Iraq War too, remember. If someone actually took the trouble to criticize some of the bad ideas coming out of the academic humanities back then, progressive politics might not have taken the misguided path it took in the past decade. I actually think that those who use this argument just don't want there to be legitimate, liberal or progressive criticism of the left at all, so their misguided project can continue unimpeded. But the thing is, if the activist left as it currently exists were able to shut down every other alternative, so that only the activist left and the reactionaries remained, I think it's clear that most people out there would rather choose the reactionaries, and they will therefore win, simply because the activist left is so unpalatable. Therefore, by offering an alternative, we are actually providing effective resistance to the reactionaries in the most effective way.

Why the Far-Left's Model of Change is All Wrong

But that doesn't mean that all hope for progressive change is doomed

Recently, I have been talking a lot about promoting a 'progressive conservative' ideal. IF you want to know more about what 'progressive conservatism' entails, you can start by reading my 'Progressive Conservative Manifesto'. One of the biggest reasons why I'm talking about progressive conservatism now is because, in the face of the Trump-led reactionary right's assaults on long-standing civil rights, programs and conventions that are too liberal for their liking, I have come to the view that we must take a stand for what we believe, before it's too late. My other, more long-standing reason for talking about progressive conservatism is because, over the years, I've found that the left's model of change is actually a massive failure. Like I've said many times, it leads to the needless polarization of society, and the burnout of generations of young people, and also opens the door to dangerous waves of backlash. Indeed, these two things are clearly linked in the present moment: it is the backlash to the 2010s 'woke left' that has allowed the reactionary right to gain power, to be in the position they are in right now, to do the damage they are doing right now. My hope is that a program of progressive conservatism will solve both problems.

Before a progressive conservative program can actually move forward, it has to gain enough support. Some of the support is going to come from centrists, moderate libertarians, and genuine anti-woke liberals, all of whom were frustrated at the woke excesses of the 2010s, but even more worried about the reactionary right's authoritarian overreach under Trump. I count myself as firmly belonging to this category. However, we also need to pull people from the more progressive side of the political spectrum because, let's face it: right now, all the energy is with either those who identify as 'progressives', or the MAGA crowd, and any movement that can't accept MAGA-ism will have to find allies on the progressive side, if it is to grow. The reason why I am criticizing the left's model of change is because I want to convince progressives to come over to our side. I want to convince them to come over, because the far-left's model of change is flawed, and we have a better way to move forward, to achieve what they want. The rewards of having a better model of change will be, of course, in the form of actually successfully making things better, and also in the form of defeating the reactionary right.

I think the biggest problem with the far-left's model of change is that it wants to tear down the status quo entirely. This is counterproductive, because it is much harder to build something good from scratch. It also leads to massive backlash, because people don't like to see what they have always known get destroyed in the service of some arbitrary philosophical theory. What we should remember is that the backlash always falls most heavily on the disadvantaged minorities of society. This is why I actually believe that the continued pursuit of radical change using the far-left's model is actually immoral. Indeed, history doesn't contain a single example where this far-left model of change has successfully brought good outcomes, while it contains many cautionary tales as to the harms this flawed model could bring. That many progressives became sympathetic to this failed model in the past decade, despite its historical track record, was almost entirely because of the influence of postmodern critical theory, which itself is an objectively unsound worldview.

Rather than tearing everything down, I would argue that a better approach would be to make what we have better, by drawing on our long-standing values. Values like freedom, compassion, caring for each other, commitment to improving our understanding of the truth, meritocracy on a fair playing field, and so on, are all embedded within our collective conscience, but their application to the real world remains incomplete. The progressive conservative project seeks to more fully implement these values in all areas of our life. It therefore seeks to strengthen, rather than deconstruct, our traditional inheritance. Through this process, we can certainly advance civil rights, make society more inclusive of minorities and fairer for everyone, and so on. This is especially true, if we can argue against the politics of the reactionary right, on the grounds of these traditional values. This should be easy to do, given that the reactionary right clearly does not care about harming real life people, and does not care about science or truth either.

