October Neo-Reactionary Rant: Taoism and Why the Left Needs the Tyranny of the Majority.

tl; dr -- A person who believes that truth is subjective will view anything that doesn't match their personal viewpoint as a cosmologic lie and will therefore attack that thing. This can only result in a complete levelling of every standard within a community where enough people are allowed to be subjectivists. This is because every viewpoint is different; therefore every standard will be viewed as wrong by at least one person. In order to avoid this immediate destruction, the left needs the "tyranny of the majority". Leftism has become an alliance of subjectivists who have decided to level everything that is not implicitly agreed upon by a majority of their allies. They are able to possess a majority not because they agree with each other on what the truth is (they don't believe in objective truth to begin with, so how could they agree?) but because they are in an alliance of mutual convenience whereby each person fights to have their view hold a position near the top. This is why leftist debate is about trying to determine what the tyranny of the majority is (virtue signaling) and not about what fundamentally truths are; the leftist understands that if their personal standards are no longer supported by a majority then they will be next on the chopping block. Virtue signaling is a method by which they can establish that their personal truth is still valid in the eyes of the majority and in doing so, reconfirm their personal safety from the mob.

Long version:
People who think that truth is subjective are animals and using the word sociopaths might even be fair. There's a Taoist/east Asian concept about the "four corners" of the world or how the world is a square. As with many traditional concepts, this was taken literally for awhile but it's also a philosophical statement. A quote attributed to Confucius was that if he shows someone where one corner is, they should be able to deduce where the other three corners are, otherwise he doesn't waste any more time on them.

People who believe that truth is subjective are ultimately incapable of deep and thorough forms of deduction. They can operate adequately within a provided framework but ultimately they believe that their own subjective, animal wants are the only truth. This prevents them from ever being able to recognize where the "other three corners" are, or to put this another way, it prevents them from being able to understand the real nature of life on earth. Life on earth is a place (not a living, mutually subjective thing) that generally doesn't care about someone's personal wants or their subjective viewpoint. A subjectivist doesn't believe that they are a viewpoint existing within a logically ordered world, they believe that their viewpoint is the world. Their position is incorrect and it prevents them from accepting the real nature of the world.

Self-Criticism:
Something I've concluded about this philosophy is that although it is fundamentally correct, it is not socially effective. If everyone assumes that those who don't agree with them are animals, it might become easy to see how the Chinese (the people who originated this philosophy as stated) can be at once so civilized, so warlike and so anti-social. Although I believe that they have ascertained the truth of things and stated that truth clearly, it is much more socially effective to be forgiving and indeed, if pretending otherwise is what it takes to be forgiving, then that kind of delusion can be more socially effective than the truth. As an aside, Chinese Buddhism was in many ways a softening of some of this Taoist philosophy, wherein people don't immediately become animals if they fail to perceive the four corners, instead they get reincarnated as an animal in their next life. This softening of the dialogue was associated with some of the later Chinese dynasties but ultimately didn't seem to reach the levels that Christianity reached.

Unfortunately, this willingness to forgive others for their subjectivity seems to have encouraged and grown the number of subjectivists, so that they are now numerous enough to make up a majority of people. This is a problem because it has finally reached the point of becoming an alliance of those who seek the rejection of all standards, at least as much as is possible while still maintaining a coherent alliance. This is despite every subjective viewpoint being different; on a long enough time frame, no standard is sacrosanct and every standard may be destroyed. Each person gets their own little bubble, provided of course that their individual standards are not too high because then that would impede too many other people's bubbles. This is how contemporary progressivism is able to function at all, through a simple tyranny of the majority. When leftists debate each other, they are not trying to ascertain what objective truths are (they don't care about that) they are instead trying to argue for what the tyranny of the majority should be by presenting their personal viewpoint as virtuous; this allows it (and them) to be re-affirmed. The parallels between this and the current electoral situation in the United States are fascinating (the left is upset that tyranny of the majority was not observed) but that isn't completely on-topic and so I won't explore that too much and will instead bring this to a conclusion.