I believe the flagrant violation of our long-standing values by the reactionary right under Trump gives us a good opportunity to argue for a better world based on upholding these values. But we can only successfully do that if we truly leave the nihilistic ideologies of deconstructionist postmodernism and oppressor vs. oppressed identitarian critical theory behind. I think the choice is clear, as to which path we should take going forward.

Why Commitment to the Objective Truth is Important

Let's continue talking about laying the foundations for a culture and politics rooted in shared values. Last time, we talked about compassion. This time, I think we should talk about commitment to, and respect for, the objective truth. One reason why an extreme and toxic politics has proliferated on both the left and the right, is because of a lack of commitment to the objective truth across the board. Postmodernism, which has strongly influenced the Western left in recent times, openly rejects pursuing the objective truth, and sees speech, discourse and knowledge itself as fundamentally manifestations of oppressor vs oppressed power dynamics. There is clearly no room for respect of objective truth in this worldview. Meanwhile, the right is at least equally, if not even more, disrespectful of the objective truth, in its pursuit of power. In the past few years, the right has demonstrated a sickening level of 'will to power', never letting a crisis go wasted, trampling on both scientific and social truths in their attempt to create a politically advantageous narrative. Together, in slightly different but ultimately similar ways, the left and the right have buried our previously long-standing commitment to the objective truth, to the extent that people basically don't live in the same environment of objective facts anymore. This has made society and politics fundamentally dysfunctional, and is one of the biggest reasons for the polarization and tribalism we have right now.

Why is the objective truth important? It's because only when we know and acknowledge the objective truth can we begin to make fact-based decisions and take reality-based actions to improve things. Of course, knowing the objective truth is only the beginning. What decisions we make, and what actions we take, will also depend a lot on our values. Two people with different values can and will act differently even if they agree on the same set of objective facts. It is our values that make us want to rectify injustices where they exist, or resist tyranny in all its forms. If people with a different set of values were in charge during World War II, for example, they might not have had the will to stop fascism, even if they otherwise had the same facts available to them. They might have decided to make a peace deal with Hitler instead, not caring about how many people would suffer and die under his rule. Therefore, it is ultimately our values that determine our course of action. However, those values would only be able to be applied accurately if we know the objective truth, and know it accurately, in the first place. Knowledge of, and agreement with, the objective truth also forms a fair basis on which we might judge the ideas being sold to us in the marketplace of ideas. I think a major reason why some ideologies wantonly distort and obscure the objective truth is because they want to distort the marketplace of ideas. It's really about forcing their ideas down our throats, when a fair appraisal of such ideas would always lead to their rejection.

Postmodernism and New Left critical theory clearly have a problem with the objective truth. Their view that knowledge and discourse is fundamentally and inevitably shaped by power dynamics is incompatible with a commitment to freely pursue the objective truth, both in theory and in practice. In theory, such a worldview necessarily leads to the selective censorship of ideas, as argued by Herbert Marcuse in his Repressive Tolerance essay. In practice, this worldview has led to the phenomenon of cancel culture, and has clearly made many people afraid of speaking their mind. Some people have asked me, what if they acknowledge there is some truth in what postmodernism is saying, while not following it to its logical conclusion, is that OK? I think the important thing here is whether you are critiquing power dyanamics for distorting the marketplace of ideas, or dismissing the validity and necessity of the marketplace of ideas altogether. Far too often, the postmodern project is clearly of the latter worldview. It is clear that most adherents of postmodernism are not out to critique power dynamics so that the marketplace of ideas can be even freer. If that were the case, we wouldn't have cancel culture, so-called 'progressive stack' speaking systems, and the ostracization of people who don't toe the party line in many leftist spaces. The problem with the postmodernism-influenced left is that they don't trust the marketplace of ideas to arrive at the best understanding of the objective truth, and that the application of our long-standing values to the objective truth will result in fairer and more just outcomes in society. Old school liberals and progressives have long trusted this process, but postmodern critical theory ideology has destroyed that trust, to our collective detriment.

While members of the political right have enjoyed criticizing the left's lack of commitment to the objective truth and the scientific method, as if they hold the moral high ground here, there is actually a similar crisis happening on the right as well. For at least a generation now, the right has had a strong distrust of expert scientific opinion in many areas, simply because such opinion is usually not in line with the right's increasingly reactionary ideology. From the fact that LGBT people are 'born this way', to the rejection of 'intelligent design' in favor of evolution, to the strong evidence in favor of man-made climate change, scientific facts derived from empirical observation and the scientific method have been a thorn in the side of right-wing politics since at least a generation ago. Therefore, the right has indeed been anti-science for even longer than the left. This attitude informs the anti-academic stance of ideologies like neoreactionism, which has become more and more influential on the right in recent years, after fully breaking into the mainstream at the time of the pandemic. The post-pandemic right is essentially post-truth, and this is really not an exaggeration. Just look at how Trump and his allies have campaigned and governed. From spreading fake news about immigrant communities, to the drastic cuts to the funding of scientific research, the right is really waging war on science and truth right now.

Given that both the left and the right, as they exist right now in the 2020s Western political landscape, have substantial problems with respecting the objective truth, I believe that those of us who remain committed to the free and unbiased discovery of the objective truth must remain independent of the dominant political discourse of both the left-wing and right-wing echo chambers. In an age where partisan politics has been fundamentally corrupted by anti-truth forces, independent thinking is the key to restoring the truth.
 

Divisive Identity Politics Can Never Lead to Progress | The Fault in the Left

In the wake of Donald Trump winning the 2024 US Presidential Election, and winning the majority of young men according to multiple exit polls, there has been a lot of soul searching as to whether the Democrats have a problem with male voters right now. A major point of discussion is whether the divisive us-vs-them identity politics that much of the left has embraced in the past decade is to blame. Frankly, I think it is to blame.

The truth is, you can either have a win-win politics for all, or you can have an identity politics that divides society into oppressor vs oppressed groups, but you can't have both. Postmodern critical theory and the identity politics inspired by such theory is always going to lead the left down the route of divisive identity politics, which is going to alienate many potential supporters. When you swap out old-school inclusive liberalism for the kind of philosophy that labels people as privileged oppressors based on their immutable characteristics, you are bound to lose a lot of support over time. I hope they can really learn this lesson, and get rid of this faulty and harmful philosophy once and for all.
 

Why the Critical Theory-based Model of Change is Counterproductive | The Fault in the Left

Attempts to remake society to satisfy theoretical needs are often anti-utilitarian

Welcome to The Fault In The Left, a series where I will examine the major faults in today's Western Left. I intend for this series to run parallel to my other series, The Fault In The Right, in order to ensure balanced criticism of both the left and the right.

Today, I will start the series by discussing what I have long believed to be the biggest problem with the Western Left today: the dominance of philosophical theory, and the selective inattention to realities that are not consistent with these theories. It seems that these days, there is a theory on the left for everything: critical race theory and postcolonial theory for issues concerning race, the various forms of feminist theory for gender issues, queer theory for LGBT issues, disability theory for disability issues, and so on. Many of these theories are rooted in postmodernism and critical theory, which I have specifically criticized previously. This time, however, I will focus on the issue of redefining social justice as the fulfillment of the requirements of philosophical theory, and why this model of change is ultimately counterproductive.

Attempts at encouraging the use of 'Latinx' to replace 'Latino' as a neutral, plural noun to refer to Latinos is a good example of what's wrong with the Western Left today. As you would expect, it has been overwhelmingly rejected by the Latino community, because it is both unnecessary and an unnatural imposition. It is unnecessary because, in Romance languages, the masculine form already acts as the neutral when necessary. Indeed, French President Emmanuel Macron made a point of this last year, during a debate about the use of non-gendered terms in French government documents. Macron is certainly no right-wing reactionary, yet he recognizes that it is not a good idea to unnecessarily change the rules of a language radically. In the case of 'Latinx', it is also a very unnatural imposition, because it violates Spanish grammar rules, and can't even be pronounced in Spanish! This means that it is just impossible that it would ever have been adopted organically by Spanish speakers. I have long argued that people are justifiably skeptical towards inorganic change, because it is, by definition, not something that has been well considered by multiple sections of society.