In Conclusion:
We know that tyranny of the majority can be unjust. The minority will push back. Having little to no standards also doesn't work well in the long run. The left claims that the "tyranny" of Trumpism and conservatism is crypto-racism and insofar as racism is real, perhaps it does implicitly possess some racism. It is worth noting however that the truth is not promoted or desired because it is racism. Trumpism et al. can be desired in spite of arguably containing some racism because if the minority becomes more ordered and efficacious than the majority, when that minority pushes back against the tyranny of the majority, society may end in widespread destruction as members of the minority slaughter multiple members of the majority for each loss they are taking.

In America today, conservatives are the more effective minority; liberals are the incompetent majority. The left is directed and united as a subjectivist tyranny of the majority, a mass of lower-class people who have failed to perceive the truth about the world and are therefore less competent than their foils. They spend their time virtue signaling towards each other, their only goal being to try and influence what form the tyranny of the majority takes, to reassure themselves that they are not the ones on the chopping block at this time. These behaviors do not only make most of them into losers (those at the top of that hell often do quite well for themselves), it also makes them dead weight to each other (conservatives are happier) as they mutually drag each other down in every way: literally, metaphysically, cosmologically etc.

Final caveats: it is probably hard and personally ineffective for a lower-class person to be on the objective side because they would eventually be forced to accept their own insignificance; other people seek objectivity only for its material benefits and in doing so, probably fail to completely perceive the most objective viewpoints possible; these are some of the reasons why traditional thought values humility or, failing that, submission. Never-Trump conservatives hate Donald Trump's lack of humility for these reasons (but this is not a time for humility from leaders) whereas the left hates it only because he is no longer a part of their heap (they loved him when he was).

 

Is there something in there you would actually like to discuss?

 

I think you're overcomplicating it. They're just moving the overton window as fast as they can to sow chaos and confusion. The world they want to huild is not important yet. Whatever it will be, this world must be destroyed first. Burn it all down, plan the rebuilding later.

 

I've commented on the Khmer Rouge-esque, "year zero" ideology / philosophy that the fer left socialists are gravitating towards, perhaps unwittingly. Millennials for example appear to be torn on social security. They want to preserve the social program, but they resent the older generation that's driving it to the brink of insovency. Pelosi's predicament with young socialists hints that political patricide is already underway. Even the sublime messaging of power through violence is a huge gamble, so shows the degree of desperation. To socialists the distinction between (D)+(R) elitists /oligarchs is zero.

 

I may be overcomplicating it but at the same time, you may be under-complicating it. I've been reading subreddits like /r/latestagecapitalism and /r/socialism a bit lately and wow but these people are stupid. It's basically a bunch of people complaining that they have to work too much and they're jealous that the rich have more stuff than they do, yet they refuse to recognize that privatization is better at producing unnecessary stuff than central management is. In other words, I am not sure that the world they want to build is as clearly defined in their minds as they think it is.

To use an analogy of an artist, when you first start drawing from imagination you think that an image is clear in your mind but in reality, if it was 100% clear in your mind you would probably be able to draw or at least sketch it. In truth the image usually isn't 100% clear in your mind but people tend not to realize this about their own minds.

 

We're probably talking about different people. The 'useful idiots' (as I think their users view them, I see them more as naive pawns) who believe central planning will make their lives easier and more prosperous, who empower the manipulators with a sort of consensus, dont really know what they want, except that its not anything like what they have. They're happy to tear it all down and start over.

Those manipulating them see 100% of the picture. They're just not drawing the picture as they see it, because no one wants pictures of suffering in the servitude of miserable techno-neofeudalism.

 

How can it be clearly in their minds since essentially the pro socialism (closet Marxist) Left is controlling education in this nation and so is teaching children selective tidbits regarding socialism and Marxism so as to leave certain windows of possibilities open in young minds heading toward adulthood?