The other problem with theory-based change is that it is often anti-utilitarian, i.e. it leaves society less happy as a result. This is because, unlike changes intended to alleviate suffering or solve specific practical problems, theory-based change tends to require the complete implementation of a radical set of changes across a wide-range of contexts to be considered successful, because this is what would need to happen to make the real world conform to the demands of philosophical theory. Compare gay marriage and the 'gender neutral language' movement, for example. The legalization of gay marriage required only the change of laws specific to marriage, and it generally doesn't impact the lives of those who don't wish to enter into a same-sex marriage. It doesn't demand society-wide radical change. The fact that gay couples get to be happier, and the rest of society isn't affected much, means that the change is justified on utilitarian grounds, because net happiness is increased. On the other hand, if some theory tells us that all language, in all contexts, must be made 'gender neutral' in order to get rid of the 'patriarchal' language, then to fulfill this theory, changes would need to be made everywhere, including in places most people have never thought about. Given that the vast majority of these changes would not result in making anyone happier, but some of the changes would really upset traditionalists, the net effect would be anti-utilitarian. Unlike the legalization of gay marriage, the attempt to impose 'gender neutral language' universally is clearly unjustifiable from a utilitarian point of view.

The left's insistence on imposing changes that are unnecessary, inorganic, and anti-utilitarian to satisfy their philosophical theory has been divisive, and it has led to a backlash to many legitimate causes, that has made rational, productive change more difficult. The frustrations towards activists imposing clearly anti-utilitarian changes has also led to a general increase in reactionary sentiment, which has been harvested by the reactionary populist right to win elections in many places across the West. I think the experience of the past ten years provides a strong and conclusive case that this theory-dominant form of 'progressive' thinking is very counterproductive, and a return to a more practical model of change is in order.

The Politics of Forever Despair vs Constant Outrage

I think that, sooner or later, people are going to realize that the left and the right both have nothing good to offer us. What they offer is basically the politics of forever despair vs the politics of constant outrage.

The problem with the left is that, because of their ideological commitments and philosophical obsessions, nothing is ever going to be good enough for them, or even sort of good. Everything is oppressive, all the time, and remains just as oppressive and bad even after reforms are achieved. This leads to a state of constant despair, and ultimately burnout. This, I think, is why many people who start out as commited left-wing activists when they are young eventually end up withdrawing from politics altogether, or in a few odd cases, defect to the hard right. The left effectively burns up the passions of generation after generation of young people, and yet achieves nothing in the end.

On the other hand, what the right offers is not really better either. The right, especially the populist New Right, likes to get people constantly outraged with no end. The goal of the right seems to be to get people disproportionally outraged towards everything, including things that are really small and insigificant. For the right, every change is always bad, and every move must have a hidden radical agenda. This leaves not much room for rational thinking, or indeed, optimism for the future. To join the ranks of the right is therefore to give up on the hope that a better future is possible, and also to give up on rational thinking, which I think is a very sad thing.

I refuse to have to choose between forever despair and constant outrage. This is why I refuse to choose between left vs right. I think there is a better way, and I think more people are realizing this.

We Need to Develop the Philosophy to Support a Centrist Politics | New Centrist View

The center cannot hold unless we revive its intellectual side

Welcome to New Centrist View, a new series where I will try to contribute to the development of philosophical positions that could support a sustainable centrist politics.

Previously on Moral Libertarian View, I discussed how the Western political landscape is currently divided into four main ideologies, namely constructionism and utilitarianism on the left, and organicism and reactionism on the right. I also discussed why constructionism, the ideology of the postmodern-critical theory far-left, and reactionism, the ideology of the populist New Right, are inherently anti-freedom, while liberal utilitarianism and organicist conservatism are much more compatible with freedom. The key to defending freedom, then, would be to uphold liberal utilitarianism as well as organicist conservatism, which are the core ideologies of the center-left and the center-right respectively. Freedom will hold if the center holds. If the center does not hold, freedom might indeed be less than a generation away from extinction.

It is truly a difficult time to be a centrist right now. Just look at the fact that there are many more far-left and far-right influencers, podcasters, writers and personalities than centrist ones. Most people wouldn't want the thankless task of trying to recover sanity in a world gone mad, when they could be much more popular, and indeed chase after lucrative career opportunities, by choosing one of the extremes and catering exclusively to its supporters. As a centrist, not only are you likely to have a much smaller audience and no income for your hard work, you are also likely to be labelled as a weak, stupid, brainwashed, privileged defender of the status quo. Trust me, I've been called all of these things.

One of the major reasons why centrist politics is in this state is because it lacks a strong philosophical backing. At least in the past seventy years or so, center-left and center-right ideologies have been defined mostly not by intellectual thinkers who think about issues on principle, but by politicians who take politically calculated positions and make unprincipled deals all the time. In contrast, both far-left constructionism and far-right reactionism were marginalized ideologies without much formal political power until recently, and their recent history was thus dominated by thinkers rather than politicians. This, in turn, means that their stances appear to be much more intellectual and principled, at least to certain people. This is a major reason why centrism is seen as unprincipled, perhaps even untenable in the long run, by more and more people. I truly fear that the center cannot hold if we don't develop a robust intellectual tradition to support it again.

Looking at the ideologies we consider moderate or centrist, which is mainly liberal utilitarianism and organicist conservative-reformism, they once were intellectual powerhouses that had to contend with a very different status quo in times past, in order to gain support. For example, once upon a time, the human pursuit of happiness was not considered a legitimate goal, rather, people were expected to obey religious laws as interpreted by the official state church, whether they liked it or not. To argue against this could lead to charges of heresy. Similarly, people were expected to know and accept their place in the very hierarchical order of society. Any disobedience against this hierarchical order could be seen as a sign of rebellion, which was generally punishable by death. Thankfully, we don't live in a society like this anymore, because more liberal ideas about how society should be organized ultimately won out. Since then, however, the development of liberal, utilitarian and organicist philosophy and thinking seems to have slowly come to a stop. Liberal reformism became the status quo, which then became stale and despised. What needs to happen is a renewal on the philosophical, intellectual side. Given that the philosophies which underpin liberal reformism once won the battle of ideas, I'm sure it can happen again, but we really need to work to make it happen.

Given the resurgence of essentially medieval ideas about how society should be organized on the far-right, we really need to revive the arguments our predecessors used to defeat the ancien regime of arbitrary power, and update them for the 21st century. On the other hand, 'progressive' intellectualism has come to be dominated by ideas that are basically revolutionary rather than reformist, and often anarchist-adjacent, which share the common assumption that tradition is inherently oppressive, and challenging and dismantling tradition is necessary for progress. However, history has demonstrated that this is not necessarily true. A liberal reformist program that aims to preserve and respect the spirit of traditions, underpinned by an organicist conservative philosophy, can also effectively advance social justice, and a radical rupture with long-standing norms might not be necessary. It is up to us to make this argument, if only to balance out the excessive and counterproductive radicalism that has become the fashion of the day in many 'progressive' circles.

The Key to Deradicalizing People is to Give Them Hope

The proliferation of extreme political ideologies on both the left and the right is a serious problem. One thing many people don't seem to realize is that the lack of hope is perhaps the most important reason behind this. Many people lack hope in their lives, and the extreme political ideologies give them hope. Of course, it is false hope, but it gives them what they crave in life right now. Therefore, the key to preventing more people from being radicalized is to give people hope in their lives. We really need to think about how to do that. Firstly, we need to get rid of all the fear, and the negativity, from our discourse. Then we need to start thinking about how to inject hope into people's lives. We need to think about what they want from life, and how we can help them achieve it. I think that if people had more hope of achieving meaningful goals in their own lives, political extermism would be much less popular.
 

Why the Left and the Right both Ultimately Lead to Chaos

The only way to a good and sustainable order is via independent thinking

Welcome back to The Fault in the Right, a series where I explore the logical fallacies and dishonest posturing of right-wing politics, from the perspective of someone who is pro-order, pro-family and understands the value of tradition.

Much has been said about the idea that the Left represents chaos, and the Right represents order. Let's look at the idea that the Left represents chaos first. Historically, this was certainly not true. Nobody would think that FDR represented chaos, even though he was arguably the most left-wing president in American history. President Obama was also significantly to the left of center back in 2008 when he was elected, yet he clearly didn't represent chaos. On the other hand, the 2010s Western left, deeply inspired by postmodern critical theory and anarchist philosophy, did represent chaos. De-platforming speakers was chaos. Trying to deconstruct everything was chaos. Invalidating all tradition and hierarchy was clearly a recipe for chaos. Defunding the police would predictably lead to chaos. Much of what happened during BLM 2020, especially things like CHAZ, were total chaos without any constructive upside whatsoever. Therefore, my conclusion is that, the idea that the Left represents chaos while the Right represents order was an invention of the 2010s, when some parts of the Left regrettably decided to embrace an ideology that led to chaos, and the Right took the self-congratulatory attitude that they were better because they at least stood for order.

However, while order is generally preferable to chaos, all order is not equally good, because there is a difference between ordered liberty and ordered oppression, just as there is a difference between just and unjust order, productive and counterproductive order, adaptive and maladaptive order, and so on. Therefore, we should strive to promote good order, and not just the existence of order itself. The question then becomes, what leads to good order? History shows us that things like rationality, objectivity, honesty, compassion and compromise are conducive to good order, while things like tribalism, deceit, irrationality and hypocrisy lead to bad order. An honest assessment of recent Western right-wing politics would show that it has not been doing very much to promote what leads to good order, while it has been doing much more to promote what leads to bad order. This is why the results of right-wing politics has generally been an unjust and at times oppressive kind of order, rather than the good kind of order. This, in turn, has led many people to not just reject the bad order that has been created by right-wing politics, but even embrace the chaos of the postmodern left, to burn it all down. This, indeed, is the story of Western society and culture for at least the past 60 years. The oppressiveness of right-wing order ultimately leads people to want to burn it all down eventually, which leads to more and more chaos over time. This is why supporting the Right as it exists would only bring about more chaos down the road. An order that is so bad that it leads to a significant number of people preferring chaos is clearly not sustainable. Only a good order is sustainable, especially in the long term.

The question we need to ask here is, why does right-wing politics, as it exists, tend to promote bad order? The answer lies in the incentives, as well as the forces that are part of the Right coalition. Let's talk about the incentives first. Right-wing politics has long marketed itself to voters who are more motivated by fear. This is why the right has run many campaigns on moral panic. However, moral panics lead to heightened emotions, irrationality, tribalism, a loss of objectivity and balance, and a reduced capacity to be compassionate or to seek compromise. Hence, what an election strategist might consider good for their party ends up being harmful for society as whole in the longer run. It's like eating lots of junk food every day. It might feel good for a while, but eventually you feel the health effects. The situation here is frankly getting worse because of the rise of online influencer culture. Right-wing influencers have unleashed coordinated moral panic campaigns that are more emotionally intense than anything the traditional media was ever capable of. The collective bias in their framing of the issues increases exponentially, as they feed off and build upon each others' narratives. I'm worried that this is turning more and more people towards extremist politics as a result.

And then there is the matter of which forces having the power and money within the Right. For example, the religious right's worldview and policies might not be very popular, and most of them probably would not pass a referendum. However, they have a significant amount of power, and represent a substantial proportion of donors, within the political Right. This is why the Right can't drop its religious authoritarians, even as they make it very difficult for the Right to gain support among young people, especially young women. The fact that the Trump campaign started out as clearly not very religious back in 2016, but has gotten more and more religious over time, demonstrates the power the religious right has over the Republican Party. The religious right promotes certain things, like hardline anti-LGBT ideology, that don't lead to good order objectively, because of their theological commitments. The fact that the electorate has increasingly rejected religiously motivated policies has only caused these policy stances to be promoted and enacted via dishonest means, which moves society further away from good order. Another example is the fossil fuel lobby. Again, climate issues are a major reason for the Right being unpopular among young people, and that they still can't fix this by taking climate change seriously just shows the power of the fossil fuel lobby within the Right. The vested interests of the fossil fuel lobby prevents any action to address climate change, which then necessitates the promotion of a climate denialist belief system that flies in the face of objective scientific evidence. This violation of both honesty and objectivity clearly does not serve the cause of good order at all. But then, political power and the interests of big donors sometimes conflict with the requirements of good order, and the Right has shown that they will choose power and money every time.

In conclusion, while the Left has regrettably represented chaos in recent years, you wouldn't find good order on the Right either. You won't find good order on the Right because it ultimately prefers winning elections, being in power, and getting lots of donor money instead. The Right has made the ultimate bargain with the devil, again and again: doing things that are deleterious to good order, in exchange for advancing their own selfish interests. Given that bad order is unsustainable and will ultimately give way to chaos, the Right, then, ultimately promotes chaos too, especially in the long term. Therefore, if you don't want chaos, the only way is to reject both the Left and the Right, and commit to the mental independence required to secure the conditions that are conducive to good order. If more people are willing to choose this path, then we will have a good order. I can't see any other way, to be honest.
 

We Need to Talk About the Red Pill Fallacy

It is driving political extremism in both directions

If you have been paying attention to the political discourse in the past ten years, chances are that you would have heard of the 'red pill' metaphor at some point. This metaphor came from the 1990s movie The Matrix, where the main character Neo is given the choice of swallowing a red pill or a blue pill. Take the red pill, and he would find out the truth about the world he was living in. Take the blue pill, and he would remain blissfully ignorant. Of course, Neo took the red pill, as you would expect. Simply speaking, being 'red pilled' has become a metaphor for learning about 'truths' about society and politics that most people are blissfully unaware of. While this metaphor has been particularly prevalent in men's rights circles, it has also been used in other, unrelated contexts too.

The problem with the 'red pill' metaphor is that it is designed to shut down critical thinking, because the 'choice' has been put in a way that makes it basically unrejectable. If the red pill, or whatever is presented as the 'red pill' as a metaphor, represents the truth, and rejecting it represents choosing to be blissfully ignorant, then it becomes very difficult to reject the red pill, or whatever it represents. This is because nobody would choose to remain ignorant when they can know the truth. However, if we put our critical thinking back on, we would question what exactly is in the red pill being presented to us. Does it really lead us to the truth or not? What if, instead, it contains a mind virus that would infect us if we take it? After all, being deceptive is a large part of how viruses and other malware can spread on the internet. If somebody wanted to spread a mind virus among the population, we would expect them to use deceptive means to get as many minds infected as possible, just like people who design computer viruses. Real life observations do point to the 'red pill' meme being used to spread what I would consider to be mind viruses. The concept of red pilling has been a gateway towards conspiracy theories, and even far-right politics in some cases.

While explicit use of the 'red pill' meme is mostly restricted to the political right, the left also does something very similar, even if they do not use the same language. I would argue that the basic premise of postmodernism and critical theory is very similar to red pill thinking. Just like the red pill, postmodern critical theory presents its model of intersecting and interlocking systems of oppression as unfalsifiable and unrejectable. It is unfalsifiable because it rejects challenge by objective evidence, justified on the postmodern view that discourse is about power struggles rather than about the truth. It is unrejectable because those who reject this model are painted as anti-social justice supporters of oppression. This allows those who believe in the model to reject, with a broad brush, any criticisms of the model. They, and they alone, are always right about the way society is, and what is required for social justice, even if objective evidence can be presented to demonstrate otherwise.

As many people have pointed out, theories that are basically unfalsifiable should be met with skepticism. This is more so the case if the theory is also presented in a way that makes it difficult to reject. Faced with such a theory, we are well justified to be wary of an agenda behind the push. We need to seriously ask, who is pushing these 'red pills', and what their ultimate agenda is. In most cases, what we uncover isn't going to be pretty. I can only hope that more people begin to realize this.